The hearing in the federal classified documents case involving former President Donald Trump became heated at times on Wednesday. Prosecutors from special counsel Jack Smith’s office expressed frustration with what they deemed as “nonsense” arguments put forth by Trump’s co-defendant, Walt Nauta. Nauta was seeking to have the indictment against him dismissed.
Prosecutor David Harbach expressed his frustration with the arguments put forth by Nauta’s attorney, Stanley Woodward, stating that it was a challenging experience for several reasons. Harbach described Woodward’s argument as flawed and baseless.
Nauta, Trump’s long-time aide, and Carlos De Oliveira, the property manager at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, entered a plea of not guilty in August of last year. They were charged with obstruction for their alleged attempts to delete Mar-a-Lago surveillance footage. Trump, on the other hand, entered a plea of not guilty in June to 37 criminal counts. These counts are related to his handling of classified materials after his departure from the White House.
Nauta stands accused by prosecutors of deceiving the FBI in May 2022 by claiming ignorance regarding the presence and storage location of boxes at Trump’s residence.
Nauta’s lawyers are working to have the charges against him dropped, arguing that he is being subjected to a biased and retaliatory prosecution by investigators. During Wednesday’s hearing, Woodward claimed that Nauta is being selectively prosecuted, highlighting the fact that there are many others who also handled boxes at Mar-a-Lago but are not facing charges.
Harbach disagreed with that claim, stating that no one else has done everything that Nauta did, which includes accusations of perjury and attempts to destroy evidence.
According to Harbach, the individuals who can be compared to him are his co-defendants.
According to Woodward, he was improperly pressured by a member of Smith’s team during a meeting with prosecutors in August 2022 regarding a pending judicial appointment.
According to Woodward, prosecutor Jay Bratt inquired about his upcoming appointment to the D.C. Superior Court and insinuated that his association with Trump could potentially hinder his confirmation.
The special counsel strongly denies these claims and emphasized in court that Woodward’s description of what transpired during the meeting has been inconsistent.
Harbach vehemently denied the accuracy of Mr. Woodward’s account, dismissing it as pure fantasy.
During the August 2022 meeting, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon brought attention to specific quotes that Woodward had attributed to the prosecutors. She then questioned the prosecution about the necessity and professionalism of those remarks. In response, Harbach, after discussing with his colleagues, did not deny the comments but described them as “fragmented” and “out of context.”
During the proceedings, Judge Cannon requested Harbach to compose himself as he became emotional while responding to her inquiries regarding the preservation of evidence associated with the discussed meeting.
“That is not true!” Harbach exclaimed in response to Cannon’s suggestion that the government hadn’t taken any steps to protect the evidence. “That’s not what I meant… the government has made no attempts to tamper with or hinder the preservation of the evidence.”
Cannon, on the other hand, seemed less than pleased with Woodward’s argument. He repeatedly pressed him to provide any evidence linking the alleged comments made in the meeting to his client’s unfair prosecution.
Cannon expressed her confusion regarding the link between the allegations made towards her and how they influenced Mr. Nauta’s lack of cooperation.
Woodward argued during the hearing that his client is facing a “vindictive prosecution” due to his refusal to testify before the grand jury and provide incriminating information about Trump.
Woodward suggested that if Nauta had chosen to cooperate, the relationship between everyone present would have been more amicable.
Nauta’s awareness of being a target of the investigation, and not just a witness, was also a subject of dispute.
According to Woodward, it is unclear for Mr. Nauta to determine the specific crimes he is being accused of based on the indictment. The confusion surrounding the claims and how they will be presented to the jury is making it challenging for them to comprehend the situation.
According to Woodward, the special counsel has not provided specific details about Nauta’s alleged conduct in some of the charges. In response, Cannon pointed out that the indictment contains numerous alleged facts in its initial 91 paragraphs.
The judge did appear to agree with the defense’s argument that some of the charges in the indictment concerning Nauta seemed similar. The judge also suggested that a jury might find it challenging to distinguish between these charges.
Cannon emphasized the importance of real people making decisions on the issues.
According to prosecutor Jay Bratt, when pressed by Cannon to explain the discrepancies in the counts, he argued that although they stem from the same underlying conduct, they are distinct charges. He further stated that these concerns can be resolved through jury instructions.
Cannon acknowledged the prosecutors’ perspective, stating, “I understand the point you’re making.” However, she expressed concern about the potential confusion that could arise from distinguishing these differences. Furthermore, she emphasized the importance of handling the jury instructions with utmost care, as they will require careful attention and consideration.
Prosecutors argued that the defense’s concerns could be resolved during the trial.
Woodward criticized the special counsel’s indictment for being “confusing.” One specific point of contention was the inconsistent terminology used to refer to Trump’s living quarters at Mar-a-Lago. The special counsel alternately referred to it as Trump’s “residence” and “Pine Hall,” which is the name of his residence within the Mar-a-Lago property.
The judge refrained from making an immediate ruling and expressed her intention to carefully consider the motions presented.
