Stan Woodward’s Manufactured Scandal about Box A-15

As I have noted, the FBI agents who searched Joe Biden’s garage rearranged the contents of the single box which Robert Hur attempted to prove Joe Biden had deliberately curated when they moved the contents from the beat-up box found in the garage to a new one.

When FBI agents repackaged the contents of the ripped garage box into a new box on December 21, 2022, it appears the order of a few of the materials changed slightly. This chapter discusses in detail below two folders that contained marked classified documents about Afghanistan: the manila “Afganastan” folder and the red “Facts First” folder. It appears the “Afganastan” folder was near the “Facts First” folder in the garage box when agents recovered the box, but the precise original location of the “Afganastan” folder at that time is unknown.

Had Hur been able to prove that the contents of this box had been in Biden’s Virginia home when he mentioned classified records to his ghost writer in 2017, and had Hur been able to disprove that that reference wasn’t to other documents Biden had recently returned to the White House or to the letter Biden sent Obama about Afghanistan, and had Hur been able to rule out Biden simply losing track of those files, and had Hur been able to prove that Biden himself and not staffers had been packing and repacking the box, then the order of the box would have been crucial to proving a case against Biden.

Hur hung much of his theory of willful retention on the other documents found with two folders containing classified Afghan documents.

Which is to say, the FBI’s sloppiness would have doomed the case if there were ever a case to bring.

Now, Walt Nauta attorney Stan Woodward is trying to claim the same with regards to the documents seized from Mar-a-Lago, to great effect among right wing propagandists.

He made the claim in a bid to get a delay in filing his CIPA 5 notices (which describe what classified information he’d need to release at trial).

Following defense counsel’s review of the physical boxes, the unclassified scans of the contents of the boxes, and the documents produced in classified discovery, defense counsel has learned that the cross-reference provided by the Special Counsel’s Office does not contain accurate information. For example, Box A-15 is a box seized from the Storage Room and is identified by the FBI as Item 10. The FBI Index indicates that the classified documents removed from the box (and where a cover sheet was inserted in its place) appear in the order listed below. The contents of the unclassified discovery pertaining to Box A-15 begins at USA-00340924, with the first inserted at the second page of the scan, or Bates labeled USA-00340925:

Per the FBI Index, the first purportedly classified document removed from box A-15 was assigned FBI Index code “ccc,” its classified bates begins at 0079, is one page, and bears the classification marking of “CONFIDENTIAL.” For reference, the physical cover sheet from the actual box for document “ccc” appears as depicted in the below image:

To state the obvious, a “Secret” document is not the same as a “Confidential” document. To be sure, a slip sheet in in Box A-15 does match the one scanned as part of unclassified discovery (at USA-00340925):

However, there is no way for defense counsel to know that the slip sheet depicted above actually corresponds with USA-00340925. And the slipsheet labeled “ccc” does not appear for several hundreds of pages later than the FBI Index indicated it would. Defense counsel’s review of these materials calls into question the likelihood that the contents of the physical boxes remains the same as when they were seized by the FBI on August 8, 2022.

Although the Special Counsel’s Office has indicated it will work with defense counsel to accurately produce an index cross-referencing the purported documents with classification markings produced in classified discovery as against the slip sheets now in the physical boxes, that process will take time. Until that process is complete, however, defense counsel cannot know for certain which documents produced in classified discovery were recovered from boxes in the Storage Room nor where those documents were found in the boxes. Accordingly, defense counsel cannot meaningfully identify, pursuant to CIPA § 5(a), the classified information it anticipates being disclosed at trial.

Jack Smith claims this is all a delay tactic invented because Woodward’s other recent delay tactics fell through.

But he concedes, first of all, that after the search team ran out of cover sheets because there were far more classified documents than they imagined, they used hand-written papers to mark where classified records had been found.

The investigative team used classified cover sheets for that purpose, until the FBI ran out because there were so many classified documents, at which point the team began using blank sheets with handwritten notes indicating the classification level of the document(s) seized. The investigative team seized any box that was found to contain documents with classification markings or presidential records.

And then they made sure that each box was handled separately, to ensure that the contents of each individual box remained separate. They failed, however, to keep all the boxes in the same order.

