'Flat-out false': Jack Smith shreds Trump valet Walt Nauta's newest legal argument

The only proof former President Donald Trump’s valet Walt Nauta offered that he’s the victim of a vindictive courtroom witch hunt is a chat his lawyers had with prosecutors over coffee, according to special counsel Jack Smith.

Smith makes this argument in a new filing to Florida’s federal court Wednesday in rebuttal to Nauta’s bid to criminal charges that he helped conceal documents at Trump’s social club Mar-a-Lago.

“Many of the factual allegations are flat-out false, and the associated theories of animus are deeply flawed,” Smith wrote of Nauta’s argument.

ALSO READ: A criminologist explains why half of America does not care about Trump's crimes

Rather than provide evidence, Smith argues, Nauta’s motion rested on “his attorney’s conversation over coffee with a prosecutor, during which the prosecutor allegedly said the Government would not ‘accept anything less than Mr. Nauta’s full cooperation.’”

Nauta also tried to argue he was being punished for invoking the Fifth Amendment and refusing to testify to a grand jury, Smith writes.

“The Government’s decision to charge him after he declined to cooperate did not amount to vindictiveness as a matter of law,” Smith argued. “Nauta spent over half of his reply laying out new factual allegations and theories of animus that he failed to mention, much less argue, in his opening motion.”

This is just the latest argument in the lengthy court battle over classified documents FBI agents found stored in a Mar-a-Lago ballroom, bathroom and shower.

Trump and Nauta have both pleaded not guilty to charges that include obstruction of justice, and proceeded to pursue a campaign of delay in Judge Aileen Cannon’s courtroom.

More details of that campaign were revealed in Smith’s Wednesday filing, noted Politico reporter Kyle Cheney, who shared the new filing on X.

That’s because Nauta relied on a Trump motion, not released to the public, in which his attorneys make a “selective prosecution claim” based on President Joe Biden’s classified document case, in which he was cleared of criminal conduct.

It appears that their argument of unfairness — which legal statute requires prove someone similarly situated received different treatment — included finger-pointing at Biden Administration staffers, Cheney notes.

“Jack Smith indicates that Trump's motion for selective prosecution in Florida — still undocketed because of redaction issues — alleged that Biden staffers were ‘similarly situated’ people who were not charged,” Cheney wrote.

Smith slaps down this comparison in his rebuttal.

“Trump named in his motion, in an apparent effort to argue—for the first time—that President Biden’s staff members are similarly-situated comparators as to him” Smith wrote.

“We say ‘apparent’ only because Nauta provided no elaboration on his theory beyond mentioning these individuals and conclusorily dubbing them ‘similarly situated.’”

The legalese in Smith’s argument was put in more human terms by Cheney’s followers on X.

“More nonsense looking for a delay,” said Art Candee.

“There are no ‘Biden staffers’ accused of conspiracy or obstruction related to Biden's classified documents,” added John Petrie. “To the contrary, it's the lack of such by anyone--particularly Biden--that Special Counsel Hur cited as standing DOJ policy to not indict Biden.”

“Biden’s staffers were not moving boxes around at his whim,” said EvaC, “trying to be a step ahead of the law.”