Moving the Boxes: Trump’s Valet and Alleged Co-Conspirator Buys the Boss a Three-Week Delay in His Trial

According to the motion to seal filed in his case, DOJ warned Walt Nauta he was a target of the stolen documents case on May 24, 34 days ago.

After he and his boss were indicted on June 8, he was issued a judicial summons, alerting him that his prosecution would take place in the Southern District of Florida, which has strict rules requiring a local attorney to appear and remain counsel, and scheduling a June 13 arraignment. That was 19 days ago.

But Nauta was not arraigned on June 13, as Trump was, because he had not yet arranged for local counsel.

That delay was totally excusable. There aren’t that many people in SDFL who are qualified for a case like this in the first place. And those that are may balk at the pre-existing conflict structure here, with Stan Woodward paid by Trump’s PAC, which itself is under criminal investigation. And those aren’t the only ethical concerns I would have about taking on this case.

But today’s delay is far less defensible. Particularly given the theater Woodward created surrounding the event.

Woodward made much of the fact that poor Walt Nauta was stuck on the tarmack yesterday at Newark Airport with flight delays and cancellations due to the same bad weather that I was planning around last Saturday when I was in New York state.

That was all a distraction. Nauta’s presence wasn’t required at the arraignment. Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman excused Nauta’s attendance at today’s hearing during Trump’s arraignment.

You only tell that story in a court room to get credulous journalists — like CNN — to report that as the primary reason for the delay. It had no legal import. (Note: Most initial Twitter coverage parroted Woodward’s weather excuse, but most outlets fixed that on publication of their stories.)

The rain had nothing to do with today’s delay. Nauta’s failure, thus far, to retain a Florida attorney was the only reason for the delay.

And there’s certainly reason to wonder whether that delay is intentional. Marc Caputo’s report on Nauta’s search for a Florida lawyer quotes someone “familiar with the discussions” stating that the trial won’t happen before the election, so (or perhaps, “because”) “there’s no rush to” find a lawyer.

The pace of hiring an attorney for Nauta has been slow — as has been the speed with which Trump is beefing up his own criminal defense team. Nauta continues to work for Trump’s organization and Trump’s political committee is financing his employee’s legal representation.

“If you ask three different people in Trump world what’s going on, you’ll get five different answers,” said the source familiar with discussions. “But the reality is there’s no rush to do this. This seems to be their posture: ‘The case is probably going to happen after the election anyway [on Nov. 5, 2024]. So what’s the rush?’”

Speaking to the Messenger before Tuesday’s arraignment hearing got delayed, the source said Nauta would likely have a lawyer within the coming weeks.

So now Nauta is not scheduled to be arraigned until July 6 (his personal appearance has again been excused), a full four weeks after his indictment, and the same day on which Judge Cannon has ordered the defense to weigh in on proposed schedule for the trial.

This is, in my opinion, why Jay Bratt proposed a schedule showing that it is possible to try this case such that it would be done — even assuming three weeks of jury selection and three weeks of trial — before the first primary. Any delay past that schedule comes from Trump. And his alleged co-conspirator, Walt Nauta, whose job is to move boxes for the boss.

What is going to happen is that Trump will cause enough of a delay to push this into the primary season, and once that primary season trial happens, he will wail about how the trial interferes with his right to be elected President on false claims again, so he can steal more classified documents.

And his trusty valet, Walt Nauta, has just bought 23 days of delay for his arraignment to help ensure that happens. He’s moving the boxes again to help his boss obstruct justice.

Update: WSJ has since updated a story that included only the storm excuse to note that the real reason for the delay was that Nauta has not yet retained a lawyer.

image_print
51 replies
  1. Soundgood2 says:

    Is there a process for the court to appoint a public defender for the sole purpose of the arraignment?

      • Cicero42 says:

        How does the needed security clearance impact that process?

        [Welcome back to emptywheel. Please use the same username each time you comment so that community members get to know you. You changed your username in April to a site standard compliant “Cicero42“; please make a note of it and use that name each time you comment. I will change it for you from “Ryan” this once. Thanks. /~Rayne]

        • emptywheel says:

          A lawyer for arraignment isn’t the problem, for precisely that reason. Last we heard, at least one of the lawyers had not submitted his security clearance paperwork, and they can cause months of delay there.

