this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2023
318 points (97.0% liked)

politics

19243 readers
3184 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A Trump employee who monitored security cameras at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate abruptly retracted his earlier grand jury testimony and implicated Trump and others in obstruction of justice just after switching from an attorney paid for by a Trump political action committee to a lawyer from the federal defender’s office in Washington, prosecutors said in a court filing Tuesday.

top 43 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 61 points 1 year ago (2 children)

So the PAC was paying for his first lawyer.. The whole point of the PAC system is that the candidate doesn't control it, right? How does a PAC get held accountable for witness tampering?

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Trump has been doing this from early on in his presidency with other lawyers and people close to him. His PAC has always been there to pay for all the legal fees and they share the same lawyers then pass on the info between each other to get their clients stories straight and locked in.

[–] mrgoodc4t 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Huh… so they’re kinda shit at it right?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Do we expect anything else from something linked to Donny?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

I want to expect RICO charges for that behavior, but the 2 tiered legal system has conditioned me to expect very little justice when rich people are involved.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] extant 3 points 1 year ago

Yeah but we got our justice system off wish too.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago

Candidates actually can and do control PACs... up to a certain point. For example, the entire reason that Mike Huckabee keeps running for offices he knows he will never get past the very, very early primary stage, is because he can get his PAC funded and he can enrich himself and his family. Did you know that Mike Huckabee pays his children six figures a year for "roles" they hold in his PAC? That includes now-governor (barf) Sarah Huckabee-Sanders.

Trump took it to the extreme, though. But it is completely normal and legal. It is why PACs were always a bullshit proposition. It is also why people hold off so long on officially declaring candidacy and actually filing the paperwork until the deadline because that starts the clock as to when they can no longer directly personally control PACs and directly profit off of them.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Never use a lawyer being paid by someone else with a major interest in the case.

[–] NatakuNox 3 points 1 year ago

In a case involving criminal collusion, courts should require all defendants to have separate council. It's obvious letting the most powerful member being prosecuted paying for the defense of the lessor defendants is a problem.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Unless your interests are the same.

Another defendent? Probably never. But like a family member or friend that needs your name to not be dirt? Maybe.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Legal question.

The lawyer was paid by the PAC to represent the employee. Who is the lawyer's client? The employee or the PAC? Could the lawyer be in trouble for putting the PAC's needs ahead of the employee's?

[–] journey01 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The client is the employee. The lawyer's ethical duty is to the employee even though he is being paid by someone else. Same situation when your insurance company hires a lawyer to defend you in a lawsuit.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Yes, I was thinking that they were cutting it pretty thin not telling the employee to cut a deal. Hopefully, this will be another case of MAGA [Make Attorneys Get Attorneys]

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Ianal, but I think they have a responsibility to at least let the defendant know about their options. Other than that, they can have a strategy or suggest the defendant accept the less good options.

Sounds like this guy realized that their "help" wasn't in his own interest.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I repeat myself but MAGE also means 'Make Attorneys Get Attorneys]

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Yes, that's malpractice.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Lol and the Trump lawyer wants to exclude his testimony as a witness because it's a conflict of interest since he was his former lawyer. What nonsense.

[–] NatakuNox 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This Trump lawyer needs a lawyer now because he definitely broke laws by directing his client to lie.

[–] dynamojoe 2 points 1 year ago

Make Attorneys Get Attorneys

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago

"Trump world" legal representation is a problem. They'll pressure you into lying for them.

[–] dynamojoe 9 points 1 year ago

First to flip gets the best deal.... and we have a winner.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

So this guy is getting disbarred for telling his clients to commit perjury right?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My guess is that a deal was struck before the flip was flopped.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

"we'll give you better representation and a better shot at fighting these lesser charges if you flop the flip" - the DoJ, probably

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

If I was to subborn perjury I'd go to jail, not lose my job.

[–] FlyingSquid 6 points 1 year ago

The first of many.

[–] eran_morad 4 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

This is going to be interesting.