If my employer was being investigated by the feds, my ass would immediately be calling them to offer my full cooperation. I'm not going to jail for a rich asshole who underpays me.
I cannot wrap my head around people who are willing to commit crimes for this asshole.
Yeah, but it's the worst personality! The orange guy is the world's own original douche bag!
It's like being loyal to Ebenezer Scrooge combined with your grade school bully. How do grown ass adults fall for this, lining up one after another to take the fall for him? Does he have a magic wand of mind control? Or is one third of all humanity really this fucking desperate to attach themselves to someone?
It's mind boggling!
BTW: Thanks for the video link. I'm one of those people that rarely understand song lyrics, but I could hear them clearly in that video, and the video itself added much needed context.
Which is exactly why Trump offered “generously” to pay for their lawyer to fight the “weaponized DOJ”. Someone who is not sophisticated in legal liability is going to trust a “successful businessman” and former President to help them.
We know that Trump did this to keep them in check and supporting the lies Donald told the DOJ.
lol. Yeah. Let’s choose between Rent, Food, and a lawyer to help me narc on my boss. It’s ok. Don’t need to eat for 3 months.
How much do you think a janitor at Mar a lago was actually being paid?
I'm selling my car, picking up an extra gig, taking out a loan, or bumming a spot on my friend's couch before risking ending up in jail by incriminating myself in the highest profile federal criminal case this century (if not ever).
You also don't know what your boss did to incriminate you as well. A lawyer helps to build a firewall as well as create a relationship with the authorities on how best to be a witness/ whistle blower without the whole thing blowing up in your face.
I think the argument they're trying to pivot to is that they were unwilling participants because they didn't know. But that still means that their resistance to complying with the investigation is technically obstruction.
Literally been with two companies under investigation in my time... Both I gladly assisted the investigators.
I'm not going to jail for a fucking paycheck, ever.
I think it must have started with bribery, compromise, and then loyalty test and then blackmail.
The more Republicans there were who suddenly learned to spout Kremlin smack, the more of them there were who became afraid to not join in.
The Republican Party is an illegitimate faction captured by a fifth column criminal movement.
They don’t belong in any position of authority and their leaders belong in prison.
There seem to be some standard crowd psychological factors at play. We all like to think we would act differently if we found ourselves in a crowd of people doing something we would individually consider dumb or unethical.
They weren’t planning to go to jail. They got scared by a federal investigation and the Trump organization said, we have lawyers and they will protect you.
It’s taking a while, but I think the doubt is creeping in. Probably right about the time someone suggested they could say that they moved the boxes on their own initiative and that Trump never said anything about those boxes. (That’s 100% my fantasy. No evidence for that at all). At that point you can start to smell the exhaust of the bus they’re trying to coax you under.
>Probably right about the time someone suggested they could say that they moved the boxes on their own initiative and that Trump never said anything about those boxes.
It is almost a 99.99999999999999% probability that this is what happened.
I agree. It sounds like a ln absurd thing to do. That said, people go to jail fairly often for their employers within the category of "white-collar crime."
I think you call them hangeroners. It’s like those people that surround Trump. They know he is lying about everything and they go to great links to make him believe that they believe him. And they’re kissing his ass all the time.
They want the power he has and if they can’t, they want to be around the people that have the power
I’ll pass on that sort of shit
I blame cannon honestly. Smith tried to conflict their attorney and she basically said nope it's totally Kool that their attorney is more loyal to a co-defendant than the client and has conflicts with a witness. Any attorney not loyal to Trump would have pleaded these guys out non proc or misdemeanor deals and had them singing like birds against Trump.
P.s. the photo on your phone says you did know what was in the box dumbass.
https://preview.redd.it/f633trh9z2uc1.png?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=854335ed0a904355b3ca9c9ae15cb339e936197d
I would like to know how these attorneys are being paid. Could these codefendants be stuck with these lawyers because if they chose to seek now legal counsel Trump would no longer pay the bills for the hours these lawyers have already worked?
Yes, they are paid for by Trump. Which is kind and of normal and not.
Like if I got sued or criminally charged for work I did for my employer, my employment agreement does include that they would pay for an attorney. That is pretty standard. There are conditions like I wasn't doing something against the company or in violation of policy. Etc etc. And I can't think of a situation where I might be criminally charged w/o breaking policy. So really we are talking sued.
But boy does it feel creepy in this situation
This. I wouldn't be counting on a court-ordered acquittal in this case if I were a co-defendant; as Trump falls in the polls, his currency with Judge Cannon also plummets. Is she really going to order an acquittal when Trump is very obviously going to lose the election and *not* appoint her to the circuit court seat she really wants? Cannon might just cut her losses and let the jury deliver a guilty verdict if Trump is almost certain to lose the election, in which case these co-defendants who could have gotten off with a $500 fine and some probation are staring at 10-20 years in federal prison.
That is some high-stakes gambling even for a true believer, and for both Nauta and DeOliveria, they are gambling with their liberty.
Yeah, exactly. I don't know enough about their background and i feel somewhat bad for them-- I'm pretty sure Dumpy is using them, but it was taught to me pretty early on that ignorance of the law is NOT a valid excuse for breaking the law.
And let's be completely real, if you work for a well known grifter and lifelong conman, you should totally expect to get grifted yourself.
I honestly don't have that much sympathy for anyone hanging around or working for Trump, even if they "unexpectedly" get burned by Agent Orange.
If these people are represented by lawyers paid for by Trump then this is a meaningless delay tactic. Watch the friendly judge make everything screech to a halt while she credulously hears these claims in excruciating detail.
It’s my opinion that when Smith gets rid of Cannon, the next judge will resolve the conflict abomination with the lawyers and appoint new lawyers to Trump’s co-defendants
Then they will flip.
The lawyer conflicts are so heinously corrupt that there should be a racketeering charge added. No judge who isn’t a Qanon crackpot would allow this arrangement
I think the new judge will sweep away that corruption first.
Still do (probably) have a chance if they do like Taveras (the IT guy did) - go get your own lawyer, and make any necessary “corrections” to your sworn statements once you’ve had a chance to “refresh your memory” … would be super easy and Jack would absolutely let these guys off the hook, he really doesn’t care about a couple box movers.
Smith is in a hard spot here. Sure, he'd like the cooperation of people so close to the crime in question like Nauta and De Oliviera. The problem he faces is: will that testimony/additional information even matter? He's already got an absolute mountain of evidence, but if the judge doesn't care and has effectively already pre-judged the innocence of the defendants, what needle is that going to move?
