Tiny is Indicted Quatrième fois/Fourth Time

[ti-amie]

The finding out part of FAFO is always the hardest.

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

Kyle Cheney
@kyledcheney
Here is what MEADOWS' attorneys wrote to Willis this morning after she rejected his effort to delay his arrest.

[ti-amie]

Laffy
@GottaLaff@mastodon.social
Recap via Anna Bower:

Here's my tally of consent bonds set thus far in the #Fulton County case:

#Trump: $200,000
Eastman: $100,000
Ellis: $100,000
Chesebro: $100,000
David Shafer: $75,000
Cathy Latham: $75,000
Mike Roman: $50,000
Ray Smith: $50,000
Scott Hall: $10,000
Shawn Still: $10,000

#Georgia #TrumpIndictment #legal

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

Laffy
@GottaLaff@mastodon.social
Via Kyle Cheney:

Jenna #ELLIS and Mike #ROMAN have entered bond agreements in #Georgia for $100,000 and $50,000, respectively. #legal #TrumpIndictment #FaniWillis

[ti-amie]

“Dude is losing it”: Trump jokes about fleeing to Russia “with Vladimir” in Fulton Truth Social rant
"I’d fly far away, maybe to Russia, Russia, Russia, share a gold domed suite with Vladimir," he wrote
By IGOR DERYSH

Former President Donald Trump on Monday fumed over a judge setting a $200,000 bond in his Fulton County election conspiracy case. "The failed District Attorney of Fulton County (Atlanta), Fani Willis, insisted on a $200,000 Bond from me," he wrote on Truth Social after his lawyers met with prosecutors in Atlanta to discuss the terms of his bond. "I assume, therefore, that she thought I was a 'flight' risk - I'd fly far away, maybe to Russia, Russia, Russia, share a gold domed suite with Vladimir, never to be seen or heard from again. Would I be able to take my very 'understated' airplane with the gold TRUMP affixed for all to see. Probably not, I'd be much better off flying commercial - I'm sure nobody would recognize me!"

"Dude is losing it," tweeted national security attorney Bradley Moss.

"Can you believe it? I'll be going to Atlanta, Georgia, on Thursday to be ARRESTED by a Radical Left District Attorney, Fani Willis," Trump wrote in another post, accusing Willis of raising money off "this WITCH HUNT" and coordinating his prosecution with President Joe Biden. "He better get this stuff out of his system now because his bond conditions are not going to allow some of this type of commentary pending trial," Moss wrote after a judge barred Trump from making "direct or indirect threats of any nature" against any defendants, witnesses, victims or "against the community," including "posts on social media or reposts of posts made by another individual on social media."

https://www.salon.com/2023/08/22/dude-i ... cial-rant/

[ti-amie]

Reminds me of his "Russia are you listening" comment when he was ranting about her emails.

[ti-amie]

Andrew Weissmann (weissmann11 on Threads)
@AWeissmann_
To the GA defendants trying to remove case to fed ct and get immunity: given the probable cause that the GA indictment establishes that you committed crimes NOT part of your federal work (in fact, in violation of your oaths), will you testifying in order to rebut that? Let's see.

[ti-amie]

August 22, 2023 / by emptywheel



DOJ INVITES AILEEN CANNON TO AVOID ANOTHER REVERSIBLE ERROR
Nine pages into the twelve page reply regarding DOJ’s request that Judge Aileen Cannon hold a Garcia hearing to explain to Walt Nauta the potential hazards of Stan Woodward’s conflicts in the stolen document case, DOJ warns Judge Cannon that if she does what Woodward wants her to do, it will be (reversible) error.

In his response, Woodward had suggested that rather than hold a hearing to explain to Nauta the potential conflict and hazards to his defense, Judge Cannon should just exclude the testimony of Yuscil Taveras, the IT guy who testified against Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira.

To do that, DOJ argued, would be unprecedented, particularly given that Woodward had advance notice of this conflict.

