Fierce legal battles continue to ensue in the Southern District of Florida as Donald Trump’s co-defendants, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, wage a disorderly defense strategy. The pair continue to launch an array of challenges at Judge Aileen Cannon’s courtroom in a desperate attempt to secure some form of legal traction.
In the latest development, a handful of the documents are yet to be delivered to the docket. However, during yesterday’s pre-hearing, several rather surprising filings were brought to light. It is alleged in a heated motion by the government on March 27 that Nauta made numerous false assertions and put forth baseless arguments in his support plea for the dismissal based on selective and vindictive prosecution.
In his initial attempt, Stan Woodward, Nauta’s attorney, claimed that it constituted a due process violation to threaten a witness with charges if they refused to cooperate. However, this assertion was promptly nullified by the Special Counsel, Jack Smith.
According to Smith, Nauta’s arguments were baseless due to, among other things, his refusal to testify before the grand jury not being an invocation of his Fifth Amendment rights. Rather, his lies to the FBI and subsequent refusal to testify before the grand jury did not, as per the government, amount to legal vindictiveness.
Naturally, Nauta returned the prosecutor’s dismissal with a reply containing several new argument angles and theories that, for the most part, were deeply flawed and outright false. Additionally, they were anything but on time, considering that new material cannot be added via a reply brief under traditional law.
Regardless of these shortcomings, Nauta and Woodward have put forth an answer. They argue that they had previously discussed the factual allegations brought forth in this case and therefore, their recent assertions should be treated as valid.
Despite these hiccups, it seems that Judge Cannon has granted the prosecution’s request to file a surreply, thus carrying forward the unusual course of these legal proceedings.
For more information about the case, please visit the dedicated US v. Trump Docket page on Court Listener.