Walt Nauta is a 10-year veteran of the Navy and served as an aide to former President Trump both in and out of office.
This from frontpagemag.com.
Special Counsel Jack Smith has now indicted Nauta for allegedly:
[M]aking false statements in interviews with the FBI.
The indictment’s subtext is that:
Nauta refused to cooperate with and turn the state’s evidence to the special counsel in its efforts to convict Trump.
Improper? Certainly, but why stop the indictments of a man who loyally served and followed the orders of the president of the United States, was a Navy veteran, and is a hard-working immigrant from Guam?
Are there not far bigger fish to fry to remind Americans that justice is blind? Of course, but does the constitution not read ‘Selective Justice’ somewhere? Particularly, in this time that justice is no longer blind.
And, after all, when Smith announced his indictment of Trump, he lectured America:
[O]n the rule of law and the cherished notion that no one [conservative] is above it.
But for the sake of mental exercise 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.
Those crimes have certainly ceased to be felonies, yes?
Now, obviously, the policy of the United States government is that an FBI director can lie with impunity, and leak, and mishandle sensitive classified information.
Imagine, Walt Nauta may be sent to prison while McCabe will continue to earn an acceptable salary at CNN as a paid “expert” to deplore . . . what exactly?
Ah! No doubt, what McCabe knows best from his own experience with the deed—the “mishandling of classified information.”
Nauta reportedly is being indicted:
[F]or 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 more significant 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.
Next let’s briefly discuss Joe-Joe Biden. 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 numerous 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 now Resident Biden has concealed the fact he unlawfully took classified documents home and moved them about in various unsecured locations.
Was Biden’s movement of classified documents for the last 20 years less egregious than what Nauta is accused of having done?
Was Biden’s 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 resident of the White House 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 most significant exemptions of all—those accorded to Hillary Clinton. She has variously committed the following likely significant felonies:
One, she illegally transmitted classified information involving national security over her own unsecure server while serving as 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 Trump and thereby warping the 2016 election process, and
Big Hill 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.
And she, too, continues to monetize her past notorieties and controversies.
Final thoughts: The last thing this country needs—now or ever—is more “bottled-piety” lectures on the rule of law from Special Counsel Smith, Joe-Joe Biden, or any of the cabal of admitted lying former high government officials.
They each, not Walt Nauta, have traded the well-being of a nation for financial gain. And they, not Walt Nauta, should be prosecuted.
