Jump to content

Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty


Recommended Posts

Posted

There is a non-zero chance of this happening  

Trump threatens a witness in Georgia trial on Truth social. Bond is revoked and a warrant is issued. Trump flees to Russia. Says he seeks political asylum because he’s being targeted for free speech. MAGA believe him because cults are cults. Fox News just asks questions and gives credence to Trumps excuses. Was it a threat? Is he being persecuted for free speech? While the rest of reality see a foreign asset completing the arc of a traitor. 

  • Rage+1 4
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

 

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE just say “I’m more popular than Jesus”.  I’ve long thought that may be the one thing that would backfire on him.  I’m no longer as certain, but it would be an enjoyable theory to test.

  • Like 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

So, Dan OingoBoingo wants Trump to actually serve a day in jail, to show how Alpha he is, or something like that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I take it he hasn't seen any of 60 days in.  Fuck Bangkok making a hard man humble, Fulton County jail is no joke.  Trump will obviously have protection, but some of these clowns being in would be the scariest thing they have ever done.  I'm not agreeing with the state of what we have, including the desperate need for reform for the mentality ill to be in proper facilities and receive care, but right now, that's where they are.  So what you have is violent mentally ill people, who may or may not being getting their meds, packed into an overcrowded old building with failing mechanical systems, that is understaffed.  For ordinary people, not hardened by this sort of stuff, it's a shit your pants situation.  

  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Lurch said:

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE just say “I’m more popular than Jesus”.  I’ve long thought that may be the one thing that would backfire on him.  I’m no longer as certain, but it would be an enjoyable theory to test.

Sir this was posted just one page ago

image.png.17b4e0ef096f81c2d17fdb16bb215534.png

Edited by SimonBolivar
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
7 hours ago, Born to Run said:
14 hours ago, Js1 said:
God damnit I’m going to be at the Taylor Swift concert in Mexico City 

I'll be there Sat, lmk if you have any tips or advice. Seriously. Lady friend has been trying to get reasonable tickets for months. México City was way cheaper.

F64CB3B4-3BD1-45D5-BC73-282A1A5C6BD7.jpeg.49851acdd7c354ee415a01b6fa99bb30.jpeg

Posted
6 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

F64CB3B4-3BD1-45D5-BC73-282A1A5C6BD7.jpeg.49851acdd7c354ee415a01b6fa99bb30.jpeg

If I'm paying those prices to please her, I know whose anus should prepare, and it ain't mine.  As always, I remain a gentleman.  

  • Like 1
  • Haha 6
Posted
Sir this was posted just one page ago
image.png.17b4e0ef096f81c2d17fdb16bb215534.png

A prompt for him to do so, but he needs to be Lennon and actually SAY it. Of course he already believes it and I’d actually agree at this point.
Posted
2 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

 

OJ Simpson: "No one has fought to find the real killers like me. For doing so, I will proudly be arrested tomorrow...."

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, The Dog said:

 

"But the law presumes, absent a strong showing to the contrary, that a grand jury acts within the legitimate scope of its authority,” and the defendant has the burden of showing that the Government’s use of the grand jury was improper."  Well, it appears as though Cannon, J. was asking the wrong party to prove this up.  Whoops. 

Edited by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 2
Posted
1 hour ago, BamaATL said:

I take it he hasn't seen any of 60 days in.  Fuck Bangkok making a hard man humble, Fulton County jail is no joke.  Trump will obviously have protection, but some of these clowns being in would be the scariest thing they have ever done.  

Yep, Travis County and Williamson County jails are a breeze compared to Fulton County.

Posted
1 hour ago, BamaATL said:

I take it he hasn't seen any of 60 days in.  Fuck Bangkok making a hard man humble, Fulton County jail is no joke.  Trump will obviously have protection, but some of these clowns being in would be the scariest thing they have ever done.  I'm not agreeing with the state of what we have, including the desperate need for reform for the mentality ill to be in proper facilities and receive care, but right now, that's where they are.  So what you have is violent mentally ill people, who may or may not being getting their meds, packed into an overcrowded old building with failing mechanical systems, that is understaffed.  For ordinary people, not hardened by this sort of stuff, it's a shit your pants situation.  

 

Maybe he could just walk the hall of the cell block.  I'd love to a story about how some dude impersonated Miggs from Silence of the Lambs and flung a little present to him.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
Posted
10 minutes ago, dcbc said:

 

Maybe he could just walk the hall of the cell block.  I'd love to a story about how some dude impersonated Miggs from Silence of the Lambs and flung a little present to him.