III. It Would Be Error to Suppress Trump Employee 4’s Testimony

Nauta contends (ECF No. 126 at 4-5) that if the Court finds a conflict, it should preclude Trump Employee 4 from testifying at trial, rather than employ more routine remedies. That proposed remedy is contrary to precedent and—except for the district court ruling reversed in United States v. Messino, 181 F.3d 826 (7th Cir. 1999)—would appear to be unprecedented.

Courts have rejected exclusion of evidence as a remedy to avoid a conflict of interest, concluding that evidence that is “relevant to the Government’s case” should not “be excluded to accommodate a defendant’s choice of counsel.” United States v. Urbana, 770 F. Supp. 1552, 1559 n.17 (S.D. Fla. 1991); see Messino, 181 F.3d at 830; United States v. Lech, 895 F. Supp. 586, 592- 93 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). Exclusion of probative testimony “is an extreme sanction and would only harm the interests of justice.” Lech, 895 F. Supp. at 592. A “defendant’s choice of counsel” should not “take precedence over the Government’s discretion in deciding what charges to prosecute and how to present its case.” United States v. Pungitore, 910 F.2d 1084, 1142-43 (3d Cir. 1990).

[snip]

Nauta has not identified any case, and the Government is unaware of one, in which a court has excluded evidence to avoid a conflict on facts remotely similar to this case, where the Government put Mr. Woodward on notice long ago about potential conflicts, and he is now seeking to affirmatively use those conflicts to gain a tactical advantage at trial by excluding highly incriminating evidence to the benefit of not only his own client but also a co-defendant (Trump) whose PAC is paying his legal fees. The Court should not countenance this maneuver. [my emphasis]

Before they provided this implicit warning that if she makes such a decision, DOJ laid out how and why Taveras testified in DC, after the original indictment obtained in Florida. As I predicted, it’s because he had made false claims in an earlier appearance before the grand jury — one Woodward (who was still representing him) knew about.

In March, Taveras gave false testimony to the grand jury about this. Before that, DOJ raised Woodward’s conflict, but he said he was not aware of one. Then, after the June 8 indictment in Florida, DOJ warned Taveras, through Woodward, he was a target, and served two more subpoenas for surveillance footage. After serving the target letter, DOJ got DC Chief Judge James Boasberg involved and told Judge Cannon about it. Woodward raised no objection to a review of the conflict in DC. And that’s when Judge Boasberg assigned a public defender to advise Taveras, which led him to revise his testimony against Nauta and De Oliveira.

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). See In re Grand Jury Investigation, 447 F. Supp. 2d 453, 460 (E.D. Pa. 2006) (explaining that potential conflicts can be “further heightened by the financial dynamics of the joint representation,” where, for example, a client “did not independently select the” attorney but instead had the attorney “pre-selected for them by the attorney to the [person] who is the central focus of the grand jury proceedings”).

On June 27, 2023, consistent with its responsibility to promptly notify courts of potential conflicts, and given the prospective charges Trump Employee 4 faced in the District of Columbia, the Government filed a motion for a conflicts hearing with the Chief Judge of the United States District Court for District of Columbia (Boasberg, C.J.), who presides over grand jury matters in that district. The Government notified this Court on the same day, by sealed notice, of the filing in the District of Columbia. See ECF Nos. 45, 46. Mr. Woodward raised no objection to proceeding in the District of Columbia regarding Trump Employee 4. In fact, he responded that he “welcome[d] the Court’s inquiry into [his] representation of” Trump Employee 4, Response at 1, In re Grand Jury Subpoena, No. 23-GJ-46 (D.D.C. June 30, 2023), but asserted that he had no “information to support the Government’s claim that [Trump Employee 4] has provided false testimony to the grand jury,” and that “even if [Trump Employee 4] did provide conflicting information to the grand jury such that could expose him to criminal charges, he has other recourse besides reaching a plea bargain with the Government. Namely, he can go to trial with the presumption of innocence and fight the charges as against him.” Id. at 3. According to Mr. Woodward, if Trump Employee 4 “wishes to become a cooperating Government witness, he has already been advised that he may do so at any time.” Id.

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. [my emphasis]

Because Taveras’ false statements to the grand jury were in DC, venue would have been DC.

