• Yuscil Taveras, who was identified previously as 'Trump Employee 4', appears to have changed his story 
• In June, Taveras was informed he's the subject of a perjury investigation and offered a federal public defender 
• According to those same court filings, it appears this change has led Taveras to change his tune on Trump, Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira 

 

Trump's former Mar-a-Lago IT director has sensationally flipped on the former president - admitting he lied during previous testimony.

Yuscil Taveras, previously identified as 'Trump Employee 4', has backtracked on his claims which defended the 45th President, after replacing his Trump-funded attorney.

Taveras, 44, fired Stanley Woodward, who is backed by Trump's Save America PAC, after being informed that he was the subject of a perjury investigation in June. 

He was then offered a federal public defender, which has seemingly led to the IT specialist cooperating with Special Counsel Jack Smith and testify against Trump. 

The New York native is also going against former aide and White House valet Walt Nauta and Mar-a-Lago head of maintenance Carlos de Oliveira, in the case alleging the mishandling of classified documents. 

Court documents say that Taveras 'retracted his prior false testimony'  immediately after receiving new counsel, and 'provided information that implicated Nauta, [Carlos] De Oliveira, and Trump'. 

He is now claiming that both men were part of the plot to 'delete security camera footage, as set forth in the superseding indictment', the court documents revealed. 

 

FULL STORY

 

 

A smart move in my opinion and courageous as well.Mr Yuscil knows full well trump would throw him under the bus I’m sure he also knows trump won’t hesitate to sic his nutter supporters to do this man his wife and kids harm I sincerely hope that his plea agreement includes protection.thank you Mr Yuscil for your patriotism and support for rule of law

IT manager, therefore tenuous connection to Laptops, therefore…..

So it seems that the previous attorney, funded by Trump, gave him advices contrary to his own interest, in order to protect the funder. 

 

Isn't there at least a breach of ethical conduct code, if not an offense, by the previous attorney?

Sell his house to pay legals because Trump won't come good, not even for Guliani. Or tell the truth and make a plea deal since he's already lied to the prosecution.

 

Not a hard choice.

5 minutes ago, candide said:

So it seems that the previous attorney, funded by Trump, gave him advices contrary to his own interest, in order to protect the funder. 

 

Isn't there at least a breach of ethical conduct code, if not an offense, by the previous attorney?

It's very difficult to prove. But, obviously, anyone who accepts lawyers paid for by a fellow defendant should be prepared for the possibility that they  might be sacrificed to protect that fellow defendant.

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

It's very difficult to prove. But, obviously, anyone who accepts lawyers paid for by a fellow defendant should be prepared for the possibility that they  might be sacrificed to protect that fellow defendant.

It's totally unethical. If a lawyer has ever represented an adversary he must withdraw. He was obviously told this.

Just now, ozimoron said:

It's totally unethical. If a lawyer has ever represented an adversary he must withdraw. He was obviously told this.

I don't think an attorney has to withdraw. And it's not cut-and-dried that a fellow defendant is necessarily an adversary. If that were the case, then it would never have been allowed in the first place.

Just now, placeholder said:

I don't think an attorney has to withdraw. And it's not cut-and-dried that a fellow defendant is necessarily an adversary. If that were the case, then it would never have been allowed in the first place.

It isn't allowed. The court would have rejected him. As previously alluded to a lawyer can't just change sides for a new case. His duty to any client lasts forever.

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

It isn't allowed. The court would have rejected him. As previously alluded to a lawyer can't just change sides for a new case. His duty to any client lasts forever.

I don't see anywhere in that article that says that. And obviously, it it were forbidden, any lawyer who attempted to do so would face disbarment. It is allowed.

I asked this question on google:

Is one lawyer allowed to represent more than one defendant in a criminal case?

Try it and see what answers you get. I think you'll be surprised.

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I don't see anywhere in that article that says that. And obviously, it it were forbidden, any lawyer who attempted to do so would face disbarment. It is allowed.

I asked this question on google:

Is one lawyer allowed to represent more than one defendant in a criminal case?

Try it and see what answers you get. I think you'll be surprised.

Not if those clients are or have ever been adversaries. Only if they are co-defendants or prosecution witnesses.

 

https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1903&context=hlr

 

https://masslawyersweekly.com/2023/05/26/a-lawyers-loyalty-to-a-former-client/

Edited August 23, 20232 yr by ozimoron

18 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Sell his house to pay legals because Trump won't come good, not even for Guliani. Or tell the truth and make a plea deal since he's already lied to the prosecution.

