Feds Claim Key Mar-a-Lago Obstruction Witness Has Flipped On Trump
“Immediately after receiving new counsel, Trump Employee 4 retracted his prior false testimony and provided information that implicated Nauta, De Oliveira, and Trump in efforts to delete security camera footage, as set forth in the superseding indictment.”
You may recall that the federal Judge in the Florida case against Trump regarding national security documents and obstruction of justice on her own requested briefing on the propriety of the Special Counsel Jack Smith utilizing a grand jury in D.C. in connection with matters related to the Florida case. That briefing was to be part of whether a “Garcia” hearing was needed, which is something that takes place when a defense lawyer has a potential conflict of interest (e.g. representing a defendant and a witness), so that the defendant is made aware on the record in open court about the dangers of using a potentially conflicted lawyer.
No one really knew why the Judge raised the issue. Now we know. There were documents filed by DOJ under seal about developments with a witness in the Florida case that occurred as part of a D.C. grand jury investigation.
In this case, a lawyer for co-defendant Nauta also represented Witness No. 4, you guessed it, in connection with testimony given to the D.C. Grand Jury. Witness number 4 apparently denied that Trump or Nauta were involved in an attempt to delete Mar-a-Lago security video that was under subpoena.
In a court filing today on the issue of the D.C. Grand Jury and the need for a Garcia hearing, Special Counsel Jack Smith asserted in papers that Witness 4 has flipped on Trump and will give evidence of Trump’s involvement (emphasis added):
During these investigations, the Government gathered evidence that Trump employee Carlos De Oliveira tried to enlist the director of information technology for Mar-a-Lago (identified in the superseding indictment as Trump Employee 4) to delete Mar-a-Lago security footage after the grand jury in the District of Columbia had issued a subpoena for the footage. As set forth in the Government’s motion for a Garcia hearing (ECF No. 97 at 3), before Trump Employee 4’s appearance before the grand jury in the District of Columbia, the Government informed Mr. Woodward that his concurrent representation of Trump Employee 4 and Nauta raised a potential conflict of interest, and Mr. Woodward responded that he did not have a reason to believe that his concurrent representation of Trump Employee 4 and Nauta raised a conflict of interest.
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. In testimony before the same grand jury, De Oliveira likewise denied any contact with Trump Employee 4 regarding security footage. The Government’s evidence indicated that the testimony by Trump Employee 4 and De Oliveira was false.
On June 8, 2023, a grand jury in this district returned a 38-count indictment that charged Trump with unlawful retention of national defense information and charged Trump and Nauta with obstruction-of-justice offenses. The indictment did not name De Oliveira as a defendant or contain charges regarding the efforts to delete security footage. The Government thereafter continued to investigate the false statements by Trump Employee 4 and De Oliveira in the District of Columbia. On June 29 and July 11, 2023, the grand jury issued two subpoenas for footage from three security cameras at Mar-a-Lago that related directly to De Oliveira’s solicitation of Trump Employee 4 to delete security footage, as well as the false denials of the same by both witnesses. In addition, on June 20, 2023, the Government 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 there, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. Trump Employee 4’s criminal exposure identified in the target letter was entirely due to his false sworn denial before the grand jury in the District of Columbia that he had information about obstructive acts that would implicate Nauta (and others).
The target letter to Trump Employee 4 crystallized a conflict of interest arising from Mr. Woodward’s concurrent representation of Trump Employee 4 and Nauta. Advising Trump Employee 4 to correct his sworn testimony would result in testimony incriminating Mr. Woodward’s other client, Nauta; but permitting Trump Employee 4’s false testimony to stand uncorrected would leave Trump Employee 4 exposed to criminal charges for perjury. Moreover, an attorney for Trump had put Trump Employee 4 in contact with Mr. Woodward, and his fees were being paid by Trump’s political action committee (PAC)….
Chief Judge Boasberg made available independent counsel (the First Assistant in the Federal Public Defender’s Office for the District of Columbia) to provide advice to Trump Employee 4 regarding potential conflicts. On July 5, 2023, Trump Employee 4 informed Chief Judge Boasberg that he no longer wished to be represented by Mr. Woodward and that, going forward, he wished to be represented by the First Assistant Federal Defender. Immediately after receiving new counsel, Trump Employee 4 retracted his prior false testimony and provided information that implicated Nauta, De Oliveira, and Trump in efforts to delete security camera footage, as set forth in the superseding indictment.
