Special counsel Jack Smith’s team cited social media posts about Mark Meadows and said they were an attempt by Trump to intimidate the former White House chief of staff.

Federal prosecutors filed a flurry of motions Wednesday night in the election interference case against Donald Trump, arguing against the former president’s efforts to extend a pause on a gag order and his attempts to subpoena what he claims are “missing” House Jan. 6 committee records.

In one of the filings, special counsel Jack Smith’s office said it opposed extending a freeze on the gag order U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan of Washington, D.C., initially imposed on Trump. She temporarily lifted the gag order last week to give the parties more time to brief her on Trump’s request to keep the order on hold while he appeals it.

Prosecutors argued Wednesday that Trump “has failed to show either a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, or that the public interest weighs in favor of a stay.”

They highlighted Trump’s “prejudicial and threatening” posts on Truth Social shortly after ABC News cited multiple sources saying former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows had testified in the case in exchange for an immunity deal.

In one post, Trump wrote: “Some people would make that deal, but they are weaklings and cowards, and so bad for the future our Failing Nation. I don’t think that Mark Meadows is one of them, but who really knows?”

Prosecutors argued that Trump was “targeting a known witness in this case in an attempt to influence and intimidate him” and requested that the stay on the gag order be lifted and modified to protect witnesses from attacks.

NBC News has not confirmed the ABC News report. Reached for comment Tuesday, Meadows attorney George Terwilliger said: “I told ABC that their story was largely inaccurate. People will have to judge for themselves the decision to run it anyway.”

In separate filing Wednesday night, prosecutors opposed Trump’s attempts to subpoena House records in connection with the congressional investigation into the Jan. 6 riot.

Specifically, they called the subpoena effort a “fishing expedition” and asked Chutkan to deny his motion seeking archived materials from the probe from various people and entities.

“The defendant’s motion is wholly unnecessary: the Government already provided the defendant in discovery the Select Committee records that he identifies with any specificity,” federal prosecutors wrote.