On Thursday, the DOJ filed a superseding indictment against Trump and a new co-conspirator listing multiple new charges including Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice by “attempting to delete security camera footage from The Mar-a-Lago Club to conceal the footage from the FBI and grand jury.”
(I asked readers once what I should call my breakdown and analysis of legal documents and my favorite suggestion was ‘over the cliff notes.’ So here we are: Superseding Indictment Over the Cliff Notes.)
The way to read a superseding indictment is to open the old indictment, which is here, and compare it to the new indictment, which is here, and see what has been added.
So put on your nerd glasses and open the documents and compare. Okay, Paragraph 10 is new:
So, in January 2022, De Oliveira received an impressive promotion from valet to property manager. Presumably, the promotion came with an equally impressive pay raise.
To find out if anything interesting happened in January 2022, when De Oliveira was promoted, I opened my timeline, which is here, and saw that January 2022, was when Trump returned 15 boxes of documents to the National Archives and evidently decided not to return all of the documents in his possession.
The next change is in paragraph 73. Initially, it read:
Okay, so basically, they just added de Oliveira to the sentence about loading the boxes. We can assume this detail will become important later. Notice there are still “others” who are not named. Memo to others: You might be in big trouble. Make sure you have a good defense lawyer who is not paid by Donald Trump. (You’re welcome.)
After paragraph 73, we get a new heading:
An Attempt to Delete Security Footage.
That does not sound good.
The timeline given in the indictment begins on June 3, 2022, which was when FBI agents were at Mar-a-Lago to collect the documents and they observed surveillance cameras.
On June 22, the DOJ emailed a draft grand jury subpoena requiring production from the security camera where the Storage Room was located. On June 24, the DOJ emailed the actual subpoena to Trump’s lawyers.
That same day, June 24, Trump Attorney I (the attorney is not named) spoke with Trump by phone about the security footage.
At 3:44 pm. Nauta received a text message from a coworker telling him that Trump wanted to see him.
Less than 2 hours later, Nauta changed his travel plans and instead of traveling with Trump to Illinois, went to Palm Beach, FL. (It’s not clear to me where Nauta was, but he was obviously not in Palm Beach.)
Nauta provided inconsistent explanations to colleagues for his sudden change in travel plans. He told one person he had a family emergency. He told a secret service agent that he was in Florida working. (So he’s having trouble keeping track of stories).
Here’s a funny detail: The text message in which he said he had a family emergency included “shushing emojis” which I assume looked like this:
🤫
(Evidently, when you are about to destroy evidence sought by the FBI, the way you keep the whole thing secret is to include shushing emojis in your texts.)
About the time Nauta was making travel plans to go to Florida, Nauta and De Oliveira contacted Trump Employee 4, who we learned is an IT Director. First, Nauta and De Oliveira wanted to find out if the IT Director (Employee 4) was around and working or available. (June 24, 2022, was a Friday, so this is happening late Friday afternoon.) Nauta texted him and asked, “Hey bro you around this weekend?”
Nauta then asked De Oliveira if he was still working. De Oliveira said “yes” and that he “just left.” (Sounds like, “I left but I am available.” There is a conscientious worker for you!)
Then they talked on the phone for 2 minutes.
Next De Oliveira told a valet that Nauta was coming but they wanted the visit to be a secret.
(Oh goodness. De Oliveira told the valet that Nauta’s visit was a secret. That should keep the secret safe, right?)
Then De Oliveira told Employee 5 that Nauta wanted De Oliveira to ask Employee 4 how long the video footage was stored. (So they decide to bring in another employee. Nothing like making sure the secret stays safe.)
At 5:46, Nauta and De Oliveira went to the security guard booth where surveillance video monitors were displayed. They walked in, then, carrying a flashlight, they went through the tunnel where the storage room was located. Once there, they observed and pointed out surveillance cameras.
On Monday, De Oliveira walked to the IT office where Employee 4 (the IT Director) was working with another IT person.
De Oliveira wanted to talk to Employee 4 in private, so they stepped away and had a private exchange in an audio closet. There, in the audio closet, De Oliveira tells him this conversation needs to remain private.
Then De Oliveira asked Employee 4 how long the server retained footage. Employee 4 said 45 days. Then (OMG) De Oliveira tells Employee 4 that “the boss” wanted the server deleted. Goodness. (So we learn we are in the middle of a Three Stooges plot to destroy evidence.)
Employee 4 says he doesn’t know how and he doesn’t think he has the rights to do that.