The Government anticipates calling Trump Employee 4 as a trial witness and expects that he will testify to conduct alleged in the superseding indictment regarding efforts to delete security footage. Trump Employee 4 will very likely face cross-examination about his prior inconsistent statements in his grand jury testimony, which occurred while Mr. Woodward represented him, and which he disavowed immediately after obtaining new counsel.
The rest of the filing concerns the propriety of using the D.C. grand jury.
Witness 4 has changed his testimony, so that will subject him to cross-examination as to whether he was lying then, or lying now. Happens frequently in criminal cases. But this is still a very significant development particularly if the feds have other proof that Witness 4 is telling the truth now, and that he went along with the cover up because his lawyer was conflicted.
I’ve been saying since last March that the Mar-a-Lago case is the most direct and likely legal threat to Trump. Nothing I’ve seen so far leads me to think otherwise.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Jesus
The witness flipped,, that isn’t suspicious, not at all. SMH He was lying before, but not NOW..
The real pathetic joke is we went from lies about Trump holding nuclear codes to quibbling about stored security footage. This is why the DOJ authorized the unprecedented federal indictment of a former President, and now leading candidate for the office? What a pile of crap.
Another pathetic joke is that serious legal eagles are considering these charges rationally. I am sorry,, I forgot who has said that here, more than once. And, I was really amazed how quickly this article was posted. I guess they don’t have a choice. IDK.
And contrast this with the Hillary case. A case which screamed obstruction from the highest roof. But nothing to see there.
Exactly, one wonders if they have a strategy here
Their strategy seems to be to give the Democrat propaganda team ammo to run with once the trials begin from March onwards to paint Trump as an imprisoned criminal 24/7 to swing voters away from voting Republican to voting Democrat next year.
They need to do this because the Biden regime has been an unmitigated disaster with one avoidable disaster after another right through Bidens first term.
Coupled with increasing crime, degradation of children and a sudden inability to tell anyone what a woman is and you can see why Democrats need the trials to begin sooner rather than later.
We know from history that if a witness doesn’t tell a story the feds want to hear, the witness is frequently charged with lying to the feds, obstruction, or some other charge, whether there is a basis for the charges or not, to “encourage” them to get their story straight.
(Remember that the feds threatened to file fabricated criminal charges against LTG Flynn’s son unless the general plead guilty to lying to FBI agents in connection with a non-existent investigation. There was little chance the charges would have stuck or even actually been brought to trial, but it still would have cost tens of thousands of dollars to defend.)
The feds charge the individual with concocted charges, which can bankrupt them to defend against. So, the witness changes his story to what federal prosecutors want to hear on the advice of defense attorneys provided by the federal government.
The obvious problem here is that the defense attorneys are being paid by the federal government. Who do they really represent?
Despite all their protestations, are they representing the best interests of their clients (and the truth), or are they advising the defendants to give the defense attorneys’ bosses in the prosecutors’ office what they want regardless of the truth?
What would a “reasonable person” believe?
You have a problem with Jesus, makes sense
‘and that, going forward, he wished to be represented by the First Assistant Federal Defender.’
Wow, what a shock.
So he got a federal lawyer, who immediately told him to play ball with the feds to Get Trump.
You left out, “or else”.
Yep, they had a firm grip and were squeezing.
And it would not shock me in the slightest if the fed lawyer handed him a script. “Say this and we won’t prosecute you into bankruptcy and throw you in jail.”
How come the prosecution can bribe and threaten witnesses but Trump is forbidden to even talk to or about them?
I know that is a rhetorical question Mark. SMH
not rhetorical at all
Trump, all things Trump
That doesn’t make sense. Why would he drop Mr. Woodward in favor of a public defender? If Trump Employee 4 recanted *immediately* after receiving new counsel then how did the new lawyer have time to twist TE4’s arm?
Occam’s Razor leads to the belief TE4 had already decided to recant his testimony when he dropped Mr. Woodward and requested the public defender.
