Trump FL Indictment: Walt Nauta Also Charged

By Jeralyn, Section Trump Administration
Posted on Fri Jun 09, 2023 at 08:51:55 PM EST
Tags: Trump, Florida Indictment (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Here is the Florida Indictment charging Donald Trump and his aide Walt Nauta in the Classified Documents case.

Trump is charged in a whopping 37 counts. Nauta, a is charged in 6 counts. Who is Walt Nauta?

[A] military aide working as a White House valet while Mr. Trump was president.

Nauta retired and went to work for Trump as a personal aide after Trump left Washington. [More...]

According to the Times article, he refused to cooperate against Trump and therefore got indicted, based on surveillance footage showing him moving boxes and, on another occasion, finding the contents of a spilled box, including one showing "SECRET//REL TO USA, FVEY."

How would a valet have known FVEY stands for the "Five Eyes" intelligence alliance whose members are Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Britain and the United States? (I don't think I knew that until 2012 when they popped up in Kim DotCom's Megaupload case as the result of the New Zealand Prime Minister issuing an apology to Dotcom for illegally intercepting him.

Allegedly,Nauta texted another employee “I opened the door and found this…”

Trump is now proclaiming the innocence and berating the horrible government that indicted Nauta. Maybe Trump needs to blame himself for having Nauta do his dirty work for him.

< Trump Indicted in Florida - 37 Counts | Happy Father's Day and Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Trump FL Indictment: Walt Nauta Also Charged | 56 comments (56 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

There are a number of possible reasons (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Peter G on Sat Jun 10, 2023 at 10:55:13 AM EST

from the POV of prosecutorial strategy for indicting Nauta. First, he committed (according to the prosecutors) the cardinal sin of promising to cooperate and then lying in his FBI interview. See Count 38. This turned him from a potentially great insider witness to a dangerous liability, easily accused (were he to testify for the govt against Tr*mp) of being a liar and thus casting doubt on the credibility of Special Counsel's entire case. Second, it probably blocks him from testifying as a sympathetic witness for Tr*mp. And third, if they stand trial together it gives the jury someone to feel sorry for and cut a break, possibly acquitting him on some or all counts. If so, and if Tr*mp is convicted by the same jury at the same trial, that helps the prosecutors on appeal (and in the court of public opinion), in that it underscores the reliability of the verdict by showing the jury to be discriminating and careful rather than emotional or biased. And there may be other reasons.

Ignorance of the law and of Trump is not an excuse (none / 0) (#30)
by john horse on Wed Jun 14, 2023 at 07:44:14 AM EST

I can understand Nauta doing what his boss told him to do, but being a fool is no excuse for breaking the law.

I encourage everyone read the indictment.

First, he committed (according to the prosecutors) the cardinal sin of promising to cooperate and then lying in his FBI interview.

I saw no evidence that Nauta "promised to cooperate". Please provide citation.


Nauta sat down with the investigating agents, (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by Peter G on Wed Jun 14, 2023 at 09:36:17 AM EST

in the presence of his attorney, and proceeded voluntarily to answer their questions. In my decades of federal criminal defense experience this indicates a "proffer session," which is the first step in a strategy of cooperating. (Not necessarily "cooperating" in the sense of agreeing to become a witness against others, but in the sense of not standing on a Fifth Amendment/"prove it" approach, but rather a "we have nothing to hide" attitude.)


It may be (none / 0) (#32)
by KeysDan on Wed Jun 14, 2023 at 11:11:29 AM EST

at some point, Waltine Nauta may want to reconsider whether he wants to be a criminal defendant or a witness to a crime.

Nauta, along with Trump, is alleged to have helped pack the boxes before leaving the White House. Cooperation would seem likely to have been sought by prosecutors to bolster the case (and may still be extremely important if Judge Cannon does not permit admission of key evidence).

Indeed, if Nauta had cooperated at the outset, Jack Smith may have filed the case in Washington, DC rather than Florida, having a fact witness to the starting point of the unlawful misadventure.

Nauta, the former Navy cook and petty officer (a military valet who fetched diet cokes for Trump at the White House) followed Trump to Mar a Lago when he left office becoming an aide on a Trump PAC payroll.

Nauta was booked in Miami federal court but was not arraigned along with Trump, and granted bond with the same conditions as Trump. But he was not arraigned because he did not have a local attorney and asked for an extension, which was scheduled for June 27.

