Mediaboss Marketing

Its becoming a familiar playbook.

Two months after exhaustively covering former President Donald J. Trumps arraignment in a Manhattan courtroom in a separate case, the national television news media was back in force in Miami on Tuesday afternoon.

Three of the major broadcast networks ABC, NBC and CBS interrupted their usual afternoon programming to cover the news. NBC sent its evening news anchor, Lester Holt, to Miami, as did CBS with Norah ODonnell.

The cable news networks turned to its top news anchors. Jake Tapper and Anderson Cooper oversaw coverage on CNN, and Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum helped lead coverage on Fox News.

Like Mr. Trumps trip to a Manhattan courthouse, the six major broadcast and cable news networks all used overhead shots to show Mr. Trumps motorcade making the roughly 20-minute trip to downtown Miami, where the former president was arraigned.

The wall-to-wall coverage represented yet another day in which Mr. Trump dominated the airwaves. Many of the panelists who took part in the coverage discussed the momentous nature of the day.

Whenever politics and law clash, theres always a tension because they are both places where fighting takes place, John Dickerson of CBS said from a makeshift set on a balcony overlooking the courthouse in Miami. Politics is the fighting of the barroom, and the law is more like a boxing match there are some rules.

Unlike the arraignment in April, there was decidedly a lack of useful footage. There were no shots of Mr. Trump entering the courthouse his motorcade entered a garage nor were there any images inside the federal building. The networks relied instead on images of demonstrators outside the courthouse.

Fox News broadcast live images of a person the networks anchors described as Melania Trump, the former first lady though within a few minutes the network said it was, in fact, not her. A day like this, with so many comings and goings, its easy from a distance to mistake two people, said John Roberts, the Fox anchor, who clarified it was actually Margo Martin, a Trump aide.

Earlier in the day, Fox News carried a news conference outside the Miami courthouse by Vivek Ramaswamy, a Republican presidential candidate, in which he asked other candidates to commit to pardoning Mr. Trump. Five hours later, Mr. Ramaswamy sat for a live Fox News interview with Ms. MacCallum, this time in studio in New York. Youre moving around quickly today, she observed, before he denounced a politicized indictment.

All day long, MSNBC seemed to be looking ahead, displaying a graphic in the lower-right hand corner of its screen, featuring an image of Rachel Maddow, Nicolle Wallace and Joy Reid, billing an 8 p.m. prime-time post-arraignment special.

The news about Mr. Trump has been good for MSNBCs ratings. Last week, the network finished No. 1 among the cable news networks in total viewers in prime-time for the full calendar week the first time it had achieved that in more than two years. The network averaged 1.52 million viewers, narrowly besting Fox Newss 1.51 million viewers and overwhelming CNNs average of 677,000 viewers.

It was also MSNBCs highest viewership during weekday prime-time hours since Mr. Trumps April arraignment.

Read the original:
Trump Pleads Not Guilty in Documents Case: Indictment Live Updates - The New York Times

This transcript was created using speech recognition software. While it has been reviewed by human transcribers, it may contain errors. Please review the episode audio before quoting from this transcript and email transcripts@nytimes.com with any questions.

So how do we introduce this? Do we say, basically, the latest in an occasional series on Trump indictments?

Indictments 2.0.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

From New York Times Opinion, Im Carlos Lozada.

Im Michelle Cottle.

And Im Ross Douthat.

And this is Matter of Opinion.

As you can tell, Lydia is not with us this week. She is off reporting in Chad. And we are appearing a little earlier than usual this week because, as you may have heard, Donald Trump has been indicted, again. And we, your dedicated podcast hosts, read all 49 pages of the federal indictment. After getting through it, I felt like I actually did get some new insight into how Trump operates and what makes him tick. Well get to our takeaways in a second, but first, who wants to give us a rundown of whats actually in the indictment?

Oh, please.

That would be Michelle.

Oh, please allow me to do this.

Michelle, step into the breach.

So for those keeping score at home, again, this is the second criminal indictment. In March, Trump was indicted in New York for allegedly falsifying business records. That was on state charges. This time, its federal. It is for allegedly holding on to lots of classified documents after he left the White House.

