Newly released documents indicate that the FBI tracked the phone location of Donald Trump's personal assistant to demonstrate that he concealed boxes of presidential documents before federal agents conducted a raid on Trump's Florida estate.
In a filing submitted to Judge Aileen Cannon on Thursday, prosecutors sought the redaction of multiple documents, shedding light on the scope of the investigation into Walt Nauta, Trump's former personal assistant.
The filing reveals that agents acquired search warrants in Washington, D.C., for Nauta's “Verizon cell site data” and his “Google location data.”
The cell-site data would indicate the phone towers closest to Nauta's phone on the days he allegedly concealed documents at Mar-a-Lago. Likewise, the Google location data, retrieved from Nauta's phone, would reveal his whereabouts during the purported crime.
As outlined in the filing, other search warrants that prosecutors seek to redact encompass Nauta's work Apple iCloud, his Microsoft email, as well as his car and phones.
The prosecutors also seek to redact an unexecuted search warrant for Nauta's residence and phone. However, no explanation was provided for why the search warrant was not carried out.
Other documents that prosecutors seek to redact include Nauta's FBI interviews and the grand jury testimony related to his case.
In their filing, prosecutors stated their intention to redact the search warrants to prevent the identification of the FBI agents involved due to concerns about potential threats.
In Thursday's filing, Jack Smith conveyed to Cannon his opposition to the public release of the names or job titles of witnesses, expressing concerns that they might become targets of a hate campaign. Smith emphasized that witnesses in the classified-documents case had received threats.
He further underscored that the government's proposed redactions were minimal, covering only portions of 13 out of 268 pages of briefing. Smith highlighted the articulated threats faced by witnesses in the case and the potential for further threats if names and identifying information were disclosed.
Smith continued to argue that there were few criminal prosecutions where the government had disclosed such a substantial amount of material, particularly in circumstances where the potential for threats and intimidation to government witnesses was genuine and substantiated.
