•

A key witness in the Trump classified docs case changed his testimony after switching lawyers, special counsel says

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/witness-trump-docs-case-changed-testimony-switching-lawyers-special-co-rcna101308

The man identified as "Trump Employee 4" had been represented by Stanley Woodward, who was being paid by the former president's Save America PAC.

A key witness in the Trump classified docs case changed his testimony after switching lawyers, special counsel says

A key witness against former President Donald Trump and his two co-defendants in the Mar-a-Lago documents case recanted previous false testimony and provided new information implicating the defendants after he switched lawyers, special counsel Jack Smith’s office said in a new court filing.

Yuscil Taveras, the director of information technology at Mar-a-Lago, Trump's club in Palm Beach, Florida, changed his testimony last month about efforts to delete security camera video at the club after he changed from a lawyer paid for by Trump’s Save America PAC to a public defender, Tuesday's filing says.

63 comments

Lifecoach5000

•

Is it odd that he switched to public defender instead of acquiring his own representation?

mrbubblesort

•

Well considering Trump has a long history of not actually paying his employees, wouldn't be surprised if this guy couldn't afford it

krayj

•

On review of all the additional evidence and testimony, it became obvious to the prosecution that the key witness ("Trump Employee 4" - revealed by NBC News to be "Yuscil Taveras" - IT Director at Mar-a-Lago) in question had perjured himself in earlier grand jury testimony and that it was a conflict of interest for that witness to be represented by by the same attorney (Stanley Woodward) representing other involved clients.

Prosecutors asked for a hearing on the representation issue before James Boasberg, the chief US District Court judge in Washington DC who oversaw the grand jury investigation.

Judge Boasberg had a federal defender available to advise Taveras if requested, and Taveras did opt to change lawyers after he learned he was being investigated on suspicion of making false statements in previous grand jury testimony.

So, TL/DR: he went with the public defender out of the immediacy and need for independent counsel and the only option available at that moment was the public defender who was pre-emptively made available by the Judge himself.

I will speculate that he will be acquiring his own representation going forward.

Madison420

•

Attorneys will jump on it, their name attached to a case like this can make and break careers.

utopianfiat

•

He probably can't afford it

tburkhol

•

He's the "IT guy" at a hotel. That doesn't scream high net worth to me.

Mdotaut801

•

Zron

•

You do have to have money in the first place.

Trump hates paying people.

Also, this is a case that is likely to take a lot of time and require a lot of attorney time. A public defender is likely a more sound financial decision even for someone with a reasonable amount of savings. Why go into crippling debt defending yourself from a former president, when a public defender will do it on the tax payer dime.

Mdotaut801

•

NatakuNox

•

Probably was offered immunity, but his Trump paid lawyer said no. So why spend money on a lawyer when you can get a public defender for free and then take the deal?

hoshikarakitaridia

•

Idk but possibly related: I've heard that there are a good number of times you should prefer public defender to paid representation.

moistclump

•

Ohh. Why’s that?

Hazzia

•

SkybreakerEngineer

•

That's called a conflict of interest and possibly suborning perjury. That's the kind of thing that would get you disbarred, if the Bar actually cared about such things.

Make Attorneys Get Attorneys

Drivebyhaiku

•

Pretty sure Trump has scared off any lawyers who are not terribly crooked at this point. He's got kind of a history of throwing any halfway honest ones under the bus or not listening to their recommendations. He sounds like a nightmare client.

hoshikarakitaridia

•

The main thing I've heard is that public defense is offen local to the court house and therefore has a feel for tone, procedure and manner. This might give them a few sympathy points, and even though obv the case itself is far more important, this makes a few things easier still.

perviouslyiner

•

HawlSera

•

So there's an attorney recommendinf perjury? Not very cashmoney of him...

markr

•

Perjury to advantage his other client. There has to be a law against lawyers doing that.

HawlSera

•

I mean that sounds like fraud to me, is there a form of malpractice that applies to Legal cases? Like a lawyer version of medical malpractice.

TheAndrewBrown

•

I think Kim gets sued for something similar in Better Call Saul. It’s almost definitely something you can get disbarred over.

Madison420

•

Conflict of interest, it's an ethical violation and at times grounds for mistrial by willfully ineffective counsel.

iturnedintoanewt

•

Shit... He can mistrial himself out of this?

Madison420

•

No, both clients knew or should have known and thus no conflict of the lawyer has the correct paperwork provided.

autotldr

•

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Taveras decided to change lawyers after he learned he was being investigated on suspicion of having made false statements in his previous grand jury testimony in Washington, D.C., the court filing says.

"When Trump Employee 4 testified before the grand jury in the District of Columbia in March 2023, he repeatedly denied or claimed not to recall any contacts or conversations about the security footage at Mar-a-Lago," the filing says.

By late June, prosecutors had "advised Trump Employee 4 (through Mr. Woodward) that he was the target of a grand jury investigation in the District of Columbia into whether he committed perjury."

Prosecutors asked for a hearing on the representation issue before James Boasberg, the chief U.S. District Court judge in Washington, D.C., who oversaw the grand jury investigation.

Shelli Peterson — the first assistant federal public defender in Washington, whom the special counsel's filing refers to — declined to comment Tuesday night.

The original article contains 717 words, the summary contains 196 words. Saved 73%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

Dagwood222

•

Making Attorneys Get Attorneys.

Not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure telling your client to lie is a No-No!

AA5B

•

You could argue he wasn’t the guy’s lawyer

who was being paid by the former president's Save America PAC

A lawyer represents whoever is the paying his bills.

Dagwood222

•

Like I said, I'm not a lawyer. Still pretty sure that elling anyone to lie on the stand is a No-No.

aelwero

•

So instead of being bought, he's being extorted? Yeah that totally makes the current version of his story more valid... Throw this motherfucker off the witness stand and send him on his way, he's either full of shit or he's full of shit...

Are we planning on indicting everyone who testifies for the defense on fraud charges? Is that how this shit works now? Tell me how this is an improvement over trump buying witnesses or slipping religious fervor inducing drugs into their food or whatever ye fuck he's doing to get people to back up his bullshit?

Indicting witnesses isn't the fucking high road. Fuck trump, but fuck this bullshit too. This is exactly the sort of shit that "defund the police" types bemoan when it's done to a nobody, but hey, as long as we get trump, it's all fucking good... it's fucking not good...

teft

•

If the prosecution comes to a witness for the defense and says are you sure you want to stick with your story we have evidence that the opposite happened, that isn't extortion. That is giving a witness the chance to tell the truth.

TropicalDingdong

•

I think by extortion he meant the real and legal consequences of breaking the law.

vzq

•

The whole point of being a witness is that you’re not supposed to lie, and if you lie you can be prosecuted for it. What’s even the point of the concept of perjury otherwise?

Th4tGuyII

•

It is, and you should... most of the time.

There are times where it is beneficial to let a witness know that you know they're lying, giving them a chance to flip before you fry them, as the info they're holding onto may very well be worth more than eliminating them as a witness entirely via perjury.

deegeese

•

This is how criminal conspiracies work.

The little guys are asked by the big guy to lie, but some flip to save their own skin.

Stop trying to normalize Trump’s lawlessness.

HawlSera

•

These mafia tactics don't belong in politics. I'm glad they recognized the guy was being forced to perjury.

TerryMathews

•

That's a lot of words to be wrong, friend-o.

Saying "Are you sure you don't want to revise your testimony, because we have factual evidence that it's false and that may lead to an indictment for perjury." isn't extortion, it's allowing this guy to not loyalty his way into a felony.

Imagine, the police/prosecution use their discretion and don't throw the book at someone and idiots still take exception to it

aelwero

•

If the prosecution believes that perjury should be prosecuted, this mans second testimony should have put him in prison, because he either committed perjury previously, or is committing it now.

That's where I step off the bus and say "hey, this is fucked". That's the line for me. You can't base an indictment off testimony that someone made under the auspices of that.

I wildly disagree with it at the bottom too... the "let the little fish testify" isn't better, and I don't support that shit either. This is a little worse though... this fish is either lying or has lied, under oath. He's factually proven that he's committed perjury... If the prosecution is threatening him with perjury, they basically own him, because he's factually demonstrably committed perjury based simply on the existence of two opposing testimonies...

