On Thursday, The Guardian reported that Joe Biden’s DOJ suggested the attorney for Trump’s valet driver would have his application for a judgeship looked upon more favorably in exchange for helpful testimony against Donald Trump from the valet. The valet was also threatened with charges.
When did this activity become legal and not even rise to the level of prosecutorial misconduct?
“Justice, sir, is the great interest of man on Earth. It is the ligament which holds civilized beings and civilized nations together. Wherever her temple stands, and so long as it is duly honored, there is a foundation for social security, general happiness and the improvement and progress of our race.” ~ Daniel Webster, 1845, quote on the Department of Justice building in Washington, D.C.
The Guardian Report
In a letter, Stanley Woodward, the lawyer for Trump’s valet said prosecutors brought up his application to become a judge when seeking the valet’s cooperation.
They suggested the client could be charged, and the lawyer’s application to become a judge would be looked upon more favorably if his client helped them.
The DOJ told the lawyer that the valet, Mr. Nauta must cooperate because he gave potentially conflicting testimony and could be charged with making false statements. Woodward denied Nauta made false statements.
Excerpt
…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.” Then he said Woodward had applied to be a judge at the superior court in Washington DC, and the application was currently pending, the letter said.
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.
Nauta should cooperate with the government because he had given potentially conflicting testimony that could result in a false statements charge, the prosecutors said, according to the letter. Woodward is said to have demurred, disputing that Nauta had made false statements.
-
The Importance of Prayer: How a Christian Gold Company Stands Out by Defending Americans’ Retirement
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.
They can get away with it.
“Even if it’s true, it would not rise to the level of prosecutorial misconduct,” former US attorney Joyce Vance said. “Prosecutors don’t have any influence over judicial applications, and all the parties to the conversation would have known that.”
They don’t have any influence? Are we sure?
But the exchange is said to have unnerved Woodward, who recounted the exchange to associates after leaving the meeting. He also promptly informed the justice department at the time they would have no further communications unless Nauta was getting charged or an immunity deal.
The DOJ and their allies in counterintelligence can get anyone, anywhere, any time they want. Forget Donald Trump in this matter and think of the future of this country if they are allowed to destroy the law.
These are evil people.
