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.

  • aelwero@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    107
    ·
    1 year ago

    So instead of being bought, he’s being extorted? Yeah that totally makes the current version of his story more valid… Throw this motherfucker off the witness stand and send him on his way, he’s either full of shit or he’s full of shit…

    Are we planning on indicting everyone who testifies for the defense on fraud charges? Is that how this shit works now? Tell me how this is an improvement over trump buying witnesses or slipping religious fervor inducing drugs into their food or whatever ye fuck he’s doing to get people to back up his bullshit?

    Indicting witnesses isn’t the fucking high road. Fuck trump, but fuck this bullshit too. This is exactly the sort of shit that “defund the police” types bemoan when it’s done to a nobody, but hey, as long as we get trump, it’s all fucking good… it’s fucking not good…

    • teft@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      70
      ·
      1 year ago

      If the prosecution comes to a witness for the defense and says are you sure you want to stick with your story we have evidence that the opposite happened, that isn’t extortion. That is giving a witness the chance to tell the truth.

      • vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        The whole point of being a witness is that you’re not supposed to lie, and if you lie you can be prosecuted for it. What’s even the point of the concept of perjury otherwise?

        • Th4tGuyII@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It is, and you should… most of the time.

          There are times where it is beneficial to let a witness know that you know they’re lying, giving them a chance to flip before you fry them, as the info they’re holding onto may very well be worth more than eliminating them as a witness entirely via perjury.

    • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      49
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is how criminal conspiracies work.

      The little guys are asked by the big guy to lie, but some flip to save their own skin.

      Stop trying to normalize Trump’s lawlessness.

      • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        These mafia tactics don’t belong in politics. I’m glad they recognized the guy was being forced to perjury.

    • kiku123@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t understand. Isn’t the way not to be suspected of perjury just not to lie to the court in the first place? It doesn’t seem like extortion to me.

      I think this was due to the conflict of interest by the old lawyer, who probably told this witness, “Just say you didn’t see anything or don’t remember and you’ll be fine.”

      It turned out it wasn’t fine and the guy found a new lawyer. This new lawyer is being a zealous advocate and trying to keep this guy out of jail.

    • TerryMathews@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That’s a lot of words to be wrong, friend-o.

      Saying “Are you sure you don’t want to revise your testimony, because we have factual evidence that it’s false and that may lead to an indictment for perjury.” isn’t extortion, it’s allowing this guy to not loyalty his way into a felony.

      Imagine, the police/prosecution use their discretion and don’t throw the book at someone and idiots still take exception to it

    • breakingcups@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      Tell me how this is an improvement over trump buying witnesses or slipping religious fervor inducing drugs into their food or whatever ye fuck he’s doing to get people to back up his bullshit?

      It’s simply about the truth. Merely stating the truth “Are you sure that is going to be your sworn testimony because we have evidence that proves otherwise and lying to a court of law will get you jail time” is not extortion. Not even close.

    • omgarm@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sounds like he got a good lawyer instead of one funded to protect only Trump and nobody else.

    • Elderos@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      Seems like the opposite to me. Like he was coerced to lie for his old boss due to the circumstances, especially from being dependant from the legal fund. The prosecutor gave him an out and a chance to break fealty from trump. He probably lied because he thought it was the only way out, and his testimony could be valuable after realizing it is not.

      You have to realize that this is how criminal organizations work. The members end up being dependant on the leader and they’re scared to tell the truth. It is doubly so when you’re very own lawyer is being hired by the mob boss. What a messed up system.

    • utopianfiat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Are we planning on indicting everyone who testifies for the defense on fraud charges?

      We should indict everyone who lies to a Grand Jury actually. Not sure why this is controversial to you

    • Th4tGuyII@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      If they’re lying, and you can prove it, you prosecute them for perjury…

      But if you suspect they’ve got important info, them perjurying them would be a waste. It would be more beneficial to let a witness know that you know they’re lying before you prosecute. Give them a chance to straighten out their story, potentially giving you a much larger win than if you’d simply removed them as a witness via perjury. That’s exactly what they’ve done here

    • markr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The level of ideological brain worming demonstrated by your post is impressive. Do you ever have doubts, or is this all performative and it’s just larping?