A hearing in former President Donald Trump’s federal classified documents case became heated at times on Wednesday as prosecutors with special counsel Jack Smith’s office became frustrated with what they called “nonsense” arguments presented by Trump’s co-defendant Walt Nauta in his attempt to have the indictment dismissed.
“That was difficult to sit through for lots of reasons,” prosecutor David Harbach said of Nauta’s attorney Stanley Woodward’s arguments. “It’s a garbage argument to begin with.”
Related posts
Nauta, Trump’s longtime aide, and Carlos De Oliveira, the property manager at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, pleaded not guilty last August to obstruction charges stemming from alleged attempts to delete Mar-a-Lago surveillance footage. Trump pleaded not guilty in June to 37 criminal counts related to his handling of classified materials after leaving the White House.
Prosecutors accuse Nauta of lying to the FBI in May 2022, when he claimed he was unaware of boxes being delivered to Trump’s property and had no idea where they had been stored prior to their arrival.
Nauta’s lawyers argue that detectives are prosecuting him “selectively” and “vindictively,” and that the allegations against him should be withdrawn. At Wednesday’s hearing, Woodward stated that Nauta was being “selectively prosecuted,” referring to the fact that countless people who moved boxes at Mar-a-Lago are not facing charges.
Harbach refuted this claim, claiming that “not a single person did everything Nauta did,” including perjury charges and attempts to destroy evidence.
“The only people who are comparable to him are his co-defendants,” Harbach stated.
Woodward further claims that during an August 2022 discussion with prosecutors, he was unduly pressed by a member of Smith’s team regarding a potential judicial appointment.
According to Woodward, prosecutor Jay Bratt inquired about his prospective nomination to the D.C. Superior Court and hinted that Woodward’s association with Trump could jeopardize his confirmation.
The special counsel vigorously opposes these assertions, pointing out in court that Woodward’s account of what occurred during the meeting was inconsistent.
“Mr. Woodward’s story about what happened at that meeting is a fantasy; it did not happen,” Harbach fumed.
When U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon repeated certain quotes that Woodward claimed the prosecutors allegedly made during that August 2022 meeting and pressed the prosecution on why those comments had to be made and whether they were professional, Harbach, after consulting with his colleagues, did not dispute the comments but claimed they were “fragmented” and “out of context.”
Judge Cannon requested Harbach “just calm down” when he became emotional while addressing her inquiries about whether any effort had been made to preserve evidence connected to the meeting in question.
“That is not true!” After Cannon argued that the administration had taken no steps to preserve evidence, Harbach stated: “That is not what I said. The government has not done anything to destroy or obstruct evidence.”
Cannon, for his part, did not appear to be satisfied with Woodward’s explanation, asking him several times whether he could provide any evidence that the claimed comments made to him in that meeting had anything to do with his client being wrongly charged.
Cannon expressed her confusion regarding the “connection between the allegations and comments made to you and how that affected Mr. Nauta’s non-cooperation.”
The essence of Woodward’s contention at the hearing was that his client is being “vindictively prosecuted” because he refused to testify before the grand jury and turn on Trump.
“Presumably, if Nauta had decided to cooperate, we’d all be friends here,” added Woodward.
There were also some questions about when Nauta was made aware that he could be a target of the inquiry rather than just a witness.
Woodward argued that Nauta was unaware of potential obstruction charges until he received his target letter; however, the prosecution stated that a November 2022 search order on Nauta’s device indicated probable obstruction charges.
In a second hearing on Nauta’s request to dismiss, held Wednesday, Woodward argued that the indictment should be dismissed due to pleading faults and a failure to name specific charges.
“Mr. Nauta cannot know what crimes he’s supposed to have committed based on this indictment,” said Woodward. “It is puzzling. We’re not sure how these claims will be presented to the jury.
After Woodward complained that the special counsel had not been detailed about the nature of Nauta’s alleged conduct in several of the accusations, Cannon stated that there are “a lot of alleged facts in the first 91 paragraphs of the indictment.”
However, the court appeared to agree with the defense that some of the counts in the indictment against Nauta appeared identical, implying that a jury may have difficulty distinguishing between them.
“Real people have to decide the issues,” Cannon stated.
Prosecutor Jay Bratt responded to Cannon’s request for an explanation of the differences between the counts by stating that all the individual counts to which the defense objected “arise from the same underlying conduct” but are “distinct charges” and that jury instructions could address these issues.
Cannon eventually told prosecutors that she saw their point, but “I think it’s going to be confusing for anyone to detect the differences,” and that the jury instructions “will be a project to exercise with care.”
Prosecutors claimed that many of the points raised by the defense could be addressed at trial.
As part of his argument that the indictment was “confusing,” Woodward took particular issue with the fact that the special counsel refers to Trump’s living quarters at Mar-a-Lago differently—at times calling it Trump’s “residence” and at other times calling it “Pine Hall,” which is the name of his residence within the Mar-a-Lago grounds.
The judge did not make a decision from the bench but stated that she would consider the motions “under advisement.”
