62
MAGA - Making Attorneys Get Attorneys
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The Justice Department (DOJ) is teeing up the possible disqualification of the attorney representing Walt Nauta, one of former President Trump’s alleged co-conspirators in the Mar-a-Lago case, warning the lawyer may have conflicts of interest after representing numerous witnesses in the probe.
Stanley Woodward has represented “at least seven other individuals who have been questioned in connection with the investigation,” including those who have testified about Nauta, the DOJ disclosed Wednesday.
The DOJ also asks the court to assess whether Nauta fully understands the risk associated with his current attorney.
Taveras, the Mar-a-Lago employee responsible for overseeing security cameras, previously received a target letter in the probe, but after switching attorneys he flipped, prompting the superseding indictment that detailed Trump’s involvement in attempting to delete Mar-a-Lago security footage.
That indictment also relied on information from Taveras that led to the naming of a third co-conspirator in the case, Carlos De Oliveira, a Mar-a-Lago property manager who helped Nauta move boxes and was part of the effort to delete the footage.
I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Trump's strip mall lawyers should be quietly shitting themselves by this point.
I don't Stan for anyone these days but I'm a bit in awe of Jack Smith SC. His hobbies include participating in triathlons FFS!?!
If this all pans out it'll make one hell of a movie.
“Jack Smith, Special Counsel” kind of sounds like a spy thriller. Just saying.
Granted … they wouldn’t have to embellish to that extent to make interesting or gripping.
But also, this is a power move. They want Nauta as a witness. Screwing over Nauta’s legal team… oh yeah. They just declared dominance.
Yep. They just T-posed over the body of the lawyer and started baggin' it. Classic Jack move.
4 years from now, who do you want to play Jack?
I mean... I dunno. Maybe we should ask Jack?
Holy shit, that’s pretty unethical. He represented the dudes who testified against his new client?
I knew it, they're just doing mob things.
The motion comes following reports about the extent of Trump’s financing of attorneys for allies now embroiled in legal trouble due to their connection with him as well as the decision of Yuscil Taveras to switch attorneys, abandoning representation by Woodward.
Opening Arguments podcast had been a blast to listen to lately.
About Nauta, they keep saying: If you're not paying the attorney, he's not representing your interests
I haven't heard of them and I'm looking for a new one, thanks for the rec. I'm off and on listening to knowledge fight but you can only take so much alex jones and tucker carlson.
I can also recommend OA, they'll get a little into the weeds on some things but I enjoy that kind of stuff.
Oh shit... so Nauta already had trouble finding a local lawyer for the trial...
they just shitcanned the one he did find. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/27/trump-documents-codefendant-walt-nauta-cant-find-local-lawyer.html
Better call ☎️ Saul
Not even Slippin Jimmy is gonna touch that case
this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2023
62 points (100.0% liked)
politics
18881 readers
3594 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS