Trump valet Walt Nauta ‘promised a pardon if ex-President got re-elected for second term’, FBI papers reveal
Mr Nauta maintains that he did not know the boxes he moved at Mar-a-Lago on the day before an August 2022 FBI raid at the former president’s Florida club were filled with classified government documents
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Donald Trump's valet, Walt Nauta, was reportedly told he would be pardoned during a potential second Trump administration if he was charged with lying to the FBI.
Mr Nauta was charged in June 2023 for lying to the FBI and for obstructing the agency's investigation into the classified government documents Mr Trump had stored at Mar-a-Lago after his presidency. Mr Trump was also charged with obstruction and with mishandling classified national defence information. Both men have pleaded not guilty.
On Monday, court filings made public a set of heavily redacted interviews concerning an FBI witness named "Person 16". The witness is described in the summary as having been interviewed by the FBI in November 2022 and as having been someone who formerly worked in Mr Trump's White House, CNN reports.
It is unclear who Person 16 is, or how they came to learn of the pardon. They reportedly told the FBI that Mr Trump was offering to extend a pardon to Mr Nauta during his possible second term.
“NAUTA was told by [Mr Trump’s] people that his investigation was not going anywhere, that it was politically motivated and ‘much ado about nothing,’” the interview summary states. “NAUTA was also told that even if he gets charged with lying to the FBI, FPOTUS will pardon him in 2024.”
The witness, Person 16, said they had not spoken with Nauta since Donald Trump was elected in 2016. They reportedly refused to be recorded by the agency during their interview.
Person 16 reportedly visited Mar-a-Lago on numerous occasions in 2020 and said they advised Mr Trump to return "whatever" documents he had back to the National Archives.
“Don’t give them a noble reason to indict you, because they will,” Person 16 reportedly told Mr Trump.
Mr Trump has insisted since the August 2022 FBI raid at Mar-a-Lago that he has done nothing wrong, that the documents recovered are his, and that even if he had done something wrong, he has "presidential immunity" to protect him anyway.
Since Mr Nauta does not have a former presidency to fall back on, he had to cut a different path toward exculpation.
In May 2022, Mr Nauta had an interview with the FBI, during which he said that he assumed the boxes filled with classified documents were actually filled with hairspray, shampoo, picture frames, and other assorted junk.
Prosecutors said they have video footage of Mr Nauta moving boxes of documents into and out of a storage room, including on the day before the FBI raid. The boxes were reportedly moved at Mr Trump's direction, the indictment alleges.
Mr Nauta tried to have his obstruction charges thrown out, but Judge Aileen Cannon rejected the effort.
Ms Cannon wrote in a ruling that she disagreed with Mr Nauta's counsel characterising the charges against him as legally flawed. They argued in the filing that ongoing disagreements between judges over the definition of the word "corruptly" in the obstruction statute should make clear that the original law was unconstitutionally vague, CNN reports.
The judge said that while the arguments were "worthy of serious consideration," they did not "lead this Court to conclude that dismissal of the obstruction counts is warranted".
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments