171

Witness in Trump documents case reached deal with prosecutors, ex-attorney says (www.yahoo.com)

submitted 1 year ago by deconstruct@lemm.ee to c/politics@lemmy.world

3 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A key witness in the case accusing former U.S. President Donald Trump of mishandling classified documents after leaving office has entered into a deal with prosecutors to provide testimony, his former attorney said in a Wednesday court filing.

The deal was reached after U.S. Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office threatened to prosecute the witness, who is the head of information technology at Trump's Mar-a-Lago Florida resort, for lying to a grand jury, the attorney, Stanley Woodward, said in the filing.

Woodward currently represents Walt Nauta, one of the two Trump employees also charged in the documents case, in addition to having previously represented the IT head, who is not named in Wednesday's filing.

Prosecutors have said the employee is likely to testify at trial, posing a potential conflict of interest for Woodward, who will face the prospect of a former client testifying against a current client.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

Ask your doctor about Defenestration.

this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2023

171 points (99.4% liked)

politics

19077 readers

3694 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.
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