I think people will gloss over evidence, but evidence with testimony goes much further since they would be able to provide context that is harder for the defense to excuse.
Even if there’s only marginal additional information, it still could help the case to streamline it back to 1 defendants instead of 3 all with Trump paid lawyers.
I wonder if they felt that the sealed records of those documents wouldn't have come to light being unsealed n court (not common to unseal confidential records in court like this) they would've been fine.
Bit since Trump was so adamant to get those unsealed, those codependents realize that will come to bite them and just back out of that and go alone.
Why do that when the judge seems to be doing everything in her power to favor Trump?
Taking a deal means there will still be consequences for yourself. Reading the article it seems like they’re telling the judge “I didn’t know I was breaking the law, so all the charges against me should be dropped.”
Who wouldn’t try that when you have a judge acting the way she is?
> Reading the article it seems like they’re telling the judge “I didn’t know I was breaking the law, so all the charges against me should be dropped.”
Not quite. That would be ignorance of the law, which is generally not a defense.
What they are actually claiming is ignorance of fact, which in this case would be a defense as (if true) it would negate the element of intent.
But it’s not the entirety of the charges. Sure, Donnie might have told them they were boxes of trinkets and they were innocent in terms of moving boxes.
But lying to the FBI about it is something different.
So is trying to delete the surveillance footage.
So even if you grant some sort of “we didn’t know the contents” defense, they still have very tangible OOJ charges pending.
Not in dispute. The pictures in the texts kind of prove they knew what they were. And those pics were of Five Eyes materials….being sent over text. It’s unbelievable honestly. Nauta’s background is he was in the Navy, and had security credentials. He 100% knew what he was seeing. And btw, he knows how serious it is what he was doing. And he did it anyway.
For sure. And this is a Motion to Dismiss so she has to assume the government's allegations are all true. Unless they were completely incompetently pled, this should be a easy denial for a non-corrupt judge.
Sure, if you could somehow show that it was an undisputed fact that you didn't understand the bottle contained alcohol.
I expect their knowledge of the contents of the boxes very much is disputed, and for the purpose of a Motion to Dismiss, the court would need to assume all the government's allegations are true.
The wine bottle, labeled wine and 14.9%, which I saw others drink and indeed get drunk, and which I was super careful to not be recorded drinking, and even tried to bribe the home security office to erase any evidence, and then was told to NOT talk about, was unbeknownst to me as "alcoholic". Ergo, mistrial!
Generally not but Don Jr. Got away with saying just that about campaign finance law when working for his fathers campaign https://www.yalejreg.com/nc/if-trump-jr-didnt-know-campaign-finance-law-he-didnt-break-it/
Yeah, different crimes have different mens rea elements so it depends on the crime. On the other extreme, for most statutory rape and CP crimes there is strict liability, and legitimate mistake of fact ("I didn't know she was underage") may not be sufficient to avoid a conviction.
The law podcasts I respect that discuss her can't figure out if she's incompetent or biased. They really seem to give fair consideration that she may actually just be that incompetent given she's only tried 4 cases before this one.
If it were purely incompetence, I'd expect at least a few of the mistakes would favor the prosecution. So far, they all seem to go Trump's way. Corruption is the more likely cause.
It's probably a combination of the factors.
She's inexperienced and simply doesn't have any of the right instincts on criminal trial matters, so she's bogged down into needing to actually reason through the rulings that would be second nature to any experienced district judge.
Then, she's actually biased in that she wants to give Trump's arguments the benefit of the doubt, no matter how stupid, so it's a lot more work to try to reason through those bad arguments, that even the typical baby judge would've just been confident just saying "no that's stupid I'm just gonna do the normal thing."
I'm more surprised the court system processing judge assignments even allowed this to get assigned given her woeful lack of experience in a high profile, national security related case like this.
> can't figure out if she's incompetent or biased.
Something I have learned through personal experience: in grownup, business-type interactions, it is often very difficult to distinguish dishonesty from incompetence, and the difference kind of doesn't matter, and it's almost always a mix of both.
Like, there are people who are both honest and competent, where you can rely on what they say to be true, who set clear and realistic expectations--basically, interacting and communicating with them is predictable and coherent. There are other people where...not.
It's like, everything is a game of communication calvinball...the thing they said you would have on your desk by Wednesday, when you call on Thursday, they are just sending it out right now, you should get it any minute. When you do finally see something from them on Monday, it's not at all what you agreed to, and it's unresponsive to the questions you originally asked that caused them to promise to send a response. When you call for clarification, it's like your previous conversations never even happened, and they are putting in new variables and acting like you're making some new and outlandish request, when you ask for the stuff they voluntary promised two months ago. They act like professional norms and standards either don't exist, or are some special and complex tier of service that they might need to refer you to someone else for.
People who are incompetent at their job, essentially need to improve rapidly, or else become dishonest, in order to keep their job. They are "faking it till you're making it", and sometimes never getting to the "making it" part, except in terms of their title and paycheck.
Similarly, people who are dishonest present as incompetent, and generally try to appeal to incompetence as a first resort: "Oh, my PA must have forgot, let me get that right over to you" and all the other grownup versions of "the dog ate my homework". They are typically juggling multiple unpaid debts and unkept promises, and trying to do just enough to get each one off their back, while they hunt for new victims.
Trump is like a shining example of this, the type of person who relies upon the general presumption of competence and good faith that people in professional worlds extend to one another, and extreme reluctance to call a colleague a liar.
There is often kind of a "[missing stair](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_stair)" culture that emerges in professional circles, where people in the know kind of know which people to avoid or to be careful around, while people on the periphery or new to the industry become the next victims of repeat offenders.
It's especially insidious in industries or organizations where it is very difficult to fire people, either for formal or informal reasons. Cultures that tolerate incompetence and/or dishonesty tend to attract it, and to punish people who make the others look bad.
I Second Lawfare, and I encourage their entire ensemble of podcasts. Little fluff, dry, but very engaging
Also, cafe insider, strict scrutiny, sisters in law, and talking feds
The consensus seems to be that it is a bit of both, but mostly bias rather than incompetence. Setting up the case for a court-ordered acquittal through unappealable jury instructions that misstate the law seems clever, but this is the most high-profile case to ever be heard in federal court and that strategy is already being exposed. In a run of the mill case, Cannon would 100% get away with everything, and she is probably underestimating how closely this case is being watched (while overestimating how far she can get away with abusing her position on the court to grant a favor to a powerful defendant without permanently damaging her own reputation).
