650
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2023
650 points (98.5% liked)
politics
19239 readers
1925 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
All depends on when they flip I guess. Wait too long and they might get fucked by both sides.
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.
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.