Trump, Nauta respond to protective order motion in docs case

Former President Donald J. Trump and his valet, Waltine “Walt” Nauta, both responded yesterday to a government motion for a protective order typical of cases involving classified information. These filings came in Trump’s Florida case involving his handling of “classified” information – the Documents Case. (See the docket page.)

Trump and Nauta plead not guilty

Both Donald Trump and Waltine Nauta entered Not Guilty pleas to charges in a new superseding indictment. According to The Gateway Pundit and Reuters, Carlos Oliveira, a third defendant, couldn’t enter a plea. He does not yet have a Florida licensed attorney who would have the required security clearances.

On July 27, the government filed a “renewed motion” for a protective order governing access to, and handling of, classified information by defense counsel.

Under the terms of the government’s proposed order, Trump could discuss classified information with his attorneys – but Nauta could not. The government argues that Nauta faces charges of obstruction and false statements. Disclosure to him of classified documents, they say, would not impede his defense.

Trump responded by raising the issue of where he could review classified materials with his attorneys. While he served as President, Trump had a secure area at Mar-A-Lago where he reviewed such documents frequently. He is asking the court to re-establish that secure area – something the government does not want. In their motion they seem to ignore completely that a secure area in the residence once existed.

Nauta responded by arguing that any withholding of information from him personally would hinder his defense because his attorney would know some things he could not disclose to his client.

The responses by Trump and Nauta came in one day before they were due. The government now has until August 16 to reply.

Other news

On August 7, many media organs moved for permission to bring electronic devices into the courtroom to cover the arraignment.

They wanted to use these devices to take notes and to send out text messages during the session. But in a paperless order, Judge Aileen M. Cannon denied the motion. The arraignment took place with no electronic devices present.