LISTEN HERE:
Overshadowed by the sensational news surrounding President Trump’s indictment under accusations of the Espionage Act is a noteworthy story that hasn’t garnered the consideration it merits.
This involves the claim that a high-ranking official from the Department of Justice (DOJ) allegedly tried to pressure the lawyer representing Trump’s co-defendant.
It’s a developing controversy with severe implications including, potentially, inquiries into senior DOJ directors, leading to public congressional hearings. If the allegations hold water, there’s even a chance that all charges against Trump could be dismissed.
Trump’s co-defendant in this scenario is Waltine ‘Walt’ Nauta, a former Navy valet, who was affiliated with Trump’s White House administration and continued on as personal aide post-presidency.
Nauta’s legal representative, the highly esteemed Washington attorney Stanley Woodward, recently pointed an accusing finger towards revered members of the DOJ.
Names linked to the accusations include Jay Bratt, DOJ’s Counterintelligence Chief and current member of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecuting team.
According to circulating news stories, Woodward, in a confidential letter to D.C. District Chief Judge James Boasberg, conveyed a concerning incident. It is alleged that during a meeting held to discuss Nauta’s case, Bratt implied Woodward’s bid to secure a judgeship at D.C. Superior Court could be jeopardized if Nauta didn’t agree to testify against Trump.
One would question why Woodward would invent such an intimidating threat, and more importantly, why would he risk his professional standing by making such an assertion to a federal judge; unless, of course, it had genuine grounding.
If the allegations against Bratt turn out to be accurately reported, consequences could be severe and may even warrant a complete dismissal of the case against Nauta and Trump.
Based on the severity of what was allegedly said, Bratt might find himself on the side of the accused. In instances where prosecutorial indiscretion is undeniable, the court has the discretion to dismiss resulting indictments.
Should the allegations prove material, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon would be fully justified in considering the case dismissal.
The alleged conduct is arguably unprecedented and definitely egregious, essentially showcasing an attempt by a significant DOJ official to infringe upon a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel through underhanded and potentially illegal actions. At the absolute minimum, Trump and Nauta are owed an explanation.
It is routine for courts to allow discovery by the defense in instances where prosecutorial misconduct is alleged – including depositions and requests for documents and communications – to establish the reach and implications of any misconduct that took place. The defense team in this case ought to seek clarity straight from the horse’s mouth – Bratt, over his stated words and motives.
Similarly vital, the defense should endeavor to subpoena any talks between Bratt and his DOJ peers and the White House in relation to Woodward’s judgeship application and anything linked to Bratt’s interaction with Woodward.
My instincts suggest that these correspondences will hold surprising revelations, and potentially expose even more violations on the part of the DOJ, the special counsel’s team, and their political supervisors.
The legal professionals pertinaciously defending Trump and Nauta, I am sure, are well aware of these facts and will vigorously explore this and other defense strategies. Yet, it’s not just the attorneys who deserve answers.
The American people are also entitled to transparency into the full extent of alleged improper behavior of higher-ups at the Department of Justice.
Conservative voices in Congress ought to resolutely and publicly press for explanations. The House Judiciary Committee, which holds jurisdiction over issues pertaining to the administration of justice in the federal court system, must extract the truth.
This committee has the means to summon Bratt, the other lawyers concerned with the Trump prosecution, and senior officials from the Biden administration to genuinely uncover the events.
Do not be misled by the seeming quietness of this situation; this is a serious matter. Given the potential severity of Bratt’s actions, they may also fall within the purview of federal criminal law and could escalate to another level of legal wrangling.
Pinning down exactly what transpired, Bratt’s reported actions could be seen as attempted witness tampering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1), attempted federal bribery as per 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(3), attempted extortion by a federal official under 18 U.S.C. § 872, or possibly subornation of perjury, breaching 18 U.S.C. § 1622.
It’s pivotal that this case is handled with utmost transparency and openness by the Department of Justice.
If its commitment truly lies here, the appointment of a special counsel to scrutinize Bratt’s actions comprehensively and any other alleged violations by Jack Smith’s team would not be far-fetched.
This whole predicament provides an opportunity for highlighting the utmost necessity for justice to prevail at every step of legal proceedings.
It also inadvertently brings to light the importance of maintaining integrity among top-level officials and the perilous consequences when they fail to do so.
In the end, all who are involved in this tangled web of legal drama, from the defendants to the American people, deserve nothing but truth and justice. Let’s remain hopeful that honesty, fairness, and integrity will prevail through these challenging times.