Imagine how creepy this is feeling to the IT director. An employee took him into an audio closet and told him that “the boss” wanted the server deleted. Employee 4 (the IT Director) evidently didn’t want to do it.
Adding: People are pointing out that “rights” might have meant that he didn’t have access. I agree, but I still think he didn’t want to do it and purposefully didn’t try very hard. News that Trump was being accused of keeping classified documents had been widely reported by then.
De Oliveira pushed back. He “insisted” that the boss wanted the server deleted and asked, “What are we going to do?”
We don’t find out what Employee 4 said.
(Me: 😂 There were only two people in the audio closet when it happened, and the DOJ knows about the conversation. Assuming there are no surveilllance cameras in the audio closet, we seem to have a cooperating witness in Employee 4.)
Well dang. After a few unimportant details, the story ends there.
I guess they didn’t actually delete anything. De Oliveira didn’t know how to delete the server. Employee 4 was too smart to try to wipe security surveillance footage.
After that, Trump and De Oliveira talked for 3.5 minutes. (Evidently, the DOJ knows from phone records who talked and for how long, but not what was said.)
The next new stuff is paragraph 91 where Nauta, De Oliveira, Employee 5, and a PAC representative talk like mobsters about being loyal to the boss. You have to read it for yourselves. No summary will do it justice:
Interesting that the Signal chat included a PAC Representative.
Okay, next we come to the part of the indictment where we get new charges.
One document is added to the list under the charge of “willful retention of documents”:
TOP SECRET//NOFORN
Presentation concerning military activity in a foreign country.
Um . . . the “presentation” part seems important. (This is probably the document Trump waved around at the July 2021 meeting at Bedminster, described in paragraph 6.)
Notice, though, that the DOJ still hasn’t charged “dissemination of top secret docs.” That could be because “presentation” simply means waving them around, which, if the people couldn’t actually read them, may not qualify as “disseminating.” However, recall Trump’s media statements after the last indictment when he said the documents he was waving around were not secret government documents: They were newspaper clippings or whatever. The detail that he was actually waving around a secret government document shows he was lying. Also, obviously, “presenting” or waving around top secret documents in front of people without clearance increases the seriousness of the crime.
Next we see that De Oliveira’s name is added to Charge 33, Conspiracy to Obstruct. This is also added to Count 33, Conspiracy to Obstruct:
Count 42 charges De Oliveira with “False statements” (section 1001). The new charge includes these alleged facts: De Oliveira sat for a voluntary interview with FBI agents. The agent asked him if he ever moved any boxes or saw anything being moved and he said, “I never saw nothing.”
So De Oliveira lied to the FBI.
Here are a few things we know from the reporting about De Oliveira: He is 56 years old, which means he was promoted from valet at the age of 55. His lawyer, John Irving, is paid through Trump’s Save America PAC. His law firm, so far, has been paid around $200,000 by the PAC.
Here’s the thing: If De Oliveira hadn’t lied, he wouldn’t be in trouble. But because he lied, he has made himself part of a conspiracy to destroy evidence, which is part of the crime of wilful retention of top secret US documents.
It may be hard for De Oliveira to extract himself from Trump World. We don’t know his financial or life situation before becoming Trump’s valet, but I think we can assume that the position of ‘valet’ was a step up. De Oliveira’s family believes that De Oliveira doesn’t know how the US government works.
Remember Cassidy Hutcinson’s story. Initially, while she had a Trump-paid-for lawyer, she was stonewalling the Congressional January 6 committee. Then she bonded with Liz Cheney, got her own lawyer, and then she was able to be truthful with the committee. The hope, of course, is that now that this indictment is public, someone close to De Oliveira can help him see that he needs a lawyer who is not paid for by a Trump PAC. Trump, obviously, has no trouble watching people go to prison for him.
The Ultimate Irony
Trump has been indicted for the exact same crime he accised Hillary Clinton of committing (but she didn’t actually commit). At an event in October of 2016, he said, “There has never been anything like this. You get a subpoena, and after getting the subpoena you delete 33,000 emails.” He was distorting the truth about what Clinton and her staff did, but describing what he himself tried to do: After receiving a subpoena he ordered his staff to delete the footage subpoenaed by the DOJ, footage that the DOJ believed contained evidence about his mishandling of secret government documents.
More indictments expected
Two other indictments are in the works. It appears from security barricades being set up around the Fulton County Court House that we can expect more indictments from Georgia any time. There are also signs that a Trump indictment for January 6 will be filed any day.
