Mar-a-Lago IT manager implicates Trump in classified files case
Mar-a-Lago IT manager implicates Trump in classified files case
37 comments
-
-
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.
-
Sarcasm can be difficult to catch in online conversations. Yours, however, came through like hot sauce on chicken wings.
-
It came through like a shart in really thin shorts.
-
-
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.
-
-
Burger zombies turning toward their next meal...
-
-
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.
-
Especially his very best of girlfriends, Rudy Giuliani. Coming right through for him
-
-
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.
-
"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.
-
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!
-
If the IT guy flipped they probably have a nice backup of everything, spicy 😁
-
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.
37 comments
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.
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.
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.
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.