Mar-a-Lago Security Aide Flipping

[Bray123]

They were required to get new counsel after a legal determination that there is a conflict of interest in one lawyer representing them all.

Thus they didn't "drop" the "Trump-funded lawyer," they got fired by "the Trump-funded lawyer."

An interesting update.
There was a lot of speculation previously as to why anyone would think there wasn't conflict, so it's no surprise.

 

[HisArpy]

An interesting update.
There was a lot of speculation previously as to why anyone would think there wasn't conflict, so it's no surprise.

I see you dropped the derp about "trump-funded lawyer" once you were exposed about it. Sorry not sorry about making you look like a fool.

Unfortunately you decided to find another way of looking foolish. "Conflict of interest" in legal terms only means that a lawyer cannot represent multiple clients who may wish to present a defense which rests on another of their co-defendants being the guilty party. Not that there is such a defense, or that it's viable, only that the party might choose to present it.

Did you know that there is also a "conflict / conflict" scenario which often arises for multiple defense cases? And, like the above, it doesn't matter if the potential defense is viable or even made, the mere existence of that possibility creates the conflict of interest on the part of the lawyer and he is ethically required to tell his clients that they must seek different counsel.

So, rather than this being some sort of legal/political dirt like you'd prefer it to be, what it really shows that ETHICS are very much present in Trump's Mar A Lago case.

 

[Bray123]

I see you dropped the derp about "trump-funded lawyer" once you were exposed about it. Sorry not sorry about making you look like a fool.

Unfortunately you decided to find another way of looking foolish. "Conflict of interest" in legal terms only means that a lawyer cannot represent multiple clients who may wish to present a defense which rests on another of their co-defendants being the guilty party. Not that there is such a defense, or that it's viable, only that the party might choose to present it.

Did you know that there is also a "conflict / conflict" scenario which often arises for multiple defense cases? And, like the above, it doesn't matter if the potential defense is viable or even made, the mere existence of that possibility creates the conflict of interest on the part of the lawyer and he is ethically required to tell his clients that they must seek different counsel.

So, rather than this being some sort of legal/political dirt like you'd prefer it to be, what it really shows that ETHICS are very much present in Trump's Mar A Lago case.

If ethics were so very present, the lawyers might have chosen to decline without waiting for 'legal determinations'.

 

[HisArpy]

If ethics were so very present, the lawyers might have chosen to decline without waiting for 'legal determinations'.

Potential conflicts show up in cases all the time. The question is whether the conflict rises to the point where effective representation is in question. Until that point, or "legal determination" of a conflict, is reached there is no ethical issue.

It's kind of like shoelaces. Until you have them, you don't bother trying to tie them. Not that you could in any event...

 

[butters]

A witness in the case accusing former President Donald Trump of mishandling classified documents has entered into a "non-prosecution agreement" with federal prosecutors, an attorney wrote in a Tuesday filing.

The deal came to be after special counsel Jack Smith's office threatened to prosecute the witness, who is head of information technology at Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort, for lying to a grand jury, attorney Stanley Woodward wrote in the filing.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...1&cvid=ed3e46c88be74ea29da1e42e652e3737&ei=10

 

[butters]

de oliveira asked to speak to Taveras 'somewhere more private', Taveras ends up contacting Matthew Calamari Jnr who contacts legal team which instructs DO NOT DELETE!:

As the Times is reporting, "According to the indictment, which does not name Mr. Taveras but refers to him as 'Trump Employee 4,' Mr. De Oliveira led him through a basement tunnel to a small room known as an 'audio closet,' where Mr. De Oliveira delivered a message from Mr. Trump: 'the boss' wanted the footage deleted. Mr. Taveras rebuffed the request, prosecutors said in the indictment, but Mr. De Oliveira raised it again."

Noting that Taveras once again denied the request, the report states that Taveras then reportedly confided to fellow employee Renzo Nivar about what had happened and days later alerted "a superior in Trump Tower."

According to the Times, "One executive in New York, Matthew Calamari Jr., the Trump Organization’s corporate director of security, apparently became alarmed, according to people with knowledge of the matter. He alerted the company’s legal department, prompting a senior lawyer at the company to deliver a stern warning not to delete anything."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...1&cvid=05e49d390e0c493f84c3b54cec2b8d0a&ei=18

 

[butters]

Wednesday: Judge Aileen Cannon issues protective order on documents... trump can NOT take them back to m.a.l, only view them in a scif

The order requires Trump and his lawyers to review and discuss all classified evidence in a so-called sensitive compartmented information facility, or SCIF.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/j...p&cvid=9c64a88b134c43979bc038571707cc22&ei=44

 

[butters]

Judge Cannon refuses nauta all-access to classified documents other than those admitted as evidence during discovery

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...1&cvid=4decb714d88d4ac0aa0496061b961b91&ei=84

In a Wednesday order, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon ruled against Nauta's bid to have comprehensive access to classified documents that his boss allegedly mishandled.

