The Mar-a-Lago case is heating up
Attorney Renato Mariotti on the news that the DOJ is ramping up its stolen documents case against Trump:
What should we make of news that DOJ sought testimony from former Trump official Kash Patel and Trump employee Walt Nauta in the Mar-a-Lago criminal investigation?
Today the New York Times reported that former Trump official Kash Patel, who has said publicly that he supposedly personally witnessed Trump verbally declassified documents, took the Fifth before a D.C. federal grand jury.
Patel reportedly took the Fifth “many” times in response to questions from federal prosecutors.
In addition, the Times reported that Walt Nauta, who worked in the White House as a military valet and cook and now works for Trump personally at Mar-a-Lago, has been interviewed.
Apparently Nauta’s initial statement to prosecutors conflicted with evidence, leading them to be “skeptical” of his “initial account.”
DOJ has security camera footage showing Nauta “moving boxes out of a storage area at Mar-a-Lago” and has interviewed him twice about that.
The Times reported Nauta indicated that Trump directed him to move boxes, which would be important evidence that Trump was trying to obstruct the DOJ’s investigation.
But that conflicts with his initial account to the DOJ, and now they’re threatening him with charges.
As for Patel, federal prosecutors have now asked a judge to force him to testify, presumably by granting him immunity for his testimony. If he is granted immunity, he would be forced to testify because you can’t assert the Fifth if you have no potential criminal liability.
So what does all of this mean?
It is common for witnesses like Nauta to have conflicting accounts that evolve over time. Initially, a witness can be reluctant to be truthful and then open up more during subsequent interviews.
This makes them challenging witnesses at trial.
Defense counsel (in this case, Trump’s lawyers) could use Nauta’s conflicting stories to suggest that his testimony at trial is unreliable.
Prosecutors aren’t looking to actually charge Nauta and are likely using potential charges to motivate him to be forthcoming.
It’s apparent that prosecutors are trying to develop Nauta as a potential witness against Trump. You don’t put this much effort into developing a witness like him unless you’re considering criminal charges.
At trial, his eventual testimony would be backed up by the video.
As for Patel, his story that he was in a room with Trump while he was President when he supposedly verbally declassified documents is very difficult to believe.
Prosecutors are right to try to lock that down, and Patel was right to avoid repeating that lie under oath.
Patel’s decision to take the Fifth is a rare savvy move by him. The fact that DOJ is trying to compel his testimony suggests that he isn’t their target.
Compelling his testimony makes sense if the goal is to get him to admit that he lied, undercutting Trump’s defense.
All of this suggests that DOJ is pressing forward with a criminal investigation and that Trump is their target. That’s significant news that suggests that they won’t be satisfied by a deal in which Trump gives them any remaining documents.
Also, the fact that this testimony occurred in the District of Columbia suggests that it will be indicted in D.C.
The Constitution requires that crimes be charged in the place where they occurred. But here, the crime occurred in multiple places.
D.C. is a wise choice. Among other things, the DOJ is based there and there is strong case law in D.C. federal courts that the need for grand jury testimony outweighs executive privilege and even attorney-client privilege between government attorneys and the president.
Regular readers know that I am skeptical that Trump will end up paying a price for what he’s done (except possibly at the ballot box in 2024) but since I am not a soothsayer or an oracle, I figure it’s important to post the opinions of those who are following the legal cases just in case.
One thing we do know is that if any else had taken those classified documents and refused to give them back, they would be in deep, deep legal trouble and would almost certainly pay a price. That the person who did it is a former president actually makes the crime much worse.
But ultimately, he believes that all of America’s classified intelligence belongs to him. Personally. After all he told Bob Woodward: “It’s all mine”