If indictments come mid-week, I’ll do a mid-week Over the Cliff Notes blog post.
JJ, who I must admit, is the yappiest little dog at the dog beach, does an odd thing . . .
He runs as fast as he can up to the bigger dogs, barks ferociously, then, before they have a chance to react, JJ turns around and runs back to us. There is a metaphor in there somewhere.
Love your articles/blogs, please CTRL-F “accised” and fix. Excellent points all around!
Thanks, Teri. The superseding indictment really makes the whole thing read like a comedy skit, except that it’s all too real. That anybody could actually commit crimes this way is mind boggling. You weren’t kidding when you have written (in multiple posts) that actual criminals are nothing like they are depicted in crime novels and the like. They make absolutely ludicrous errors in judgement and action and are often quite foolhardy.
de Oliveira is also the employee who drained a pool at Mar-a-Lago directly into the server room in October 2022. I’m sure that this was a totally innocent act that was not connected in any way to any cover-up attempt.
It never, never, ever fails to leave me gob-smacked when 45 pretends he’s some fearsome mob boss. He wouldn’t have survived as a foot soldier. I grew up watching a mob family run their territory with violence and intimidation. They were ruthless, cruel, and you.did.not.cross.them. They could be charming if it suited them, but most of them were certifiable psychos whose charm could dissappear in an instant. 45 is a blustering, wining, crybaby; they would have given him one chance to do things their way, and then he would have disappeared, only to be found months or years later in one of their dump spots.
All 45 ever does with people who don’t do what he wants is bluster and issue verbal threats. He’s about as dangerous my neighbor’s yappy dog who turns tail and runs if you move towards him.
The memo to the other individuals should be “run, don’t walk, to the FBI, tell them everything you know, and get your own lawyer.”
It may be too fine a point, but a server is a physical object. It can be “wiped”, or the data on it can be deleted, but saying “delete the server” is linguistically clumsy and technically ignorant enough that, to my ears, it sounds just like something you know who would say.
Virtual server? But doubt that fella knows the difference…
> (Evidently, when you are about to destroy evidence sought by the FBI, the way you keep the whole thing secret is to include shushing emojis in your texts.)
Wow. I never knew.
> (Oh goodness. De Oliveira told the valet that Nauta’s visit was a secret. That should keep the secret safe, right?)
He must have only used his finger to his lips instead of the emoji.
> Employee 4 says he doesn’t know how [to delete recordings] and he doesn’t think he has the rights to do that.
Computer permissions / authorizations.
> About the time Nauta was making travel plans to go to Florida, Nauta and De Oliveira contacted Trump Employee 4, who we learned is an IT Director.
NB: IT directors typically have the authority / credentials for wiping disk drives without having to resort to disassembly and sanding platters.
> De Oliveira’s family believes that De Oliveira doesn’t know how the US government works.
The concept of not lying to or misleading criminal investigations didn’t occur to him? Okay…
Final question:
Will this go on for the rest of my life? Is it almost over yet? (Oops. That’s two.)
“De Oliveira’s family believes that De Oliveira doesn’t know how the US government works.” – This is a new tidbit to me and I would love to know the source. Trump uses and abuses those who are financially dependent on him. Even Weisselberg fell on his sword for Trump.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/28/politics/trump-maralago-indictment-carlos-de-oliveira/index.html
Thanks for the roundup on the superceding indictment— I agree that a Three Stooges movie couldn’t have bungled the tape erasure caper more! I have a few comments.
1) The date of the offense listed for the new document added to the illegal retention list is Jan. 20, 2021 – Jan 17, 2022, so this doc was apparently in the 15 boxes trump returned to NARA. We’re speculating that it’s the Iran invasion plan trump showed off in summer 2021. I’d expect the DoJ would know that document was returned but I remember seeing that DoJ had asked (&/or subpoenaed) trump for that doc last fall & was told he didn’t have it. So I’m wondering if this added doc could be a different one — maybe that they have new evidence he showed off?
2) Whatever Employee 4 (the IT guy) meant by “I don’t have rights”, I had to laugh about his refusal to do “da boss’s” bidding by hiding behind the voodoo of computer technology! How many of us have been stymied in a (presumably legal) request to get something done by the IT person saying it’s not possible — because they don’t want to do it — they are modern day witch doctors! (Ps, you’re IT guy seems particularly cooperative!)
3) what the heck is the significance of those PARA 86 cloak n dagger meetings where DeOliveira walked thru bushes to get off the MAL property & meet with Nauta? I think we all assume it was secrecy but Nauta had already shown himself at MAL the previous Saturday.