The Government has taken steps to ensure that documents and placeholders remained within the same box as when they were seized, i.e., to prevent any movement of documents from one box to another. The FBI was present when an outside vendor scanned the documents in connection with the now-closed civil case (see, e.g., Trump v. United States, Case No. 22-81294- CIV-CANNON, ECF No. 91 at 2 (requiring the Government to inventory the property seized from Mar-a-Lago); id. at ECF No. 125 at 3 (requiring the Government to “make available to Plaintiff and the Special Master copies of all Seized Materials” in electronic format by October 13, 2022)), and the boxes were kept separate during that process. When the FBI created the inventories, each inventory team worked on a single box at a time, separated from other teams. And during defense counsel’s review, any boxes open at the same time (and any personnel reviewing those boxes) were kept separate from one another. In other words, there is a clear record of which boxes contained classified documents when seized, and this information has long been in the defense’s possession, as discussed infra at 9

4. Location of Classified Documents Within Each Box

Since the boxes were seized and stored, appropriate personnel have had access to the boxes for several reasons, including to comply with orders issued by this Court in the civil proceedings noted above, for investigative purposes, and to facilitate the defendants’ review of the boxes. The inventories and scans created during the civil proceedings were later produced in discovery in this criminal case. Because these inventories and scans were created close in time to the seizure of the documents, they are the best evidence available of the order the documents were in when seized. That said, there are some boxes where the order of items within that box is not the same as in the associated scans.3 There are several possible explanations, including the above-described instances in which the boxes were accessed, as well as the size and shape of certain items in the boxes possibly leading to movement of items. For example, the boxes contain items smaller than standard paper such as index cards, books, and stationary, which shift easily when the boxes are carried, especially because many of the boxes are not full. Regardless of the explanation, as discussed below, where precisely within a box a classified document was stored at Mar-a-Lago does not bear in any way on Nauta’s ability to file a CIPA Section 5 notice.

3 The Government acknowledges that this is inconsistent with what Government counsel previously understood and represented to the Court. See, e.g., 4/12/24 Hearing Tr. at 65 (Government responding to the Court’s question of whether the boxes were “in their original, intact form as seized” by stating “[t]hey are, with one exception; and that is that the classified documents have been removed and placeholders have been put in the documents”).

While I think it ridiculous that the FBI hasn’t managed to keep boxes straight from either Trump or Biden, Smith’s argument — that this is entirely pointless to Nauta’s defense — should be sufficient. Unlike Biden and Trump, Nauta is not alleged to have curated any boxes. He is not accused of willfully retaining classified documents at all.

So the order of documents within the particular boxes is meaningless to his defense (though Trump, who has asked to file a sur-reply piling on, might make great use of this argument if this ever goes to trial).

Plus, it’s worth noting which box Woodward is focused on, A-15. That box happens to have, easily, the biggest number of classified documents in it, 32; a third of the items originally in the box were marked classified. And probably 11 of them, those marked Confidential, have since been declassified and provided in unclassified discovery.

In total, the FBI seized 77 documents with classification markings from the 12 boxes that were seized from the Storage Room, but of those 77 documents, 26 have now been produced in unclassified discovery.

No documents already declassified would be pertinent to a CIPA filing.

In other words, Woodward has selected a box that includes both official and handwritten slip sheets, had no Top Secret documents, but a lot of less classified documents.

Something (he knows from his Jan 6 crime scene cases) a shameless propagandist will wail about.

But not something substantive to Nauta’s case.

image_print
34 replies
  1. Tetman Callis says:

    Poor training, poor execution, or poor supervision — or some combination of the three — on the part of the FBI. It’s Document Control and Management 101, in matters both civil and criminal, that you keep the evidentiary documents in the precise order in which you obtain them, and you memorialize that order with an indexing system at your earliest opportunity, which should be, whenever possible, the first thing that is done with the documents, so that if they do become disordered, which is almost certain to happen, the original order can be determined with authenticatable proof.

    • emptywheel says:

      Right. And they’re claiming BOTH that the scan ordered by Cannon IS that index and also that it’s not but it’s the closest thing.

  2. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Stan Woodward seems more interested in coordinating defenses with Trump than in trying to make them work for his clients. A normal alternative to delay would be a plea deal. The Feds don’t want Nauta, they want his boss. Or Stan could actually do legal work, like submitting the required documents by the already belated time line. Sounds too normal for a Trump lawyer.

      • Skippy the Wonder Mule says:

        some of these conversations belong in a textbook about “Projection”

      • Sussex Trafalgar says:

        After Stanley Woodward co-founded his own law business with Stan Brand in 2020, he put himself into the position of being able to pick and choose his clients.

        That’s one of the benefits of one owning his or her own business, i.e., unlike an employee, an owner gets to choose who he or she wants to do business with at any time.

