Judge appears skeptical of Trump’s co-defendants’ attempts to get some charges dismissed in classified documents case

fort pierce florida
CNN
—

A federal judge appears skeptical of efforts by two of former President Donald Trump’s co-defendants in the classified documents case to drop charges against them and obtain more information about the charges from prosecutors.

The hearing in Fort Pierce, Florida, before U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, was the first day special counsel Jack Smith investigated two Trump staffers, his personal The first big test in the obstruction of justice case brought by valet Walt Nauta and Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos. De Oliveira.

Although Cannon did not consider any of Trump’s requests to dismiss the case on Friday, how she responds to her co-defendants’ arguments on obstruction of justice charges could influence how the presumptive Republican nominee in the 2024 presidential election moves forward with his defense. .

During the more than two hours of hearings, Cannon grilled lawyers for Nota and de Oliveira about their arguments that the charges against their clients lacked sufficient clarity. Trump staffers are accused of conspiring to help Trump hide documents at his Florida estate after leaving the White House and lying to the FBI during interviews about their alleged involvement in transferring the documents. They plead not guilty.

Cannon appeared skeptical of de Oliveira’s contention that FBI agents asked unclear or irrelevant questions during the voluntary interview, asking his defense attorney John Irving why he shouldn’t have told the jury at trial Make this argument. De Oliveira is accused of lying to investigators about his involvement in moving boxes at Mar-a-Lago.

De Oliveira argued that the obstruction-of-justice-related charges against him should be dismissed because he was unaware Trump had issued a subpoena regarding classified documents and Mar-a-Lago surveillance footage from which the documents were moved.

Jay Bratt defended the special counsel team, saying prosecutors don’t need to prove de Oliveira knew about the subpoena or their demands. Blatt said prosecutors only need to show he was aware of the federal investigation.

Cannon asked Bratt about what the special prosecutor said in the indictment was De Oliveira’s knowledge of the investigation. Blatt responded that they would not bring charges without evidence and directed the judge to look at a section of the indictment that uses the language of the statute itself to charge Mar-a-Lago employees.

Nota’s argument for dismissal of the charges against him centered on the meaning of the word “corruption” in the obstruction law he was accused of violating. His attorneys claim ongoing litigation over how to interpret the term in other cases makes the charges vague and unconstitutional.

Cannon, however, expressed doubts about Nauta’s request to dismiss the charges on that basis. She noted that it was “not uncommon” for crimes with an intent requirement to have a “circular” definition of that requirement, which was “tolerated” by the law.

She was also angered by his requests for more information about the charges, known as the bill of minutiae, and at one point told his lawyer, Stan Woodward, that he seemed to be “expanding the bill of minutiae as a means to expand.” ”.

Woodward said Nota was entitled to more information about how boxes containing confidential documents at Mar-a-Lago were moved around the resort. He is accused of moving the boxes to hide them from Trump’s lawyers, who were reviewing the boxes for documents marked confidential.

Brat said the government was unable to determine where each box at Mar-a-Lago ended up, noting that a plane flew to Trump’s Bedminster, New Jersey, residence the day after lawyers searched the boxes. There are lots of boxes on board – including the bathroom on the plane.

Trump did not attend Friday’s hearing and has several pending motions to dismiss that were not the subject of that day’s hearing. In addition to 32 counts of mishandling defense documents, he faces multiple charges of perverting the course of justice, but has pleaded not guilty.

Just as Trump and his allies argue that the Biden administration is selectively prosecuting him, Smith and his supporters argue that the former president’s alleged obstruction of an investigation into classified documents obtained from the Trump White House makes this case unique from others The former president’s case is different. The vice president and vice president are under investigation for their handling of sensitive government materials.

In court filings earlier this year, Nota and de Oliveira asked Cannon to drop the obstruction of justice charges they faced because they said Smith failed in his legal duty to pursue the charges.

Nota argued that the criminal charges he faced were too vague. De Oliveira argued that he had “no idea” that boxes he allegedly helped move around the club contained confidential documents, so he could not have deliberately prevented investigators from obtaining important evidence.

De Oliveira also asked a judge to drop charges against him for allegedly lying to the FBI about moving boxes during a voluntary interview, as he claimed the criminal investigation was not compromised by his alleged lies.

Smith’s team, however, said de Oliveira’s arguments about the strength of the government’s case should be left to the jury to decide. As for Nota’s alleged accusations being too vague, Smith said the case includes “broad allegations” of “criminal conduct Nota allegedly committed.”

Nota said in an FBI interview transcript released Thursday that the process of leaving the White House was “absolutely chaotic” and repeatedly claimed that he believed Trump stockpiled press clippings, hairspray, shampoo, picture frames and other items. The box contains a variety of materials. Nota was accused of lying during the interview.

If Cannon rejects their efforts, both co-defendants asked the judge to order a document called a “bill of details,” in which prosecutors detail the crimes they plan to prove at trial.

Smith’s team called the requests “a thinly veiled attempt to get the government to reveal its trial strategy.”