Skip to content

Mar-a-Lago IT worker gets immunity deal to back Trump in seized documents case | The Post Millennial

A witness in the Mar-a-Lago documents case has reportedly signed a “non-prosecution agreement” with federal prosecutors, a court document presented by his former lawyer on Tuesday reveals.

The settlement came after special counsel Jack Smith’s office threatened to prosecute the witness for lying to the grand jury.

The former employee’s defense attorney, Stanley Woodward, wrote in the filing that a man, identified by CNN as an IT worker Yuscil Taveres and referred to as Trump Employee 4 in the filing, agreed to testify in the classified documents case in exchange for not being prosecuted.

Prosecutors have argued that Woodward, who is now representing Trump valet Walt Nauta who is being prosecuted in the case, could face a conflict of interest, especially if Woodward has to cross-examine his former client.

Woodward wrote that he “played no role” in Taveras’ cooperation, adding that Taveras was not offered the deal until he secured a different attorney.

Woodward asked the judge to block taverns to testify at trial.

In accordance with CNNTaveras’ testimony in July was the source of new allegations included in the superseding indictment filed that month against Trump and Nauta.

Taveras “repeatedly denied or claimed no recollection of any contact or conversations about the security footage at Mar-a-Lago,” the special counsel team said. supposed in court documents.

In July, court documents alleged that Taveras changed his story and “recanted his earlier false testimony and provided information implicating Nauta, [Carlos] De Oliveira and Trump in Efforts to Delete Security Camera Footage.”

Woodward wrote in an August filing that Taveras’ subpoenaed testimony should not be allowed in court because it was obtained through “improper use of out-of-district procedures” in Washington, D.C., and the effort to use as evidence. reveals “nothing less than an attempt to diminish the [Florida] the court’s authority over the proceedings in this case.”


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *