We’ve known for some time, based on public court filings, that the Department of Justice supported its warrant for the search and recovery of government documents from Mar-a-Lago in part on information it obtained from interviewing witnesses Who were working at the property. A
I think a line of questioning by prosecutors toward both Nauta and any *trump attorneys who refused to sign off on the completeness of the document returns is to ask them WHY. Why did Nauta lie in his earlier testimony? Why wouldn't Cannon and perhaps other attorneys sign off? My guess is they were being protective, both of *trump AND for themselves (fear of retribution), which I think might support charges of obstruction and witness tampering.
Was Nauta's initial testimony that he didn't move "boxes" or that he didn't move boxes containing sensitive material? If the latter then it may not have been a lie but instead a statement of ignorance, after all Patel stated publicly that docs were declassified, even if it wasn't true it could have been perceived as true by Nauta. And if Trump told him there weren't sensitive documents when he ordered him to move them, it clearer he was misinformed. What can you really expect from an errand boy?
Is there any evidence that the documents moved were government docs as opposed to say,, boxes of old tax returns or business records? That these were the same boxes that the FBI found in the residence? I like all the dots connecting the accused to the crime.
Would it matter if Nauta initially claimed he didn't move the boxes, if his claim was not under oath, and then when put under oath, told the truth? I'm just wondering if that would throw out 45's argument that Nauta is an unreliable witness. 🤔🤔🤔
I think a line of questioning by prosecutors toward both Nauta and any *trump attorneys who refused to sign off on the completeness of the document returns is to ask them WHY. Why did Nauta lie in his earlier testimony? Why wouldn't Cannon and perhaps other attorneys sign off? My guess is they were being protective, both of *trump AND for themselves (fear of retribution), which I think might support charges of obstruction and witness tampering.
Thank a for the update her is to hoping he is finally held accountable for his crimes … but doubting it seriously
Was Nauta's initial testimony that he didn't move "boxes" or that he didn't move boxes containing sensitive material? If the latter then it may not have been a lie but instead a statement of ignorance, after all Patel stated publicly that docs were declassified, even if it wasn't true it could have been perceived as true by Nauta. And if Trump told him there weren't sensitive documents when he ordered him to move them, it clearer he was misinformed. What can you really expect from an errand boy?
dot to dot to dot ....
Is there any evidence that the documents moved were government docs as opposed to say,, boxes of old tax returns or business records? That these were the same boxes that the FBI found in the residence? I like all the dots connecting the accused to the crime.
Would it matter if Nauta initially claimed he didn't move the boxes, if his claim was not under oath, and then when put under oath, told the truth? I'm just wondering if that would throw out 45's argument that Nauta is an unreliable witness. 🤔🤔🤔