 

Not a hard choice.

I’m not so sure about that for the simple reason that trump wouldn’t hesitate for one nano second to sic a mob on this man his kids his wife many guys will sacrifice their lives to protect their families from harm I just hope that he got protection in his plea agreement.personally I think it’s a courageous act 

3 minutes ago, Tug said:

I’m not so sure about that for the simple reason that trump wouldn’t hesitate for one nano second to sic a mob on this man his kids his wife many guys will sacrifice their lives to protect their families from harm I just hope that he got protection in his plea agreement.personally I think it’s a courageous act 

It's not courageous. He was simply warned what would happen if he was found guilty of lying to prosecutors unless he flipped and made a deal. As I said, not a difficult choice.

 

edit: And joined in the conspiracy to obstruct.

Edited August 23, 20232 yr by ozimoron

25 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Not if those clients are or have ever been adversaries. Only if they are co-defendants or prosecution witnesses.

 

https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1903&context=hlr

 

https://masslawyersweekly.com/2023/05/26/a-lawyers-loyalty-to-a-former-client/

Neither of these links go to articles about co-defendants in a criminal case. 

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Neither of these links go to articles about co-defendants in a criminal case. 

Are you sure? Does it make sense to you that a lawyer can represent two people who are at odds in any case, civil or criminal?

But in July, after being warned by prosecutors that he was a target of the investigation and after being advised that his lawyer might have a conflict of interest because of his representation of others in the probe, the witness received a new attorney from the federal defender’s office and provided the Justice Department with information that helped form the basis of the revised indictment against Trump, his valet Walt Nauta and a third defendant, Carlos De Oliveira, the court filing says.

 

Prosecutors described the witness interaction in a filing that seeks a hearing in Florida about potential conflicts of interest involving the defense lawyer, Stanley Woodward, who also represents Nauta. Woodward declined to comment Tuesday to The Associated Press.

 

“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,” prosecutors wrote.

 

https://apnews.com/article/trump-maralago-justice-department-classified-documents-f3f498ed952e50a33c7c68e2fb1936e9

8 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

It's not courageous. He was simply warned what would happen if he was found guilty of lying to prosecutors unless he flipped and made a deal. As I said, not a difficult choice.

 

edit: And joined in the conspiracy to obstruct.

Right, he's just clever enough. I wonder why Nauta and De Oliveira are stupid enough to cover Trump up. 

11 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Are you sure? Does it make sense to you that a lawyer can represent two people who are at odds in any case, civil or criminal?

I agree. But on the other hand, it's going to cost a fortune to defend oneself. Some of these defendants could easily be bankrupted by this.  A court appointed public defender is free, but generally you get what you pay for. Maybe because this case is special some public spirited lawyers, or those looking for publicity, might agree to defend them.

18 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I agree. But on the other hand, it's going to cost a fortune to defend oneself. Some of these defendants could easily be bankrupted by this.  A court appointed public defender is free, but generally you get what you pay for. Maybe because this case is special some public spirited lawyers, or those looking for publicity, might agree to defend them.

That's right. He's obviously decided not to sell his house to pay legal fees which would have been the result had he either retained Trump's assigned lawyer or hired his own. Trump would have stiffed him. He's clearly made a plea deal in exchange for the truth and accepted a prosecution assigned lawyer. .

37 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

That's right. He's obviously decided not to sell his house to pay legal fees which would have been the result had he either retained Trump's assigned lawyer or hired his own. Trump would have stiffed him. He's clearly made a plea deal in exchange for the truth and accepted a prosecution assigned lawyer. .

If Trump contracted with the lawyer to represent this person, then it could be the lawyer who faced being stiffed. But I think by now, most lawyers know to ask for cash in advance when dealing with Trump.

5 minutes ago, placeholder said:

If Trump contracted with the lawyer to represent this person, then it could be the lawyer who faced being stiffed. But I think by now, most lawyers know to ask for cash in advance when dealing with Trump.

It's bad enough for Donald Trump that one of his co-defendants has reportedly flipped on him, now it turns out his lawyers could be constrained when questioning him under oath.

 

Taveras was sharing a lawyer with defendants Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira before being moved over to a public defender.

 

When the witness spoke with a lawyer from the public defender's office, he realized his peril because he had previously lied in the grand jury.

