Fogbow

B (3) -[c]

When possible, T-SCIFs shall be established within the perimeters of U.S.-controlled areas or compounds.

emptywheel
@emptywheel
There was some suggestion that Aileen Cannon raised Qs abt two grand juries bc of what she saw on TV. But Woodward pushed it hard on July 18 (and Trump's lawyers did too).

Thank you! Cannon has many flaws but it doesn't help for people to travel down the rabbit holes of conspiracies like "she got that from Fox News." Maybe she did. But we'll never know. It's better to stay focused on demonstrable matters, like how she rules on the insane SCIF thing.

Hugo Lowell
@hugolowell
New: Special Counsel sharply objects to Trump suggestion to have a SCIF at Mar-a-Lago: “No need to modify the proposed protective order… much less to include in the order approval to "re-establish” a secure area at an unidentified location used during Trump's presidency.”

Special Counsel: “Govt’s proposed protective order reflects standard procedures for handling classified information in criminal cases. Defendant Trump’s opposition seeks special treatment that no other criminal defendant would receive and that is unsupported by law or precedent.”

Prosecutors: Trump Mar-a-Lago security aide flipped after changing lawyers
Special counsel Jack Smith’s team revealed the details of the employee’s about-face in a new filing.

By KYLE CHENEY and JOSH GERSTEIN
08/22/2023 06:01 PM EDT Updated: 08/22/2023 06:32 PM EDT

A Trump employee who monitored security cameras at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate abruptly retracted his earlier grand jury testimony and implicated Trump and others in obstruction of justice just after switching from an attorney paid for by a Trump political action committee to a lawyer from the federal defender’s office in Washington, prosecutors said in a court filing Tuesday.

The aide — described as “Trump Employee 4” in public court filings but identified elsewhere as Yuscil Taveras — held the title of director of information technology at Mar-a-Lago. He initially testified to a grand jury in Washington, D.C., that he was unaware of any effort to erase the videos, but after getting the new attorney “immediately … retracted his prior false testimony” and detailed the alleged effort to tamper with evidence related to the investigation of the handling of classified information stored at Trump’s Florida home, the new submission said.

Special counsel Jack Smith’s team revealed the details of the employee’s about-face as part of a filing demanded by Florida-based U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon, who is overseeing the classified records case against the former president.



https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/2 ... h-00112355

RTH10260 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2023 7:01 am Note: Cannot find reference yet^(*), but it seems Jack Smith filed a motion for the court (Cannon) to evaluate if one of T financed lawyers my represent multiple defendants without conflict.

^(*) except this source clip

► Show Spoiler

REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF GOVERNMENT’S
MOTION FOR GARCIA HEARING

II. A Garcia Hearing Is Required
Where, as here, an attorney “has previously represented a person who will be called as a
witness against a current client at a criminal trial” in a substantially related matter, that attorney
“has an actual conflict of interest.” United States v. Ross, 33 F.3d 1507, 1523 (11th Cir. 1994). A
scenario that “presents defense counsel with the impossible dilemma of cross-examining one
former client to benefit another current client . . . is wrought with conflicts.” United States v. Braun,
No. 19-80030-CR, 2019 WL 1893113, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 29, 2019); accord United States v.
Schneider, 322 F. Supp. 3d 1294, 1297 (S.D. Fla. 2018), aff’d, 853 F. App’x 463 (11th Cir. 2021).
When the Government intends to call defense counsel’s prior client as a witness against the
defendant, and “vigorous cross-examination” of that witness is required, defense counsel’s “prior
representation” of the witness renders him “unable ethically to provide that cross-examination.”
Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 164 (1988).2
Thus, Mr. Woodward’s successive
representation of Nauta and Trump Employee 4 squarely implicates his ethical obligations. Even
if Mr. Woodward was “unaware” (ECF No. 126 at 4) at the time he represented Trump Employee
4 that his client might give testimony that would incriminate Nauta, he is certainly aware now.

orlylicious wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2023 7:13 am If Carlos De Oliveira needs a GREAT lawyer, Fogbow has one of it's favorite attorneys right in Fort Lauderdale...

INGER GARCIA!

Inger did such a tremendous and fantastic job for Terry Trussell, Grand Jury Foreman Extraordinaire. Who can forget her brilliant motion practice. Realist, did you stay in touch with Inger after Trussell's trial?

http://www.ccfj.net/condolawyerIG1.html

It appears that a few more of the witnesses involved in the Mar-a-Lago document scandal have abandoned lawyer John Irving, who is being paid for by Donald Trump.

Just a few weeks ago it was revealed in a Justice Department filing that IT supervisor Yuscil Taveras found another attorney outside of Trump world attorney Stanley Woodward, and was beginning to set the record straight after giving false testimony to the grand jury. Now, it appears that in another filing for witness Carlos De Oliveira, lawyer John Irving revealed others are abandoning his services as well.

Page 2 of the filing says: "Further, undersigned counsel no longer represents those three individuals, and new independent counsel is being made available to advise them going forward."

It's unclear if these individuals have turned on Trump, however.

RVInit wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2023 10:00 am Some of those Mar-a-Lago employees may be watching real news and hearing one after another after another lawyer talk about how every person in that orbit needs to have their own independent counsel who will advise them on what is in their best interest. That has to make you take a deep breath and start thinking when you are hearing this kind of advise all over the place. Some of those people must be at least smart enough to figure out that any lawyer paid by Trump or Trump PAC would be more interested in Trump's behind than theirs.

Mar-a-Lago IT worker Yuscil Taveras has struck a cooperation agreement with the special counsel’s office in the federal case over former President Donald Trump’s handling of classified documents, Taveras’ former defense attorney said in a new court filing.

Taveras struck the deal with prosecutors after he was threatened with prosecution, defense attorney Stanley Woodward wrote in the filing dated Tuesday.

Taveras is referred to in the filing and in the superseding indictment as “Trump Employee 4,” and CNN has identified him as that employee.

According to the terms of the deal explained in the filing, Taveras agreed to testify in the classified documents case and in exchange will not be prosecuted. He has not been charged with any crimes.

The filing marks the first public acknowledgment that special counsel Jack Smith has won the cooperation of key witnesses as part of his prosecution of Trump, his longtime valet Walt Nauta and Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos de Oliveira.

NewMexGirl wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2023 12:23 pm

RVInit wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2023 10:00 am Some of those Mar-a-Lago employees may be watching real news and hearing one after another after another lawyer talk about how every person in that orbit needs to have their own independent counsel who will advise them on what is in their best interest. That has to make you take a deep breath and start thinking when you are hearing this kind of advise all over the place. Some of those people must be at least smart enough to figure out that any lawyer paid by Trump or Trump PAC would be more interested in Trump's behind than theirs.

An issue that might arise is that some employees may not be able to afford a different attorney and aren’t eligible to have a Fed public defender allotted to them. Rock and a hard place…