AMNA NAWAZ: Former President Donald Trump's legal battle is picking up steam, with his lawyers rushing to meet a court-imposed deadline today.

Trump and his legal team responded to special counsel Jack Smith's request that the judge issue a protective order limiting what the former president could say publicly about the trial.

In a filing today, Trump's lawyers pushed back, saying -- quote -- "The government seeks to restrict First Amendment rights.

Worse, it does so against its administration's primary political opponent during an election season."

This all comes on the heels of Trump's attorney John Lauro making the rounds on several Sunday network shows aiming to reset the narrative and defense of his client.

Following all of this closely is former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti.

Renato, good to see you.

So, we know Trump's lawyers said they would oppose the protective order.

They have now done so, claiming it would violate Mr. Trump's First Amendment rights.

What do you make of that argument?

RENATO MARIOTTI, Former Federal Prosecutor: Well, I think that it's a kind of a coating around what their actual argument is.

If you actually read the full filing, what it really is, is a dispute about the scope of a protective order.

It's a fairly mundane dispute, fairly narrow dispute.

But it's dressed up in all this language about First Amendment rights and essentially making it seem like there's some big fight between the Biden administration and Trump.

And I really think it's a lot of flash and very little substance.

AMNA NAWAZ: They have also been making this argument that, especially in an election year, during a campaign season, the press has a right to know, the American public has a right to know any information that's not sensitive.

Is there merit to that argument?

RENATO MARIOTTI: I mean, sure.

And, look, it's not the first time in which a protective order has been entered in a case or suggested or proposed in a case that is perhaps more broad than it needs to be.

So, that is -- but that's a sort of dispute that occurs in all sorts of civil and criminal cases throughout the country.

I'm not really sure if the fact that there's an election season even impacts that question, because, ultimately, I think the judge should want to make sure that protective orders are narrowly tailored in any event.

But this seems like the sort of thing that, in a -- if the sides were actually working together in a constructive manner in terms of working on this case, the defense and the prosecution could have probably figured this out over a phone call, rather than filing a very long filing, which I think was done so that people like yourself and me talk about it on television.

AMNA NAWAZ: Well, so the government was seeking the protective order out of concern that Mr. Trump could possibly disclose potentially sensitive information that his attorneys do end up getting during the discovery process.

Is there any way for them to still protect against that from happening?

RENATO MARIOTTI: Well, look, I -- just so we're clear, I do think a protective order is going to be entered in this case.

Essentially, Trump's lawyers can see it as much.

Their real dispute is over certain categories of documents and so on.

Obviously, there needs to be a protective order to protect very sensitive information that might be included in the discovery.

The question is, for example, really, the fight here is over, let's say, an interview report.

If there's an interview report of, oh, I don't know, Vice President Mike Pence, is that something that should be shared to the public now?

Or is that something that there should be subject to a protective order and not released until or unless it's filed in a public document or used at trial?

That's really what this fight is about.

AMNA NAWAZ: Renato, as you know, Mr. Trump's legal fights and his reelection campaign are very closely intertwined.

He fund-raises often off the indictments and charges.

He actually spoke about how the charges have been fueling his campaign on Friday.

Take a listen.

DONALD TRUMP, Former President of the United States: Every time they file an indictment, we go way up in the polls.

We need one more indictment to close out this election.

AMNA NAWAZ: Renato, how does all of that complicate public disclosure of potentially sensitive information here?

RENATO MARIOTTI: Well, I think there's no question that the issue of the former president's First Amendment rights are going to color all of these discussions regarding the use and dissemination of evidence in the case.

It's going to color a lot of the disputes in this case, because, of course, some of the witnesses in this case are not just former president's aides, but they're actually some -- in some cases, his opponents, like Mike Pence.

So, obviously, that is going to be an issue here.

What I expect the judge to do is to try to sidestep some of those more challenging issues, trying to achieve a practical resolution regarding this motion.

And, ultimately, at the end of the day, when the former president is raising issues that complicate her case, but also raise issues of the First Amendment, to try to find practical ways to deal with those that don't raise those First Amendment complications.

AMNA NAWAZ: I have got less than a minute here, but I have to ask you about some of the online language we have seen from Mr. Trump.

We know he's been targeting the judge who is going to be presiding over his criminal trial in some posts.

He also posted a rather cryptic all caps message saying, "If you go after me, I'm coming after you," not mentioning any names there.

We know the magistrate judge last week said that his bail could be revoked if he attempted to threaten or to bribe witnesses or obstruct the case.

Could any of this violate those conditions?

RENATO MARIOTTI: Sure, it could.

But, as a practical matter, just to be clear to everyone at home, I don't expect his bail to be revoked.

I don't expect the former president to be thrown in jail before the case really gets under way and there's a trial on this matter.

But it's never a smart thing to poke at a judge or try to throw grenades at the judge and other witnesses and participants in the case.

That's not going to make her happy.

And that's certainly not going to make her inclined or more receptive towards your various motions or requests throughout the course of the case.

AMNA NAWAZ: Former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti.

Renato, always good to have you with us.

Thank you.

RENATO MARIOTTI: Thank you.