this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2023
417 points (97.7% liked)

politics

19103 readers
4328 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A key witness against former President Donald Trump and his two co-defendants in the Mar-a-Lago documents case recanted previous false testimony and provided new information implicating the defendants after he switched lawyers, special counsel Jack Smith’s office said in a new court filing.

Yuscil Taveras, the director of information technology at Mar-a-Lago, Trump's club in Palm Beach, Florida, changed his testimony last month about efforts to delete security camera video at the club after he changed from a lawyer paid for by Trump’s Save America PAC to a public defender, Tuesday's filing says.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Lifecoach5000@lemmy.world 63 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Is it odd that he switched to public defender instead of acquiring his own representation?

[–] mrbubblesort@kbin.social 64 points 1 year ago

Well considering Trump has a long history of not actually paying his employees, wouldn't be surprised if this guy couldn't afford it

[–] krayj@sh.itjust.works 31 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

On review of all the additional evidence and testimony, it became obvious to the prosecution that the key witness ("Trump Employee 4" - revealed by NBC News to be "Yuscil Taveras" - IT Director at Mar-a-Lago) in question had perjured himself in earlier grand jury testimony and that it was a conflict of interest for that witness to be represented by by the same attorney (Stanley Woodward) representing other involved clients.

Prosecutors asked for a hearing on the representation issue before James Boasberg, the chief US District Court judge in Washington DC who oversaw the grand jury investigation.

Judge Boasberg had a federal defender available to advise Taveras if requested, and Taveras did opt to change lawyers after he learned he was being investigated on suspicion of making false statements in previous grand jury testimony.

So, TL/DR: he went with the public defender out of the immediacy and need for independent counsel and the only option available at that moment was the public defender who was pre-emptively made available by the Judge himself.

I will speculate that he will be acquiring his own representation going forward.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Attorneys will jump on it, their name attached to a case like this can make and break careers.

[–] utopianfiat@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

He probably can't afford it

[–] tburkhol@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

He's the "IT guy" at a hotel. That doesn't scream high net worth to me.

[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

Probably was offered immunity, but his Trump paid lawyer said no. So why spend money on a lawyer when you can get a public defender for free and then take the deal?

[–] hoshikarakitaridia@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Idk but possibly related: I've heard that there are a good number of times you should prefer public defender to paid representation.

[–] moistclump@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 42 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So there's an attorney recommendinf perjury? Not very cashmoney of him...

[–] markr@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Perjury to advantage his other client. There has to be a law against lawyers doing that.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I mean that sounds like fraud to me, is there a form of malpractice that applies to Legal cases? Like a lawyer version of medical malpractice.

[–] TheAndrewBrown@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago

I think Kim gets sued for something similar in Better Call Saul. It’s almost definitely something you can get disbarred over.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Conflict of interest, it's an ethical violation and at times grounds for mistrial by willfully ineffective counsel.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 8 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


A key witness against former President Donald Trump and his two co-defendants in the Mar-a-Lago documents case recanted previous false testimony and provided new information implicating the defendants after he switched lawyers, special counsel Jack Smith’s office said in a new court filing.

Taveras decided to change lawyers after he learned he was being investigated on suspicion of having made false statements in his previous grand jury testimony in Washington, D.C., the court filing says.

"When Trump Employee 4 testified before the grand jury in the District of Columbia in March 2023, he repeatedly denied or claimed not to recall any contacts or conversations about the security footage at Mar-a-Lago," the filing says.

By late June, prosecutors had "advised Trump Employee 4 (through Mr. Woodward) that he was the target of a grand jury investigation in the District of Columbia into whether he committed perjury."

Prosecutors asked for a hearing on the representation issue before James Boasberg, the chief U.S. District Court judge in Washington, D.C., who oversaw the grand jury investigation.

Shelli Peterson — the first assistant federal public defender in Washington, whom the special counsel's filing refers to — declined to comment Tuesday night.


The original article contains 717 words, the summary contains 196 words. Saved 73%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Making Attorneys Get Attorneys.

Not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure telling your client to lie is a No-No!

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You could argue he wasn’t the guy’s lawyer

who was being paid by the former president's Save America PAC

A lawyer represents whoever is the paying his bills.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›