So "say this, or go to prison". That's fucking extortion.

Natanael

•

But if they DON'T say anything he WILL go to prison for perjury anyway as they can already prove he's lying, the only thing this does is give him a chance to avoid prison. That's like literally the opposite of extortion, because the threat isn't too hurt him, the "threat", if anything, is to do nothing and let him go to jail. "If you tell the truth we will help you" isn't extortion.

aelwero

•

It's not "if you tell the truth"... It's "if you say what we say is the truth"...

If there's proof that what he's going to testify to now is the truth, what the fuck do they need his testimony for? They have proof of this ostensible "truth" you're claiming they want him to say, so why is it necessary to have a known liar testify?

This is bullshit. I'm not fucking buying this. You can't testify to something directly in opposition to a prior testimony and have any value whatsoever, period.

TerryMathews

•

This is bullshit. I'm not fucking buying this. You can't testify to something directly in opposition to a prior testimony and have any value whatsoever, period.

Sure you can. Especially if he can bring receipts related to why he was lying. Threats, promises of compensation, etc. Is it ideal that he lied under oath? Of course not. And it opens a giant door for the defense to challenge all of his testimony but it's not irrecoverable.

Much as you seem to wish it was.

aelwero

•

"And it opens a giant door for the defense to challenge all of his testimony but it's not irrecoverable."

I just simply don't agree on the irrecoverable part :) or more accurately, I don't believe it's worth the effort to "recover" evidence from a shitbag. Dudes a testimony for sale, nothing he has to say has any value as truth.

"Much as you seem to wish it was."

I don't wish that (I don't really care much outside of wishing the word trump would gain some fucking obscurity... it's like a really bad penny), I just don't like that this entire process is pretty clearly a matter of politics rather than justice. It's a political headhunt, and it's very reminiscent of pre-collapse Soviet government. We're trying to fill the gulags up in this motherfucker. I'm not really speaking in support of the defense, Im speaking against the witch hunt.

TerryMathews

•

I just don't like that this entire process is pretty clearly a matter of politics rather than justice. It's a political headhunt, and it's very reminiscent of pre-collapse Soviet government. We're trying to fill the gulags up in this motherfucker. I'm not really speaking in support of the defense, Im speaking against the witch hunt.

You have really jumped the shark, friend. This is anything but a politically-motivated protection. And your allusion to Soviet Russia is comical, in a world where Putin blew up a rival last month.

Trump brought us as close to the collapse of American democracy as we have been since the Civil War, and arguably closer. It's hard to deny there were two plots to replace Mike Pence before the election was certified: a subgroup of the protesters wanted to hang him, and part of the Secret Service detail was ready to escort/detain him away from the capital. They didn't even try to hide it - Grassley said he planned on presiding over the Senate. They walked it back, but it happened.

If this were truly a political witch-hunt, Trump would be either incarcerated for life already, or dead and buried.

Natanael

•

Because if he said he wasn't at X but they can prove he was at X that doesn't mean they can prove everything he saw and heard there, but on the other hand they can get him to testify he was there and tell what he saw and heard there with that proof of his presence included.

That doesn't mean his new testimony will be considered fully trustworthy by the court, but it does mean they can now submit his story into evidence when they previously couldn't.

Then they can additionally ask others about details in his testimony to uncover further evidence and try to prove their case.

elbarto777

•

If you're indicted and you did nothing wrong, then what's the problem?

utopianfiat

•

I did everything right and they indicted meeeeeeh

kiku123

•

I don't understand. Isn't the way not to be suspected of perjury just not to lie to the court in the first place? It doesn't seem like extortion to me.

I think this was due to the conflict of interest by the old lawyer, who probably told this witness, "Just say you didn't see anything or don't remember and you'll be fine."

It turned out it wasn't fine and the guy found a new lawyer. This new lawyer is being a zealous advocate and trying to keep this guy out of jail.

AfricanExpansionist

•

Exactly! The lawyer was paid for by Trump! The lawyer was never acting in this guy's best interests.

breakingcups

•

Tell me how this is an improvement over trump buying witnesses or slipping religious fervor inducing drugs into their food or whatever ye fuck he's doing to get people to back up his bullshit?