So were talking about documents that contain military secrets, intel secrets, nuclear secrets, both regarding the U.S and other nations. Its not just that he held on to these. Its that he allegedly actively conspired to hide them once the Justice Department stepped in with its very polite subpoena, suggesting that it might be best if he handed these over.

So, as the prosecution lays out, he was going through boxes, conspiring with an aide, lying to his own lawyers, and at one point, even suggesting that his lawyers remove evidence that might be extremely unfortunate if it was found. So, as shocking and unbelievable as it is, its also kind of like, yeah, here we go again.

Well, I was interested that you started out, Carlos, saying that you felt like you maybe had learned something new about our glorious, exiled emperor, Donald Trump, because with all due respect to the importance of American national security, this is an absolutely hilarious indictment. I feel like everything, the image of the boxes, the photographs of the boxes piled in the Mar-a-Lago bathroom alone is going to go down in history alongside the photo of Trump with the fast food buffet in the White House as sort of

It has launched 1,000 memes.

But to me, of course, this is the Donald Trump that we know, right? The Donald Trump who wants to keep the boxes because theyre his boxes, has no concept, obviously, of the national interest, sort of national security, apart from his own sort of role as capo di tutti capi at the White House. He doesnt separate sort of the public interest from his own interest. He seems to have also had some scores to settle, right? He held on to documents related to things he was still mad about, which is something very relatable to me. What do you hold on to?

Who among us?

Anyway, so Carlos, whats new here? What did you learn?

Well, I mean, first off, I got flashbacks to a lot of similar past Trump actions, and let me cover that first before I get into what I thought was novel. First, Trump has been very cavalier about national security secrets and classified information in the past. He was when he was president. There was that famous meeting in the Oval Office with Russian officials where he revealed that the United States was getting intelligence from an ally about the Islamic State. So that was very familiar.

The way he talked to his lawyer was extremely familiar. When he tells the lawyer basically, look, take these documents youve found, go back to your hotel, and if you see anything really bad, just kind of pluck them out. He didnt say pluck them out. He made kind of the hand motion of plucking them out. And that reminded me of Michael Cohens memoir about working for Trump he was Trumps fixer and lawyer when he says that Trump would often just kind of imply instructions, leave plausible deniability for kind of illegal acts and kind of like a mob boss.

Its so Cosa Nostra. It really is. Its just like, dont say it. Just imply it.

Except that the one thing that distinguishes Trump from the true mob boss is that he has so many of these conversations himself, right? Like a really effective mob boss, its three layers away. And part of whats fascinating about Trump and this isnt just true with mob bosses, right? When presidents want to do borderline illegal things, which other presidents besides Trump have done, theyre usually trying to insulate themselves or find fixers and so on, and Trump does that, but he also just does it himself. Anyway, but Carlos, Im actually really curious what was surprising?

It gave me some insight into what Trump means when he says that his next administration, his next presidency would be a time for retribution, because the way that he very deliberately used one document to strike back at Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who he felt was getting good press and was trash talking him in sort of books and articles that were coming out, shows you that hes not just careless and reckless with classified information.

He doesnt just like to show hes cool and has access to this cool stuff, but that he is holding on to these things in part to use them, to use them against enemies. And those enemies are not foreign enemies, are not the usual people you think about when you think about national security secrets. Theyre about his own political enemies or domestic enemies. And to me, that question sort of why is he holding on to this was answered in that moment.

I agree with you, Carlos, that, yes, hes not just holding onto them the way he holds on to other souvenirs that he likes to show off, which is obviously always

Fake Time Magazine covers.

Exactly. I mean, that is one reason why hes holding onto them, but yes, he also has scores to settle related to Russiagate, related to, presumably, January 6. I think the Milley example is striking because the reality was that throughout Trumps presidency, his generals constantly put one over on him, right? Trump would announce were pulling out of Syria, and then the generals would Im exaggerating for effect here, but move six submachine guns and one Navy SEAL out of Syria and tell Trump that it had been accomplished, right?