        • Soundgood2 says:

          So it doesn’t matter much how long it takes for Nauta to be arraigned as the process of obtaining clearances will take longer in any event? What could happen if he does not obtain Florida counsel by his next court appearance? Whomever he chooses will then have to undergo clearance, will that be factored into any effort to force him to accept Florida counsel for the arraignment?

      • Doug Kane says:

        Is this true even though Nauta’s income apparently exceeds the threshold to be financially eligible for a federal public defender?

        (This is completely outside my area of expertise, so this is an honest question.)

        • nord dakota says:

          I would think so, for the purpose of allowing court business to proceed, and they can always order him to pay for that defense.

  2. bidrec-gap says:

    I went through a couple of unscheduled command changes in the Navy.

    A Teletype [message] was sent. The first line after routing information was addressed to the commanding officer, “You are relieved.” Of duty.

    The second line addressed to the executive officer, “Muster company tomorrow at 600 hours.”

    The next morning the new possibly temporary commanding officer would be introduced and life would go on.

    I do not trust that Walt Nauta is getting good counsel. For one thing it is debatable that his commanding officer has been relieved as is shown by the fact that so many are still debating it.

    Note that Teletype messages are always all caps but I did not do that because it looks like shouting.

  3. Peterr says:

    In asking Cannon to appoint a FL-based federal public defender or other local counsel to serve for the purposes of the arraignment, I would love to see DOJ also ask Woodward for a list of the local attorneys that were approached to be part of the legal defense team, when they were approached, and when they gave their negative answers.

    Something tells me that Woodward has been less-than-diligent in serving his (purported) client’s interests, and it would be nice to get this on the record.

    • BRUCE F COLE says:

      Those would be excellent questions to expose foot-dragging. Trump’s team should also be queried as to the status of their clearance progress. As Marcy noted a few days ago, Kise may well not pass that muster because of his employment, from only a couple years ago (though it was short-lived), working for Maduro’s AG.

      Any negative responses to such inquiries would deepen the blame for trial delays on Trump without having to have blogs like this one parse it out for the big boys.

      • Rugger_9 says:

        One wonders whether there is a streamlined process for addressing the lawyer issue that came out of the big push years ago to accelerate the appeals process (which became memorable recently in some rancid SCOTUS rulings).

        If I understand the situation as of now, all Nauta needs is a lawyer for the arraignment to enter his plea. If there is a PD that can represent him, at what point does the Miranda warning kick in? Specifically, the clause about if ‘you can’t afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you’ that gets read on TV. I don’t think there is anything in the Sixth Amendment about timelines other than ‘speedy trial’.

        In addition, we have the leaked tape, most likely from the defense team that just got the information because SC Smith has been notorious about keeping his cards close and speaking through the court filings. The confirmation of that theory is shown by the Truthiness Social all-caps rant that followed shortly afterward. It’s about tainting the jury pool and feeding the RWNM.

  4. PeteT0323 says:

    Did Nauta have to be charged with Trump to make the case against Trump?

    Could they have been charged separately?

    I imagine they cannot be separated now so one would hope the DOJ would move to have a PD assigned and Judge Cannon would act accordingly – is that process even a thing.

    • Peterr says:

      Count 32 is conspiracy to obstruct justice, which requires a second person. This is the main reason why they are charged together.

      Counts 33 and 34 involve Trump and Nauta withholding documents and concealing documents (by lying to Trump’s lawyers and moving the boxes out of the way before the lawyers did their search).

      Count 35 involves both of them lying to and concealing things from the FBI.

      Count 36 involves both of them lying to and concealing things from the grand jury in the same way.

      • emptywheel says:

        They are charged together bc the docs are what Nauta served to obstruct. And bc that leaves the threat of 793g charges hanging over his head.

  5. West Coast Castaway(GG) says:

    Trump delays trial….That’s what DJT does. DJT will pull every possible delay tactic and trick out of his lawyers’ legal hats. That’s what he does(tax returns anyone)

    DJT blathers in his campaign speeches about a (never-happened) conversation with China’s leader…..Trump talks about “quick trial” China has for drug dealers facing, according to Trump, the death penalty….Trump loves the “quick trial” rhetoric in campaign speeches…

    Trump..Steve Bannon…..What angers the public the most….is watching, reading how those with money avoid accountability for, what seems an eternity.
    Yea, Trump guilty as hell, and this trial won’t resolve until 2025 at the earliest…and then the appeals’ process begins…(unless Trump wins in 2024, then he’ll pardon himself and end it)

    Thanks for the always accurate breakdown…See you in 2025 to discuss the Trump/Nauta appeal

    • paulka123 says:

      And then stuff like Ivanka getting out of the NY Fraud trial because Letitia James filed too late happens, i.e. statute of limitations ran up.

