In exchange for favorable consideration of his job application for a judgeship in Washington, D.C., a senior Department of Justice official allegedly pressured the counsel of a former presidential aide to compel his client to testify against Trump.
The astonishing allegation was reported on June 8 by the British newspaper Guardian, citing “three people familiar with the matter.”
In a court filing, Stanley Woodward, the attorney for Trump’s co-defendant and adviser, Walt Nauta, allegedly made the allegation against Jay Bratt, the prosecutor in charge of the federal case against the former president.
Bratt is the director of the counterintelligence division at the Department of Justice.
After the 45th president departed office, Nauta, who had served as Trump’s military valet during his presidency, retired from the Navy to become his personal assistant.
Will Scharf, a former U.S. attorney, retweeted the Guardian’s article and added his thoughts in an extensive Twitter thread in which he called the federal case against Trump “outrageous and shocking.”
“Far and away the most troubling side story to emerge from this saga so far are the allegations made by Trump aide and co-defendant Walt Nauta’s lawyer last week,” Scharf tweeted. “You may have missed it if you blinked. Not surprisingly, the mainstream media has mostly buried this one.”
He continued: “Nauta’s lawyer, Stanley Woodward, alleged in a court filing that during a meeting with prosecutors about his client’s case, the head of the Counterintelligence Section of DOJ’s National Security Division Jay Bratt “suggested Woodward’s judicial application [for a D.C. Superior Court judgeship] might be considered more favorably if he and his client cooperated against Trump.”
Scharf remarked: “If true, and I find it hard to believe that Woodward just made the whole thing up, this is wild misconduct. Truly wild. It could undermine the entire case against both Trump and Nauta. It could end careers at DOJ if fairly investigated.”
Scharf implied that the alleged November 2022 coercive inducement was essentially a bribe: a possible judgeship in exchange for detrimental testimony against Trump.
(3) Walt Nauta and DOJ Misconduct
Far and away the most troubling side story to emerge from this saga so far are the allegations made by Trump aide and co-defendant Walt Nauta’s lawyer last week.
You may have missed it if you blinked. Not surprisingly, the mainstream media has…
— Will Scharf (@willscharf) June 15, 2023
Scharf stated that he does not know Woodward personally, but is aware of his formidable reputation as an attorney.
“He is a highly accomplished lawyer. Spent a decade at Akin Gump, a top law firm, clerked on the DC Circuit, and has very substantial experience in government investigations,” the former federal prosecutor tweeted.
“This is not some fly by night TV lawyer. He’s a real deal legal heavyweight, and he’s leveling an extremely serious allegation of misconduct against a senior official at DOJ.”
The Guardian reports that Woodward made the explosive allegations in a sealed letter to the senior judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia last week.
“When Woodward arrived at the conference room, he was seated across from several prosecutors working on the investigation, including the chief of the counterintelligence section, Jay Bratt, who explained that they wanted Nauta to cooperate with the government against Trump, the letter said,” the June 8 report said.
“Bratt then turned to Woodward and remarked that he did not think that Woodward was a ‘Trump guy’ and that ‘he would do the right thing’, before noting that he knew Woodward had submitted an application to be a judge at the superior court in Washington DC that was currently pending, the letter said.”
More on this story via The Western Journal:
The report continued: “The allegation, in essence, is that Bratt suggested Woodward’s judicial application might be considered more favorably if he and his client cooperated against Trump.” CONTINUE READING…