Trump repeatedly said were going to leave Afghanistan, and of course, it only happened under Joe Biden, who, whatever his other faults, is much more likely to actually do things than Donald Trump. So I dont think its a surprise at all that Milley specifically, but also the generals writ large, would be sort of a source of Trumps his unhappy memories of his presidency. I think the question of revenge, though, gets to this question, which is that a lot of Trumps presidency was just about saying things and not doing things, right?

And so, in a way, his idea of revenge is, its an open question whether its about saying things or doing things. Is President Trump in his second term going to successfully prosecute the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or is he just going to write a lot of nasty tweets about him? And this is the question that sort of hangs over the whole Trump phenomenon.

I mean, my view of the indictments is that were sort of moving were assuming that there may be a third indictment in the state of Georgia related to Trumps election interference, his calls to Georgia State officials demanding that they discover extra votes for him. And to me, it seems like in these indictments, were moving through different phases of the Trump presidency.

That the first indictment, the New York indictment, was sort of absurd liberal prosecutorial overreach directed against Trumps sleaziness. And thats one story of the Trump administration. Trump is sleazy. Liberals overreact, violate their own norms in trying to go after him. This one, this indictment is more the sort of Coen brothers burn after reading black comedy, where the stakes are a little more real. Youre actually dealing with national security secrets and so on, but Trump is still fundamentally behaving as a somewhat venal and absurd figure.

And then if we get a third indictment, that will be closer to the genuinely sinister aspect of Trump, where his venal absurdity leads him to be willing to have a constitutional crisis to steal an election he didnt win. So were sort of moving through were recapitulating the whole Trump presidency through these indictments. Its very, very entertaining.

And along the way, were kind of looking at what hes done to the Republican Party because whatever you think of the first indictment in New York, which I was not that crazy about, this one

Not your favorite indictment.

No, my favorite indictment is Georgia. I have ranked my indictments on a little chart in my room, and Im clicking through them

The indictment does not exist yet. Thats your favorite?

Yeah, the indictment to come, but

Thats resistance liberalism at its finest. Its always the next indictment.

But the question here is, how is his party responding, the party that he has captured, that he has traumatized. And so far, if you look at the Republican contenders, with a couple of exceptions, its kind of weak. I mean, Chris Christie has come out swinging. Mitt Romney, in Mitt Romneys usual role, has come out saying this is disgraceful. Asa Hutchinson, who nobody even knows who he is, but hes running for president as well, has said these should be taken seriously.

But everybody else is pretty much like, nah, big deal. Guy stored some documents in his toilet. Does it really matter? I mean, he didnt really sell them to the foreign forces that be, so do we really care? I mean, whats the big deal? Which, I think for the party of law and order and the rule of law, is pretty fantastic.

Its not just the party of law and order and the rule of law. Its also the party that, for a long time, has painted itself as stronger on national security than the Democrats. And thats where looking into the specifics of what these documents are, is vital. I mean, I love burn after reading. But this is more than just like we need to talk about the security of your shit, right? This is US nuclear weapons program information. This is defense capabilities of the United States and other countries, vulnerabilities of the U.S and its allies to attack, plans of retaliation in case of foreign attack. At least from the description in the indictment, this is very high level material.

The description provided by the National Security of States.

Of course. I mean, just of course. And so, again, its not just that Republicans may be hypocritical when it comes to being the party of law and order, but also as the party of national security.

Yes, I mean theyre completely hypocritical. I think thats perfectly obvious. The sort of considered Republican view, to the extent that you can say one is considered, is that once Hillary Clinton was let off the hook for her Homebrew server that effectively created a zone of non-prosecution that encompasses Trump, I think its pretty clear that what Trump did is more prosecutorable. Thats not the right word, but you know what I mean.

Prosecutable.

Prosecutable thats an even better and actually existing word in the sense that Trump was repeatedly told, please dont do this or you will be prosecuted, and continued to do it, which is different.

And continued to scheme very aggressively to make

Yes, very aggressive.

sure it didnt get done.