No, Occam’s Razor leads to the belief that the corrupt Jack Smith threatened him that if he didn’t dump his attorney, accept a public defender that would play ball, and turn on Trump, he would bankrupt him before throwing him in jail.
Everything you just said will fit within “TE4 had already decided to recant his testimony when he dropped Mr. Woodward and requested the public defender.” You didn’t correct or add anything (except for accusing Smith of being corrupt.)
Smith IS corrupt. We already know that because the Supreme Court unanimously bitch-slapped him by overturning his conviction of Bob McDonnell.
Ironclaw, that adds nothing to the subject I was addressing. Evidence for or against the new lawyer being part of a conspiracy to “Get Trump” would be and how he forced TE4 to immediately retract his testimony is too. If you have any of that please post it.
The reason he dropped Woodward is obvious. Once the government claimed to have evidence that he had lied, Woodward could not continue to represent both him and Neuta. He could not honestly advise him on whether to change his testimony or not.
Suppose his testimony was indeed false, as the government claimed it could prove. Woodward’s duty to him, as well as his duty as an officer of the court, would be to advise him to change it immediately in return for not being prosecuted. However his duty to Neuta would be to advise him to stand by his false testimony, so as not to incriminate Neuta.
Now suppose the opposite, that his testimony was true. Now the government says it has evidence otherwise. That puts Woodward in an even worse bind. As Neuta’s lawyer, as well as as an officer of the court and a decent citizen, he should advise this guy to stand by his true testimony, and risk a false conviction for perjury. But as this guy’s lawyer his duty is to dispassionately consider the evidence the government has, or the government’s claims to have such evidence, and to consider whether he should advise him to stand by it and take the risk of a false conviction, or to falsely recant and avoid that risk. That’s a hard enough decision for a lawyer who doesn’t have a conflict; it’s an impossible one for a lawyer who does.
So the witness had to get a new lawyer who could advise him with no conflict, what is in his best interest: to stand by his testimony (assuming it’s true) or to ensure his own safety by taking the no-prosecution deal the government was offering. Presumably this lawyer advised the second option. Perhaps he believes the testimony was in fact false (perhaps because his client told him so, or perhaps because the government showed him the evidence), or perhaps he believes it was true but it’s in his client’s best interest to deny it.
And having received that advice, it’s no surprise that the witness accepted it.
“So he got a federal lawyer, who immediately told him to play ball with the feds to Get Trump.”
Olinser is accusing the public defender of being part of a conspiracy to “Get Trump” and by implication that the new lawyer somehow instantly caused TE4 to change his testimony via unethical means. In this view the new lawyer cannot have advised TE4 to recant because that was the legally optimal option.
Everything you posted makes perfect sense, but doesn’t address the issue.
Another way to look at it is we have another case that’s devolving into a process crime, and that when all’s said and done that may be all that’s left of this steaming pile of charges. So the DOJ basically creates it’s own alleged crime as it goes along. All to target a political opponent.
Yes, I know Olinser is making that accusation, but it’s without basis. There’s no reason to suspect him of such a thing, let alone to accuse him of it. An honest lawyer would very likely advise him to take the deal and change his testimony — especially if the testimony really was false (or if the lawyer believes it to be have been false).
We should not assume his original testimony was true, just as we shouldn’t assume it was false. The recantation doesn’t change that.
Concise, I don’t see how your response is on topic.
Milhouse, we are tracking similar thoughts regarding Olinser’s accusation. Trump threw away his credibility years ago and combined with the other testimony that is alleged I’m assuming the the new testimony is far more truthful than the original. (I’m sure I’ll catch a bunch of down votes for that statement.)
TY Millhouse,, you are always rational,,
But there are many people who believe the ML charges are bs from the git go.
Concise summed it up.
we went from lies about Trump holding nuclear codes to quibbling about stored security footage.
Milhouse’s reasoning is absolutely correct.
It can also be true that the Govt pressured this witness to recant his prior testimony. Probably, heck, almost certainly it is true that the Govt pressured him. What we find out at trial is if the pressure was based on evidence the Govt possesses which undermines his prior testimony.
Bringing this case was always, IMO, a misuse of power. That said, once the DoJ is investigating don’t try and play games if you are prudent. Don’t try and be more clever than them. Don’t lie or conceal or destroy evidence. Don’t even talk about doing so as a ‘joke’ or hypothetical b/c they may have a wire on someone.
