So then, why doesn't Judge Chutney, send Trump to jail, for calling her a "Monkey"???......LMAOYou're right. When you disobey a court order the judge made a few hours earlier and call the judge a "monkey", nothing ever happens.
Ace move by Donny!
Trump indicted like an orange fraud-monkey
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
And yet Trump will still win in 2024. Thank god for checks and balances.
His balance is pretty shaky. But when you're almost 80 years and wear 3" lifts in your heels, those ramps can be a real challenge.
Santos and Trump are exactly the same. Both lie and commit fraud yet only one of them the GOPee makes excuses for.
Does MUCH better on the ramps than your brain dead puppet Biden. Video don't lie.
Like he did in 2020, when the polls were "RIGGED". That will be Chapter 2A, and it means that we all have to prepare for another what will look like an "Insurrection Chapter 2B"!!
'A big deal': New Jack Smith filing reveals concessions made by Walt Nauta's lawyer (msn.com)
Jack Smith wants it to be known that the attorney for former President Donald Trump's valet might be disqualified from asking questions of his former client.
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.
It was flagged by legal expert Katie Phang in a social media post. She noted the reason for this assertion is because Woodward used to represent the unnamed “Trump Employee 4” and currently represents “Witness 1.”
Woodward had represented IT director Yuscil Taveras during the time that there was false testimony given to a grand jury about video surveillance footage captured at Mar-a-Lago, as described in an earlier filing.
It was only when Taveras parted ways with Woodward and secured a new lawyer that he came forward to admit he was asked to destroy security footage, those papers say, according to CNBC.
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.”
Woodward and his legal team, the recent filing states, appear to be attempting to cede "any cross-examination" when ethical issues arise to "co-counsel."
Smith appeared to heap praise on another attorney, John Irving, who is representing Mar-a-Lago maintenance man Carlos De Oliveira.
Smith's filing suggests Irving was on point when he "informed the Court and the Government that he would no longer represent the potential witnesses, and his co-counsel would be solely responsible for cross-examining the witnesses at trial."
However, Woodward, in contrast, "simply denied that any conflict existed, suggesting that he should be permitted to cross-examine Trump Employee 4."
Phang weighed in on Smith's legal maneuvering.
"Woodward’s ability to attack current and former clients’ credibility during closing arguments was a huge sticking point last week when we were last in court before Judge Cannon," she wrote in the post thread, adding a quote from the filing that these kinds of ethical situations “frequently disqualify attorneys even where the attorneys propose that another attorney will conduct the cross-examination of a former client.”
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.
Jack Smith wants it to be known that the attorney for former President Donald Trump's valet might be disqualified from asking questions of his former client.
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.
It was flagged by legal expert Katie Phang in a social media post. She noted the reason for this assertion is because Woodward used to represent the unnamed “Trump Employee 4” and currently represents “Witness 1.”
Woodward had represented IT director Yuscil Taveras during the time that there was false testimony given to a grand jury about video surveillance footage captured at Mar-a-Lago, as described in an earlier filing.
It was only when Taveras parted ways with Woodward and secured a new lawyer that he came forward to admit he was asked to destroy security footage, those papers say, according to CNBC.
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.”
Woodward and his legal team, the recent filing states, appear to be attempting to cede "any cross-examination" when ethical issues arise to "co-counsel."
Smith appeared to heap praise on another attorney, John Irving, who is representing Mar-a-Lago maintenance man Carlos De Oliveira.
Smith's filing suggests Irving was on point when he "informed the Court and the Government that he would no longer represent the potential witnesses, and his co-counsel would be solely responsible for cross-examining the witnesses at trial."
However, Woodward, in contrast, "simply denied that any conflict existed, suggesting that he should be permitted to cross-examine Trump Employee 4."
Phang weighed in on Smith's legal maneuvering.
"Woodward’s ability to attack current and former clients’ credibility during closing arguments was a huge sticking point last week when we were last in court before Judge Cannon," she wrote in the post thread, adding a quote from the filing that these kinds of ethical situations “frequently disqualify attorneys even where the attorneys propose that another attorney will conduct the cross-examination of a former client.”
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.
It should disqualify his entire firm. It's likely that he chatted about the case to his partners and associates.
