662

Mar-a-Lago IT manager implicates Trump in classified files case (www.bbc.com)

submitted 1 year ago by BagOfHammers@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

37 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 42 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] teft@startrek.website 182 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 66 points 1 year ago

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

[-] Promethiel@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] DarthBueller@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[-] atempuser23@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

The rest of the defendants are rich. The it guy was a regular dude. Regular dudes go to prison and rich people don’t. He and the valet were the ONLY ones with a real chance of prison.

[-] DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] teft@startrek.website 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[-] Techmaster@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

Once those rico charges stick, we'll have confirmation that he's a mob boss. But we already know he is one.

[-] misterundercoat@lemmy.world 134 points 1 year ago

I don't know why any underlings would decide turn on Trump, since he has always demonstrated a fervent loyalty and unrelenting effort to protect anyone who supported him.

[-] musictechgeek@lemdit.com 61 points 1 year ago

Sarcasm can be difficult to catch in online conversations. Yours, however, came through like hot sauce on chicken wings.

[-] Techmaster@lemm.ee 13 points 1 year ago

It came through like a shart in really thin shorts.

[-] ryrybang@lemmy.world 39 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

To be fair, if you turn on Trump, there is the very real threat of having millions of meal team six members' attention being directed your way by the cult leader. Death threats, doxxing, stalking, harassment, and other criminal behavior are a very real possibility.

[-] atempuser23@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

That is part of why Rico laws exist. It is to show that there are numerous people carrying out the criminal conspiracy for the boss even if the boss never directly says so.

I have a feeling the current lawyer was never told ‘ make the it guy lie to cover me’ but did so anyway.

[-] FarceMultiplier@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

Burger zombies turning toward their next meal...

[-] brothershamus@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago

The iron law of Trump Supporters is that Everyone Gets Shit On. No Exceptions.

It's such a bizarre cult. They don't even know what they're doing.

[-] dirthawker0@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Especially his very best of girlfriends, Rudy Giuliani. Coming right through for him

[-] hup@lemmy.world 94 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

IT folken! If corpo borporate boss ever tells you to erase the security footage and/or logs, remember these magic words: "Sure just send the request in writing and I'll get right on it."

And maybe backup those logs to a thumbdrive if you feel comfortable with that.

[-] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 16 points 1 year ago

Tape backups are better, preferably at a secure off-site location that can be subpoenad by the DA.

[-] Mdotaut801@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

You people are acting like you’re going to have to deliver a tape to a “secure offsite location.” Lol. Whoa whoa whoa. Cmon now. Let’s settle down.

[-] FarceMultiplier@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

Be careful about, and document, chain of custody so that this is more easily admissible in court.

[-] Pretzilla@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

And get ready for the pool to flood the server room, just in case

[-] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 41 points 1 year ago

"I'm not paid by Donald Trump and everything your former lawyer told you is bullshit, you will go to jail for a significant amount of time"

It's like a law and order episode, except real.

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 37 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Yuscil Taveras, an IT director identified as Trump Employee 4 in legal documents, changed his testimony after switching lawyers, say prosecutors.

Mr Trump, his close personal aide Walt Nauta and Mar-a-Lago maintenance worker Carlos De Oliveira have all pleaded not guilty.

The former president is accused of mishandling the storage of sensitive files at his Florida home, Mar-a-Lago, and trying to cover up the alleged crime by deleting security footage.

The court document filed on Tuesday says Mr Taveras changed lawyers after special counsel Jack Smith, who is overseeing the case, notified him he was being investigated for perjury.

During grand jury testimony in March this year, Mr Taveras "repeatedly denied or claimed not to recall any contacts or conversations about the security footage at Mar-a-Lago".

The chief judge overseeing the federal grand jury, James Boasberg, offered a public defender to Mr Taveras after prosecutors pointed out a conflict of interest for his lawyer Stanley Woodward, who was being partly funded by Mr Trump's Save America political action committee.

The original article contains 403 words, the summary contains 169 words. Saved 58%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] chalupapocalypse@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago

If the IT guy flipped they probably have a nice backup of everything, spicy 😁

[-] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago

No one is going to spend 40 years in jail for Trump. When he realized they had evidence implicating him in the destruction of evidence it was a forgone conclusion he'd flip. Also the Trump lawyer that told the IT manager to lie to investigators needs to be charged as well.

[-] Kushan@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

IANAL, but isn't there like a whole thing around you can appeal if you got bad legal advice?

[-] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

Yes, and the lawyer should be disbarred for telling a client to commit purgery.

[-] ngdev@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Seriously. I mean, this isn't brain serjury

[-] Crackhappy@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Nice.

[-] Ashyr@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

Can the lawyer be charged with some sort of crime?

[-] DarthBueller@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Yes, but usually disbarment is sufficient punishment for corrupt fuckers and a deterrent message to the legal community - permanently losing your livelihood and being publicly shamed in the process, while not a criminal proceeding, is extremely (and justly) punitive. That said, if there was a decent likelihood of the fucker becoming a media personality after disbarment, or otherwise capitalizing on their punishment, I'd suspect that a DA might consider criminal charges.

[-] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

A lawyer telling a client to commit perjury in a federal case surrounding a former head of state is absolutely worth prosecuting.

This isn't Keny Lay pretending he didn't know what was for me on at Enron. This is a lawyer hired specifically to defend someone other than his client and intentionally telling his client to lie - which is knowingly and intentionally bad legal advice.

A lawyer really can't do anything worse from a professional or legal standpoint.

[-] DarthBueller@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I realized I was talking from a more general perspective — you’ll get no arguments from me against prosecuting the fuck out of these folks. You’re totally right.

[-] whofearsthenight@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

No one is going to spend 40 years in jail for Trump

I mean, the dumb ones might...

this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2023

662 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19126 readers

1946 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News