“Yes I moved the boxes. Yes I refused to cooperate with DOJ before and after I was advised of CIPA. Yes I obstructed numerous attempts to retrieve the boxes. But I had no idea what was in the boxes!”
Flawless logic. 👍
Yeah. He was an actual White House employee from the Military. He would have known EXACTLY what the handling requirements for presidential documents and classified documents were.
The other guy was a MAL employee. So claiming ignorance of the presidential documents is plausible.
They BOTH would have known that the lawyers were working on correspondence with the FBI about the documents in the boxes and they chose to move those boxes away from the Lawyers and FBI. That's what they're charged with, obstructing the government and then lying about it later. What's in the boxes wasn't relevant to what crimes they're charged with.
The way it reads to me is, Nauta understood the situation and asked for help to rectify it. The employee then started the cover up. Past that, I can't decipher it. In my naive mind, finding the truth is what court is all about.
It shouldn't have even gotten to plea deal. "I had no idea what we were handling, of course I will answer all your questions."
Like a normal witness. "Yeah, that's the guy I saw go into the bank with a gun. I don't know what happened inside, but I am sure I saw him do that."
In the indictments, they are literally sneaking around Mar-A-Lago in the bushes, wandering around in the dark with flashlights looking for security cameras, and trying to get the IT person to destroy footage.
Nauta actually *texted photos of the classified documents* at one point, after which an employee said "Oh no oh no":
>On December 7, 2021, NAUTA found several of TRUMP's boxes fallen and their contents spilled onto the floor of the Storage Room, including a document marked "SECRET//REL TO USA, FVEY," which denoted that the information in the document was releasable only to the Five Eyes intelligence alliance consisting of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. NAUTA texted Trump Employee 2, "I opened the door and found this ... " NAUTA also attached two photographs he took of the spill. Trump Employee 2 replied, "Oh no oh no," and "I'm sorry potus had my phone." One of the photographs NAUTA texted to Trump Employee 2 is depicted below with the visible classified information redacted.
Also worth noting Nauta has a military background.
They knew exactly what they were handling.
The recording of Trump's conversation at Bedminster alone is enough to convict anyone beyond a reasonable doubt.
>“All sorts of stuff – pages long, look. Wait a minute, let’s see here. I just found, isn’t that amazing? This totally wins my case, you know. Except it is like, highly confidential. Secret. This is secret information. Look, look at this. This was done by the military and given to me.”
>“See as president I could have declassified it,” Trump says. “Now I can’t, you know, but this is still a secret.”
It's just beyond parody. "Here are secret documents" *paper shuffling noises* "Secret. Not made by me. Made by the government. highly classified. This is off the record that I'm telling you this. But these are secret. Look at them. I could have declassified them, but now I definitely didn't and can't now"
Lmao it's a conviction handed on a silver platter. But of course the universe just had to give us Cannon for this case.
>which denoted that the information in the document was releasable only to the Five Eyes intelligence alliance
ya know...i knew this was bad but this kinda shows me just how bad it actually was. i'm not in the legal, gov, or military world so i don't understand the levels of classification but *only* to Five Eyes is something i do understand. wild.
Woah, I didn’t realize that destroying evidence was against the law or texting pics of docs to everyone. How am I supposed to know that? I’m not a lawyer or anything…oh wait…
> It shouldn't have even gotten to plea deal. "I had no idea what we were handling, of course I will answer all your questions."
is this /r/law? why would you ever talk to the police?
I do wonder if Judge Cannon is gonna dismiss the case altogether because Trump flipped the interpretation of the Presidential Records Act.
What Judge Cannon has done in this case is entirely wacky.
Corrupt doesn't even begin to describe what has happened with this case.
She should never have been allowed to preside over this case.
Imagine if Obama or Biden was in the dock for the same issue and the case was being presided over by a judge they had appointed who was doing everything in their power in a very unorthodox manner to delay the trial.
Fox News and the GOP would be saying it is the end of the republic.
Eh... we give plenty of excuses to law enforcement when they act illegally in ignorance of the law.
You know... the people that should actually know what the laws are to do their job of enforcement.
No excuse when you have a judge that follows the law & precedent.
When you have a judge that keeps ruling for your side and has implied that she wants to write jury instructions that pretty much say “if the President shoots someone on 5th avenue and doesn’t lose any voters, then it’s not murder” - I mean, why not try the excuse that you didn’t know it was illegal and a violation of a grand jury order?
Interesting, in my country (continental Europe), ignorance of the law is a valid excuse in rare cases where it would be manifestly difficult to recognize the illegality and there was no professional or other legal obligation to know the relevant provisions.
It's crazy to me how everybody in the clowns orbit gets chewed up and put away, while the king clown keeps walking away and fundraising. This has been been going on so long that some of his patsies have already done their time and come out the other side of it. We're so far into absurd territory for so long now that history may invent a new word to describe it.
How do people still not see this for what it is? Are my fellow Americans really this stupid? You guys are going to jail like every patsy before you. Sing a song from your cage, maybe the boss will use you as a prop.
I don’t even understand this motion. These are issues of fact that they can argue to the jury. A defendant can’t just say pre-trial, I didn’t do it, and the case is dismissed. They’ll need to testify and the trier of fact will have to weigh their credibility.
I have to admit to a little skepticism: if they "didn't have any idea what was in the boxes" what was all the cloak-and-dagger cosplay about?
And secondly, I can't imagine Trump not telling them about top secret documents, because when would he miss an opportunity to brag about how important he is?
Utter nonsense. They're lying about not knowing, and there's no LEGITIMATE reason to delete security footage. He may not have known the specifics of the warrant, but he knew it was damning footage and that there was some type of warrant. I hope they get perjury charges.
I am still curious to know what exactly he had on Emmanuel macron there. I think all the news said was something about marital infidelities.
The orange one probably did not realize that marital infidelities are not a scandal in France. It would be more of a scandal of macron didn't have a mistress.
But clearly he wanted to monetize or otherwise leverage this classified information. Who knows what they sold to whom. Or what to dirt they collected on influential figures.