The process crimes that might be committed during the investigation are usually much easier to prove b/c they are more clear cut than the original underlying allegations. That is the real danger to Trump, IMO. When folks are facing an aggressive prosecution the little fish sometimes get rattled by the severity of the potential punishment and start talking.
“Milhouse’s reasoning is absolutely correct.”
I’m not sure that he is.
I don’t think a lawyer can suggest perjury to a client as a viable course of action.
Though I suspect such things in this particular perseecution will be commonplace
Every time a lawyer advises an innocent client to take a plea deal he is suggesting perjury. And yet failure to give such advice would often be malpractice.
Every judge who rubber stamps plea deals knows that she is encouraging perjury.
A lawyer can never advise a client to commit perjury. A lawyer advising a client who claims to be innocent to accept a plea deal is not advising a client to commit perjury. Look up the definition of perjury. Look up legal ethics rules.
You’re assuming he got a new lawyer who could actually advise him with no conflict what is in his best interest.
Yes, that’s what the Federal Defenders are for. They do that for defendants all the time. I see no reason to suspect that this one operated any differently.
What???? The prosecutor can’t create a conflict of interest for the defense counsel by simply making a bare allegation that he supposedly has “proof” that the witness “perjured himself” in grand jury testimony. Where has it been reported that Jack Smith ever provided the court, the witness, (or defendant, or defense counsel himself) with discovery of what the “proof” of the defendant’s supposed perjury was? Even assuming it would be prudent for the witness (having now been accused, rightly or wrongly, but with no substantiation provided by Jack Smith) of perjured grand jury testimony, to obtain separate counsel–then what? A federal public defender? Are you kidding me? The only thing the federal public defender is going to do is tell the witness it would be in his best interest to do anything required by the prosecutor to get immunity, which is exactly what happened. The public defender hasn’t even been identified. Who is he? Did this mystery person, before advising his new client to change his testimony, do a thorough and comprehensive review of the entire case file before advising the witness to change his testimony? Doesn’t sound like it. Doesn’t sound like the federal public defender did squat other than pressure his own client to change his testimony–whether or not that change of testimony was actually warranted or in the client’s best interests. No, according to Jack Smith, the change in testimony by the witness was “immediate.” Gee, does that sound like the public defender did anything resembling a minimally competent job? Not on your life. If your client is being accused of perjury, a competent defense attorney would tell the client to remain silent, unless and until complete due diligence has been performed by new counsel. Because by changing his testimony, the nitwitness has NOW certainly perjured himself, either originally or when he changed his testimony.
So Milhouse–what’s the “evidence” that Jack Smith supposedly had (other than the witnesses’ own coerced recantation) proving that the witness had lied to the grand jury? Lots of smoke and mirrors but absolutely zero specifics.
Likewise, if the witness’s new, changed testimony actually implicated Trump, don’t you think Smith would be providing the court, and the media, with verbatim quotes of the new testimony? Of course he would.
But in any event, no way does a competent uncompromised defense attorney advise the new client to make a major decision–such as changing his grand jury testimony under tremenous prosecutorial pressure–without a thorough file review and complete discovery. But alas–that’s not what public defenders do, is it, Milhouse? Even any gangbanger knows if you get a public defender, you’re going to get a raw deal as opposed to having private counsel. Sadly, this time was no different.
Hit me up when you can actually provide any specific factual material from Jack Smith–not just vague characterizations–about what “proof” existed prior to the recantation that the witness had supposedly “perjured” himself.
Most of your argument is implicit support for my conclusion posted earlier. TE4 had already decided to recant his testimony and the new attorney had nothing to with the decision.
Yeah, no telling what extra-legal threats were involved here. It’s not like they haven’t done this before. Just ask General Flynn.
How are extra-legal threats not witness tampering ?
Who do you expect to prosecute the prosecutors for witness tampering?
The witness is under federal protective custody, Jeffrey Epstein Suite, Riker’s Island.
Given the conduct of this special counsel and the BS alleged in his indictments, I am less than impressed. And this says nothing about the use of the DC grand jury in the first place.
