Trump's Valet Was Promised A Pardon If He Lied To The FBI

According to testimony from a witness to federal prosecutors, Donald Trump's valet and indicted co-conspirator Walt Nauta was allegedly promised a presidential pardon if he lied to the FBI for the former president (if Trump won reelection.) It wasn't immediately clear from the information released this week if the person who promised the pardon was Trump himself or another member of his team, but that doesn't change the fact that this is now reaching conspiracy levels. Ring of Fire's Farron Cousins explains what happened.

Check out our merch by visiting our store

Subscribe to our podcast

Become a member today!

Support us by becoming a monthly patron on Patreon, and help keep progressive media alive!

Spread the word! LIKE and SHARE this video or leave a comment to help direct attention to the stories that matter. And SUBSCRIBE to stay connected with Ring of Fire's video content!

Support Ring of Fire by subscribing to our YouTube channel

Be sociable! Follow us on:

*This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos.

A treasure trove of court filings with the Mar-a-Lago documents case were unsealed this week by Judge Eileen Cannon. And one of the things that we learned was that Donald Trump's valet and indicted co-conspirator Walt Nada, had actually been promised, according to one witness, a presidential pardon, if he just lied to the FBI about all the documents, which of course Walt Nada did in fact lie to the FBI, according to the indictments against him. Uh, it's alleged obviously he has not been convicted of that, but that is one of the charges against him. And the court filing show that at least one witness that we know of told federal prosecutors that he, Walt Nta was promised a presidential pardon, if he lies to the FBI. And of course, if Donald Trump wins the election in 2024, because I don't think Biden's gonna pardon him. So it would've had to have been Trump.

Right? But here's the thing, this witness was not, uh, recorded, requested to not be recorded. It was somebody that worked in the White House with Donald Trump, and after he left office, made, uh, at least one trip to Mar-a-Lago, uh, the report says that there were multiple trips to Mar-a-Lago, at which this witness said, you need to give the documents back. Do not give them a quote, noble reason to indict you. So this is somebody very close to Donald Trump. We do not know the name, but they heard that Nada had been promised a presidential pardon? So the big question here, because this was not revealed in the court documents, is who made the promise? Did Donald Trump encourage his own employee to lie to the FBI? Because if he did, that's an additional set of criminal charges. Did he promise personally to give him the presidential pardon?

Because if so, that would also be a form of coercion, which is illegal, or was it simply somebody else in Donald Trump's orbit speaking to Nada who said, listen, if you lie to the FBI for the guy, you know, he's gonna pardon you in 2024. I'll make sure that he does. There is a world of difference between those two things. If Trump is the one that made the promise, if Trump is the one that encouraged the lying to the FBI, his goose is cooked, if it were somebody else, not so much, right? They're not necessarily a player in this, so probably not gonna be criminal charges against that individual. You can give somebody bad advice, and if you're not in a position of power over them, it's not viewed as coercion or even witness tampering. That's just bad advice from a moron. But if you are somebody like

Donald Trump who is in that position of authority, somebody who also has a lot on the line here, that is coercion, that is tampering, that is intimidation, that is all kinds of things. So unfortunately, the end result here is that we got more information that unfortunately leaves us needing even more information before we can make a determination of what this actually means. So we got a lot, but unfortunately it's not enough. But what we do know is apparently the prosecutors have a hell of a lot more against Donald Trump than we previously knew.