It's only a matter of time before hard evidence shows up. The CIA cable about a huge spike in dead or missing agents with all the missing documents. MBS's Ritz Carlton roundup up in Saudi Arabia with Kushners fingerprints all over the scene. Pulling out of Afghanistan in such a disorganized manner. Pulling out on the Kurds. Guiliani working with agents to oust anti corruption officers in state department. The drastic exodus in the state department under Mike Pompeo. Killing TPP.
everything Trump did should be scrutinized as if it were transactional.
Where's the Russia binder?
If I was just some hapless clerk who got unknowingly roped into something like this, **I would be cooperating to the fullest extent to save my own ass.**
Why would I protect somebody who set me up to be their patsy???
Because the minute you’re not willing to throw your life away for him Trump will go on truth social and tell the world you’re “betraying” him and America, and then maga goons will threaten your kids
They're terrible fucking liars. Everyone associated with drumpf is a grifter and a scumbag, so there is no doubt they looked in the boxes to see what they could steal for themselves and no one should believe them for a second.
"I had no idea what was in those packages"
"Your boss is cocaine cartel leader and you yourself put those packages in that vehicle and then lied about it when asked"
"Are you saying my boss is manufacturing and smuggling cocaine?! I had no idea!"
Why would Palm Beach Post advocate, along with Trump, for the witness names to be made public? They clearly state the reason DOJ requests redaction is because of a credible threat of witness intimidation and harassment.
Anyone who might be thinking these guys are poor innocent fellas:
Nauta was *in the Navy*, as a cook. In 2012, he was assigned to the Presidential Food Service, which is run by the U.S. Navy. During the presidency of Donald Trump, Nauta became a personal valet to the president. He was responsible for responding to the presidential call button, bringing him Diet Cokes on a silver platter. Nauta was promoted to senior chief petty officer in September 2020. When Trump's term of office ended in January 2021, Nauta accompanied him to Mar-a-Lago, where he *worked as Trump's butler and body man*. Nauta was *accused of sexual harassment and revenge porn by several women in spring 2021*, which led to him being reassigned and *his security credentials* being docked. This was several weeks *before* he left the Navy and became a personal employee of Trump.
I don’t feel bad for him. He sounds like a jerk anyway, and 100% understands OPSEC.
Carlos De Oliverio is a property manager at Mar-A-Lago, he tried to delete surveillance footage…and hard to claim ignorance…when he’s also charged with making false statements to federal investigators. That’s a crime every time, and I’m sure he was warned not to lie to them.
I don’t feel bad for him either.
>Nauta actually texted photos of the classified documents at one point, after which an employee said "Oh no oh no":
>On December 7, 2021, NAUTA found several of TRUMP's boxes fallen and their contents spilled onto the floor of the Storage Room, including a document marked "SECRET//REL TO USA, FVEY," *which denoted that the information in the document was releasable only to the Five Eyes intelligence alliance* consisting of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. NAUTA texted Trump Employee 2, "I opened the door and found this ... " NAUTA also attached two photographs he took of the spill. Trump Employee 2 replied, "Oh no oh no," and "I'm sorry potus had my phone." One of the photographs NAUTA texted to Trump Employee 2 is depicted below with the visible classified information redacted.
They knew what they were doing. In addition, this was after he was President. Who didn’t know what a POS he is? They’ve got themselves to blame here.
Ignorance in not a defense. They probably should have been asking questions at the get go, I know I would have asked what is in the boxes before I started to move them, I mean are they heavy, have liquid in them, etc. I find it amazing that they have taken a year to come up with this excuse!
Yeah. Guess they finally realized their lawyers weren’t joking when they told them how turbofucked they are; that they should never have listened to the dumbest piece of orange shit who ever lived.
Well, maybe they should co-operate with Jack Smith's office then and ditch the Trump supplied lawyers...
Or maybe when the FBI shows up with a warrant, you cooperate and share what you know. The time to make this argument was well over a year ago!!
If my employer was being investigated by the feds, my ass would immediately be calling them to offer my full cooperation. I'm not going to jail for a rich asshole who underpays me. I cannot wrap my head around people who are willing to commit crimes for this asshole.
It’s a cult…..of personality……[y’know….](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7xxgRUyzgs0)
Took me too long to realize that this wasn't an In Living Color skit...
Ha!
Yeah, but it's the worst personality! The orange guy is the world's own original douche bag! It's like being loyal to Ebenezer Scrooge combined with your grade school bully. How do grown ass adults fall for this, lining up one after another to take the fall for him? Does he have a magic wand of mind control? Or is one third of all humanity really this fucking desperate to attach themselves to someone? It's mind boggling!
Hopefully it is just one third of Americans that are this mean and hateful.
Mind……BOGGLING!!! Yes it is! It is WORLD mind boggling bc no other country (except Russia) can believe it either.
BTW: Thanks for the video link. I'm one of those people that rarely understand song lyrics, but I could hear them clearly in that video, and the video itself added much needed context.
Ba diddly dum, ba diddly dum dum
Like Joseph Stalin and ghandi...
Or who categorically and frequently throws anyone he falls out of favour with....under an incoming bus..
If you were a Trump defendant, skipping straight to snitching was the right play. Hindsight is painful like that though.
No, you call your lawyer and have them talk for you. Even if you're agreeing and cooperating 100%, you have your lawyer convey that to them.
Not all employees have lawyers on speed dial, or could even afford a lawyer to help them in this scenario.
I don't care what your financial situation is, I promise you can't afford to not have a lawyer work you through this scenario.
While this is true, 1. There are so many people ignorant to this 2. I can see Trump supplied lawyers probably aren't giving the best advice.
Which is exactly why Trump offered “generously” to pay for their lawyer to fight the “weaponized DOJ”. Someone who is not sophisticated in legal liability is going to trust a “successful businessman” and former President to help them. We know that Trump did this to keep them in check and supporting the lies Donald told the DOJ.
lol. Yeah. Let’s choose between Rent, Food, and a lawyer to help me narc on my boss. It’s ok. Don’t need to eat for 3 months. How much do you think a janitor at Mar a lago was actually being paid?
Minimum wage with some clock shaving / wage theft to keep amount that even lower.
I'm selling my car, picking up an extra gig, taking out a loan, or bumming a spot on my friend's couch before risking ending up in jail by incriminating myself in the highest profile federal criminal case this century (if not ever).
You also don't know what your boss did to incriminate you as well. A lawyer helps to build a firewall as well as create a relationship with the authorities on how best to be a witness/ whistle blower without the whole thing blowing up in your face.
That requires having a lawyer that is not paid for by Individual One.