"I can smell your gunt."

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 5
Posted
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE just say “I’m more popular than Jesus”.  I’ve long thought that may be the one thing that would backfire on him.  I’m no longer as certain, but it would be an enjoyable theory to test.

The Lennon hypothesis would be a joy to watch.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
I take it he hasn't seen any of 60 days in.  Fuck Bangkok making a hard man humble, Fulton County jail is no joke.  Trump will obviously have protection, but some of these clowns being in would be the scariest thing they have ever done.  I'm not agreeing with the state of what we have, including the desperate need for reform for the mentality ill to be in proper facilities and receive care, but right now, that's where they are.  So what you have is violent mentally ill people, who may or may not being getting their meds, packed into an overcrowded old building with failing mechanical systems, that is understaffed.  For ordinary people, not hardened by this sort of stuff, it's a shit your pants situation.  

Considering that’s what the gqp wanted for criminals, the irony would be exquisite.
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Drool 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Lurch said:


A prompt for him to do so, but he needs to be Lennon and actually SAY it. Of course he already believes it and I’d actually agree at this point.

Lennon was also right by the way.

  • Like 2
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

To continue in my populist politician comment from his earlier Truth post that showed contempt of commercial fights....populist everyday man schedules $100,000 gala on opening night of the NFL.

Edited by SimonBolivar
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

To continue in my populist politician comment from his earlier Truth post that showed contempt of commercial fights....populist everyday man schedules $100,000 gala on opening night of the NFL.

You think the kind of person who would drop $100,000 on this watches the NFL?   They might own a team but they are not die hard fans.   Well, maybe Jets fans.

Posted
1 minute ago, Macanudo said:

You think the kind of person who would drop $100,000 on this watches the NFL?   They might own a team but they are not die hard fans.   Well, maybe Jets fans.

No, that's the point. He's a populist that lives by 0 of the values that he represents, and his followers can't see it.

  • Like 1
Posted
16 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

No, that's the point. He's a populist that lives by 0 of the values that he represents, and his followers can't see it.

It still astounds me how so many southern rednecks worship this rich, loudmouth jackass from New York City.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted

Further fuel from the fire from TWSJ: https://www.wsj.com/us-news/mar-a-lago-it-director-flipped-on-trump-after-switching-lawyers-prosecutors-say-649b49c2

It's infuriating to still read "yeah, but mean tweets" from dipshit MAGA fucks on social media. Yeah, dipshit, it's because he tweeted "mean" things. That's why we want him swinging from the yardarm.

Quote

WASHINGTON—A witness against Donald Trump in the Mar-a-Lago documents case recanted false testimony and provided new information implicating the former president after dropping a lawyer paid for by Trump’s political-action committee, special counsel Jack Smith said on Tuesday night.

The allegations by Smith’s office, outlined in a 12-page court filing, were meant to highlight the Justice Department’s concerns over potential conflicts of interest arising from Trump’s financing of lawyers for a number of co-defendants and potential witnesses.

Smith’s office has sought a court hearing to determine whether defense lawyer Stanley Woodward can adequately represent Walt Nauta, a Trump valet also charged in the case, as well as unnamed potential witnesses. Smith’s office first raised the concern to U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon earlier this month.

Tuesday’s filing from the Justice Department was intended to highlight potential ethical problems raised by Woodward’s concurrent representations. Trump’s Save America political-action committee is paying Woodward’s legal fees, the filing stated.

Woodward didn’t respond to a request for comment. 

A grand jury indicted Trump on June 8 relating to his storing of documents at his Florida resort, Mar-a-Lago. Trump was charged along with his aide Nauta, who is represented by Woodward. Both Trump and Nauta have pleaded not guilty. 

Walt Nauta, personal aide to former President Donald Trump, with his lawyer Stanley Woodward, whose legal fees are being paid by Trump’s Save America political-action committee. PHOTO: MARCO BELLO/REUTERS

After obtaining that indictment, Smith continued to investigate whether Trump and others had obstructed the documents investigation.

Smith said his office gathered that Trump employee Carlos De Oliveira tried to enlist the director of information technology for Mar-a-Lago to delete security footage after a grand jury in the District of Columbia issued a subpoena for it.

Prosecutors hoped the CCTV footage from Mar-a-Lago would shed light on how classified documents were stored and who had access to them.

