Special counsel Jack Smith’s response to Donald Trump valet Walt Nauta’s claim that searches conducted at Mar-a-Lago were unconstitutional was detailed and methodical. Nauta argued that certain boxes seized during the searches should be suppressed under the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unlawful search and seizure.
Smith countered Nauta’s allegations by emphasizing the thoroughness of the FBI’s warrant process and the absence of materially misleading omissions in the affidavits used to obtain the warrants.
Special counsel Jack Smith (Credits: Politico)
He explained that the warrants were issued based on clear probable cause, including Nauta’s involvement in handling classified documents and his false statements to investigators regarding the movement of boxes.
Smith clarified that filter protocols were correctly applied to protect privileged materials, and no filter teams advised prosecutors of the substance of potentially protected materials without agreement from defense counsel.
He also addressed Nauta’s objections to the venue and necessity of filter protocols in certain warrants, arguing that the warrants were properly issued and supported by probable cause.
Jack Smith (Credits: CNBC)
Smith pointed out Nauta’s misleading statements and actions, such as coordinating a secret trip to Mar-a-Lago shortly after testifying to a grand jury and providing false reasons for his visit. Despite Nauta’s challenges to the warrants, Smith asserted that they were valid and relied upon by agents in an objectively reasonable manner.
Smith’s response dismantled Nauta’s claims of unconstitutionality by highlighting the legality and thoroughness of the warrant process and the clear probable cause supporting the searches conducted at Mar-a-Lago.