4) PARA 91 states trump called DeOliveira & told DeOliveira that trump would get DeOliveira an attorney — you note the prosecution has records of the date & times of calls but not the substance — how is the substance of this call known? (Also, where the heck was this attorney when DeOliveira was interviewed in Jan 2023? — not that it would’ve helped his answers be more truthful!)
> (Ps, you’re IT guy seems particularly cooperative!)
She has a bit more leverage than your average IT supplicant.
Thank you Teri!
I enjoy your input so much, and learn a lot too!
😉
JJ has a good lawyer and he knows it.
Thank you for this, analysis and sharing. Who needs more?
Loving your subtle commentary, about say, the value of ‘shush’ emojis.
I found myself momentarily stuck on the thuggish/crude statement by De Oliveira to FBI agents. “The agent asked him if he ever moved any boxes or saw anything being moved and he said, “’I never saw nothing.’”
Never saw nuttin’! Well, it’s not actually “a lie” though, is it? Literally? He has never seen “nothing”, but HAS seen a whole lot of activity at the behest of “the Boss”. I love words, and linguistics, so…
But the whole #TrumpVirus world of non-“Truth” is also straight from the mold… of Doublespeak.
Feeling like a Fellini version of Brave New World, starring the guy with “all the best words” & his terrific buddies and fall guys, I mean cult members, or maybe “griftees” [sic]. Thanks again!
Teri,
Hoping you can confirm my understanding of the applicable legal principles on a charge of attempting to obstruct justice are correct. For the last couple of days, I’ve heard several pundits proclaim that it doesn’t matter, folks, if Trump didn’t actually delete the server files; all the prosecution needs to prove is that he intended to do so. I’m thinking that isn’t quite right. Surely proof of attempt requires proof of actual steps having been taken to achieve the illegal object. The more directly tied, or the more proximate, the act is to the object, the easier it is to prove intent; the more remote, the more ambiguous, and reasonable doubt comes into play.
Here, we don’t have a direct step such as Employee 4 trying to key in a delete instruction that doesn’t work. But we do have N flying to Palm Beach to meet with O; N instructing O to ask E4 how long the video record was stored; O and N surveying the camera locations/angles, presumably to verify that there would be evidence of the box movements; and, the approach to E4.
I would think these acts, cumulatively, should be sufficient in law to constitute attempt?
I’m coming at this from the perspective of a Canadian lawyer, I don’t know what nuances there may be to the law of attempt in your federal criminal law.
Thanks.
The crime charged is conspiracy to obstruct justice. I took a screenshot of the statute and the charge. It’s 18 USC 1518(k). Last week I explained how conspiracy worked. Look at the explanation I gave last week. (Two people enter an agreement to commit a crime and one takes a step in furtherance of that crime). (The link I gave last week was to a different conspiracy statute. That would be the statute that would come into play in the January 6 case.)
Then look up obstruction of justice. See if it makes sense that the crime was entering a conspiracy to obstruct justice.
The three who entered the conspiracy were Trump, Nauta, and De Oliveira.
I assume that what the pundits meant by “intended” was that when Trump entered the conspiracy it was with the intent for the conspiracy to succeed.
These two links should help:https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/conspiracy and https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obstruction_of_justice
Basically the three entered a conspiracy to delete the server, which would be obstruction of justice because they were conspiring to delete the server shortly after the DOJ issued the subpoena. Trump obviously didn’t want to comply with the subpoena. Nauta and De Oliveira are the stooges because they were basically doing what they had been told by their boss. Once they lied, though, they were acting in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Thank you very much, Teri. You make everything understandable. I really enjoy the humorous bits too.
JJ is a smart cookie. He says his piece, then gets the hell out of Dodge.
I ESPECIALLY enjoy the humorous parts mixed in with the narrarive. Teri’s asides emphasize the stupidity of the parties.
Thank you so much for your weekly analyses! I worry a lot less less about trump legal news now that I’ve discovered your blog, knowing you’ll explain things in a clear and calm manner. Brilliant connection you made about the timing of De Oliveira’s huge promotion and the surveillance footage subpoena! What price loyalty, eh?
I am concerned about the Georgia case, with all the Fulton County judges now recused, and the new judge from the red county setting a date for a hearing on trump’s absurd request to throw out all the grand jury evidence and squash the trial. I’m afraid that Fulton County trial may not happen—barricades or not. Can this judge do that, even though the GA Supreme Court refused to consider trump’s motion?