Smith referred to the IT director as “Trump Employee 4,” but the individual has elsewhere been identified as Yuscil Taveras.

Woodward represented Taveras when he testified before the D.C. grand jury in March. During that testimony, Taveras repeatedly denied or claimed not to recall any conversations about the security footage at Mar-a-Lago, the Justice Department filing said.

In June, the Justice Department informed Taveras through a so-called target letter that he could be charged for making a false statement to the grand jury.

That letter “crystallized a conflict of interest arising from Mr. Woodward’s concurrent representation” of Taveras and Nauta, the Justice Department said.

“Advising Trump Employee 4 to correct his sworn testimony would result in testimony incriminating Mr. Woodward’s other client, Nauta; but permitting Trump Employee 4’s false testimony to stand uncorrected would leave Trump Employee 4 exposed to criminal charges for perjury,” Smith’s office said.

Special counsel Jack Smith has raised concerns about the legal representation for co-defendants and potential witnesses in the Trump documents case. PHOTO: AL DRAGO/BLOOMBERG NEWS

In June, the chief federal judge in D.C. informed Taveras that he could be advised by a public defender if he wished.

On July 5, Taveras informed Chief Judge James Boasberg that he was dropping Woodward and wanted to be represented by the public defender instead.

“Immediately after receiving new counsel, Trump Employee 4 retracted his prior false testimony and provided information that implicated Nauta, De Oliveira, and Trump in efforts to delete security camera footage,” the Justice Department said.

Woodward has argued that no conflicts of interest were created by him taking on multiple clients, and that Taveras was informed that if he wished to become a cooperating government witness, he could do so at any time, according to court papers.

In late July, a grand jury approved a superseding indictment that arose in large part from Taveras’s altered testimony. In that new indictment, De Oliveira was added as a defendant in the case. He has pleaded not guilty. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
43 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:


Jesus wasn’t as fab.
Of course you’re 100% correct.

But have you seen his abs? They’re fab!

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
34 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Further fuel from the fire from TWSJ: https://www.wsj.com/us-news/mar-a-lago-it-director-flipped-on-trump-after-switching-lawyers-prosecutors-say-649b49c2

It's infuriating to still read "yeah, but mean tweets" from dipshit MAGA fucks on social media. Yeah, dipshit, it's because he tweeted "mean" things. That's why we want him swinging from the yardarm.

 

Smith is working through all of them and peeling them off to get them non-MAGA counsel who will get them to flip:

Spoiler

If your boss is accused of criming, and investigators want to talk to you, here’s a tip: Be wary if the company generously offers to pay for your lawyer.

Remember Cassidy Hutchinson, the former aide to former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows? She learned this lesson quickly. When January 6 investigators came asking questions about what she had seen and heard, she got assigned a Trumpworld lawyer, who apparently advised her that it was perfectly fine to say you didn’t remember something.

The problem was, Hutchinson did remember, very well in fact, and felt uncomfortable saying she didn’t. That would be false testimony, in her view. So she reached out to her friend Alyssa Farah Griffin, who was also a former aide within the White House, who in turn put her in touch with then-Rep. Liz Cheney of the January 6 Committee. From there, Hutchinson got herself a new lawyer— one whose loyalties were with her, and not with Trump. And that’s how the most explosive testimony of last summer came about.

We’re seeing something eerily familiar play out in the federal obstruction charges against Trump, his valet Walt Nauta, and a new defendant, Carlos De Oliveira, all in connection with a key witness identified only as Trump Employee 4 in the indictment. That man’s name, we have since learned, is Yuscil Taveras, and he worked in IT at Mar-a-Lago. According to the superceding indictment, Taveras is a key witness to a plot among Trump, Nauta and De Oliveira to delete video evidence related to the movement of boxes containing top secret and other classified documents, which was part of a broader effort to thwart their recovery by the Justice Department.

Let’s take a look at how Taveras flipped and became a witness for the prosecution. Like Hutchinson, it has to do with who his lawyer was at the time he first gave testimony, versus who it was when he later recanted and provided new testimony. You’ll see clearly how conflicts can quickly arise when your lawyer is working for the boss and not really at all on your behalf, and why that representation often comes with big strings attached.