      Justice delayed is justice denied.

      • Desidero says:

        I doubt Letitia James was anywhere near ready to file charges in Feb 2021 just to get Ivanka rather than the main targets for these crimes. Justice rushed can be justice in shambles.

  6. billtheXVIII says:

    So does the fact that Cannon continues to issue orders mean she is not going to recuse herself, or is that something that she still might be considering ? Is DOJ likely to move for that if she does not ?

    • Rugger_9 says:

      As EW and bmaz have previously noted, Cannon hasn’t gone rogue yet. While we are right to be suspicious in the long run, just remember the First Law of Dirtballs: they always give you another chance to discipline them. If Cannon goes rogue, there is the 11th Circuit and SCOTUS which would not necessarily be a slam dunk given their respective members.

      Also note that the DC grand jury is working on a separate and distinct topic which is ongoing.

  7. Ebenezer Scrooge says:

    I am quite willing to believe that Trump will do everything he can to delay his trial. But what does Nauta’s arraignment have to do with this? Can’t the discovery and most of the motion practice proceed despite an arraignment delay of a month or so? Could some criminal lawyer explain the source of delay?

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Unless there’s a move to separate the trials, which appears unlikely, the two will be tried together.

  8. SunZ00mSpark says:

    IANAL* (I am not anal, but I am also not a lawyer)
    * Mrs Spark might disagree
    Would it be feasible for the DOJ to suggest a change of venue within Florida to Fort Lauderdale or Miami on the basis of
    1. More attorneys with appropriate experience in this type of case to expedite Waltine’s access to representation.
    2. More adequate facilities for providing security and access to journalism/media interest.
    3. It is in the public interesft for a speedy trial

    I think this would be different than asking for recusal, acknowledging that it is a 3 hour drive for Judge Cannon?
    Would this type of request go to AC or the Magistrate?

    • CovariantTensor says:

      “Speedy trial” is in the Bill of Rights, as far as I know (I’m not a lawyer either but I did stay awake in high school civics classes) as a right of a defendant (as opposed to “we’re going to lock you up and not hold a trial indefinitely, or until you sign a confession”), not the public. If it’s in the defendant’s interests to run out the clock until after election 2024 it may be covered by some laws, but it’s not in the Constitution.

      • EricMariposa says:

        The Court (judge) has the authority to set its calendar, consistent with law–not political campaign preferences of defendants.

        18 U.S. Code § 3161 – Time limits and exclusions
        U.S. Code
        (a) In any case involving a defendant charged with an offense, the appropriate judicial officer, at the earliest practicable time, shall, after consultation with the counsel for the defendant and the attorney for the Government, set the case for trial on a day certain…

        (7)(A) Any period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by any judge on his own motion or at the request of the defendant or his counsel or at the request of the attorney for the Government, if the judge granted such continuance on the basis of his findings that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

  9. Doug Kane says:

    Here’s an interesting tidbit in Anna Bower’s report on the arraignment that wasn’t that I had not seen reporting elsewhere:

    “Woodward, responding to the prosecution’s request, says that he has a trial in another case set for the week of July 14, which means that he will move to delay the pre-trial conference anyway.”

    • David F. Snyder says:

      Maybe it’s possible that Woodward can’t find any Florida lawyer willing to sponsor him. How does it work out then? The judge appoints one?

      Another entertaining possibility: a FL lawyer agrees to represent Nauta only if Woodward is booted off Nauta’s team.

  10. mnharris says:

    Here is a somewhat complicated legal ethics and procedure question:

    As I understand it, a lawyer “zealously defends” the interest of their client, not of the person paying their bills. I can also imagine that, in practice, it might be a little harder for a lawyer to advocate 100% in cases like this.

    What does a judge do when they feel like a lawyer is not 100% loyal to their clients interest, even if it is inadvertent? In this case, (setting aside the question if Cannon is objective), could Cannon appoint another lawyer for Nauta if she feels his current lawyer was not, for example, advocating for him to plea in a situation where it makes sense? Or is the idea that as long as Nauta is a competent adult, he can have a lawyer paid for by someone else, even if that lawyer is giving him bad advice?

