top of page

Seems Awfully Convenient. Just As Judge Questions Why Two Grand Juries, Jack Smith Has An Answer


Just as Judge Aileen Cannon raises serious questions about the Grand Jury process in the Trump documents case, it seems that Jack Smith has a very convenient answer on why he needed a DC jury to do all the work, for alleged crimes in Florida, and why he needed to keep the DC Grand Jury working, even after the Florida indictment.


The IT director at Mar-a-Lago who was involved in the indictment against President Donald Trump for handling classified documents has recently changed his testimony, now accusing Trump. The IT director, Yuscil Taveras, referred to as "Trump Employee 4" in the indictment, served as the IT director at Trump's club.


It is alleged that Taveras had a conversation with Carlos De Olivera, the head maintenance man at Mar-a-Lago, where the two discussed the deletion of camera footage. According to Taveras, the order to delete the footage came from "the boss."


In addition to Taveras, another individual implicated in the indictment is Trump's valet, Walt Nauta.


Initially, Taveras denied any involvement or knowledge regarding the security footage at Mar-a-Lago. However, after a change in legal representation, from Stanely Woodward to a public defender in Washington DC, Taveras changed his testimony. Special Counsel Smith has stated that Taveras will be a key witness against Trump in the upcoming trial.


Court documents in July revealed that Taveras retracted his prior false testimony and provided information that implicated Nauta, De Oliveira, and Trump in efforts to delete security camera footage.


Woodward, the prosecutor previously representing Taveras, Nauta, and De Oliveira, argued against admitting Taveras' changed testimony, claiming it was obtained through improper use of out-of-district proceedings. He further argued that using this testimony as evidence would undermine the authority of the Florida court overseeing the case.


On the other hand, Smith and his team, acting as special counsel, countered Woodward's argument, asserting that the out-of-district testimony should still be submitted. They claimed that excluding the testimony would give Woodward a tactical advantage by excluding crucial incriminating evidence.


The trial is tentatively set to commence on January 2, 2024, just before the first caucus vote in Iowa.

109 views2 comments
bottom of page