Subscribe
 
 
 

Trumpworld lawyers up

When it became clear that the Justice Department was investigating the activity of Mar-a-Lago employees, including those who may have assisted Donald Trump in preventing the return of top secret and other classified documents, Trumpworld acted quickly. An attorney for Trump put Mar-a-Lago employees Walt Nauta and Yuscil Taveras in touch with the same lawyer, a guy named Stanley Woodward. His fees would be covered by Trump’s “Save America PAC.”

These lower-level employees must have initially felt very relieved. There is no way any of them on their own could afford legal representation. And according to prosecutors, they may have committed crimes on behalf of their boss, so it stood to reason that the boss or his political fund should pay for their lawyers. What a nice man!

This representation of course helps Trump keep his potential co-defendants loyal and on message. With a clever lawyer guiding their testimony, they might all just fall in line. After all, if none of them could recall what happened, or better yet if they all denied it ever did, then the government wouldn’t be able to make its case.

So Trump, in a way, did build a wall after all: a wall of silence from his underlings. But there were cracks in it, and Jack Smith set out to exploit them.

Taveras and Oliveira initially testify

According to a recent filing by Smith’s office, while Taveras was still represented by Woodward, he went before the grand jury in D.C. and “repeatedly denied or claimed not to recall any contacts or conversations about the security footage at Mar-a-Lago.” Not good for the prosecution, but great for Trump. 

Similarly, claimed Smith, “In testimony before the same grand jury, De Oliveira likewise denied any contact with [Taveras] regarding security footage.”

The thing was, Smith’s office already had evidence, in the form of text messages, video surveillance, and other witnesses, that both Taveras and De Oliveira were lying. And those lies seem coordinated, which was no surprise given that they were both represented by Woodward.

Note that a clever lawyer like Woodward doesn’t have to tell his clients to lie for Trump. That message can get delivered in all kinds of ways. But Woodward was not getting paid by these two men. His paycheck was coming from Trump’s PAC. I’m going to take a leap here and say Woodward likely didn’t have the two men’s best interests at heart and may not have given them the best legal advice—which would have been to cooperate and try to get the best deal you can and maybe even avoid prosecution.

The first indictment drops, but the grand jury continues to investigate

On June 8, 2023, Trump and Nauta were indicted by a grand jury in Florida, including on charges of obstruction. For the moment, De Oliveira and Taveras seemed in the clear. 

What they didn’t know, though, was that Smith’s grand jury in D.C. wasn’t done investigating. (Judge Aileen Cannon, that fount of raw intelligence and judicial experience, apparently has taken issue with the fact that a grand jury dared to continue to work on matters related to the case in D.C., outside of her jurisdiction. This is of course both normal and proper, as this example plainly shows.)

The D.C. grand jury obtained video evidence that contradicted the sworn testimony of De Oliveira and Taveras. So now they had a potential perjury charge hanging over them, as well as possible obstruction charges. The Justice Department sent Taveras a target letter saying he was the subject of a grand jury investigation due to his “false sworn denial” before the grand jury earlier.

The conflict over the Trump-paid lawyer crystallizes 

Imagine you are attorney Woodward, and your client Taveras receives such a letter. If you advise Taveras to testify truthfully, that will implicate and possibly condemn your other client, Nauta. But if you advise him not to correct his testimony, you could be condemning him to a perjury charge.

That’s what a real conflict looks like. You can’t help one of your clients without hurting the other.

At this point, the government moved for a hearing to resolve the conflict. This is called a “Garcia” hearing after the case United States v. Garcia, which first addressed what should be done in such an untenable situation.

And wow were there fireworks at that hearing. When the judge made independent counsel (a federal public defender) available to Taveras, and when that lawyer explained the stakes and the risks to him, Taveras promptly fired his Trump lawyer, Woodward. He then retracted his prior testimony and, according to the government, “provided information that implicated Nauta, De Oliveira, and Trump in efforts to delete security camera footage.”

That’s what led to a superseding indictment that named De Oliveira as a defendant and embroiled Trump and Nauta in a second effort to obstruct justice—one involving a plot, spoken aloud to Taveras, to delete video footage relating to the moving of boxes around Mar-a-Lago.

The conflict ain’t over

Today, Woodward continues to represent Nauta in the criminal case. But there’s a big steam train of a conflict heading his way, and the government has flagged it by asking for another Garcia hearing over Woodward’s representation of Nauta.

Why is this still a problem? Imagine that Taveras is called as a witness to the stand, as he almost certainly will be. Now Woodward has a serious dilemma. He used to represent the witness who is now on the stand. He knows things about that witness that were told to him in confidence. And he still owes a duty of loyalty to that former client.