Was anything actually deleted or not turned over? If no, then in what manner was justice obstructed? Not to mention that thing called the PRA. Smith is a dirty cop so it’s not past him to engage in dirty prosecution.
He has a history of that with GOP Presidential hopefuls. He got a conviction of former VA Gov McConnell for a non crime.
Eventually the Supreme Court threw out the conviction but the Democrat Permanent DOJ had ended the career of another prominent Republican.
Don’t forget Jonathan Edwards.
But in that case he was not able to obtain a conviction.
I suspect that John Edwards was targeted by team Obama as a future Dem threat. Even though he lost as Kerry’s running mate and then to fellow Dem Obama in 2008 it may be that team Obama decided to take out an appealing charismatic Dem rather than allow him a chance to erase his legacy.
Perhaps the plan all along from team Obama was to control permanent DC by selecting Dem party Presidential candidates. It is pretty clear from the people in the Biden administration like Lisa Monaco that Obama or his handlers is calling the shots.
Of course this would all hinge on team Obama being made up of ruthless, vindictive, soulless people.
Yeah, but we’re supposed to act like all of this is completely normal. A neophyte politician is being persecuted for things all of the experienced politicians get let go on.
We still have a former President, holding documents in a secure facility unlike another former president holding millions of documents in a unsecured warehouse in Chicago, a former VP keeping documents anywhere they could be put, and a former SoS who deleted 30,000 emails under the Department of State headings.
There is the the emails Bush lost too
The witness has now proven that his testimony is worthless.
“ I’ve been saying since last March that the Mar-a-Lago case is the most direct and likely legal threat to Trump. Nothing I’ve seen so far leads me to think otherwise.”
It’s a real pity that since March the good professor has been approaching these never ending indictments as if they are the result of rational law enforcement actions by a DoJ that is above reproach.
Anyone capable of rubbing a couple functioning brain cells knew from the beginning that this was a political attack on a political enemy the left utterly detests with every fibre of their fetid being.
No amount of rational discussion will get America out of the dark cesspit hole Democrats have dug. Certainly Trump is destined for the Democrat gulag and you will get another Term of Biden in 2024, and all the benefits that will bring America. But thank god for people like the good professor and the other contributors here for pretending we can talk ourselves out of this mess by rationalising everything as if these indictments aren’t the product of a fully weaponised DoJ.
TY Mailman.. look back at my 6:32 comment.. It was you.. and ohhhh I agree.
I don’t think Prof. Jacobson is opining on the truth or falsity of the charges. If I understand him, he is simply stating his considered opinion that these charges are the ones that aren’t based on unusual and shaky legal theories. If (IF) the prosecution has evidence to support`their charges, then conviction will be relatively straightforward compared to the other indictments that have been issued.
He’s treating these indictments as if they are the rational output of criminal prosecutors from a DoJ uncorrupted by politics and by doing so lends credence to the indictments. Anyone capable of rational thought can see these are a monkey show with the sole intent of destroying a political enemy of the left.
But the good prof and the other contributors here keep talking about these indictments as if they are an every day occurrence.
If only four people were ever involved with the tape controversy and none of them had changed their testimony, how would the feds know that one of them was lying? What this tells me is that the classified document case is falling apart and all they have is a process crime of obstruction. It looks a lot like the Russian hoax charge where it ended up looking for a process crime instead. Imagine lying about treason and then hoping to get that same victim of that lie on an obstruction charge! Only the corrupt DoJ could even dream up such a scheme.
I have no idea if their broader case is or is not falling apart. But, you’re presuming only people talk in these kinds of cases. There’s one mare party involved: The computer system. . The feds are very good at computer forensics. There’s a reasonably good chance that they’ve constructed a reliable sequence of events from the server logs.
Trump makes too many spectacularly bad decisions.
maybe, but none are illegal
Exactly
Feds also claim there is a higher authority that the constitutional Title II Commander-in-Chief who can wave his hand and declare a warning label on a mattress as ‘national defense information’ and indict a former president.
Just kidding. It’s a personal letter from the North Korean president, not a mattress tag.