It's simply about the truth. Merely stating the truth "Are you sure that is going to be your sworn testimony because we have evidence that proves otherwise and lying to a court of law will get you jail time" is not extortion. Not even close.

half_built_pyramids

•

Lol being extorted.

We should go and give those justice department employees the courage to do the right thing. Just march over there and give them the courage. They just need fucking courage to do the right thing. Someone fucking give them the courage.

omgarm

•

Sounds like he got a good lawyer instead of one funded to protect only Trump and nobody else.

sndmn

•

What you should have said was nothing.

cedarmesa

•

💀

einlander

•

( ͡~ ͜ʖ ͡°) Warriors of social justice who use a keyboard.

Elderos

•

Seems like the opposite to me. Like he was coerced to lie for his old boss due to the circumstances, especially from being dependant from the legal fund. The prosecutor gave him an out and a chance to break fealty from trump. He probably lied because he thought it was the only way out, and his testimony could be valuable after realizing it is not.

You have to realize that this is how criminal organizations work. The members end up being dependant on the leader and they're scared to tell the truth. It is doubly so when you're very own lawyer is being hired by the mob boss. What a messed up system.

aelwero

•

Yes... this guy was most likely compelled by trump to lie. Maybe it was his salary, maybe a nice fat check, maybe threats, maybe he has the weird zealot fascination with trump that some people have for whatever reason.

Then, the prosecution decided that since they are successfully prosecuting false statements as felonies, to the degree of that constituting "high crimes and treason" (because all of this is just an extension of an impeachment attempt), they could throw this guy under the same bus as trump, and threaten him with a major felony charge of lying. They used this to compel him to change his testimony, ostensibly to the truth, but it's still under duress...

He's still being compelled, and is either lying under duress of the former compulsion, or lying under duress of the current compulsion.

He's got two choices of compulsion. One is that he doesn't get money, the other is that he sits in a prison cell for possibly decades. Which one would you pick? The current compulsion for me is definitely far worse, so if faced with a choice, I'd likely go with the one that reduces the chance of decades of imprisonment, especially considering that when he gets out of prison, he'll be broke as fuck anyway... I would lie to avoid prison before I'd lie for money. Would you not?

Not to say that's what happening, but there's no way to know. What I can say with certainty is that hes testified to two opposing stories and one has to be a lie. He has, factually, based only on the evidence, falsified a testimony. Which one though? No way to know for sure, which means he's not a valid witness and nothing he has said is believable. For either side. Fuck anything this guy says, throw it out, there's other evidence, other witnesses, fuck this guy and anything he has to say.

This IS how criminal organizations work, so why is the prosecution doing it? Why is the legal system relying on testimony they've extorted from someone? THAT is actually my only real point tbh. I don't approve of a testimony being made unders duress of the threat of a felony false statement charge... that's fucking extortion and I personally don't think the ends justified the means on that. Throw this testimony out...

morphballganon

•

Are you a moron, a Trump bootlicker, a russian troll, or some combination of the three?

solidgrue

•

That puts me in mind of a joke:

A moron, a Trump bootlicker, and a Russian troll walks into the bar. The bartender says, "Good evening, Senator!"

morphballganon

•

Classic

utopianfiat

•

Are we planning on indicting everyone who testifies for the defense on fraud charges?

We should indict everyone who lies to a Grand Jury actually. Not sure why this is controversial to you

burntbutterbiscuits

•

I guess by your logic Donald Trump is being extorted 91 times.

Haha!

Wilibus

•

Ah, so that's what bigly means.

Th4tGuyII

•

If they're lying, and you can prove it, you prosecute them for perjury...

But if you suspect they've got important info, them perjurying them would be a waste. It would be more beneficial to let a witness know that you know they're lying before you prosecute. Give them a chance to straighten out their story, potentially giving you a much larger win than if you'd simply removed them as a witness via perjury. That's exactly what they've done here

sucricdrawkcab

•

My brain isn't advanced enough to make this make any kinda sense at all.

markr

•

The level of ideological brain worming demonstrated by your post is impressive. Do you ever have doubts, or is this all performative and it’s just larping?

WarmSoda

•

That's an ... interesting take on it, I guess.