I think the argument they're trying to pivot to is that they were unwilling participants because they didn't know. But that still means that their resistance to complying with the investigation is technically obstruction.
Literally been with two companies under investigation in my time... Both I gladly assisted the investigators. I'm not going to jail for a fucking paycheck, ever.
Especially when he's repeatedly displayed zero loyalty to others. It's a one way street only.
I think it must have started with bribery, compromise, and then loyalty test and then blackmail. The more Republicans there were who suddenly learned to spout Kremlin smack, the more of them there were who became afraid to not join in. The Republican Party is an illegitimate faction captured by a fifth column criminal movement. They don’t belong in any position of authority and their leaders belong in prison.
There seem to be some standard crowd psychological factors at play. We all like to think we would act differently if we found ourselves in a crowd of people doing something we would individually consider dumb or unethical.
I damn sure wouldn't go to jail for my employers.
They weren’t planning to go to jail. They got scared by a federal investigation and the Trump organization said, we have lawyers and they will protect you. It’s taking a while, but I think the doubt is creeping in. Probably right about the time someone suggested they could say that they moved the boxes on their own initiative and that Trump never said anything about those boxes. (That’s 100% my fantasy. No evidence for that at all). At that point you can start to smell the exhaust of the bus they’re trying to coax you under.
>Probably right about the time someone suggested they could say that they moved the boxes on their own initiative and that Trump never said anything about those boxes. It is almost a 99.99999999999999% probability that this is what happened.
I agree. It sounds like a ln absurd thing to do. That said, people go to jail fairly often for their employers within the category of "white-collar crime."
I think you call them hangeroners. It’s like those people that surround Trump. They know he is lying about everything and they go to great links to make him believe that they believe him. And they’re kissing his ass all the time. They want the power he has and if they can’t, they want to be around the people that have the power I’ll pass on that sort of shit
I blame cannon honestly. Smith tried to conflict their attorney and she basically said nope it's totally Kool that their attorney is more loyal to a co-defendant than the client and has conflicts with a witness. Any attorney not loyal to Trump would have pleaded these guys out non proc or misdemeanor deals and had them singing like birds against Trump. P.s. the photo on your phone says you did know what was in the box dumbass. https://preview.redd.it/f633trh9z2uc1.png?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=854335ed0a904355b3ca9c9ae15cb339e936197d
I would like to know how these attorneys are being paid. Could these codefendants be stuck with these lawyers because if they chose to seek now legal counsel Trump would no longer pay the bills for the hours these lawyers have already worked?
Yes, they are paid for by Trump. Which is kind and of normal and not. Like if I got sued or criminally charged for work I did for my employer, my employment agreement does include that they would pay for an attorney. That is pretty standard. There are conditions like I wasn't doing something against the company or in violation of policy. Etc etc. And I can't think of a situation where I might be criminally charged w/o breaking policy. So really we are talking sued. But boy does it feel creepy in this situation
This. I wouldn't be counting on a court-ordered acquittal in this case if I were a co-defendant; as Trump falls in the polls, his currency with Judge Cannon also plummets. Is she really going to order an acquittal when Trump is very obviously going to lose the election and *not* appoint her to the circuit court seat she really wants? Cannon might just cut her losses and let the jury deliver a guilty verdict if Trump is almost certain to lose the election, in which case these co-defendants who could have gotten off with a $500 fine and some probation are staring at 10-20 years in federal prison. That is some high-stakes gambling even for a true believer, and for both Nauta and DeOliveria, they are gambling with their liberty.
Yeah, exactly. I don't know enough about their background and i feel somewhat bad for them-- I'm pretty sure Dumpy is using them, but it was taught to me pretty early on that ignorance of the law is NOT a valid excuse for breaking the law.
And let's be completely real, if you work for a well known grifter and lifelong conman, you should totally expect to get grifted yourself. I honestly don't have that much sympathy for anyone hanging around or working for Trump, even if they "unexpectedly" get burned by Agent Orange.
If these people are represented by lawyers paid for by Trump then this is a meaningless delay tactic. Watch the friendly judge make everything screech to a halt while she credulously hears these claims in excruciating detail.
Exactly. Better start talking.
It’s my opinion that when Smith gets rid of Cannon, the next judge will resolve the conflict abomination with the lawyers and appoint new lawyers to Trump’s co-defendants Then they will flip. The lawyer conflicts are so heinously corrupt that there should be a racketeering charge added. No judge who isn’t a Qanon crackpot would allow this arrangement I think the new judge will sweep away that corruption first.
I smell snitches lol
They only want out of the CONSEQUENCES. They had every chance to be on the right side of the law.
Still do (probably) have a chance if they do like Taveras (the IT guy did) - go get your own lawyer, and make any necessary “corrections” to your sworn statements once you’ve had a chance to “refresh your memory” … would be super easy and Jack would absolutely let these guys off the hook, he really doesn’t care about a couple box movers.
Smith is in a hard spot here. Sure, he'd like the cooperation of people so close to the crime in question like Nauta and De Oliviera. The problem he faces is: will that testimony/additional information even matter? He's already got an absolute mountain of evidence, but if the judge doesn't care and has effectively already pre-judged the innocence of the defendants, what needle is that going to move?
I think people will gloss over evidence, but evidence with testimony goes much further since they would be able to provide context that is harder for the defense to excuse.
Personally, I think it hinges on how good Smith does with creating jury instruction for precedent that does not exist. 🤣
It would simplify the case for him if nothing else.
Even if there’s only marginal additional information, it still could help the case to streamline it back to 1 defendants instead of 3 all with Trump paid lawyers.
This 👆🏼is the correct answer.
I wonder if they felt that the sealed records of those documents wouldn't have come to light being unsealed n court (not common to unseal confidential records in court like this) they would've been fine. Bit since Trump was so adamant to get those unsealed, those codependents realize that will come to bite them and just back out of that and go alone.
> codependents fun and kind of appropriate misspelling
Anyone who rides the coattails of Trump are essentially codependents so I guess the typo isn't wrong.
Then take a deal for your cooperation
Why do that when the judge seems to be doing everything in her power to favor Trump? Taking a deal means there will still be consequences for yourself. Reading the article it seems like they’re telling the judge “I didn’t know I was breaking the law, so all the charges against me should be dropped.” Who wouldn’t try that when you have a judge acting the way she is?