Aggressive scheming that he did not successfully conceal. So I think this does clearly go further than the Hillary example. But that is sort of the Republican theory of the case, basically, that

But her emails.

Well, I mean, you guys dont think, right? I mean, it was good, right, that Trump didnt prosecute Hillary Clinton for the emails. You guys agree with that, right?

So what youre saying is manslaughter is exactly the same thing as first degree murder.

Interesting.

People are prosecuted for both, though, Michelle.

It is an inexact analogy, Ill grant you. But its like in for a penny, in for a pound. Once youve kind of let something slide, you might as well let everything slide, no matter how hard theyve tried to cover it up or scheme or lie or ignore subpoenas, that sort of thing.

The irony of the Hillary example is that in the indictment, isnt there a moment where Trump is saying, like, gosh, Hillary did it right. She got some lower level person to scrub the 30,000 emails. And yeah, and I should have someone to do that for me.

That was clearly his underlying message, is why arent you doing this for me?

But that, again, gets to his failure as a mob boss, which is that hes always trying to do things himself.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Lets take a quick break here. When we come back, well talk about the consequences for Trump and for the country from this indictment.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

And were back. So these indictments of a former president are, to use a vastly overused word, unprecedented, but so is the fact that this indicted former president is a candidate in the next presidential election. And so far, as Michelle said, theres been sort of a meh reaction among a lot of his challengers. What does that say to the two of you?

I think that with the Republican field, this just sort of cements the reality that the sort of Ron DeSantis strategy is to hope that things like this indictment contribute to a general exhaustion with Trump and a desire not to do it again, rather than some dramatic Republican voters turning on him. And so everything that DeSantis and others who actually want to win the Republican nomination are trying to do is premised on that strategy. But that strategy does involve, essentially, a tap dance where you minimize the significance of what Trump has done.

How is that strategy consistent with DeSantis and others going out and saying that this is this grave miscarriage of justice and weaponization of justice in America, et cetera, et cetera?

Because I think DeSantiss strategy is to say, look, the liberals are out to get Trump, and the liberals are terrible, and we all agree on that. The problem is that Trump is giving them too many opportunities and making it too easy for them. And this is where the deep flaw in the DeSantis strategy may be, that its impossible to make a subtle argument against Donald Trump. But subtly, the point would be, look, arent you a little bit tired of the liberals always having these opportunities? I wont sleep with porn stars. I wont store documents in my bathroom. I wont hire people who I then decide are terrible and so on. Vote for me.

Just reading the indictment gave me a game of Clue kind of vibe. When you mentioned the bathroom, Ross, its the valet with the boxes in the storage room, right? Or its the lawyer in the hotel room with the folder.

With the folder.

It just seems so comical and reckless. Yet at the same time, the indictment is trying to make it extremely serious and premeditated. And one of the things that struck me as different from past investigations is that they try to make very clear that Trump understood what he was doing and had clear knowledge of his wrongdoing, right? At first, it seems like theyre just being annoying. And they cite all the times during the 2016 campaign when Trump was explaining why we have to take classified information seriously. We cant have someone in the Oval Office who doesnt understand the meaning of the word classified.

But in the Mueller report, they bent over backwards to give him the benefit of the doubt. And now thats not the case at all. Theyre making it as clear as they can in the indictment that Trump knew exactly what he was doing. And its more like the January 6 report, which goes out of its way to say Trump knew that he had lost. He knew that everything that was coming up was not making his case, and he kept saying it anyway. So this feels like its kind of learned from Muellers mistakes and adopted more of a January 6 model.

And its not going to make any difference to his voters. So the interesting thing will be, are we going to see a third indictment as this goes along? And will he just be doubling down every time? And I think the answer is yes from everything weve seen. I mean, the great thing about being a demagogue is every time you wind up in trouble with the system, your response is, its because the system is corrupt, and theyre out to get me. So I think this is a very serious case. And I dont actually think it will make much I dont think itll make any political difference.