    [Welcome back to emptywheel. Please use the same username each time you comment so that community members get to know you. “mnharris” is your third user name; you’ve commented once as “Matthew H” and 124 times as “Matthew Harris.” Please pick a username and stick with it. Thanks. /~Rayne]

    • mnharris says:

      I wanted to change my name to give myself a bit more privacy, if that is okay. Can I stick with this name?

      [Not a problem. Henceforth you are “mnharris.” /~Rayne]

      • Konny_2022 says:

        That’s what Hugo Lowell writes further down in the article:

        “The move by Torres to delay the arraignment for a second time was unusual, given magistrate judges have the authority to assign a federal public defender or a standby counsel to represent defendants on a one-off basis so that they can enter a plea.

        Nauta was also not required to attend the arraignment in person, which raised questions about the relevance of cancellations. Privately, the [i.e. Lowell’s] people said, Woodward had wanted Nauta to meet the prospective lawyers the day before but that explanation did not address the fee dispute.”

        • bmaz says:

          Here is a dirty little secret: The court will not accept any “plea” other than not guilty, unless it is a stipulated plea with the government. All pleas are not guilty other than that. But you ought be personally at your own arraignment.

        • Molly Pitcher says:

          Nauta can’t take a FPD, because then Trump won’t be on the hook for not paying the attorney and telling him which way the wind blows.

    • BRUCE F COLE says:

      From the article:

      “The last-minute scramble to find a trial lawyer has been a common theme in the classified documents case after Trump struggled to find local counsel for his arraignment and ultimately used an existing lawyer admitted to the southern district of Florida who also sponsored in a New York-based lawyer.

      But it has been made more difficult because Nauta’s team has been seeking defense lawyers who have not previously worked as prosecutors, and anyone Nauta retains would also need the blessing of Trump and his own defense team, who see no need to make a decision quickly.

      In fact, the [two people familiar with the case] said, Trump’s preference has been for delay, a strategy that has come about from the belief that if the trial can be pushed back to after the 2024 election and should he win – Trump is the frontrunner for the Republican nomination – the case would be moot.”

      • Konny_2022 says:

        I was still on my reply when you posted yours. Thankfully we don’t repeat, but complement one another with the quotes from Lowell’s article.

      • Dave_MB says:

        “…Nauta’s team has been seeking defense lawyers who have not previously worked as prosecutors, and anyone Nauta retains would also need the blessing of Trump and his own defense team,…”
        That’s so funny. They want a defense lawyer that hasn’t been a prosecutor. A prosecutor is going to know how much Trump is cooked and will tell Nauta he needs to get an immunity deal if he doesn’t want to spend a lot of time behind bars.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Nauta seems to have a flat learning curve. No matter who he retains, Trump will demand several things if he’s paying for them. One of them will be a mandatory agreement to share information between his and Nauta’s lawyer.

          Sooner or later, Nauta will have to wrestle with the conflict he has with Triump and retain his own counsel, which means paying for them. Nauta’s lawyer is required to be loyal to him above any other party. But in TrumpWorld, as Cassidy Hutchinson could attest, that’s a custom not always honored.

  11. bmaz says:

    Lol, Trump is now counter claiming against E. Jean Carroll for, wait for it….defamation. These are truly stupid times.

    • Doug Kane says:

      My crystal ball shows a Rule 11 motion in the very near future. This is so nutsy that Tacopina wouldn’t even sign on to it (unless he was just fired by Trump). Only Alina Habba’s firm is listed on the Amended Answer/Counterclaim, which is signed by her.

    • nord dakota says:

      Because the morning after the verdict she said on TV that he did too rape her.
      He still has not grasped the distinction between not being found “guilty” (quotes because it was a finding in a civil trial) and being exonerated.
      He’s already appealing the verdict, I have trouble imagining how a lawyer could agree to this. I’ve never been involved in anything as crazy as Trump but can’t imagine any lawyer I’ve ever had agreeing to something like this. They acknowledge the law, decisions, and suchlike.

      • bmaz says:

        The statute of limitations should properly have expired decades ago. On both sides. Just bullshit.

Comments are closed.