Trump employee
changing his testimony in the Mar
a Lago classified documents federal case.
This is according to a new filing
from federal prosecutors tonight.
And it worker
whose attorney was paid
for by Trump's
political action committee,
initially told prosecutors
he didn't remember any conversations
about security footage at Mar a Lago.
Remember, the indictment charges
that Trump
and others
tried to delete security camera footage
at the club
to prevent the footage
from being provided
to a federal grand jury.
Then the filing says
the employee, quote, immediately
after receiving new counsel,
retracted his prior false testimony
and provided information
that implicated Trump coconspirators
Walton
de Oliveira
and Trump in efforts to delete
security camera footage.
We have Jessica
Schneider OUTFRONT
breaking this reporting for us tonight.
Jessica, what more can you tell us?
Yeah, Brianna,
so they're revealing this
in a brand new filing
just a few minutes ago.
So they believe that
these two employees at Mar
a Lago gave this false testimony
about these efforts to delete
what were incriminating
footage from a security camera
at Trump's Florida club.
So we've learned through this filing.
The two employees are Carlos de Oliveira
and Yucel Tavares.
Now we know de Oliveira
because he's been charged
in that superseding indictment of Florida
we've seen him in court.
He was indicted
along with the former president
and the former president's aide.
Won't Nada.
But Yucel Tavares has not been charged
here.
He's only been identified
in court documents
as Trump employee number four.
But what this filing is all about
is that it's come to light
that after Tavares switched attorneys
because he and won't not up
until this point
actually had the same attorney,
Stan Woodward.
Well, Tavares,
now that he's
working with a public defender,
he seems to be changing his story.
He initially told prosecutors
one account of efforts
to delete the security footage, namely
that he didn't remember any efforts
to delete security footage.
But now that he's working
with a public defender,
it appears that Tavares
may be amending his story.
And the problem with
that would be
that it would potentially incriminate
Walt not.
So,
Brianna, prosecutors
really looking closely
at this new testimony.
It implicates,
you know, hearings
change in changing attorneys.
But of obviously,
this all relates to the case
against the former
president keeping
hold of those classified documents,
whether there were efforts to delete
security footage.
All of this unfolding in Florida
in that federal indictment.
So a big deal
if Tavares changes his story.
And it could be very problematic
for the former president Brianna.
Yes, it certainly is a big deal,
as you put it.
Jessica Schneider, thank you for that.
Report.
And OUTFRONT now,
we have Karen Friedman, Agnes
Agnes Filo,
who is a former chief
assistant district attorney
in the Manhattan DA's office.
And Clint Rucker,
former executive assistant
district attorney in Fulton County,
who worked with D.A.
Fani Willis.
Karen, just your reaction here
to the special counsel
saying that this
IT worker at Mar
a Lago changed his testimony
after switching lawyers
to a lawyer who is not paid for
by Trump interests.
Karen, can you hear me?
All right.
I think we're having
maybe a technical issue with Karen,
so we're going to try to fix that.
I can hear you.
Oh, you can hear me. Okay.
What do you think about this development?
Only hear you.
Oh, you can you can only hear.
You can hear me.
Can you hear me, Karen?
Okay.
She doesn't hear me.
I'm going to go to you, Clint.
When we try to fix Karen's issue there.
Clint,
what do you think about this
new development?
This seems like it could really impact
the former president
in this case about the documents.
Right.
And good evening, Brianna.
And thank you for having me.
I think formed
the prosecutor's
perspective
this potentially could be really
a blockbuster, certainly when there's
a conspiracy case like has been alleged.
Having someone on the inside
who can give you a glimpse behind
the curtain
certainly is very advantageous
for the prosecution.
And we know that
the difference in stories will perhaps
prove to be a little challenging
because, of course,
the witnesses
credibility will be an issue
because he's changing the story.
But nevertheless,
the information, I think, is
is really really valuable for
for the government.
Yes, that's a very interesting point,
Karen, about the credibility.
I do wonder, though,
because we saw something
similar happen
in the January 6th hearings. Right.
I think even in the case
of Cassidy Hutchinson,
someone who switched lawyers
from someone who was paid for by a
Trump interest,
and then she became a star witness.
So there were certainly questions
about her credibility.
But in the end,
she didn't really seem to suffer from it.
What do you think this could mean?
I think, look,
whenever you have
somebody who in the past
has told a different story
that will obviously
come out in front of a jury.
And so typically as a prosecutor,
you have to corroborate
what they have to say
or at least give an explanation for
why it is that their story has changed.
And like Cassidy Hutchinson,
her explanation
made a lot of sense
and she came across as very credible.
So that's
what the prosecutors will have to do
when making a decision
about whether or not to put on somebody
who had previously lied
or told a different story.
Clint, of course,
I want to ask you about what is happening
in Fulton
County, Georgia,
where you were a prosecutor for decades.
What do you think the Trump surrender
is going to look like?
We hear authorities
stressing it's
going to be the usual procedures,
but I wonder if there are some
that maybe
are not going to be used
a physical search, a medical check,
some things. What do you think?
Well, certainly I think
there's nothing unusual about this case.
I think it is
historically significant
on a very, very high level.
And while certainly
Fulton County in Atlanta
has seen its share of really high profile
defendants in cases,
I think this one has made its way
to the top of that stack,
certainly through the Secret Service
and the coordination
with the Fulton County
Sheriff's Department.
They will come up with a protocol
that will safely ensure
that the former president
is able to get in and get out
very smoothly
without any issues
with respect to his safety.
I think the normal process
is within side.
The Fulton County Jail will take place.
And so I would expect that
fingerprinting and general booking
will take place.
And hopefully on the part of
the Secret Service, at least,
and the Fulton County sheriff,
I'm sure they will want to get this
situation over as quickly as possible.
Yes.
And I think we do expect
that we will see that.
Karen, a really interesting development.
One of the 18 codefendants
of the former president in Georgia
is now actually
pointing a finger
at the former
president, saying in a new court
filing that he, quote, acted
at the direction
of the incumbent president
and other federal officials.
That's a filing coming from David Shafer.
He's a former GOP
chairman in Georgia
who led the state's delegation
of fake electors.
He also says that he was told by Trump's
lawyers, quote,
verbally and in writing
that the Republican electors
meeting was consistent
with counsel's advice.
What is that going to mean,
do you think, for the former president?
It potentially
could mean, I
think, a lot of trouble for him
because it could be a
witness used against him
if he does decide to enter
into a cooperation agreement
or if he's
if he pleads guilty
and then is called as a witness
to testify.
Right. I mean, but it's one thing.
The January six people
who stormed the Capitol,
they also thought they were acting
at the direction of the president,
but that they didn't necessarily
have a conversation with him about it.
So it will depend on what Shafer
actually says.
Did he have a conversation
with the president
or someone who worked for the president
at end?
And did he say to him, okay,
this is what you should do?
Because if that's the case, then I think
I think that puts Donald Trump in legal,
more serious legal jeopardy
than he's already in.
The reason Shafer saying it
or one of the reasons
is because he wants to remove
this case to federal court.
That's right.
He wants to move this from Georgia
to federal court
and something that we will be watching
to see if he has any success there.
Karen Friedman,
Friedman, Agnes
fellow and Clint Rucker,
thank you so much to both of you
for being with us. Thank you.