Updates in Classified Documents Case and Evidence of Another FBI Ambush of a Trump Confidant
Updates in Classified Documents Case and Evidence of Another FBI Ambush of a Trump Confidant
Sharing my tweets after covering Friday's court hearing in Florida on Special Counsel Jack Smith's case against Donald Trump for keeping national defense information and obstructing the investigation.
News is dropping fast and furious related to the numerous criminal cases against the former president; it appears Trump will go on trial Monday in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s so-called “hush money” prosecution, which Bragg and the media are attempting to rebrand as “election interference.” (Isn’t everything?)
But things also are moving forward in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s multi-count indictment against Trump in southern Florida for violations of the Espionage Act and obstruction of an official proceeding among other counts. Lots of background on this matter in my previous posts as well as a recent piece in Real Clear Investigations.
I observed Judge Aileen Cannon’s latest hearing on Friday afternoon related to two defense motions filed by Trump’s co-defendants, Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Olivera, to dismiss the case against them and/or force Smith to file a bill of particulars with more specifics as to the charges.
I want to share the tweets I posted on X/Twitter following the two-hour proceeding as well as the newly released transcript of Nauta’s voluntary interview with the FBI. Nauta is accused of conspiring with Trump to conceal documents sought by the DOJ under a May 2022 subpoena for papers with “classified markings”; the interview took place about two weeks after the subpoena was issued—unbeknownst to Nauta, according to his lawyers. Nauta did little more than move boxes around Mar-a-Lago.
The transcript reveals another Michael Flynn-style FBI ambush of a Trump confidant under the ruse of helping agents investigate a matter with national security implications.
Looking ahead to this week—all eyes will be on the Manhattan trial, but other consequential legal issues will be vetted not the least of which is oral arguments before the Supreme Court on Tuesday related to the DOJ/DC courts abuse of 1512(c)(2) in January 6 cases. I will cover those proceedings live on X/Twitter beginning at 10am on April 16.
I had planned to post an article on the Friday hearing but will wait to get the official transcript for clarity’s sake. (No devices are allowed in the entire courthouse so I must go “old school” and write down everything as it happens. I want to make sure my notes match the transcript before publishing anything.)
As far as my Twitter/X posts after the Cannon hearing, here they are:
Some mini bombshells out of this afternoon's court hearing in Florida classified docs case. First, things continue to get spicy between Judge Cannon and Jack Smith's team. She expressed great frustration at what she called "secrecy" surrounding grand jury materials in DC.
Keep in mind--DOJ then Jack Smith conducted nearly the entire investigation in Trump-hating DC then switched to FLA at last minute for indictment. Cannon said there is something "ambiguous going on in the background" and commented that it is "impossible to really know" why grand jury materials remain in DC, some under seal.
She pushed Jay Bratt, Smith's lead prosecutor, to explain why records from a closed grand jury matter must remain sealed. Apparently one matter involves Judge Beryl Howell's order that pierced attorney-client privilege between Trump and his lawyer. Defense attorney Stanley Woodward said he has asked DC court to docket his requests for certain GJ materials. They have "declined," he told Cannon.
Second--and stunningly--Jay Bratt basically admitted they do not have proof that Walt Nauta, charged with conspiring with Trump to conceal classified files from Trump's lawyer then the FBI to impede grand jury investigation, moved boxes that actually contained papers with classified markings.
He also indicated he did not believe DOJ would have to prove that at trial. HUH? That prompted a heated response by Woodward. "Show us the evidence" he said. If, as Bratt stated, they can't or don't have to prove Nauta moved boxes with records with classified markings "there is no crime." DOJ making "assumptions" that any boxes Nauta moved contained sought-after evidence. And get this: All the boxes retrieved during MAL raid are at the corrupt Washington FBI field office. Agents apparently removed the alleged "classified documents" and put some sort of marking as to where the contraband paper was in the box.
Third, SCOTUS review of 1512c2 with oral arguments set for Tuesday also could impact this case. (It will impact Smith's J6 case in DC). Much debate centered on the proper definition of "corruptly," which is a source of contention in the application of 1512c2 in J6 cases. It's unclear whether SCOTUS will provide a definition to bring some clarity to the vague obstruction of an official proceeding statute. Some discussion about split decisions at DC circuit in both Fischer and Robertson--so SCOTUS ruling on 1512c2 will be consequential for Smith in two cases.
My guess is Cannon will again deny motions to dismiss based on vagueness of 1512 charges. But not sure what she will decide in terms of defense request for a bill of particulars to further elucidate DOJ's evidence. Bratt really struggled to explain how Nauta and DeOlivera knew about the FBI investigation and/or two subpoenas for documents and footage. As I have said, this case is garbage. It always impossible to know which boxes--and Trump apparently uses boxes all the time to transport newspapers, personal items, etc--had classified papers (allegedly) and which did not.
Why is this case even going to trial. Trump isn't denying that he had documents. His argument is that he had the right to have them based on the Presidential Records Act. The issues are: does the Presidential Records Act permit the President to keep and maintain documents, if the Presidential Records Act does permit Trump to have the documents, can the Espionage Act be used to circumvent the Presidential Records Act when there is no espionage and was Jack Smith lawfully appointed and could he bring the case in the first place (Ed Meese brief). These are all legal issues that should be decided at summary judgment and BEFORE anybody worries about what box moved where. All of these cases are the same. They have serious legal issues that should have been resolved before even looking at the facts. I cannot understand how these bogus cases have gotten this far..
Walt Nauta is indicted for moving boxes - not destroying them - without knowledge that the FBI had even issued a subpoena. Joe Biden’s ghostwriter destroys evidence that Biden provided him classified documents. He’s not indicted. This tells you everything you need to know.