"In order to protect the national security, the Government's Motion is GRANTED in accordance with this Order and as discussed during the hearing," Cannon wrote, referencing a Tuesday hearing.

it was in a second ruling on Wednesday that she made allowances for nauta and de oliveira regarding documents introduced during the trial.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

i have visions of floodgates opening and the lone figure stood with his finger in the dyke is giuliani, swearing he has scientific proof that the hole is not a hole

Your post about fingers in dykes should be on the GLBT forum, dipshit

 

[butters]

In a hearing Thursday, former Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos De Oliviera waived the potential conflict of interest, repeatedly saying he's fine with his current attorney, John Irving, continuing to represent him despite alleged conflicts of interest Irving might have from representing potential government witnesses in the case. Judge Aileen Cannon, who can reject his waiver, has yet to rule on the matter.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/d...1&cvid=faa0207adb5e4fdc9428ef672fc1e5e2&ei=12

 

[Bray123]

It's going to be one heck of a call.

Irving is considering telling De Oliviera to save his skin and testify against Trump, totally spill the beans that would be the end of the road.
Also he's telling Trump to bluster it out, he had the absolute right to commit any crimes he wanted because president.

Whilst being paid by Trump for giving advice to De Oliviera, a low-paid employee. Yup, no conflict at all.

 

[butters]

Jack Smith filing shows concessions by Nauta's attorney that he may not be able to cross-examine or discredit 'Number 4' due to potential conflicts

The prosecutor's additional briefing states that "Defendant Waltine Nauta’s attorney Stanley Woodward Jr. cannot ethically cross-examine former client Trump Employee 4, who will be a significant witness at trial," according to the document.

In her thread citing the documents, Phang also noted how Nauta’s attorney, Stanley Woodward, was conceding that “his ethical obligations may constrain his ability to discredit Trump Employee 4 or Witness 1 in closing arguments.”

Phang added that "Woodward’s concessions to the Government as represented in tonight’s filing are a big deal."

"He was complaining so much before Judge Cannon and yet now he concedes much of what the DOJ was arguing to the court last week," she wrote Wednesday.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...1&cvid=487e751f8d074802bcf509c5d1db4ebd&ei=11

 

[butters]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...1&cvid=3d061e4d909b43f39d5f1f380b6ab486&ei=16

cannon to hear legal arguments about trump's 'claims that he is protected from prosecution by the Presidential Records Act and that criminal law involving the mishandling of national security secrets can’t be applied to him as a former president.'

Trump has argued the case should be dismissed because he designated the materials he took to Mar-a-Lago while he was still president as personal — and thus was allowed to keep them.

Prosecutors said the materials that he took from the White House are “indisputably presidential, not personal” and even if Trump did designate them as personal, prosecutors said, the PRA would still not apply to classified information.

 

[butters]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/special-c...on-effort-trump-classified/story?id=110438582

newly released files show Judge Howell's opinion on filings made by S.C Jack Smith regarding suspected additional attempts by trump to obstruct:

Special counsel Jack Smith appears to have suspected additional efforts by former President Donald Trump to obstruct the government's investigation of his handling of classified documents, a newly unsealed court filing revealed Tuesday.

The opinion was released as an exhibit in filings responding to Trump's efforts to have the case dismissed, ahead of two hearings Wednesday related to his aide Walt Nauta's efforts to dismiss the related charges against him.

"The government urged that this scramble to Mar-a-Lago in the wake of the June 24, 2022 phone call reflects the former president's realization that the removal of the boxes from the storage room before [redacted] search was captured on camera -- and his attempts to ensure that any subsequent movement of the boxes back to the storage room could occur off camera," Howell wrote.

"This theory draws support from the curious absence of any video footage showing the return of the remaining boxes to the storage room, which necessarily occurred at some point between June 3, 2022 -- when the room had approximately [redacted] boxes, according to FBI agents and [redacted] -- and the execution of the search warrant on August 8, 2022 -- when agents counted 73 boxes," wrote the judge.

Howell ultimately agreed the government had made a "likely" showing that Trump ordered his associates to "avoid the surveillance cameras he then understood to have been deputized by the government," ordering Corcoran to testify about a June 24, 2022, phone call with the former president that occurred the same day the Trump Organization was subpoenaed for the footage.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/special-c...on-effort-trump-classified/story?id=110438582