 

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-documents-lawyers-witness-problem/

Tu quoque, De Oliveira mi! 

2 Trump aides at Mar-a-Lago gave false testimony in documents probe, court papers say

"According to the filing, Yuscil Taveras, an IT professional who has not been charged in the case, and Carlos De Oliveira, the Mar-a-Lago property manager indicted for obstruction alongside Trump, retracted sworn testimony in which they initially denied efforts to delete security camera footage at Trump's Florida estate, at which the FBI seized a trove of classified documents in August 2022."

https://news.yahoo.com/2-trump-aides-mar-lago-141120241.html

 

Will Nauta remain a sucker?

 

 

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-documents-scandal-witnesses-lawyer/

 

3 more witnesses dump their Trump funded lawyer.

Edited September 4, 20232 yr by Danderman123

“I don’t talk about anything. You know why? Because I’m allowed to do whatever I want. I come under the Presidential Records Act,” Trump replied, while also taking a quick detour to bash Hewitt. “I’m not telling you. You know, every time I talk to you, ‘Oh, I have a breaking story.’ You don’t have any story. I come under the Presidential Records Act. I’m allowed to do everything I did.” ????

 

Trump: ‘I’m Allowed to Do Whatever I Want’ With Classified Info

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-m-allowed-whatever-want-173709203.html

 

 

4 minutes ago, candide said:

“I don’t talk about anything. You know why? Because I’m allowed to do whatever I want. I come under the Presidential Records Act,” Trump replied, while also taking a quick detour to bash Hewitt. “I’m not telling you. You know, every time I talk to you, ‘Oh, I have a breaking story.’ You don’t have any story. I come under the Presidential Records Act. I’m allowed to do everything I did.” ????

 

Trump: ‘I’m Allowed to Do Whatever I Want’ With Classified Info

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-m-allowed-whatever-want-173709203.html

 

 

Trump’s mouth is an evidence rich environment.

56 minutes ago, candide said:

“I don’t talk about anything. You know why? Because I’m allowed to do whatever I want. I come under the Presidential Records Act,” Trump replied, while also taking a quick detour to bash Hewitt. “I’m not telling you. You know, every time I talk to you, ‘Oh, I have a breaking story.’ You don’t have any story. I come under the Presidential Records Act. I’m allowed to do everything I did.” ????

 

Trump: ‘I’m Allowed to Do Whatever I Want’ With Classified Info

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-m-allowed-whatever-want-173709203.html

 

 

It's like the old Marx Brothers joke:  "Who you gonna believe, your eyes or me!"

 

Anyone who reads the Presidential Records Act can see that what he did was illegal.  Trump clearly expects his base to believe him, not their eyes.

 

"(g)(1) Upon the conclusion of a President’s term of office, or if a President serves consecutive terms upon the conclusion of the last term, the Archivist of the United States shall assume responsibility for the custody, control, and preservation of, and access to, the Presidential records of that President."   https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/presidential-records.html

Anothere news

"Trump reportedly told an aide, Molly Michael, not to discuss "boxes" with the FBI.

"You don't know anything about the boxes," he reportedly told her.

Michael also said that Trump wrote to-do lists on the back of classified documents."

 

Trump reportedly told aide that she doesn't 'know anything about the boxes' after she was contacted by the FBI

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-reportedly-told-aide-she-213137628.html

On 8/24/2023 at 1:20 AM, ozimoron said:

That's right. He's obviously decided not to sell his house to pay legal fees which would have been the result had he either retained Trump's assigned lawyer or hired his own. Trump would have stiffed him. He's clearly made a plea deal in exchange for the truth and accepted a prosecution assigned lawyer. .

Trump's campaign was paying his legal bills.

 

The premise of your post is false.

 

Moreover, you imply that Taveras is going to lie in court as part of his cooperation with the prosecutor,  whereas the reverse is the case: Taveras lied to the Grand Jury under the direction of Trump's lawyer.

 

The real incentive for Taveras to come clean isn't the legal bill, it's the criminal penalty for perjury.

 

 

Edited September 19, 20232 yr by Danderman123

Under normal circumstances, Trump would be doomed to being convicted in this case.

 

But, maybe aliens will invade, WWIII will start, the 2020 election overturned, or some other improbable event may intervene.

14 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Trump's campaign was paying his legal bills.

 

The premise of your post is false.

 

 

Like they're paying Giuliani's legal bills?