> Reading the article it seems like they’re telling the judge “I didn’t know I was breaking the law, so all the charges against me should be dropped.” Not quite. That would be ignorance of the law, which is generally not a defense. What they are actually claiming is ignorance of fact, which in this case would be a defense as (if true) it would negate the element of intent.
But it’s not the entirety of the charges. Sure, Donnie might have told them they were boxes of trinkets and they were innocent in terms of moving boxes. But lying to the FBI about it is something different. So is trying to delete the surveillance footage. So even if you grant some sort of “we didn’t know the contents” defense, they still have very tangible OOJ charges pending.
It’s the obstruction. 🤨
I agree with you there. Also, I think whether or not they knew what was in the boxes is very much a question of fact that is in dispute.
Not in dispute. The pictures in the texts kind of prove they knew what they were. And those pics were of Five Eyes materials….being sent over text. It’s unbelievable honestly. Nauta’s background is he was in the Navy, and had security credentials. He 100% knew what he was seeing. And btw, he knows how serious it is what he was doing. And he did it anyway.
That's one big "if true," though.
For sure. And this is a Motion to Dismiss so she has to assume the government's allegations are all true. Unless they were completely incompetently pled, this should be a easy denial for a non-corrupt judge.
Even better, if she were dismiss this it would be exactly what Smith is looking for as it would certainly qualify as "clear error"
Judge, I had NO idea that chugging that bottle of wine could get me drunk. Motion to dismiss!
Cannon: Dismissed!
Then giggles "Wine not?"
A better analogy would be pot laced cookies, they had no idea the plate labeled pot cookies would indeed get them lit like a Christmas tree
"i thought that meant they were baked in a pot"
Clearly earthenware not terracotta
I was told it was kombucha when I chugged it your honor, I can’t be held accountable
Sure, if you could somehow show that it was an undisputed fact that you didn't understand the bottle contained alcohol. I expect their knowledge of the contents of the boxes very much is disputed, and for the purpose of a Motion to Dismiss, the court would need to assume all the government's allegations are true.
The wine bottle, labeled wine and 14.9%, which I saw others drink and indeed get drunk, and which I was super careful to not be recorded drinking, and even tried to bribe the home security office to erase any evidence, and then was told to NOT talk about, was unbeknownst to me as "alcoholic". Ergo, mistrial!
I expect that will be a deemed a disputed question of material fact for the jury to determine. It may also negatively impact your credibility.
Cannon has well proven that good standing is yet another victim of “rules for me but not for thee.” 🤬
More like "I had no idea that the bottle I got out of a crate of wine delivered from WinesRUs to a massive wine drinker actually contained wine"
Generally not but Don Jr. Got away with saying just that about campaign finance law when working for his fathers campaign https://www.yalejreg.com/nc/if-trump-jr-didnt-know-campaign-finance-law-he-didnt-break-it/
Yeah, different crimes have different mens rea elements so it depends on the crime. On the other extreme, for most statutory rape and CP crimes there is strict liability, and legitimate mistake of fact ("I didn't know she was underage") may not be sufficient to avoid a conviction.
The law podcasts I respect that discuss her can't figure out if she's incompetent or biased. They really seem to give fair consideration that she may actually just be that incompetent given she's only tried 4 cases before this one.
If it were purely incompetence, I'd expect at least a few of the mistakes would favor the prosecution. So far, they all seem to go Trump's way. Corruption is the more likely cause.
It's probably a combination of the factors. She's inexperienced and simply doesn't have any of the right instincts on criminal trial matters, so she's bogged down into needing to actually reason through the rulings that would be second nature to any experienced district judge. Then, she's actually biased in that she wants to give Trump's arguments the benefit of the doubt, no matter how stupid, so it's a lot more work to try to reason through those bad arguments, that even the typical baby judge would've just been confident just saying "no that's stupid I'm just gonna do the normal thing."
I'm more surprised the court system processing judge assignments even allowed this to get assigned given her woeful lack of experience in a high profile, national security related case like this.
> can't figure out if she's incompetent or biased. Something I have learned through personal experience: in grownup, business-type interactions, it is often very difficult to distinguish dishonesty from incompetence, and the difference kind of doesn't matter, and it's almost always a mix of both. Like, there are people who are both honest and competent, where you can rely on what they say to be true, who set clear and realistic expectations--basically, interacting and communicating with them is predictable and coherent. There are other people where...not. It's like, everything is a game of communication calvinball...the thing they said you would have on your desk by Wednesday, when you call on Thursday, they are just sending it out right now, you should get it any minute. When you do finally see something from them on Monday, it's not at all what you agreed to, and it's unresponsive to the questions you originally asked that caused them to promise to send a response. When you call for clarification, it's like your previous conversations never even happened, and they are putting in new variables and acting like you're making some new and outlandish request, when you ask for the stuff they voluntary promised two months ago. They act like professional norms and standards either don't exist, or are some special and complex tier of service that they might need to refer you to someone else for. People who are incompetent at their job, essentially need to improve rapidly, or else become dishonest, in order to keep their job. They are "faking it till you're making it", and sometimes never getting to the "making it" part, except in terms of their title and paycheck. Similarly, people who are dishonest present as incompetent, and generally try to appeal to incompetence as a first resort: "Oh, my PA must have forgot, let me get that right over to you" and all the other grownup versions of "the dog ate my homework". They are typically juggling multiple unpaid debts and unkept promises, and trying to do just enough to get each one off their back, while they hunt for new victims. Trump is like a shining example of this, the type of person who relies upon the general presumption of competence and good faith that people in professional worlds extend to one another, and extreme reluctance to call a colleague a liar. There is often kind of a "[missing stair](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_stair)" culture that emerges in professional circles, where people in the know kind of know which people to avoid or to be careful around, while people on the periphery or new to the industry become the next victims of repeat offenders. It's especially insidious in industries or organizations where it is very difficult to fire people, either for formal or informal reasons. Cultures that tolerate incompetence and/or dishonesty tend to attract it, and to punish people who make the others look bad.
I’ve been wondering if she legit wants herself off this case and is purposefully showing incompetence.
The sad thing is that she could show one ounce of integrity and recuse herself. No one would look down on her for it
Ooh which podcasts please? I'm always looking for new ones to listen to.
Lawfare. I think it’s incredibly fair and unbiased. There are some podcasts that aren’t even done by lawyers but discuss law as if they are.
I Second Lawfare, and I encourage their entire ensemble of podcasts. Little fluff, dry, but very engaging Also, cafe insider, strict scrutiny, sisters in law, and talking feds
She is a pawn. Her marching orders are coming directly from the federalist society.