This is what I was waiting for..
https://twitter.com/barnes_law/status/1694183192348238123?s=20
he was talking about this Sunday,…apparently a judge can deny a defendant the lawyer of his choice
There’s one problem that Trump faces with this case that he doesn’t face in any of the other cases is the process crime of obstruction of justice. Even if the Court eventually dismisses the underlying criminality the feds are alleging here – which the Circuit or Supreme Court very well may – if the feds can convince a jury that Trump obstructed justice by ordering the destruction of evidence AFTER it was under subpoena, he’s done. No appellate court is going to save him from that conviction. To the Circuit Court, it won’t matter if the Feds let Clinton walk on the very same charge.
There’s a reason the bread & butter of federal criminal indictments are process crimes. just ask Scooter Libbey and Martha Stewart. They’re often FAR more easy to prove to a jury and they are untethered to obligation the feds are under to prove the underlying crime.
Pretty sure that’s not how the system works once the predicate to the never ending political indictments are wiped away for the bullshit that they are. Everything else that flowed from that initial faulty case is itself redundant as they would never have happened without that first case getting under way 🤔🤫🤫
Interesting timing of this story – right on the same day that Smith has to file his answer to Judge Cannon in Florida about using a DC grand jury… And the same day that Willis has to file her answer to Meadow’s motion to remove the Georgia case to Federal court. Totally not a coincidence at all. Totally.
Getting Trump Employee 4 to change his tune does not make the Mar a Lago case the most dangerous to Donald Trump (or reinforce its prior status at the most dangerous case).
Look at the judge and the likely composition of the jury in Fort Pierce, Florida.
Then look at the judge and the likely composition of the jury in Washington, DC.
Who really thinks Trump is more likely to be convicted and sentenced to Federal prison in Florida, and not in DC?
Trying to parse either of the cases brought by Jack Smith for their legal merits is a waste of time. They were not brought on account of any legal merits. They have no aim except to secure a conviction and prison time for a political enemy on something or other—legal merits be damned.
I’ll disagree on one point: I don’t think they intend or expect to get prison time, because it’s more than likely any convictions will be overturned somewhere in the appeals process. As I see it, the goal is exactly what they’re accomplishing – burning his campaign funds on legal expenses rather than campaigning – and at the burn rate so far, he’s going to run out of OPM sooner rather than later.
It doesn’t seem to have been noted here that Jack Smith, as head of the Public Integrity Section of DOJ from 2010-2015, should have been investigating (and charging) Joe and Hunter Biden for corrupt activities already in motion.
But somehow he chose not to.
So let me see if I’ve got this right.
Hillary can permanently delete 30,000 emails that were under subpoena from congress and she gets the “no rational prosecutor would bring charges in such a case” from the FBI…not to mention as Secretary of State she ran an unsecured server from her toilet and we have absolutely no idea what State secrets were lost from intrusion by foreign actors or even worse whether information was placed on those servers so that foreign actors could access that information with ease, and that should be one of the biggest concerns about all this because we just don’t know what was taken off those servers!
Yet we are to believe that a former President is somehow culpable for breaking laws around having confidential information stored at his residence, that he had been in possession for three years before the feds mounted their armed dawn raid to recover the boxes of information….while somehow not doing the exact same thing for the confidential documents Biden had stored in his garage and at a university (remembering that as VP he had no ability to declassify anything).
Somehow I’m supposed to believe that these indictments aren’t political when Bidens FBI and DoJ had known about these documents since Jan 2020 and that these raids only just happened this year and that it’s purely coincidence that trials begin the day before campaigning on steroids kicks off in March next year.
In spite of that the good Proff and the other contributors here keep acting as if these indictments are somehow the same, rational output of a DoJ not weaponised by Democrats to go after Democrat political enemies.
I guess it’s all just coincidence.
“”I guess it’s all just coincidence.””
No, it was Trump’s conscious decision not to pursue an investigation. Sooner or later you’re just going to have to deal with the fact that the reason Hillary isn’t in jail is Trump.
Or that no sane rational prosecutor would ever bring charges against Hilldabeast.
I mean you act as if the DoJ is at the beck and call of the President right? Kinda like the shit that goes on in a banana republic or Democrat shit hole. Oh wait 😂😂
Trump should have wiped all his drives with a cloth like Hillary..
this blog still paid for by the CIA?