Walt Nauta is a 10-year-Navy veteran and served as an aide to former President Trump both in and out of office.
Special Counsel Jack Smith has now indicted him for allegedly “making false statements in interviews with the FBI.” The indictment’s subtext is that Nauta refused to cooperate with, and turn state’s evidence to, the special counsel in its efforts to convict the former president.
But why stop the indictments with a man who loyally served and followed the orders of the former president of the United States, was a Navy veteran, and a hard-working immigrant from Guam?
Are there not far bigger fish to fry to remind Americans that justice is blind?
After all, when Special Counsel Smith announced his indictments of Trump, he lectured America on the rule of law and the cherished notion that no one is above it.
So let us start with the former interim director of the FBI itself, Andrew McCabe.
McCabe admittedly lied four times about his illegally leaking sensitive information to witnesses and mishandling classified information.
Have those crimes suddenly ceased being felonies?
Or is it now the policy of the United States government that an FBI director can lie with impunity, and leak, and mishandle sensitive classified information?
Yet Walt Nauta may be sent to prison while McCabe will continue to earn a fine salary at CNN as a paid “expert” to deplore . . . what exactly?
What McCabe knows best from his own experience with the deed—the “mishandling of classified information”?
Nauta reportedly is being indicted for claiming he “did not know” what he supposedly did know in relation to the movement of the president’s papers.
His denial was proffered with nearly the exact phraseology that another FBI director, James Comey, used under oath when he stonewalled congressional inquisitors on 245 occasions.
Was the FBI director ever indicted for feigning ignorance or amnesia before Congress?
Did Nauta ever record a private, and likely classified, conservation he had with the president of the United States in the White House, and then leak it to the New York Times?
That is precisely what James “Higher Loyalty” Comey bragged about doing.
Most recently, Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm admitted that she, too, recently lied while under oath to Congress when she denied owning private stocks.
Was Nauta’s “I don’t know” a greater threat to the rule of law and the security of the republic than the lies of the secretary of Energy? She deliberately misled Congress about potential conflicts of interest involving her stock portfolio.
Then we come to Joe Biden, the current president of the United States. He has sworn that he never discussed business with his son, Hunter Biden, currently under suspicion for tax improprieties and leveraging foreign governments by selling them supposed Biden influence.
Yet plenty of witnesses have contradicted Joe Biden’s statement. Photos even reveal him side-by-side with his son’s business associates.
For nearly 20 years, Senator, Vice President, private citizen, and President Joe Biden has concealed the fact he unlawfully took classified documents home and moved them about in various unsecured locations.
Was Mr. Biden’s movement of classified documents for the last 20 years less egregious than what Nauta is accused of having done?
Was the Biden Corvette garage more secure than the closets and bathrooms inside the Mar-a-Lago gated estate?
Biden’s lawyers, after nearly two decades, only came forward because of the media hype surrounding the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago in search of classified documents.
Is there some law that states that a senator, vice president, and president can improperly remove classified documents, move them about to various unsecured locations, and avoid the sort of felony indictments now facing Nauta and Trump?
Let us end with the greatest exemptions of all—those accorded to Hillary Clinton.
She has variously committed the following likely major felonies.
One, she illegally transmitted classified information involving national security over her own unsecure server while secretary of state.
Two, she destroyed both email records and communication devices that were under government subpoena.
Three, she was untruthful about both the use and destruction of said subpoenaed items.
Four, she illegally hired a foreign national, Christopher Steele, to work on her campaign as an opposition researcher.
Five, she conspired to disseminate false documents among top government intelligence and investigatory agencies as well as the media, for the sole purpose of destroying her presidential opponent Donald Trump and thereby warping the 2016 election process.
And?
Clinton—like self-confessed liars or dissimulators John Brennan, former CIA Director, James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence, and former FBI Directors James Comey and Andrew McCabe—was exempted from all legal jeopardy. She, too, continues to monetize her past notorieties and controversies.
The last thing this country needs is any more bottled-piety lectures on the rule of law from Special Counsel Jack Smith, Joe Biden, and the array of admitted lying former high government officials.
They, not Walt Nauta, should be ashamed.
Professor Hanson’s recitation of Democrat hypocrisy is certainly relevant for historical purposes, but wholly ineffective or even shocking–it’s just what Democrats do.
The reality of our situation is that we live in a banana republic ruled by a despotic junta that delights in forcing the celebration of sexual perversion on its serfs, imposes two sets of laws on the population, and even brags about this dual justice system.
The Ruling Class enjoys the kink of humiliating its political opponents–actually, anyone who disagrees with them–and the unlimited use of federal legal and martial power to oppress and demoralize its opponents.
Too bad no one is objecting or pushing back…
And he misses much of Hillary’s perfidy. The question most on the Right are distracted from asking due to all her ‘shiny objects’ is why she basically exited the Fed messaging system she was supposed to use to conduct the business of the U.S.? Answer? To avoid FOIA and oversight document requests. Note the never responded to one FOIA or oversight request from congress with emails from that server/account. She was briefed and warned several times about the security issues which went much further than Hanson elided. In fact, at one point she asked the Secret Service to look at her server in the basement of her Chappaqua home cuz it was having problems. Secret Service found that it had been hacked and all messages were being stolen. As well, her use of an insecure Blackberry in DC means the Russians and Chinese picked up every message as the both have listening posts at their embassies that grab everything. And of course she would be of special interests.
It also matters that the her violation of classified info handling is a ‘strict liability’ crime, meaning intent is irrelevant. Sigh…VDH needs to retire. He keeps writing the same article over and over again, have you noticed? I can’t take any more pearl clutching. If you aren’t willing to fight and change things, just move on now. I’ve read enough articles.
“VDH needs to retire. He keeps writing the same article over and over again, have you noticed? I can’t take any more pearl clutching. If you aren’t willing to fight and change things, just move on now.”
VDH does write the same thing over and over, and he is long on problems and short on solutions. I recently comment about this on another forum and the response was that this is who he is. He’s a historian and he prefers to look backwards. He is not a problem solver and we should stop looking to him to offer up solutions.
I also notice that he is not original in his history. He is no investigator. Others before him have dug up the information and published it. It took him several years after we all knew the Russian collusion was a hoax for him to write about it. His specialty is rewriting previously vetted information in polished sentences.
Yes he keeps repeating, and no, he doesn’t do anything. But those whose job is to do it seem to need constant reminders.
Perhaps ultimately it is our job , particularly given that " the seal has been broken "?