Unsealed Motion Reveals Trump’s Lawyer Proposed Acting As Informant In Classified Docs Case

A newly unsealed defense motion related to search warrants against Walt Nauta, a former White House employee and Navy veteran who worked as President Trump’s valet and personal staffer at Mar-a-Lago, has revealed that a lawyer with an attorney-client privilege relationship with Trump proposed to act as an undercover informant in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s classified documents case.

Nauta and Trump were indicted last year in the case. The motion filed earlier this month states, “The affiants hid information about [redacted] who were acting as political enemies of President Trump, including one attorney who had an attorney-client privilege relationship with President Trump and then proposed to act in an undercover parallel role to [redacted].”

The defense argued that the affiants “used attorney-client violations as the basis for evidentiary allegations, but the SCO cannot use the information it gathers improperly to justify a search warrant or as evidence against a third party.”

Last Tuesday, Judge Cannon indefinitely postponed Jack Smith’s classified documents trial against Trump after the Special Counsel admitted to tampering with evidence. The Judge vacated the May 20, 2024, trial date and set a second set of pre-trial deadlines to manage pending discovery and disclosure matters.

In her order, Judge Cannon wrote, “The Court therefore vacates the current May 20, 2024, trial date (and associated calendar call) to be reset by separate order following resolution of the matters before the Court consistent with Defendants’ right to due process and the public’s interest in the fair and efficient administration of justice.”

Judge Cannon also set hearings on key motions, including Walt Nauta’s motion to dismiss for selective and vindictive prosecution. Additionally, a June 21 hearing was set on Trump’s motion to dismiss the indictment based on the unlawful appointment and funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith.

The revelation that a lawyer, who held attorney-client privilege, proposed to act as an informant against Trump raises profound ethical and legal questions about the conduct of the Special Counsel’s investigation. As the case continues to unfold, the defense is likely to use this information to challenge the validity of the evidence gathered and the motives behind the prosecution.