How on earth can he cross-examine Taveras, his former client, to benefit Nauta, his current one?

It’s a big problem. And if Judge Aileen Cannon were even a shade smarter than she is, it would be a slam dunk. As another court in the Southern District of Florida found in United States v. Braun, such a scenario “presents defense counsel with the impossible dilemma of cross-examining one former client to benefit another current client.” 

The right answer here would be to allow Nauta the option to also have independent counsel, just like Taveras got in D.C. It took very little time for Tavera to flip once that happened.

And that’s precisely what Jack Smith wants now—to help pry Nauta away from the poisonous cloud of Trumpworld, to help him understand, from a new lawyer’s perspective, that going to jail in order to protect Trump is a really stupid move—and one that probably isn’t going to save Trump anyway.

Smith isn’t done, either. In addition to moving to expose Woodward’s continuing conflict, Smith has filed a motion for a Garcia hearing to consider the conflict with the other Trump employee defendant, De Oliveira. (A refresher: De Oliveira is the employee named in the superceding indictment who helped Trump and Nauta with the scheme to delete video evidence.) 

What’s that motion based on? It turns out, De Oliveira is represented by John Irving (not the best selling novelist, but a Trumpworld attorney) who, get this, is also representing three witnesses that the government intends to call to the stand.

The point of a Garcia hearing is not necessarily to oust the lawyer from representation but to allow the lawyer’s clients a chance to understand the conflict that has arisen and, if they desire, to obtain independent counsel. De Oliveira has got to be looking at what happened with his co-worker, Taveras, and wondering if he should get a non-Trump lawyer and listen to what they have to say. And that would be huge.

In short, the strings that came with those Trumpworld lawyers are looking more like ropes with which to hang themselves.

When lawyers remark that Smith is playing 3-D chess, this is the very kind of thing they mean. Smith has already flipped one key Trump employee by peeling away his lawyer. The other two Mar-a-Lago employees—Nauta and De Oliveira—could be next. 

 

32 minutes ago, Underdog said:

Fee for fundraiser at club. 
Trump appearance fee. 
Trump skimming off top. 
Rudy still at square by one. 

Rudy isn't going to see a dime of that I'd bet. Trump needs the money for lawyers too.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
1 minute ago, The Dog said:

Smith is working through all of them and peeling them off to get them non-MAGA counsel who will get them to flip:

  Reveal hidden contents

If your boss is accused of criming, and investigators want to talk to you, here’s a tip: Be wary if the company generously offers to pay for your lawyer.

Remember Cassidy Hutchinson, the former aide to former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows? She learned this lesson quickly. When January 6 investigators came asking questions about what she had seen and heard, she got assigned a Trumpworld lawyer, who apparently advised her that it was perfectly fine to say you didn’t remember something.

The problem was, Hutchinson did remember, very well in fact, and felt uncomfortable saying she didn’t. That would be false testimony, in her view. So she reached out to her friend Alyssa Farah Griffin, who was also a former aide within the White House, who in turn put her in touch with then-Rep. Liz Cheney of the January 6 Committee. From there, Hutchinson got herself a new lawyer— one whose loyalties were with her, and not with Trump. And that’s how the most explosive testimony of last summer came about.

We’re seeing something eerily familiar play out in the federal obstruction charges against Trump, his valet Walt Nauta, and a new defendant, Carlos De Oliveira, all in connection with a key witness identified only as Trump Employee 4 in the indictment. That man’s name, we have since learned, is Yuscil Taveras, and he worked in IT at Mar-a-Lago. According to the superceding indictment, Taveras is a key witness to a plot among Trump, Nauta and De Oliveira to delete video evidence related to the movement of boxes containing top secret and other classified documents, which was part of a broader effort to thwart their recovery by the Justice Department.

Let’s take a look at how Taveras flipped and became a witness for the prosecution. Like Hutchinson, it has to do with who his lawyer was at the time he first gave testimony, versus who it was when he later recanted and provided new testimony. You’ll see clearly how conflicts can quickly arise when your lawyer is working for the boss and not really at all on your behalf, and why that representation often comes with big strings attached.