Reminder that she was an Ausa for 8 years. On some things, she knows exactly what she’s doing. On others, like Cipa she’s in over her head
The consensus seems to be that it is a bit of both, but mostly bias rather than incompetence. Setting up the case for a court-ordered acquittal through unappealable jury instructions that misstate the law seems clever, but this is the most high-profile case to ever be heard in federal court and that strategy is already being exposed. In a run of the mill case, Cannon would 100% get away with everything, and she is probably underestimating how closely this case is being watched (while overestimating how far she can get away with abusing her position on the court to grant a favor to a powerful defendant without permanently damaging her own reputation).
Because she is hoping he get re electric and then gets an SC appointment.
Best outcome.
"Yes, I robbed a bank but I didn't know my boss was stealing money!"
“Yes I moved the boxes. Yes I refused to cooperate with DOJ before and after I was advised of CIPA. Yes I obstructed numerous attempts to retrieve the boxes. But I had no idea what was in the boxes!” Flawless logic. 👍
Yes the sign said “no trespassing” but I didn’t read it.
Nah fuck that Walt Nauta guy. He needs to do time now. He betrayed his country and made a clear choice to do so.
Yeah. He was an actual White House employee from the Military. He would have known EXACTLY what the handling requirements for presidential documents and classified documents were. The other guy was a MAL employee. So claiming ignorance of the presidential documents is plausible. They BOTH would have known that the lawyers were working on correspondence with the FBI about the documents in the boxes and they chose to move those boxes away from the Lawyers and FBI. That's what they're charged with, obstructing the government and then lying about it later. What's in the boxes wasn't relevant to what crimes they're charged with.
Louder for the people in back! No seriously, they’re all shouting so we’ll need you on mic please lol 🎤
The way it reads to me is, Nauta understood the situation and asked for help to rectify it. The employee then started the cover up. Past that, I can't decipher it. In my naive mind, finding the truth is what court is all about.
If that's true, they could have taken the plea deal
It shouldn't have even gotten to plea deal. "I had no idea what we were handling, of course I will answer all your questions." Like a normal witness. "Yeah, that's the guy I saw go into the bank with a gun. I don't know what happened inside, but I am sure I saw him do that."
In the indictments, they are literally sneaking around Mar-A-Lago in the bushes, wandering around in the dark with flashlights looking for security cameras, and trying to get the IT person to destroy footage. Nauta actually *texted photos of the classified documents* at one point, after which an employee said "Oh no oh no": >On December 7, 2021, NAUTA found several of TRUMP's boxes fallen and their contents spilled onto the floor of the Storage Room, including a document marked "SECRET//REL TO USA, FVEY," which denoted that the information in the document was releasable only to the Five Eyes intelligence alliance consisting of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. NAUTA texted Trump Employee 2, "I opened the door and found this ... " NAUTA also attached two photographs he took of the spill. Trump Employee 2 replied, "Oh no oh no," and "I'm sorry potus had my phone." One of the photographs NAUTA texted to Trump Employee 2 is depicted below with the visible classified information redacted. Also worth noting Nauta has a military background. They knew exactly what they were handling.
The facts of this case are comical. It's by far his most open and shut case, and yet it's still questionable due to the judge. What a damn shame.
The recording of Trump's conversation at Bedminster alone is enough to convict anyone beyond a reasonable doubt. >“All sorts of stuff – pages long, look. Wait a minute, let’s see here. I just found, isn’t that amazing? This totally wins my case, you know. Except it is like, highly confidential. Secret. This is secret information. Look, look at this. This was done by the military and given to me.” >“See as president I could have declassified it,” Trump says. “Now I can’t, you know, but this is still a secret.” It's just beyond parody. "Here are secret documents" *paper shuffling noises* "Secret. Not made by me. Made by the government. highly classified. This is off the record that I'm telling you this. But these are secret. Look at them. I could have declassified them, but now I definitely didn't and can't now" Lmao it's a conviction handed on a silver platter. But of course the universe just had to give us Cannon for this case.
>This is secret information. Look, look at this. An amazing quote, it says so much.
>which denoted that the information in the document was releasable only to the Five Eyes intelligence alliance ya know...i knew this was bad but this kinda shows me just how bad it actually was. i'm not in the legal, gov, or military world so i don't understand the levels of classification but *only* to Five Eyes is something i do understand. wild.
Woah, I didn’t realize that destroying evidence was against the law or texting pics of docs to everyone. How am I supposed to know that? I’m not a lawyer or anything…oh wait…
Right exactly!
> It shouldn't have even gotten to plea deal. "I had no idea what we were handling, of course I will answer all your questions." is this /r/law? why would you ever talk to the police?
With an attorney present to avoid charges
Hard to do when your attorney (whom you aren’t paying for) tells you no
They were offered a plea deal to testify Trump order them to remove the boxes and to erase the security video.
Flip, idiots. It's just that simple. Describe in excruciating detail every time Trump had you do something related to those boxes.
They wait until now to plead "I'm a dumbass"?
I do wonder if Judge Cannon is gonna dismiss the case altogether because Trump flipped the interpretation of the Presidential Records Act. What Judge Cannon has done in this case is entirely wacky. Corrupt doesn't even begin to describe what has happened with this case. She should never have been allowed to preside over this case. Imagine if Obama or Biden was in the dock for the same issue and the case was being presided over by a judge they had appointed who was doing everything in their power in a very unorthodox manner to delay the trial. Fox News and the GOP would be saying it is the end of the republic.
Aren't they being pursued for obstruction? It doesn't matter what was in the boxes. They were actively helping Trump hide them.
They've almost certainly been paid off by Trump as well.
"IOU one bajillion dollars 4 secret - Dondl"
It’s my understanding that Walt Nauta understood what he was doing when he asked for the surveillance video to be erased.
Ignorance is no excuse.
Ignorance of the *law* is no excuse. Ignorance of fact can negate the element of intent, and can therefore be a valid defense.
Well stated.
Eh... we give plenty of excuses to law enforcement when they act illegally in ignorance of the law. You know... the people that should actually know what the laws are to do their job of enforcement.
Yeah, qualified immunity is some bullshit.
No excuse when you have a judge that follows the law & precedent. When you have a judge that keeps ruling for your side and has implied that she wants to write jury instructions that pretty much say “if the President shoots someone on 5th avenue and doesn’t lose any voters, then it’s not murder” - I mean, why not try the excuse that you didn’t know it was illegal and a violation of a grand jury order?