Well, itll make a difference. I mean, look, these things hurt Trump as a general election candidate, I think, in pretty obvious ways. Multiple indictments does not help you win over the voter who, lets say, swung from Obama to Trump and then back to Biden, right? That voter is not going to be excited about voting for the guy who has been indicted three times.

But another core question, though, is just the logistics of all this. And were not legal experts, but this is also uncharted territory, so even legal experts are uncertain, right? How fast does this prosecution actually happen? It seems like they have Trump dead to rights in a way that would normally occasion some kind of plea. But the politics of pleading guilty seem to be a little dicey for Trump.

But then theres the other question of does this actually yield jail time if convicted, right? I believe that David Petraeus, with his showing classified elements to his mistress scandal, I think he got two years of probation and a fine. Is that correct?

Well, Ive repressed that whole episode.

Well, Trump gives us the highly comedic version of this, but Donald Trump is certainly not the first high placed official to have some trouble with classified documents.

It just never occurred to me that people do jail time.

It doesnt? So that doesnt occur to you, OK. So if he doesnt

It never occurs.

If he thinks hell never do jail time

You mean for this or for any of this?

For this.

Well have to see about

How about your favorite nonexistent indictment?

I will have to see how the Georgia indictment goes, but I actually just dont think for this one, I dont think hes going to see jail time. I think theres vanishingly little chance.

OK, so you think its some kind of Petraeus-style sentence.

Of course, if he winds up convicted

Petraeus, for the record, was fined 40 grand and two years probation.

Yeah, OK, so thats the Petraeus sentence.

Hes not allowed to store sensitive documents in his john anymore, how is that?

OK, OK.

Slap on the wrist type thing.

So a slap on the wrist. So thats not that politically damaging in the end.

Yeah, although he said even if hes convicted, he will stay in this race. What was that he said this past weekend?

Thats the biggest applause line he gets.

Either the Communists win or we win. Its the final battle? Hes just so grand with all of this.

And one of the big moments when he got the most applause when he was speaking in Columbus, Georgia was, theyre not really coming after me. Theyre coming after you. Im just the guy standing between you.

More:
Opinion | Just When You Thought There Was Nothing New to Learn About Donald Trump - The New York Times

Donald Trumphad trouble obtaining counsel for his arraignment in Florida on Tuesday, a legal source tells PEOPLE, after two of his lawyers quit the same day a federal indictment was made public.

The former president is making his first appearance at the Miami federal courthouse Tuesday afternoon to be arraigned, just a few days after he wasindicted by a federal grand jury. In an unsealed, 38-count indictment, prosecutors allege Trump, 76, retained over 100 classified documents with some of the most sensitive topics originating from seven intelligence agencies, including the CIA, NSA and Department of Defense.

Amid the chaos of the indictment being unsealed on Friday, two of Trump's attorneys Jim Trusty and John Rowley announced they were stepping back from their roles.

With his latest legal troubles, Trump appears to be facing another challenge: finding people to represent him in the case.

One of his PAC heads called six law firms in Florida to represent the former president and they all said no, a plugged in legal source tells PEOPLE.

The source adds that Trump "is still looking desperately. It could work to Trumps advantage though to see what this Trump-appointed judge does if he doesnt have adequate legal representation in Florida."

It was ultimately decided that attorneys Todd Blanche, who represented Trump at his April arraignment in a separate criminal case, and Chris Kine, the former solicitor general of Florida, would be by the former president's side in Miami on Tuesday.

Stephanie Keith/Getty

Attorneys may be wary of defending the former president based on the indictment recently unsealed by federal authorities, which lays out the case against him and includes mention of how Trump allegedly told his own attorneys to lie to authorities about federal documents.

The indictment and arraignment come months after the FBI searchedthe former president's Mar-a-Lago home and a subpoena from federal authorities requested that Trump hand over any classified documents he had brought with him after leaving the White House.

According to the indictment, Trump suggested that his attorneys lie to the FBI and the grand jury by telling them he "did not have documents called for by the grand jury subpoena.