Subscribe
 
 
 

Trumpworld lawyers up

When it became clear that the Justice Department was investigating the activity of Mar-a-Lago employees, including those who may have assisted Donald Trump in preventing the return of top secret and other classified documents, Trumpworld acted quickly. An attorney for Trump put Mar-a-Lago employees Walt Nauta and Yuscil Taveras in touch with the same lawyer, a guy named Stanley Woodward. His fees would be covered by Trump’s “Save America PAC.”

These lower-level employees must have initially felt very relieved. There is no way any of them on their own could afford legal representation. And according to prosecutors, they may have committed crimes on behalf of their boss, so it stood to reason that the boss or his political fund should pay for their lawyers. What a nice man!

This representation of course helps Trump keep his potential co-defendants loyal and on message. With a clever lawyer guiding their testimony, they might all just fall in line. After all, if none of them could recall what happened, or better yet if they all denied it ever did, then the government wouldn’t be able to make its case.

So Trump, in a way, did build a wall after all: a wall of silence from his underlings. But there were cracks in it, and Jack Smith set out to exploit them.

Taveras and Oliveira initially testify

According to a recent filing by Smith’s office, while Taveras was still represented by Woodward, he went before the grand jury in D.C. and “repeatedly denied or claimed not to recall any contacts or conversations about the security footage at Mar-a-Lago.” Not good for the prosecution, but great for Trump. 

Similarly, claimed Smith, “In testimony before the same grand jury, De Oliveira likewise denied any contact with [Taveras] regarding security footage.”

The thing was, Smith’s office already had evidence, in the form of text messages, video surveillance, and other witnesses, that both Taveras and De Oliveira were lying. And those lies seem coordinated, which was no surprise given that they were both represented by Woodward.

Note that a clever lawyer like Woodward doesn’t have to tell his clients to lie for Trump. That message can get delivered in all kinds of ways. But Woodward was not getting paid by these two men. His paycheck was coming from Trump’s PAC. I’m going to take a leap here and say Woodward likely didn’t have the two men’s best interests at heart and may not have given them the best legal advice—which would have been to cooperate and try to get the best deal you can and maybe even avoid prosecution.

The first indictment drops, but the grand jury continues to investigate

On June 8, 2023, Trump and Nauta were indicted by a grand jury in Florida, including on charges of obstruction. For the moment, De Oliveira and Taveras seemed in the clear. 

What they didn’t know, though, was that Smith’s grand jury in D.C. wasn’t done investigating. (Judge Aileen Cannon, that fount of raw intelligence and judicial experience, apparently has taken issue with the fact that a grand jury dared to continue to work on matters related to the case in D.C., outside of her jurisdiction. This is of course both normal and proper, as this example plainly shows.)

The D.C. grand jury obtained video evidence that contradicted the sworn testimony of De Oliveira and Taveras. So now they had a potential perjury charge hanging over them, as well as possible obstruction charges. The Justice Department sent Taveras a target letter saying he was the subject of a grand jury investigation due to his “false sworn denial” before the grand jury earlier.

The conflict over the Trump-paid lawyer crystallizes 

Imagine you are attorney Woodward, and your client Taveras receives such a letter. If you advise Taveras to testify truthfully, that will implicate and possibly condemn your other client, Nauta. But if you advise him not to correct his testimony, you could be condemning him to a perjury charge.

That’s what a real conflict looks like. You can’t help one of your clients without hurting the other.

At this point, the government moved for a hearing to resolve the conflict. This is called a “Garcia” hearing after the case United States v. Garcia, which first addressed what should be done in such an untenable situation.

And wow were there fireworks at that hearing. When the judge made independent counsel (a federal public defender) available to Taveras, and when that lawyer explained the stakes and the risks to him, Taveras promptly fired his Trump lawyer, Woodward. He then retracted his prior testimony and, according to the government, “provided information that implicated Nauta, De Oliveira, and Trump in efforts to delete security camera footage.”

That’s what led to a superseding indictment that named De Oliveira as a defendant and embroiled Trump and Nauta in a second effort to obstruct justice—one involving a plot, spoken aloud to Taveras, to delete video footage relating to the moving of boxes around Mar-a-Lago.

The conflict ain’t over

Today, Woodward continues to represent Nauta in the criminal case. But there’s a big steam train of a conflict heading his way, and the government has flagged it by asking for another Garcia hearing over Woodward’s representation of Nauta.

Why is this still a problem? Imagine that Taveras is called as a witness to the stand, as he almost certainly will be. Now Woodward has a serious dilemma. He used to represent the witness who is now on the stand. He knows things about that witness that were told to him in confidence. And he still owes a duty of loyalty to that former client.