        Woodward has chosen to represent the following people: J-6 Defendant Oath Keeper Meggs, Trump Aide Scavino, Trump Aide Patel, J-6 Defendant Samsel, Trump Admin. Staffer Klein, Trump Administrator Navarro, Trump Valet Nauta and Trump Mar-a-Lago Aide Taveras.

        All of those Woodward clients listed above are scumbags and lack credibility. Many are brainwashed liars. And one or two are now convicted criminals.

        Woodward lost all credibility the moment he chose to represent these individuals and take their money which, more than likely, came from Trump, or one of Trump’s PACs or through one of Trump’s MAGA allies.

        Woodward didn’t have to lose his credibility by choosing to represent these individuals and accept their money, but he did.

        Woodward is no different than Roy Cohn, another greedy attorney who lacked credibility and who worked for criminals. Cohen was disbarred for his antics.

        And no, Woodward doesn’t have to think or believe the same as me.

        One’s political beliefs never influenced whether or not I did business with him or her. I could care less about political affiliations.

        One’s criminal activity did influence my decision.

        Great law businesses also strengthen and enhance their reputations by choosing who not to do business with, too.

        Criminal defense attorneys who own their own law business do not have to accept every case presented to them.

    • dopefish says:

      Unlikely. There’s nothing new about the 2 photos. Pages 13-14 of the original indictment described what those photos likely are:

      31. On December 7, 2021, NAUTA found several of TRUMP’s boxes fallen and their contents spilled onto the floor of the Storage Room, including a document marked “SECRET//REL TO USA, FVEY,” which denoted that the information in the document was releasable only to the Five Eyes intelligence alliance consisting of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. NAUTA texted Trump Employee 2, “I opened the door and found this…” NAUTA also attached two photographs he took of the spill. Trump Employee 2 replied, “Oh no oh no,” and “I’m sorry potus had my phone.” One of the photographs NAUTA texted to Trump Employee 2 is depicted below with the visible classified information redacted. TRUMP’s unlawful retention of this document is charged in Count 8 of this Indictment.

      Rather than relying on Newsweek’s take, you can read SCO’s filing here. The top of page 3 describes how “one of the phones contained two unique images with classification markings”, presumably these “unique images” were the photographs Nauta took of the spill.

      • Krisy Gosney says:

        Anyway, Newsweek is stressing that Smith is going to try to prove Nauta shared at least one of the photos which they say will increase his criminal exposure. Again, I’m not relying on Newsweek obviously. That’s why I’m here at Emptywheel. And have been around since FDL.

        • synergies says:

          I apologize if I’m whatever but I’m 73 and in the tech dinosaur whatever. I do research (look up) things I don’t know. So I googled FDL, acronyms, abbreviations, etc. The best I could find is “Failure Derivation Location.” Hope I add some humor in these times : ) I truly hope you’ll reply what FDL is. TY

        • synergies says:

          Ah, yes I remember and Kevin Gosztola at Shadowproof. I like Kevin, intelligent. It’s remarkable how much of forward thought educating news is buried in the mainstream. FDL should have immediately been recognized in a simple search. Good ol Google who ain’t so good. It ALWAYS (my gen saying) blows my mind! It’s remarkable that they think we don’t notice.

          Adding to my hoped for humor: P.S. I also haven’t a clue what Failure Derivation Location is but I live in (West) Hollywood…

          P.S.S. TY BMAZ

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          A progressive blog that had a good run from about 2004 – 2015. It was succeeded by Shadowproof.com, which maintained legacy posts from FDL. It, too, shut down, in 2023.

          Marcy posted at FDL between starting this blog and at her former site. She did a lot of her reporting about the Scooter Libby trial when at FDL.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firedoglake

    • emptywheel says:

      He’s not going to flip on Trump anytime soon — certainly not before the election.

      The picture is important because it shows he should have known he was sending classified docs around. But they chose early not to charge him with withholding classified docs. They could have!

  3. dopefish says:

    CNN has a story up about Waltine Nauta’s testimony to the grand jury that ultimately left the FBI no choice but to search Mar-a-Lago. Apparently he told the grand jury that he picked some boxes off the top of the pile and took them to Trump for review, but at some point Trump was like “okay, thats it” and he refused to consider giving any more boxes back to NARA, and didn’t review the contents of any other boxes.
    https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/07/politics/mar-a-lago-trump-nauta-classified-documents/index.html

    Trump seems to have seriously underestimated what would happen. He tried to get NARA to go away by sacrificing some of his souvenir collection, but he gave them back 15 boxes haphazardly containing over a hundred classified documents when the gov’t already knew he had many more boxes of documents in his possession.

