Jack Smith Wants to Block FBI Interviews in Trump Case

Special counsel Jack Smith filed a motion in court asking a judge to block multiple FBI interviews and seal the names of potential witnesses in former President Donald Trump’s classified documents case.

The special prosecutor was replying to a court brief filed by Walt Nauta, a co-defendant in the case. He was charged along with the former president and his Mar-a-Lago manager, Carlos de Oliveira, in the case, and all have pleaded not guilty.

President Trump is facing 40 federal charges over allegations that he kept classified materials after he left the White House in 2021 and allegedly obstructed officials from having them returned to the government.

Grand jury testimony and other FBI interviews should be entirely blocked from public view, Mr. Smith’s prosecutors added. In the filing, his team listed more than 20 sets of court documents that have to be completed sealed, redacted, or completely redacted.

Those materials have to be redacted due to “witness safety” and because they also contain the names of potential witnesses as well as references to other “non-public potential” government witness testimony and names,” the filing said, in part.

Related Stories

Meanwhile, they are seeking to censor search warrants for Mr. Nauta’s phones as well as the names of the FBI agents who carried out the unprecedented raid targeting the former president’s home in mid-2022.

Recently, the Smith team wrote that Mr. De Oliveira and Mr. Nauta shouldn’t be provided access to classified materials relevant to the case. On Tuesday, Judge Aileen Cannon wrote that the special prosecutor met the burden to keep it sealed from the two, while the former president will still have access.

“The Special Counsel has made a sufficient showing that Defendant Nauta and De Oliveira’s personal review of the materials produced in classified discovery would not be ‘relevant and helpful’ to their defense,” the judge wrote in an order.

Her court is “without any reasonably concrete example of a classified document, or documents, the substance of which appear helpful to either Defendant Nauta or De Oliveira in defending against the … charges against them,” she added.

In a more significant motion filed earlier this month, meanwhile, President Trump’s lawyers argued to Judge Cannon that the case should be dismissed because he had presidential immunity that protects him from prosecution.

His lawyers wrote that the classified documents charges turn on his alleged decision to designate the papers as “personal” records under the Presidential Records Act, and argued that he cannot be prosecuted since that was an “official act” made while he was still in the White House.

And in mid-February, the former president appeared at a Florida court for a closed-door hearing to discuss the federal procedures for handling classified evidence in the trial, which is currently scheduled to begin on May 20.

In mid-February, the former president appeared at a Florida court for a closed-door hearing to discuss the federal procedures for handling classified evidence in the trial, which is currently scheduled to begin on May 20. “Defense counsel shall be prepared to discuss their defense theories of the case, in detail, and how any classified information might be relevant or helpful to the defense,” she wrote when scheduling the hearing.

Earlier this year, President Trump’s lawyers argued that prosecutors should be forced to disclose all information related to what they have previously described as “temporary secure locations” at Mar-a-Lago and other Trump properties. They suggested that that information would refute allegations that Mar-a-Lago was not secure and would show that the Secret Service had taken steps to secure the residences.

Judge Cannon set a trial date of May 20, 2024, though she has signaled that it may be pushed back.

Other Cases

In addition to the Florida case, President Trump faces charges in Atlanta and Washington related to his efforts after the 2020 presidential election. He’s also charged in state court in New York in connection with payments during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Also in New York, a judge in his civil fraud trial recently ruled that he has to pay a fine of $355 million, arguing that he defrauded investors and banks over the years by allegedly over-inflating his net worth and property values. The former president has denied wrongdoing and appealed the case earlier this week.

In a statement issued through a spokesperson, Trump lawyer Alina Habba addressed only the appeal itself, saying: “We trust that the Appellate Division will overturn this egregious fine and take the necessary steps to restore the public faith in New York’s legal system.”

The Appellate Division could either uphold Judge Arthur Engoron’s verdict, reduce or modify the penalty, or overturn the decision entirely. If the former president is unsuccessful at the Appellate Division, he can ask the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, to consider taking his case.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.