The “BOMBSHELL” accusation against Justice Department counterintelligence section chief Jay Bratt by Trump valet Walt Nauta’s lawyer Stanley Woodward appears to be pretty much bullshit going by the Guardian’s reporting citing a letter written by Woodward on the situation.

As the Guardian explains it, it’s common practice for prosecutors to do intel on defense lawyers prior to meetings and Bratt’s team did just that, finding that Woodward had applied for a judgeship in the Washington DC superior court. According to Woodward’s letter, Bratt brought it up during a meeting last November following Nauta’s testimony with Bratt also saying something like he didn’t think Woodward was a “Trump guy” and that “he would do the right thing” which Woodward apparently took as some kind of shakedown to induce him to push Nauta into cooperating.

Which sounds bad until you remember that a federal prosecutor has no influence whatsoever on the selection process for DC municipal courts, or that when Bratt said that along with “not a Trump guy” he probably meant not the kind of fuckup who would risk his law license and potentially his freedom by doing something stupid like Trump lawyers Evan Corcoran, Chrisitna Bobb, Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Jenna Ellis, and so on and so forth. Certainly not if he wants to be a judge. And even if Bratt walked up to if not crossed a line in one exchange, is that supposed to implode the whole case against the fat orange fuck who stole classified documents and probably showed them to people?