Mar-a-Lago IT worker gets immunity deal to flip on Trump in seized documents case
The deal came after the office of special counsel Jack Smith threatened to prosecute the witness for lying to the grand jury.
The deal came after the office of special counsel Jack Smith threatened to prosecute the witness for lying to the grand jury.

A witness in the Mar-a-Lago documents case has reportedly entered into a "non-prosecution agreement" with federal prosecutors, a court document filed by his former attorney on Tuesday reveals.
The deal came after the office of special counsel Jack Smith threatened to prosecute the witness for lying to the grand jury.
The employee’s former defense attorney, Stanley Woodward, wrote in the filing that a man, identified by CNN as IT worker Yuscil Taveras and referred to as Trump Employee 4 in the filing, agreed to testify in the classified docs case in exchange for not being prosecuted.
Prosecutors have argued that Woodward, who now represents Trump valet Walt Nauta who is being prosecuted in the case, could face a conflict of interest, especially if Woodward has to cross-examine his former client.
Woodward wrote that he "played no role" in Taveras’ cooperation, and added that Taveras wasn’t offered the deal until after he got a different lawyer.
Woodward asked the judge to block Taveras from testifying at the trial.
According to CNN, Taveras’ testimony in July was the source of new allegations included in the superseding indictment filed that month against Trump and Nauta.
Taveras "repeatedly denied or claimed not to recall any contacts or conversations about the security footage at Mar-a-Lago," the special counsel team alleged in court documents.
In July, court documents alleged that Taveras changed his story and "retracted his prior false testimony and provided information that implicated Nauta, [Carlos] De Oliveira, and Trump in efforts to delete security camera footage."
Woodward wrote in an August filing that Taveras' flipped testimony should not be able to be submitted to the court as it was obtained through "improper use of out-of-district proceedings" in Washington, DC, and the effort to use it as evidence reveals "nothing less than an attempt to diminish the [Florida] Court’s authority over the proceedings in this case."
Libby’s Desk
Commentary and must-reads from Libby’s desk, straight to your inbox.
TPM Newsletter
The Post Millennial’s top stories, delivered to your inbox.