I have started to leave my desktop email app running continuously, waiting for your “Over the Cliff Notes” blog postings.
Thank you, Teri, I appreciate and rely on your posts so very much. I think the gravity of what Trump is and what will happen should he regain power is not registering with too many of us. Are you concerned at all about the various indictments seeming to come on at once? This might be a dumb question but do they not consider the landscape of all the cases out there before bringing their own?Will they not get in the way of each other and take away from the laser focus needed to show that there is no way he should hold office ever again?
The problem with committing lots of crimes is that you’ll get lots of indictments.
I understand what you mean though: A person who hasn’t committed a crime can seem guilty simply by the repetition of “her emails,” but that gets us into the issue of how things are reported and how people respond to what is reported.
Regarding the description of the new classified document added to the indictment, I take “Presentation” to mean that it was a presentation type document, e.g. PowerPoint, as opposed to a text document. It doesn’t make sense to me that the description of the document would include the defendant’s actions with it.
I agree – I thought the same thing. But I guess it could be both.
Thank you, it’s hilarious. especially this part: “(Evidently, when you are about to destroy evidence sought by the FBI, the way you keep the whole thing secret is to include shushing emojis in your texts.)”
Teri,
You write, “Employee 4 says he doesn’t know how and he doesn’t think he has the right to do that.”
The actual text from Paragraph 84(c) states: “Trump Employee 4 … did not believe that he would have the RIGHTS to do that.” (I believe he’s talking about access rights on the security system, not some legal right.)
I thought I fixed that! Thanks.
I interpreted “presentation” to mean the document in question was itself a presentation, not that Trump presented it. For example, it could be PowerPoint slides from something presented to then-president Trump
I agree, I believe “presentation” is part of the description of the document, not a reference to Trump’s behaviour.
Terri, yours is the best – the most entertaining while getting across the facts – explanation of the superseding indictment. 3 Stooges? Nailed it!
My specific responses:
– the Shhh emoji should be the emoji of the year, if such a thing exists
– Employee 4 should be Time Mag’s person of the year
– do you have a source for what the De Oliviera family said?
– And to JJ I say: Go get ’em, buddy!
Over the Cliff notes are amazing. Sadly my high school homework didn’t have access to them.
Now how can we help Carlos and Walt learn to study with Over the.Cliff notes too?
Some have suggested MarLargo was purchased by Trump for purposes of gathering kompromat on famous/powerful people w hidden cameras everywhere.
With this clear crime witnessed on video tape—- what is the ability for the DOJ to subpoena all video from the whole place?
That wouldn’t be enough. You need probable cause that evidence exists in a particular place for a particular crime.
You make my day…always look forward to your clear explanations as well as your “side notes”. Thank you
Perhaps JJ knows he has a good lawyer.
I spoke to someone who spent a few years in Guam, where apparently the Nauta family is from. She says the family is well respected there and feels badly that Walt is embroiled in this Trump fiasco. I feel equally bad for DeOlivera and all others who get caught in the Trump web. Everyone goes to jail but Trump. And I don’t believe he ever will pay for his crimes in jail. Anyway,thanks for the over the cliff notes.
> I’ll be honest—reading legal documents isn’t usually this much fun.)
> You can read my Over the Cliff notes here.
I enjoy your writing, but I’ll read it tomorrow.
“So we learn we are in the middle of a Three Stooges plot to destroy evidence.”
This is the sort of thing that happens when you insist on only hiring the “best people”….
I was just thinking, “This is starting to sound like the Three Stooges,” and in the next moment I saw that Teri had in fact referred to those estimable gentlemen.
This was such fun. Thank you for clarity and hilarity. I’m just wondering, does De Oliveira’s double negative (“I never saw nothing,”) perhaps get him off the hook on lying?
I wondered about this too.
I’m thinking it’s just a Spanish construction made too literally into English.
‘Get Down’ From the Car. ‘Make’ the Line. Is Miami English a Dialect? https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/26/us/miami-dialect-english-spanish.html
Always thoughtful and considered analysis, thank you.
Perhaps a minor point, but note that de Olievra says he doesn’t have the *rights* to delete footage, which is a credentials (login, password) problem that he posits, from an IT guy pov.
Thanks! I fixed it! (I think you also commented on Mastodon. In general here is better because I don’t see everything on social media.)
“JJ turns around and runs back to us”
He knows a good defence lawyer when he sees one 🙂