Not only was it appropriate to use the grand jury to investigate false statements by Trump Employee 4 and De Oliveira, it was appropriate to use the grand jury in the District of Columbia, where the statements were made and where venue for any false-statement charges would be proper. See United States v. John, 477 F. App’x 570, 572 (11th Cir. 2012) (unpublished) (concluding that venue for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 is “proper only in the district or districts where the defendant made the false statement”); United States v. Paxson, 861 F.2d 730, 733-34 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (upholding conviction for perjurious grand jury testimony in the District of Columbia material to antitrust charges subsequently brought in the Northern District of Georgia). And it was necessary to bring to the attention of the Chief Judge in that district the potential conflict that arose from Mr. Woodward’s representation of Trump Employee 4 in those proceedings. As “an incident of [its] supervisory power, a court has jurisdiction” to consider potential conflicts of interest that “relate[] to a grand jury proceeding within that court’s control,” and when the Government discerns such a potential conflict of interest, it “is not only authorized but is in fact obligated to bring the problem to that court’s attention.” In re Gopman, 531 F.2d 262, 265-66 (5th Cir. 1976)

The term of that grand jury ended on August 17.

Judge Cannon has already been reversed by the 11th Circuit in humiliating fashion on this matter once.

DOJ is trying to help her avoid a second reversal.

Meanwhile, twice in this filing (bolded above), DOJ notes that Woodward is being paid by Trump’s PAC. DOJ is inching closer to raising that as a separate conflict in his representation of Nauta.

Copyright © 2023 emptywheel. All rights reserved.
Originally Posted @ https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/08/22/d ... ble-error/


https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/08/22/d ... rint=print

[ti-amie]

@GottaLaff@mastodon.social
Recent obstruction charges against #Trump, others followed cooperation from Mar-a-Lago IT worker: Sources

The IT staffer is set to be a central witness in the case against Trump.

Weissmann: "The importance of independent counsel; and Federal Defenders are excellent attorneys who do their job for their actual client." #TrumpIndictment #legal #documents 1/...

2/ "Mar-a-Lago Information Technology worker's decision to cooperate Smith & change his previous testimony paved way for prosecutors to seek new obstruction charges against Trump & 2 other aides in a superseding indictment..

IT director, whose identity was confirmed as Yuscil Taveras,set to be central witness for Smith in his allegations that Trump, Nauta, De Oliveira essentially attempted cover-up as the govt investigated Trump's handling of classified docs after leaving the White House."

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

Mark S. Zaid
@MarkSZaidEsq
·
30s
Is anyone really shocked by this? Sounds very much like organized crime families, does it not?

How many
@lawandordertv
episodes have we seen where Mafia family provides same lawyer for all defs but when that one def hires their own, testimony changes!

I predict more to follow.

[ti-amie]

This answers a lot of questions about the IT guy flipping in DC. It also raises some questions about obstruction.

Roger Parloff
@rparloff
Govt’s filing yesterday in USA v Trump (MAL) is devastating. It was responding to Judge Cannon’s inquiry—acting on her own—suggesting there was something abusive about govt’s continued use of DC grand jury after M-a-L indictment was handed down. ...
/1

.. It all began when the govt asked for a hearing on whether atty Stanley Woodward had a conflict of interest because he (a) reps def Nauta; (b) previously rep’d Trump Employee 4 (Yuscil Taveras)—now a govt witness vs. Nauta et al—& (c) reps two other potential witnesses. ...
/2

... Govt tried to accompany that motion with a sealed filing discreetly explaining the potential conflicts, but Judge Cannon—acting on her own—instantly struck it & then demanded to know why DC grand jury was still sitting ...
/3

... On Cannon’s cue, Woodward accused the special counsel of trying to “diminish [Cannon’s] authority” by abusively using DC grand jury to gather evidence for an already indicted case. ...
/4

... Woodward also asked to strike former client Yuscil Taveras’ proposed incriminating testimony against his current client Nauta to preserve integrity of proceedings & Nauta’s right to counsel of his choice. ...
/5

... Yesterday—Cannon having giving it no choice but to outline Woodward’s potential conflicts on the record— govt provided the extraordinary & damning timeline. ...
/6

.. In Mar 2023, govt called Taveras—then rep’d by Woodward—before DC grand jury. Beforehand, govt warned Woodward of a potential conflict, but Woodward said he knew of none. Taveras then perjured self, denying discussing destroying video surveillance footage with De Oliveira.
/7

... Govt notes in passing that Taveras had been referred to Woodward by a Trump lawyer and his fees were then being paid by Trump’s Save America PAC. ...
/8

On June 8 the Florida grand jury handed first USA v Trump (MAL) indictment. It did *not* yet name De Oliveira or Taveras.
On June 20 govt advised Taveras, thru Woodward, that he was the target of perjury investigation in DC—where the perjury occurred. ...
/9

... Govt says the target letter “crystallized” Woodward’s conflict, because having Taveras correct his g.j. testimony, to avoid prosecution, would implicate Nauta, Woodward’s other client.
/10

On Jun 27 govt asked for a conflicts hearing before chief judge Boasberg in DC, who supervises the DC grand jury, where the perjury occurred. Govt advised Judge Cannon same day in sealed filings. Woodward did *not* object. ...
/11

Judge Boasberg asked an independent counsel, Shelli Peterson of DC Federal Public Defenders, to advise Taveras on potential conflicts. Taveras asked Peterson to represent him and then retracted his false testimony, implicating Nauta, De O, & Trump, per govt.
/12

Govt cites numerous binding federal appellate precedents allowing grand juries to investigate “other persons” not named in an existing indictment or to explore “additional charges” against existing defs. All seem to be apply here.
/13

... Govt notes that it could find no precedent in which a district judge struck incriminating testimony against a defendant in order to protect that def’s “right to counsel of his choice”—except one case in which the judge was overturned on appeal for having done so. ...
/14

.. Pretty powerful filing, IMHO. Unnecessarily embarrassing to Woodward, Nauta, De Oliveira, Trump—and Judge Cannon. Whole filing here:




Thread Reader Aggregation including all exhibits

[ti-amie]

First mug shots in Trump Georgia election case released



By Jozsef Papp
15 hours ago
X(itter)

The Fulton County Sheriff’s Office late Tuesday night released booking photos of the first two defendants to surrender after being charged with conspiring to overturn the results of Georgia’s 2020 election.

Atlanta bondsman Scott Hall and Trump campaign attorney John Eastman were booked at the Fulton County Jail earlier in the day and released on bond hours later.

Hall was granted a $10,000 bond, while Eastman was granted a $100,000 bond.

“I’m confident that when the law is faithfully applied in this proceeding, all of my codefendants and I will be fully vindicated,” Eastman told reporters outside the jail after being released.

Eastman is facing nine charges including violation of the state’s RICO Act, conspiracy to commit impersonating a public officer, conspiracy to commit filing false documents, filing false documents, solicitation of violation of oath by a public officer, conspiracy to commit forgery in the first degree and conspiracy to commit false statements and writings.

Eastman said he had not talked to Trump and has no regrets about representing the president. When asked if he still thought the 2020 election was stolen, Eastman responded, “absolutely, no question in my mind.”

Hall is charged with violation of the state’s RICO Act, conspiracy to defraud the state, conspiracy to commit computer invasion of privacy, conspiracy to commit computer trespass, conspiracy to commit computer theft and two counts of conspiracy to commit election fraud. He did not speak to reporters Tuesday.

Hall was seen on security footage at the Coffee County Board of Elections on Jan 7, 2021, where a team of pro-Trump operatives and a forensic data team copied sensitive elections hardware and software.

On Aug. 14, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis announced a sweeping 41-count indictment charging Trump and 18 others for their efforts to reverse the results of the 2020 elections. Willis gave defendants until Friday at noon to surrender.

Fulton Sheriff Patrick Labat said Trump and is co-defendants would be treated the same as other criminal defendants in he county,

“It doesn’t matter your status. We have a mug shot ready for you,” Labat said.

More surrenders are expected in the coming days. Trump is expected to be booked on Thursday.

https://www.ajc.com/politics/first-mug- ... YCY3D2OPQ/