Trump Docs Co-Defendants In Massive F*cktussle With Special Counsel

//

(Photo by Michael Gonzalez/Getty Images)

Shenanigans continue in the Southern District of Florida where Donald Trump’s co-defendants, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, are throwing all kinds of bullshit at the walls of Judge Aileen Cannon’s courtroom and hoping that something will stick.

googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-top-300x250" ); });

Several of the documents have yet to hit the docket, but in anticipation of this afternoon’s hearing on the motions to dismiss for vagueness/lenity/selective prosecution/rumspringa we got a look at several bonkers filings yesterday. According to an extremely pissed off motion filed by the government on March 27, Nauta filed a reply in support of his motion to dismiss on grounds of selective and vindictive prosecution in which he “for the first time made numerous false factual assertions and meritless arguments that could have been raised in his motion.”

Sponsored How Generative AI Will Improve Legal Service Delivery Learn how emerging tools will likely change and enhance the work of lawyers for years to come in this new report. From Thomson Reuters  

In his first at-bat, Nauta’s lawyer Stan Woodward argued that it violates due process to threaten to charge a witness if he doesn’t cooperate — which would be news to about a million guys who kept their asses out of the clink by flipping on their bosses! — and ipso facto vindictive prosecution.

“In its response, the Government explained that Nauta’s arguments were meritless because, among other things, his decision not to testify before the grand jury was not an invocation of his Fifth Amendment rights,” Special Counsel Jack Smith wrote, noting that Nauta wasn’t being punished for asserting a legal right. Rather, he lied to the FBI and then refused to testify to the grand jury, and so “the Government’s decision to charge him after he declined to cooperate did not amount to vindictiveness as a matter of law.”

googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-middle-300x250" ); }); googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-storycontent-440x100" ); }); googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-in-story-youtube-1x1" ); });

According to the prosecutors, Nauta followed up with a reply containing several “new factual allegations and theories of animus that he failed to mention, much less argue, in his opening motion” all of which were “flat-out false” and/or “deeply flawed.” But more to the point, these allegations were far too late, since he failed to include them in the original motion, and it’s kind of black letter law that you can’t add new stuff in a reply brief.

But Woodward and Nauta have an answer for this and it is, uh …

Sponsored Sponsored Navigating Financial Success by Avoiding Common Pitfalls and Maximizing Firm Performance In this CLE-eligible webinar on April 10th, we’ll explore the most common accounting pitfalls and how to avoid them for your firm. From Pilot and Above The Law   Sponsored Legal AI: 3 Steps Law Firms Should Take Now If 2023 introduced legal professionals to generative AI, then 2024 will be when law firms start adapting to utilize it. Things are moving fast, so… From LexisNexis   Sponsored How Generative AI Will Improve Legal Service Delivery Learn how emerging tools will likely change and enhance the work of lawyers for years to come in this new report. From Thomson Reuters   Sponsored Is The Future Of Law Distributed? Lessons From The Tech Adoption Curve The rise of remote work has dramatically reshaped the relationship between Lawyers and Law Firms, see how Scale LLP has taken the steps to get… From The Team at Scale LLP  

Each of the issues was presented in Mr. Nauta’s Motion and Reply in support thereof, and, in addition to the factual circumstances pertinent thereto, none are new to the Court or the SCO. See, e.g., Defs.’ Mot. to Compel at 53 (Jan. 16, 2024) (ECF No. 262) (citing Mem. Op., In re Press Application for Unsealing of In re Grand Jury Subpoena, No. 42-gj-67 (Nov. 29, 2023) (“‘the classified-documents case against former President Donald J. Trump,’ has involved a number of, ‘attention-grabbing development[s]. . . involving defense counsel.’”)); see also Order 1-2 (Aug. 7, 2023) (ECF No. 101).

See, they talked about the factual allegations at various other points in the case, and so … we’re cool, right? (Presumably this is a reference to Woodward’s allegation that Jay Bratt, the DOJ counterintelligence head who is leading the Florida case, threatened him with retribution if he didn’t get his client to cooperate.)

The government demanded that the new arguments be rejected as untimely, or, in the alternative, that it be permitted to file a surreply. To which Nauta, making a great show of magnanimity, conceded.

googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-bottom-300x250" ); });

The gravity of this prosecution cannot be understated [sic, and FFS]. As the stakeholders to this litigation wrestle with both novel and profound legal issues of utmost importance, it should be incumbent upon all to assure that the pursuit of justice remains paramount. To the extent the SCO has more to say about the lack of a pretextual motive for Mr. Nauta’s prosecution, history deserves to know the same. Accordingly, Mr. Nauta does not oppose the filing of a surreply in support of the SCO’s opposition to this motion to dismiss for vindictive and/or selective prosecution, while reserving the right to supplement his briefing of the same as more evidence of the motivation for Mr. Nauta’s prosecution comes to light.

Of course, Judge Cannon granted the request to file a surreply, once again allowing the defendants to pratfall their way through this case without penalty.

Sponsored Sponsored Early Adopters Of Legal AI Gaining Competitive Edge In Marketplace How to best leverage generative AI as an early adopter with ethical use. From LexisNexis   Sponsored Is The Future Of Law Distributed? Lessons From The Tech Adoption Curve The rise of remote work has dramatically reshaped the relationship between Lawyers and Law Firms, see how Scale LLP has taken the steps to get… From The Team at Scale LLP  

US v. Trump [Docket via Court Listener]

Liz Dye lives in Baltimore where she produces the Law and Chaos substack and podcast.

Topics

Aileen Cannon, Carlos De Oliveira, Donald Trump, Government, Jack Smith, Stanley Woodward, Walt Nauta