Lily wrote:
Here Are The 3 Most Shocking Discoveries Just Unsealed In Trump Classified Docs Case
From: Brianna Layman
Judge Aileen Cannon unsealed a trove of documents Monday that appear to reveal a coordinated effort within the Biden administration to target Donald Trump with political prosecution after he left office.
Special Counsel Jack Smith and other federal prosecutors in President Bidenâs Department of Justice (DOJ) indicted Trump in June 2023 for allegedly mishandling classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago home. The indictment followed an unprecedented raid on a former presidentâs home the prior summer.
President Biden also retained classified documents after leaving the vice presidency. Yet he was not charged because prosecutors say they believed he would âpresent himself to the jury, as he did during our interview with him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.â
Here are the three most shocking revelations in the lawfare case against Trump thanks to the newly unsealed documents, in part as pointed out by independent reporter Julie Kelly on X.
1. DOJ Threatened Lawyerâs Judicial Nomination
Jay Bratt, the special counselâs lead prosecutor, allegedly threatened Trump staff member Walt Nautaâs attorney, Stanley Woodward, with sabotaging his judicial nomination to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia if he could not get Nauta to turn on Trump, according to a newly unsealed motion originally filed in June 2023. Nauta served in Trumpâs White House and remained a personal aide to the president after he left office.
The motion requested D.C. District Chief Judge James Boasberg order the âdisclosure of certain grand jury materials identified by counsel as likely to reflect misconduct by the government before the grand jury.â
During Woodward and Brattâs first meeting, which took place two weeks after Mar-a-Lago was raided on August 24, 2022, Woodward âwas led to a conference room where Mr. Bratt awaited with what appeared to be a folder containing information about Mr. Woodward,â according to the motion.
âMr. Bratt thereupon told Mr. Woodward he didnât consider him to be a âTrump lawyer,â and he further said that he was aware that Mr. Woodward had been recommended to President Biden for an appointment to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia,â the motion continues. âMr. Bratt followed up with words to the effect of âI wouldnât want you to do anything to mess that up.â Thereafter, Mr. Bratt advised Mr. Woodward that âone way or the otherâ his client, Walt Nauta, would be giving up his lavish lifestyle of âprivate planes and golf clubsâ and he encouraged Mr. Woodward to persuade Mr. Nauta to cooperate with the governmentâs investigation (this was prior to the appointment of the Special Counsel).â
The motion argues Brattâs âstatement suggested a quid pro quo or even a threat intended to cause Mr. Woodward to persuade his client to cooperate with Mr. BrattâŠUnder such circumstances, it is appropriate for the Court to ease the secrecy protections typically afforded by Rule 6(e) so that it may determine if similar egregious behavior has made its way into this unprecedented investigation, particularly regarding the testimony of Mr. Nauta.â
The DOJ described the incident as follows: âBratt also informed Woodward that the Government was interested in obtaining Nautaâs potential cooperation and resolving his situation.â
âAt no point during the meeting did Woodward suggest that any of the prosecutorsâ comments were improper,â the DOJ argued.
Woodward and his partner stated in a letter to Boasberg that their ârepresentation of Mr. Nauta was not adversely impactedâ by the alleged discussion and that they had not âcomplained about the statements in the August 24 meetingâ but were bringing it to light after learning âthe conduct exhibited in the August 24 meeting may not have been isolated.â
Smith also said the allegations were referred to the DOJâs Office of Professional Responsibility at Brattâs request before lamenting that the defense dared to accuse a government official of threatening a private citizenâs lawyer. Smith said it was âwholly without meritâ for the defense to allege that Bratt â whom Smith noted had three decades worth of experience â would threaten Woodward with retaliation.
[b[2. White House Involved From The Start[/b]
Following Trumpâs departure from office, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) began âto work with the White House Office of Records Management on exaggerated claims related to records handling under the P**********l Records Act (PRA),â a motion to compel discovery from Trumpâs attorneyâs states.
NARA General Counsel Gary Stern sent a letter to Trumpâs PRA ârepresentativesâ in May of 2021 in which he said he âhad several conversationsâ with the White Houseâs Office of Records Management and had raised some âconcerns,â presumably about the documents in question, with NARA Archivist David Ferriero, according to pictures of the new, less-redacted filing posted by Kelly.
Sternâs letter noted that âthings were very chaotic, as they always are in the course of a one-term t***sitionâ and acknowledged t***sferring the documents would take âseveral more months,â according to the filing. Ferriero, however, said in June 2021 he was âout of patience,â dismissing âgood-faith efforts by President Trumpâs PRA representatives to address issues raised by NARA,â according to the filing.
The filing alleges Ferriero then âthreatenedâ one of Trumpâs PRA representatives in August that he was presuming that 24 âalleged â and non-existentâ boxes of records were âdestroyedâ and that Ferriero would report his claims of missing documents to the White House and Department of Justice.
By September, Stern was sending around a letter âthat we could consider sending to the Attorney General about missing Trump records,â according to the filing. Stern also sent an email admitting he âinformally reached out to the DOJ counsel about this issueâ and that âWH counsel is now also aware of the issue, and has asked that I keep them in the loop to the extent that we make any reference to [WH-ORM],â according to the filing.
The filing alleges that Deputy White House Counsel Jonathan Su asked one of Trumpâs PRA representatives to permit an undisclosed individual to access ânotes from the Trump administration relating to records handling.â The filing alleges that Su did not disclose that NARA âhad already drafted a referral letter and contacted DOJ.â
3. Trumpâs Security Clearance Retroactively Revoked
Bidenâs Department of Energy also allegedly revoked Trumpâs security clearance after Smith indicted Trump in June 2023, according to a 2024 motion to compel discovery from Trumpâs lawyers posted on X by Kelly.
The Energy Departmentâs âCentral Personnel Clearance Index and Clearance Action Tracking System âreflect[ed] an active Q clearanceâ for President Trump,â the unredacted motion states, according to Kellyâs post.
The DOEâs assistant general counsel then âinstructed that the relevant systems âbe immediately amendedâ and âpromptly modified to reflect the terminated status of [President] Trumpâs Q clearance,'â the filing states.
Trump ârequested additional disclosures relating to the Energy Departmentâs determination and other security clearance issuesâ but the office allegedly âdeclined to provide any additional information.â
Judicial Watch announced Monday it filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Department of Energy for records relating to the alleged termination of Trumpâs security clearance.
This is why the media says Trump will persecute political enemies. He has learned the tactic from them. Turn about could be fair play.
b Here Are The 3 Most Shocking Discoveries Just U... (
show quote)
Bear in mind the prosecutor in this case, Jack Smith, is a political whore whose main claim to fame is that he obtained a conviction against former VA Governor McDonald (R), which was overturned by a UNANIMOUS SCOTUS decision back when the court was dominated by Liberal Justices, due to prosecutorial misconduct.
That's right, boys and girls. Nine to zip. Even Ruth Ginsberg v**ed to overturn.