It has been reported that Trump is paying his legal costs, but Nauta May not want to bet the farm on that. Also, he may find his shiny new life to become tarnished as have so many of Trump's once upon a time loyalists. Facing jail time may have an impact on his thinking. That proffer may start to look a lot better, if it is still on the table.


Thanks for the clarification Peter (none / 0) (#34)
by john horse on Wed Jun 14, 2023 at 05:45:17 PM EST

Based on your legal experience don't you think it was unwise for Nauta to "not stand on the Fifth" if he had something to hide? If they have solid evidence that he is lying, wouldn't you recommend that he start cooperating ( in the sense of agreeing to become a witness against others)?

: Yes, as I suggested in my first comment, (none / 0) (#35)
by Peter G on Wed Jun 14, 2023 at 06:53:10 PM EST

Nauta's valid choices were silence (and take your chances), negotiate a pre-indictment guilty plea to some acceptable, lesser charge without cooperating, or complete and honest cooperation. There is no in-between. Once you pretend to cooperate and then lie, it is very unusual for the government to give you a second chance, because it so damages your value as a witness. I have only seen someone given that second chance who was the sole, inside witness to a very serious crime committed by someone else against whom the government does not otherwise have sufficient evidence but desperately wants to "get." I am thinking, for example, of a Mafia turncoat hitman willing to testify against the Boss or Underboss.

I agree this is all extremely unfair (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by Peter G on Tue Jun 13, 2023 at 09:36:32 AM EST

and shows unequal treatment. I protest. Any other defendant in a similar case would have been arrested at gunpoint, at home without warning, some morning at 6 a.m., held in jail until arraignment, and then subjected to a government motion for detention pending trial. So unfair!

: Where are (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 13, 2023 at 10:08:23 AM EST

the hand cuffs?

: Exactly. (5.00 / 3) (#36)
by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 14, 2023 at 06:55:47 PM EST

When asked on Fox News (natch!) yesterday about Trump's arraignment, Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) responded with a question: "If his name was Donald Smith, would this be happening?"
No, it wouldn't. As you just noted above, if his name was Donald Smith, he'd have already been arrested, denied bail and jailed last year pending his trial.
Or as I can also see it, if his name was Donald Smith, he would have been drafted into the Army right out of high school 59 years ago, and then sent to Vietnam where he'd have developed a taste for opium. Then he'd would've returned to the states and discharged with undiagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder. No doubt, he would probably have been married and divorced several times by now. And today, he'd be on SSDI and living with his eldest daughter and her family, waiting patiently by the phone - even as we speak - for the VA to return his call to schedule an appointment to see a doctor four months hence about his chronic opioid addiction.
The GOP's perverse sense of victimhood is simply repulsive.

I wish Andrea would retire. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by desertswine on Tue Jun 13, 2023 at 01:45:28 PM EST

Oh my God (none / 0) (#25)
by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 13, 2023 at 01:45:57 PM EST

Yes


She's become difficult to watch. (none / 0) (#28)
by desertswine on Tue Jun 13, 2023 at 04:44:53 PM EST

: Equally hard to listen to (none / 0) (#29)
by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 13, 2023 at 04:49:07 PM EST

she has a tone....

Unequal justice system? (5.00 / 3) (#26)
by Chuck0 on Tue Jun 13, 2023 at 01:53:28 PM EST

Question.

If the DOJ has been weaponized and there are two systems of justice, one for Democrats and one for the GQP, why are not GQPers being indicted across the country? Where's the coast to coast witch hunts?

Paxton got removed in Texas. But, uhhhhh, that was by GQPers. Otherwise, where's the beef?

Seems to me, just one guy is being indicted, cause, jeez, he's the guy running around like a mob capo.

Q & A. (Hypothetical) (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by KeysDan on Wed Jun 14, 2023 at 11:39:14 AM EST

Is it ethical to accept hospitality such as free lodging at the Trump Doral during a stolen national security document trial that may last over a month? The commute from Ft Pierce, my home, to Miami is over two hours.
Asking for a judge.

Yes, of course, go for it. It would be impolite to refuse such gracious hospitality. Signed, Clarence

Light reading (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by Repack Rider on Wed Jun 14, 2023 at 09:34:21 PM EST

I like to keep a few top secret documents in the bathroom.

Sometimes a nuclear secret gets things going better than a cup of coffee.