Trump also allegedly had his personal valet, Walt Nauta (who is also charged in the case), move classified documents "to conceal them from Trumps attorney, the FBI, and the grand jury.

One of Trumps attorneys told investigators that the former president told his legal team he didnt want anybody looking at his documents and made comments such as, Well what if we, what happens if we just dont respond at all or dont play ball with [the FBI]?

Trump also said, according to the attorney, Wouldnt it be better if we just told them we dont have anything here? ... Well look isnt it better if there are no documents?

Elsewhere in the indictment, the same attorney details how he asked Trump whether he should take one of the classified documents found at Mar-a-Lago and place it in a safe at his hotel room. Trump, the attorney told investigators, made a funny motion as though well okay why dont you take them with you to your hotel room and if theres anything really bad in there, like, you know, pluck it out. And that was the motion that he made. He didnt say that.

Never miss a story sign up forPEOPLE's free daily newsletterto stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories.

Now, the legal source tells PEOPLE, Trump is looking for young lawyers to make himself look better and because he doesnt think older lawyers have the ability to help him in this serious situation."

The source adds: He worries they are too old and dont have the in-depth knowledge of what they can use in his defense. They are basically too removed.

Read more from the original source:
Donald Trump 'Desperately' Looked for Lawyers over the Weekend: Source - PEOPLE

NEW YORK (AP) When former President Donald Trump appears in federal court Tuesday, he will be joined at the defense table by a man well-practiced in standing by his side: his valet turned alleged co-conspirator, Walt Nauta.

Nauta, a Navy veteran who fetched Trumps Diet Cokes as his valet at the White House before joining him as a personal aide at Mar-a-Lago, now finds himself in legal jeopardy alongside the former president. He is accused of moving boxes from the White House at Trumps direction and then lying about it to investigators.

Nauta is the latest in a series of Trump loyalists to face potential jail time after his work for the former president. Michael Cohen, Trumps longtime fixer and attorney, spent more than 13 months in prison over payouts he helped arrange during the 2016 presidential race to keep women from going public about alleged sexual encounters with Trump. Allen Weisselberg, the former chief financial officer at the Trump Organization, just finished serving three months at Rikers Island after pleading guilty to receiving $1.7 million in unreported job perks.

Loyalty to Donald Trump is like First Avenue in Manhattan: one way. History has shown time and again that Donald cares for no one other than himself, said Cohen, who has since turned on Trump and eventually tried to win leniency by cooperating with prosecutors.

Nauta, according to the indictment unsealed Friday, played a crucial role in the alleged scheme with Trump, who is charged with 37 counts of illegally hoarding classified documents and obstructing the governments efforts to get them back.

The government alleges Nauta helped pack Trumps boxes before he left the White House and repeatedly moved them to various rooms at Mar-a-Lago in response to Trumps requests.

At one point, the indictment alleges, Nauta discovered several boxes had fallen over in the storage room, dumping their contents on the floor. Nauta snapped and shared photographs of the scene, which included a document with a visible marking warning it was restricted to only the Five Eyes intelligence alliance of the U.S., U.K., Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

Nauta was key to Trumps investigation early on, with FBI agents grilling him about the movement of boxes inside Mar-a-Lago weeks before serving their search warrant at the property. Like other witnesses close to Trump, though, his answers to law enforcement put him in legal jeopardy.

Although prosecutors say Nauta moved boxes of documents to Trumps residence for his review at his direction, he lied to agents by saying he wasnt aware of that happening, according to the indictment. And when agents asked if he knew where on the property the boxes had been stored, he said, I wish, I wish I could tell you. I dont know. I dont I honestly just dont know.

Nautas attorney, Stanley Woodward, declined to answer questions about the charges or any efforts to get his client to turn on the former president, but confirmed the two would appear together.

Nauta faces six federal charges, including conspiracy to obstruct justice, corruptly concealing a document or record and making false statements. His inclusion in the indictment was met by protest from Trump, who praised Nauta as a wonderful man who had done a fantastic job!

They are trying to destroy his life, like the lives of so many others, hoping that he will say bad things about Trump. He is strong, brave, and a Great Patriot. The FBI and DOJ are CORRUPT! he wrote.