    • Liam_08MAY2024_2202h says:

      How did CNN get the Grand Jury testimony?

      [Welcome to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We have adopted this minimum standard to support community security. Because your username is far too short and common (there are more than one Liam here) it will be temporarily changed to match the date/time of your first known comment until you have a new compliant username. Thanks. /~Rayne]

  4. Rugger_9 says:

    There are a couple of things here. It seems as though the idea to decouple Nauta’s case from Defendant-1’s case is the ticket to moving Nauta’s case along. IANAL, but unless these are severed from each other, that decoupling cannot work. What Nauta says / did affects what Defendant-1 can be found guilty of. I would also say that if SC Smith does succeed in decoupling, Nauta will eventually flip because he will be on an island and as noted above it will not be before the election. Nauta is a true believer.

    As for bmaz’s comment on credibility, I would agree with him about Woodward, who is trying anything he can. Judge Cannon on the other hand with her paperless rulings and liberal use of the scheduling docket to help the defense delay the process has used up all of her mulligans regarding bias. I suspect the 11th Circuit will be stepping in but that event will also cause some non-zero delay.

  5. earlofhuntingdon says:

    The execrable Ashley Parker is telling MSNBC hosts how much Donald Trump “deeply cared” about Melania and how she would react to news of his alleged sexual conduct outside of wedlock. Delivered by Parker with a straight face.

    Note to Ashley: multiple credible allegations of adulterous sex tend to undercut Trump’s claim that he deeply cared about Melania – more than himself or his campaign. The Access Hollywood tape, in fact, suggests that a reputation for having anonymous sex at will with attractive woman was part of the persona he wanted to created – regardless of whom he was married to.

    The important legal issue is not whether Trump had adulterous sex. It’s that Trump had more than several encounters with Daniels and has serially lied about it, including creating false business and tax records – to protect his campaign – and perhaps to protect how much he would owe Melania or how many things he could compel her to do under their prenuptial agreement.

    • Rugger_9 says:

      At the infamous 2006 Lake Tahoe tryst Defendant-1 was sooooo concerned about Melania that he did not even mention her nor warn Daniels to be quiet. It’s in the testimony today in NYC. See the 8:59 AM PDT update. Lots of cringey details which really point to an ongoing professional relationship post-tryst (with ‘extra benefits’ attempted). However, Justice Merchan is busy tamping down on the more sordid stuff like the boxers, etc.

      https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/5/7/2239217/-Live-coverage-Stormy-Daniels-takes-the-stand-in-Donald-Trump-s-trial

    • Matt___B says:

      Well, NYT has Maggie Haberman, so…WaPo needs their female equivalent and Ashley seems to be it.

      Speaking of “execrable”, MSNBC had a short clip this morning with Joe Kahn (interpreted by Ben Smith of Semafor) defending NYT’s “neutrality” re favoring/not favoring Biden/Trump in their coverage. They continue to re-define “both sides” as “neutrality” which is sooo tiresome..

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTvNw9x-NwU

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        Whatever the NYT is doing, it’s using straw men as guideposts. Its coverage of Biden and Trump is about as neutral as not sending guns to Ethiopia or Spain in the mid-1930s. It inherently favors the Fascist side.

    • bmaz says:

      Lol, who cares what Dorsey does? And Rayne favors the worthless and fairly much unusable Mastodon. So, I take all that with a giant grain of salt.

      • P J Evans says:

        Says the guy who doesn’t use it. (It’s usable. And better than the sky place.

  6. The Old Redneck says:

    A defendant can always challenge the chain of custody and allege sloppy evidence-gathering. Trump and Nauta were always going to do that anyway. But the order of material in the boxes now matters a whole lot less than the order of material at the time of seizure. As long as the original “associated scans” accurately sequenced the material within each box, this is a nothing burger.

    The real issue is whether Cannon will use this as a pretext to kick the can further down the road. Based on her previous decisions and behavior, the odds of that are pretty high.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Cannon has indefinitely kicked her can down the road, having set no trial date or rescheduled defendants’ May 20th discovery deadlines.

        • The Old Redneck says:

          Academically that’s possible. But if things got so bad that the DOJ could take a justifiable writ of mandamus (seeking an order from the 11th Circuit requiring her to set the trial), we’d be well past the point of having a trial by November anyway.

Comments are closed.