On Thursday, July 6th, Waltine “Walt” Nauta will be arraigned for his role in the federal classified documents case. And if the sensational story about Nauta’s counsel being harassed and threatened by the Department of Justice (DOJ) is true, we may soon witness a different Trump situation.

If the Department of Justice is truly committed to an open and transparent handling of this case, a journalist’s investigation suggests that a special counsel should be authorized to investigate Jack Smith’s alleged misconduct.

For Trump’s co-defendant, reaching the 6th of July has been a difficult process. Here is what has transpired thus far:

End of June, Stanley Woodward, Nauta’s counsel, informed the court that Nauta had not found an attorney authorized to practice in the South Florida District and requested a 6-day extension. The magistrate judge, Edwin Torres, granted the extension and stated, “You need to try to have that be your drop-dead deadline.”

That day, Woodward explained the situation, stating that Nauta spent eight hours at Newark Liberty International Airport, where numerous flights were delayed due to thunderstorms and flash-flood warnings, and he was unable to get a flight in time for his court appearance.

Torres determined that Nauta had “good cause” for his absence. Jay Bratt, a prosecutor for the Department of Justice, advised that the arraignment should occur prior to the pre-trial hearing scheduled for July 14.

Woodward stated that it was unlikely that Nauta would appear in court on July 6 due to “logistical hurdles” that he did not elaborate on, and that a local counsel would instead appear. Torres stated that Nauta’s legal team would be required to submit documentation regarding his representation on July 5.

Bratt may have attempted to demolish Nauta’s chances of having a counsel, which is outrageous. The government’s case against Trump is now in even greater jeopardy, and Bratt may have attempted to destroy Nauta’s chances of having an attorney.

Trump’s “body man,” as Nauta would come to be known, joined the Navy as a cook and ascended to the rank of culinary specialist; in 2012, the 40-year-old Nauta was allocated to the White House’s food service and developed a strong enough rapport with Trump to become his permanent valet.

The Guardian reports that when Trump’s term concluded in January 2021, Nauta followed him to Florida.

Due to his alleged participation in the classified documents case, Nauta is now facing six federal charges, including conspiracy to obstruct justice, corruptly concealing a document or record, and making fraudulent statements.

The government contends that Nauta transported crates from the White House to Mar-a-Lago at the direction of President Trump, and that he subsequently lied to investigators about moving boxes.

Reports indicate that he is intriguing to observe for a second reason: the entire case against Trump may be thrown out if it is determined that his attorney was intimidated with being unable to advance to judgeship if he continued to represent his client.

“Lost in the breathless headlines over the indictment of President Trump for alleged violations of the Espionage Act is a story that deserves much more attention than it has received thus far: the allegation that a senior official at the Department of Justice attempted to shake down Trump’s co-defendant’s lawyer. It is a scandal in the making that could result in the investigation of senior DOJ officials, which should lead to public congressional hearings, and that might even result in the entire case against Trump being dismissed,” Will Scharf reported for the Federalist on Wednesday, who added:

“Several weeks ago, Nauta’s lawyer, a distinguished, highly-regarded Washington attorney named Stanley Woodward, leveled accusations against senior members of the Department of Justice, including DOJ Counterintelligence Chief Jay Bratt, who is now a part of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team of prosecutors. According to news reports, Woodward claimed in a sealed letter to D.C. District Chief Judge James Boasberg that, in a meeting to discuss Nauta’s case, Bratt indicated that Woodward’s application to be a D.C. Superior Court judge could be impacted if he could not get Nauta to testify against Trump.”

Scharf continued to consider the charges made against the DOJ:

“If true, and I see no reason why Woodward would make such a threat up — and especially no reason why Woodward would risk his career by making such a representation to a federal judge — Bratt’s alleged misconduct could result in heavy sanctions, and is a potential ground for dismissal of the entire case against Nauta and Trump. Depending on what exactly was said, Bratt could even face criminal prosecution himself.”

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon would be well within her rights to consider dismissal, Scharf wrote.

“The conduct claimed is perhaps unprecedented and certainly flagrant, amounting to nothing less than an effort by a high-ranking DOJ official to deprive a defendant of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel through inappropriate and potentially unlawful acts.”

Thursday’s developments in this case will be intriguing to follow.

Depending on the specifics of what was said, Bratt’s behavior may even violate federal criminal statutes.

Scharf opined that Bratt’s actions could constitute attempted witness tampering in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1512(b)(1), attempted federal bribery in violation of 18 U.S.C. 201(b)(3), attempted extortion by a federal official in violation of 18 U.S.C. 872, or attempted subornation of perjury in violation of 18 U.S.C.