Ty Cobb, the former White House attorney who served as Trumps lawyer during the Russia investigation, said he felt sorry for Nauta, whom he described as a dutiful worker who nods and then does what hes been told to do.

I think Walt is easy prey for the president because this is a dedicated patriot, he said. The proudest moment he ever had was being named valet to the president and sadly the president he got named valet for was Trump.

Cobb recalled Nauta stopping by his home, checking in on him and fetching him club soda when he was working late. He said he remembered how Nauta noticed after dozens of uneaten hamburgers that Cobb didnt eat meat and quietly began substituting salmon for his lunches.

I think its really sad that people were not able to convince him of his misplaced loyalty, Cobb said of Nautas decision not to cooperate with prosecutors. He should be a witness. He shouldnt be a defendant. But you can only dangle that opportunity for so long before you have to shoot. So I think its tragic.

John Dean, the White House counsel who testified against former President Richard Nixon over Watergate and later served four months for obstructing justice, said that he would advise Nauta to turn against Trump.

He could strike a good deal and help put it away for the government, he said on CNN.

As for Cohen, he gave grand jury testimony over the hush money payments that led to the first-ever criminal charges against a former president. Trump was indicted in March in New York on 34 counts of falsifying business records in connection to the payouts to the women who alleged sexual encounters with him. Trump has denied the allegations and any criminal wrongdoing.

Weisselberg, who testified against the Trump Organization at his trial, said on the witness stand that neither Trump nor his family knew about the tax scheme. Prosecutors maintained Trump knew exactly what was going on.

Cohen said Nauta should learn from his own experience that devotion to Trump isnt worth the consequences.

I predict Walt will suffer the exact same outcome as the rest of us who have all been thrown under the bus for the benefit of Donald J. Trump, Cohen said, describing just another Trump acolyte whose life has been turned completely upside down for his misguided loyalty to a man who didnt deserve it.

___

Associated Press writer Eric Tucker in Washington contributed to this report.

Excerpt from:
Walt Nauta is the latest Trump loyalist to face potential jail time after working for him - The Associated Press

Former President Donald J. Trump and his personal aide, Walt Nauta, were ordered by a federal magistrate judge on Tuesday to not discuss their criminal case, even though the two work closely and see each other practically every day.

Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman, who oversaw the hearing, said that any discussions related to the case must go through their lawyers. Mr. Trump and Mr. Nauta have been charged with conspiring to obstruct a federal investigation into Mr. Trumps handling of dozens of classified documents after he left office.

Mr. Nauta did not enter a plea. A lawyer for Mr. Nauta, who is charged with lying to investigators and scheming with Mr. Trump to conceal boxes containing classified documents from the F.B.I. and federal prosecutors, asked for a two-week extension because he needed a local lawyer to sponsor him.

The restrictions which do not apply to other topics of conversation are common for co-defendants in a criminal matter, but they could be particularly challenging to uphold given that Mr. Nautas job is to follow the former president through his days, attending to various needs. To underscore Mr. Nautas proximity to Mr. Trump, Mr. Nauta was riding with him from Mr. Trumps club, Doral, to the courthouse for Tuesdays hearing.

The two men talk frequently and have for most of the last two years as Mr. Nauta first served as a valet in the White House and now serves as an aide to Mr. Trump in his post-presidential life. The former president tends to treat his close personal aides as sounding boards for all manner of topics.

Mr. Trump is hardly known for his restraint under typical circumstances, but especially when told to do something by a person in a position of authority. And an edict not to discuss a case that has consumed Mr. Trumps thinking for weeks poses even more of a challenge.

The same restriction on the defendants communications was also applied to witnesses in the case, a list of which the government is expected to draw up. That poses a similar challenge to the situation with Mr. Nauta: A number of Mr. Trumps advisers, current and former Mar-a-Lago staff members, and even some of his lawyers have been interviewed in the case.

Continued here:
Trump Ordered Not to Discuss Case With Walt Nauta - The New York Times