The Special Counsel's office notified Judge Cannon that they've made a third production of discovery to Trump & Nauta. It includes " additional CCTV footage from [MAL] that the Government obtained from the Trump Organization" on 5/9 & 5/12/23. 1/ storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
And Smith's team is also confirming they've now produced "all unclassified memorialization of witness interviews finalized by today’s date and all grand jury transcripts in the Government’s possession." 2/
In other words, if Trump & Nauta did not know who Trump Employees 3 and 5 were before today and/or the gist of what they told Smith's team, they do now. 3/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
On 7/14, NYT reported that a "low-level employee" of the Trump Organization received a target letter relating to the Mar-a-Lago case "in recent weeks" after testifying to a D.C. grand jury in May. His lawyer was Stan Woodward. 1/ nytimes.com/2023/07/14/us/…
But the new defendant in the superseding indictment, Carlos De Oliveira, has been represented by John Irving at least since late May. 2/
Meanwhile, like the unnamed employee who received the target letter NYT reported in mid-July, Yuscil Taveras a) testified before a D.C. grand jury in May; and b) is represented by Stan Woodward. And he’s never been charged. 3/
While many of us awaited an indictment out of D.C. this week, Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg spent nearly 40 minutes on public radio and at the very end, talked about the timing of all of these Trump trials. And what he had to say was *interesting.* 1/
While flagging his 3/24 2024 trial date, he said that "if and when" another indictment or indictments come, "we'll see what happens to the schedule. We have a firm trial date ...[but] in matters like this, you know, judges will ... confer & take a very broad lens on justice." 2/
Though insistent that ultimately "judges set the trial schedule," he also said he would "not sit on ceremony" about the timing or order of the trials, would "take a broad look at what justice requires," and if/when judges talked about schedules, he would follow their lead. 3/
I’m rereading the superseding indictment, and details that have been there since the start are still gobsmacking. Among them? That between Jan. 2021 and Aug. 2022, when the FBI conducted its court-authorized search of Mar a Lago, MAL hosted 150 social events. 1/
Those events included “weddings, movie premieres, & fundraisers that together drew tens of thousands of guests.” Safe to say DOJ/Smith’s team obtained the event staff’s records to illustrate why Trump’s keeping hundreds of classified documents at MAL was reckless & dangerous. 2/
Another thing I only appreciated on a closer, slower reading: The Special Counsel has a list of those federal agencies/departments with a stake in the classified documents at issue. They include the Department of Energy. Why? 3/
The problem for Trump is that the Special Counsel has not only located the document he showed those assembled in July 2021 at Bedminster, but they are making two more related facts crystal clear. 1/
First, the chart accompanying counts 1-32 (the willful retention of documents counts) reflects that the Bedminster document -- a "presentation concerning military activity in a foreign country" -- was returned to the feds on Jan. 17, 2022. 2/
What happened on Jan. 17, 2022? That's when "after months of demands by the National Archives ... to provide all missing presidential records, Trump provided only 15 boxes, which contained 197 documents with classification markings." 3/
Whatever went down in the Hunter Biden hearing, it was *not* because of the House Republicans' filings. How do I know? Because the judge agreed with the parties that the "decision about what charges to bring [is] for the prosecutor as part of the Executive Branch." 1/
When she asked what should happen "if there were a failure in the investigation or the charges brought were inappropriate," the parties agreed the answer should come from the political process, not House investigations. In other words, if it was fishy, vote in a new executive. 2/
Ultimately, the judge determined that the way in which the parties structured their two, interlocking agreements -- the plea agreement and the diversion agreement -- required her to play a role in the latter's enforcement without giving her a say over its approval. 3/
Among the questions raised by today's Hunter Biden plea-gone-awry is this, "Why would a competent lawyer allow a client to plead out if the plea agreement doesn't cover the landscape of all past crimes?" 1/
We haven't seen the plea agreement presented to the court today--and its language will clarify exactly was and was not covered. But there's also the possibility that a good defense lawyer, knowing full well potential FARA charges were not included, nonetheless advised a plea. 2/
Specifically, DOJ's recent track record on FARA enforcement is, well, not great. SDNY pursued Rudy Giuliani on FARA charges for his Ukraine activities but ultimately closed that investigation--and loudly. 3/