Share and Follow
Valet Walt Nauta hands former President Donald Trump an umbrella before he speaks at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, Thursday, Aug. 3, 2023, in Arlington, Va., after facing a judge on federal conspiracy charges that allege he conspired to subvert the 2020 election (AP Photo/Alex Brandon).
President-elect Donald Trump almost certainly has nothing to fear from the Biden administration’s efforts in the long-shuttered Mar-a-Lago documents scandal — at least in the way of legal jeopardy.
But there are two remaining co-defendants who say the government’s continued efforts to publicize the case stand to prejudice them.
In a late Friday filing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, attorneys representing Waltine “Walt” Nauta, Trump’s personal valet, and Carlos de Oliveira, Mar-a-Lago’s chief of maintenance, blasted the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida for “procedural maneuvering [that] reflects an effort to evade judicial rules and process.”
The heart of the dispute concerns all but identical efforts by U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland to release special counsel Jack Smith’s final report on his investigations into Trump.
That report is a two-volume affair: The first relates to his investigation and prosecution of Trump in connection with alleged efforts to subvert the 2020 presidential election. The second deals with Trump, as well as Nauta and De Oliveira, allegedly mishandling documents recovered from the president-elect’s home in Mar-a-Lago.
In the wee hours on Friday morning, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a motion stylized as a “notice” of the government’s intent to appeal an order by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, which temporarily enjoined Garland from releasing Smith’s report.
But, the defendants say, that notice was a stealth effort to re-litigate the merits of past appellate court proceedings.
“In fact, the Government’s Notice is an improper attempt to seek rehearing of this Court’s previous order addressing the district court’s protective order temporarily enjoining the release of the Final Report transmitted to the Attorney General by the Special Counsel whose appointment and funding have been ruled unconstitutional by the district court,” the defense filing reads.
On Thursday, the appeals court denied a request to summarily bar the release of Smith’s report. Still, that ruling allowed Cannon’s order to stand, which remains in effect for an additional three days following the resolution before the 11th Circuit.
The defense says the government’s so-called “notice” was procedurally improper because it “goes on to set forth arguments previously raised in opposition to the injunctive relief” requested by Nauta and De Oliveira.
And, the defendants say, there’s one other — and major — problem. Or, the defendants appear to be saying that the notice filing evidences a different kind of governmental trick being attempted.
“The ‘notice’ filed in this appeal, however, was not filed by Jack Smith but rather by attorneys unaffiliated with Smith, and by the current United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida,” the defense motion goes on. “The notice, while ostensibly filed as such, presents arguments of a motion seeking reconsideration — contrary to rules protecting the right of parties to fully respond.”
A strongly-worded footnote rubbishes this state of affairs, at length:
The term of the current U.S. Attorney ends on January 17, due to his resignation. Nevertheless, the U.S. Attorney’s only role in this case is to prosecute the remaining criminal defendants; indeed, he entered this case after it was dismissed against President Trump. There is no defensible basis for Mr. Nauta and Mr. De Oliveira’s prosecutor to urge release of the Final Report to Congress while their criminal case is still pending. His role in this case is materially different from that of the Attorney General. His involvement in seeking to disclose highly prejudicial information indicates the lengths to which the Government will go to use its law enforcement privileges to advance political aims at the close of the current Administration, and shows that disruption to the civilian Defendants’ case (and ensuing denial of their due process rights) is being effected by an arm of Government whose responsibility is to enforce the law and to ensure that justice is done.
“This Court in its order of January 9, 2025, plainly attempted to inject order and procedure into this dispute,” the defense filing goes on. “[I]n filing a separate appeal to be able to demonstrate superficial compliance, but then seeking to litigate the matter further in this appeal, the Government has disregarded those clear instructions.”
In other words, Nauta and De Oliveira say the government is attempting a dual-palmed sleight of hand in order to short-circuit the process in a way that violates their constitutional rights.
“Defendants ask this Court to require order as to this process, as its attempts to do so yesterday were apparently lost on the Government,” the filing concludes. “Hence, this Court should strike, or otherwise deny any relief sought by, the notice.”
