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.

    • mrbubblesort@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      63
      ·
      1 year ago

      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@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

          • Zron@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

    • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      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?