An employee of former President Donald Trump changed his testimony after retaining a new lawyer and is now admitting he lied to a grand jury, special counsel Jack Smith’s team says in a new court filing.
The unidentified worker, described as “Trump Employee 4” in court filings, was being represented by Stanley Woodward. Mr. Woodward is also representing other employees of President Trump, including Walt Nauta, a co-defendant of the former president.
Prosecutors raised concerns of potential conflict of interest because they had received indications the unnamed worker would incriminate Mr. Nauta and because President Trump’s political action committee was paying for Mr. Woodward’s work. Mr. Smith’s team asked a federal judge in Washington to explore the matter.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, appointed under President Barack Obama, directed a public defender in Washington to provide advice to the employee of President Trump, according to prosecutors. The employee on July 5 informed Judge Boasberg he no longer wished to retain Mr. Woodward and would move forward while being represented by the public defender.
The employee had told a grand jury in March that he did not recall or did not have any conversations about security footage at President Trump’s resort in Florida, Mar-a-Lago, according to prosecutors.
Carlos De Oliveira, Mar-a-Lago’s property manager, is another employee of President Trump.
Mr. Nauta has been charged for allegedly helping President Trump hide evidence from investigators probing the former president’s alleged mishandling of materials with classification markings.
Mr. De Oliveira has been charged for allegedly trying to delete footage from Mar-a-Lago surveillance cameras.
A superseding indictment filed in July says Mr. De Oliveira contacted Trump Employee 4, the director of information technology at the resort, in June 2021 and said that “his boss” wanted the footage deleted. The employee said Mr. De Oliveira would have to contact a different employee on the matter.
The unnamed employee has not been charged as of yet.
The employee, before changing his testimony, was informed by prosecutors that he had become a target of an investigation into whether he had lied to the grand jury in Washington, prosecutors revealed in the new filing.
Prosecutors now plan on calling the employee as a witness at the trial and expect “that he will testify to conduct alleged in the superseding indictment regarding efforts to delete security footage,” Mr. Smith’s team said.
Request for Hearing
Prosecutors are requesting a hearing on Mr. Woodward’s representations of Mr. Nauta and the employee.They are angling to disqualify Mr. Woodward from cross-examining the employee if and when the employee testifies.
The employee has said he will not waive his rights with regard to Mr. Woodward’s previous representation of him.
Mr. Woodward, when prosecutors told him previously that the employee had information that would incriminate Mr. Nauta, said he was not aware of any such information and that he had advised both the employee and Mr. Nauta about the prosecutorial view about a possible conflict of interest, according to court filings. Mr. Woodward said he did not think he had a conflict of interest.
“Even if Mr. Woodward was ‘unaware’ at the time he represented Trump Employee 4 that his client might give testimony that would incriminate Nauta, he is certainly aware now,” prosecutors said.
In an earlier filing, Mr. Woodward said that if a conflict were to be detected, then the employee should be blocked from testifying.
“Even were a conflict to arise from Trump Employee 4’s anticipated testimony, the Court should exercise its authority to preclude his testimony to avoid any conflict of interest insofar as the charges against Mr. Nauta that relate to Trump Employee 4 were brought only after ‘a grand jury in the District of Columbia continued to investigate further obstructive activity,’” Mr. Woodward wrote.
Grand juries in Washington and Florida were convened to investigate President Trump and his associates.
Prosecutors say the one in Washington continued to investigate possible crimes even after an indictment was returned, which Mr. Woodward says violates rulings in other cases on the proper use of grand juries.
Prosecutors said the continued investigation was proper.
Prosecutors said the proposal to preclude the employee’s testimony “would appear to be unprecedented” and that the testimony from the employee was considered “highly probative and unavailable from other sources.”
Mr. Woodward, they said, has conflicts of interest and “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.”
They floated having a co-counsel, instead of Mr. Woodward, cross-examine the employee if the testimony does happen.