How on earth can he cross-examine Taveras, his former client, to benefit Nauta, his current one?

It’s a big problem. And if Judge Aileen Cannon were even a shade smarter than she is, it would be a slam dunk. As another court in the Southern District of Florida found in United States v. Braun, such a scenario “presents defense counsel with the impossible dilemma of cross-examining one former client to benefit another current client.” 

The right answer here would be to allow Nauta the option to also have independent counsel, just like Taveras got in D.C. It took very little time for Tavera to flip once that happened.

And that’s precisely what Jack Smith wants now—to help pry Nauta away from the poisonous cloud of Trumpworld, to help him understand, from a new lawyer’s perspective, that going to jail in order to protect Trump is a really stupid move—and one that probably isn’t going to save Trump anyway.

Smith isn’t done, either. In addition to moving to expose Woodward’s continuing conflict, Smith has filed a motion for a Garcia hearing to consider the conflict with the other Trump employee defendant, De Oliveira. (A refresher: De Oliveira is the employee named in the superceding indictment who helped Trump and Nauta with the scheme to delete video evidence.) 

What’s that motion based on? It turns out, De Oliveira is represented by John Irving (not the best selling novelist, but a Trumpworld attorney) who, get this, is also representing three witnesses that the government intends to call to the stand.

The point of a Garcia hearing is not necessarily to oust the lawyer from representation but to allow the lawyer’s clients a chance to understand the conflict that has arisen and, if they desire, to obtain independent counsel. De Oliveira has got to be looking at what happened with his co-worker, Taveras, and wondering if he should get a non-Trump lawyer and listen to what they have to say. And that would be huge.

In short, the strings that came with those Trumpworld lawyers are looking more like ropes with which to hang themselves.

When lawyers remark that Smith is playing 3-D chess, this is the very kind of thing they mean. Smith has already flipped one key Trump employee by peeling away his lawyer. The other two Mar-a-Lago employees—Nauta and De Oliveira—could be next. 

 

Rudy isn't going to see a dime of that I'd bet. Trump needs the money for lawyers too.

In the fine print:

 

 

*99.8% of funds go to the Donald J Trump Patriot Legal Fund 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 4
Posted
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE just say “I’m more popular than Jesus”.  I’ve long thought that may be the one thing that would backfire on him.  I’m no longer as certain, but it would be an enjoyable theory to test.
Meh. Jesus wasn't all that popular in his day.
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, Born to Run said:
3 hours ago, Lurch said:
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE just say “I’m more popular than Jesus”.  I’ve long thought that may be the one thing that would backfire on him.  I’m no longer as certain, but it would be an enjoyable theory to test.

Meh. Jesus wasn't all that popular in his day.

Maybe he’ll get the same fate. Without the resurrection of course. 

Posted

Say what you want about Trump's inept lawyers.  getting that many powerful people who actually have something to lose, to lie to federal prosecutors about attempting to overthrow the U.S. Government or a properly conducted Presidential Election in exchange for next to nothing?  That's not nothing.  They may suck at pre-trial filings, motions, and actual trials.  But that's a skill set that's respectable.  

And it completely proves what his minions have refused to believe for decades.  There are two justice systems in our country.  Hundreds and Hundreds of January 6th rubes are rotting in prison with not so much as a $5 canteen donation or 1 hour of legal advice paid for by Donald Trump as he promised he would do.  And some of them really didn't do anything that serious but steal a pen on the way outta the Capitol but they're getting the shit beat out of them in federal lockup later today.  But more than half of the college educated, white collar co-conspirators to overthrow our Republic will walk away from that courthouse with no punishment at all and make six figures on the speaking/adjunct professor circuit.  Because we have two parallel systems.  The flag waving, gun owning, patriots?  They'll do every fucking last day of their sentence and they'll do it in fear and pain, wondering why their god has forsaken them.  Most of the powerful white people are getting away with all of this.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
5 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

 

Change "FOUGHT FOR" to "FOUGHT AGAINST" and "PRESIDENT" to "FORMER PRESIDENT" and everything he said is true.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Lurch said:

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE just say “I’m more popular than Jesus”.  I’ve long thought that may be the one thing that would backfire on him.  I’m no longer as certain, but it would be an enjoyable theory to test.

I'm not sure it would any more.



×
×
  • Create New...