Basically trump wanted this guy to lie. He was using a trump pac sponsored lawyer at the time. Smith says “hey we’re gonna investigate you for perjury because we found evidence that you did fuck with the tapes so you might want to get a non trump aligned lawyer”. Soon as he gets a public defender he changes his tune and sings like a canary blaming it on trump et al and now he isn’t being charged since he’s cooperating.
Sounds like trump and his ilk are turbo fucked on this. Only the first guy to sing gets immunity usually.
I saw an article where the rump lawyer was saying the state won’t call the flipper because then they’d get to crops examine and ask why he changed the story…
They’ll never ask that.
Because there’s like a 99% chance the answer is:
You told me to lie or I wouldn’t get free legal counsel
Both the defense and the prosecutor can select witnesses to call. Why would the prosecution (The State) not want to call the flipper?
“A Trump Pac paid-for lawyer told me to lie or I wouldn’t get free legal counsel” is exactly the dream answer the prosecution would like.
Of course they’re gonna want to ask it if they thought the answer was 99% that.
Unless the lawyer [or the article] is saying the State is the one afraid because the State is the one that told him to lie for a public defender and the State wouldn’t want the defense to ask something that would bring that up during cross examination?
Which would make no sense and is not how public defenders work but isn’t surprising to be coming from the caliber of lawyer still willing to represent the defense here.
I also fail to follow the logic of this commenter. I’m not sure if they’re conspiracy-minded (“lawyers protecting their own” - when, in fact, one of the ethical lawyer’s greatest joys is taking bad actors out of the profession), or confused, or if I am failing to understand their point, or what…
I’m an attorney, and let me tell you, a corrupt lawyer as opposing counsel can make a good lawyer’s life hell. Recently there was an opposing counsel who was such a bad actor that the judge themselves filed an ethics complaint with the state bar after the bad guy voluntarily dismissed the case. The judge also put the 10 page memo supporting the voluntary dismissal under seal because it was full of outright lies and slander directed at the judge and counsel on my side.
They’ll probably let Nauta plea to a lesser charge in order to nail trump to the wall.
That’s how it goes a lot of times in cases like this. First guy gets immunity. Next few get plea deals if they give up actionable info. Everyone else gets the book thrown at them.
Oh I’m sure it wasn’t in those exact words since trump thinks he’s a mob boss, but the sentiment was probably there. We won’t know until these guys take the stand.
Basically trump wanted this guy to lie. He was using a trump pac sponsored lawyer at the time. Smith says “hey we’re gonna investigate you for perjury because we found evidence that you did fuck with the tapes so you might want to get a non trump aligned lawyer”. Soon as he gets a public defender he changes his tune and sings like a canary blaming it on trump et al and now he isn’t being charged since he’s cooperating.
Sounds like trump and his ilk are turbo fucked on this. Only the first guy to sing gets immunity usually.
I saw an article where the rump lawyer was saying the state won’t call the flipper because then they’d get to crops examine and ask why he changed the story…
They’ll never ask that.
Because there’s like a 99% chance the answer is:
Both the defense and the prosecutor can select witnesses to call. Why would the prosecution (The State) not want to call the flipper?
“A Trump Pac paid-for lawyer told me to lie or I wouldn’t get free legal counsel” is exactly the dream answer the prosecution would like.
Of course they’re gonna want to ask it if they thought the answer was 99% that.
Unless the lawyer [or the article] is saying the State is the one afraid because the State is the one that told him to lie for a public defender and the State wouldn’t want the defense to ask something that would bring that up during cross examination?
Which would make no sense and is not how public defenders work but isn’t surprising to be coming from the caliber of lawyer still willing to represent the defense here.
I also fail to follow the logic of this commenter. I’m not sure if they’re conspiracy-minded (“lawyers protecting their own” - when, in fact, one of the ethical lawyer’s greatest joys is taking bad actors out of the profession), or confused, or if I am failing to understand their point, or what…
I’m an attorney, and let me tell you, a corrupt lawyer as opposing counsel can make a good lawyer’s life hell. Recently there was an opposing counsel who was such a bad actor that the judge themselves filed an ethics complaint with the state bar after the bad guy voluntarily dismissed the case. The judge also put the 10 page memo supporting the voluntary dismissal under seal because it was full of outright lies and slander directed at the judge and counsel on my side.
deleted by creator
They’ll probably let Nauta plea to a lesser charge in order to nail trump to the wall.
That’s how it goes a lot of times in cases like this. First guy gets immunity. Next few get plea deals if they give up actionable info. Everyone else gets the book thrown at them.
Nauta’s entire identity is bound up in being Trump’s body man. What do I know, but I’d be shocked if he rolls.
deleted by creator
All depends on when they flip I guess. Wait too long and they might get fucked by both sides.
deleted by creator
Pretty shady in such a high profile case. Surely a lawyer wouldn’t have told him to lie, just didn’t tell him not to lie.
deleted by creator
No surprise, Trump says he doesn’t hire anyone smarter than he is.
Oh I’m sure it wasn’t in those exact words since trump thinks he’s a mob boss, but the sentiment was probably there. We won’t know until these guys take the stand.
Once those rico charges stick, we’ll have confirmation that he’s a mob boss. But we already know he is one.