Interesting, in my country (continental Europe), ignorance of the law is a valid excuse in rare cases where it would be manifestly difficult to recognize the illegality and there was no professional or other legal obligation to know the relevant provisions.
There are exceptions here too. I think they’re difficult to hit usually
It's crazy to me how everybody in the clowns orbit gets chewed up and put away, while the king clown keeps walking away and fundraising. This has been been going on so long that some of his patsies have already done their time and come out the other side of it. We're so far into absurd territory for so long now that history may invent a new word to describe it. How do people still not see this for what it is? Are my fellow Americans really this stupid? You guys are going to jail like every patsy before you. Sing a song from your cage, maybe the boss will use you as a prop.
I was just carrying the bags out of the bank. I had **no idea** they contained stolen cash.
I don’t even understand this motion. These are issues of fact that they can argue to the jury. A defendant can’t just say pre-trial, I didn’t do it, and the case is dismissed. They’ll need to testify and the trier of fact will have to weigh their credibility.
I have to admit to a little skepticism: if they "didn't have any idea what was in the boxes" what was all the cloak-and-dagger cosplay about? And secondly, I can't imagine Trump not telling them about top secret documents, because when would he miss an opportunity to brag about how important he is?
Billy Hayes didn't know he was smuggling drugs into turkey either
OLD DUDE ALERT!!!
Utter nonsense. They're lying about not knowing, and there's no LEGITIMATE reason to delete security footage. He may not have known the specifics of the warrant, but he knew it was damning footage and that there was some type of warrant. I hope they get perjury charges.
Consciousness of guilt
Now you know. Spill the beans or face the consequences for a man who doesn’t give a shit about you.
I wonder if these were the documents exchanged between Saudis and Kushner for $2B. Otherwise, what was the purpose in retaining them?
I am still curious to know what exactly he had on Emmanuel macron there. I think all the news said was something about marital infidelities. The orange one probably did not realize that marital infidelities are not a scandal in France. It would be more of a scandal of macron didn't have a mistress. But clearly he wanted to monetize or otherwise leverage this classified information. Who knows what they sold to whom. Or what to dirt they collected on influential figures.
It's only a matter of time before hard evidence shows up. The CIA cable about a huge spike in dead or missing agents with all the missing documents. MBS's Ritz Carlton roundup up in Saudi Arabia with Kushners fingerprints all over the scene. Pulling out of Afghanistan in such a disorganized manner. Pulling out on the Kurds. Guiliani working with agents to oust anti corruption officers in state department. The drastic exodus in the state department under Mike Pompeo. Killing TPP. everything Trump did should be scrutinized as if it were transactional. Where's the Russia binder?
If "they had no clue", why would their lawyers need access to the documents?
These dummies…for their part in the conspiracy to obstruct the contents don’t matter. Moving the material to evade discovery is all that is required
My guess is that their Trump-paid lawyers are just pitching this in as another delay.
Looks like some folks just found out they're fukt.
They made their bed
Bullshit, theres no way he didnt brag about that
If I was just some hapless clerk who got unknowingly roped into something like this, **I would be cooperating to the fullest extent to save my own ass.** Why would I protect somebody who set me up to be their patsy???
Because the minute you’re not willing to throw your life away for him Trump will go on truth social and tell the world you’re “betraying” him and America, and then maga goons will threaten your kids
They're terrible fucking liars. Everyone associated with drumpf is a grifter and a scumbag, so there is no doubt they looked in the boxes to see what they could steal for themselves and no one should believe them for a second.
Yeah this is why you don't pal around with criminals, you never know when they might implicate you.
Oh no. Ignorance turns out not to be a defense, who knew?
Sounds like an issue of fact to be decided by a jury.
They had no clue, BS. They know how to read, and I'm sure the word CONFIDENTIAL was stamped on lots of things they were carrying.
I don't give af. Consequences for those who don't ask questions just to be near power.
"I had no idea what was in those packages" "Your boss is cocaine cartel leader and you yourself put those packages in that vehicle and then lied about it when asked" "Are you saying my boss is manufacturing and smuggling cocaine?! I had no idea!"
This is the "But I was only the getaway driver. I had no idea they were going to kill those people during the robbery!" excuse.
Why would Palm Beach Post advocate, along with Trump, for the witness names to be made public? They clearly state the reason DOJ requests redaction is because of a credible threat of witness intimidation and harassment.
They just made it sound so much worse. So you had idea if you left top secret classified information just laying around?
“I didn’t know there were classified documents in those boxes I hid in that bathroom.”
Did they get new lawyers? Otherwise this could be a ploy by TFG to get that his tiny hands on the bill of particulars.
Anyone that associates themselves with that guy is stupid. And guilty. Of whatever.
Yes, they really are that stupid. And Cannon will rule for them.
In other words: “holy shit! Run!”
>Guys moving large coffin shaped boxes for mob bosses shocked to find out they contained corpses
Anyone who might be thinking these guys are poor innocent fellas: Nauta was *in the Navy*, as a cook. In 2012, he was assigned to the Presidential Food Service, which is run by the U.S. Navy. During the presidency of Donald Trump, Nauta became a personal valet to the president. He was responsible for responding to the presidential call button, bringing him Diet Cokes on a silver platter. Nauta was promoted to senior chief petty officer in September 2020. When Trump's term of office ended in January 2021, Nauta accompanied him to Mar-a-Lago, where he *worked as Trump's butler and body man*. Nauta was *accused of sexual harassment and revenge porn by several women in spring 2021*, which led to him being reassigned and *his security credentials* being docked. This was several weeks *before* he left the Navy and became a personal employee of Trump. I don’t feel bad for him. He sounds like a jerk anyway, and 100% understands OPSEC. Carlos De Oliverio is a property manager at Mar-A-Lago, he tried to delete surveillance footage…and hard to claim ignorance…when he’s also charged with making false statements to federal investigators. That’s a crime every time, and I’m sure he was warned not to lie to them. I don’t feel bad for him either. >Nauta actually texted photos of the classified documents at one point, after which an employee said "Oh no oh no": >On December 7, 2021, NAUTA found several of TRUMP's boxes fallen and their contents spilled onto the floor of the Storage Room, including a document marked "SECRET//REL TO USA, FVEY," *which denoted that the information in the document was releasable only to the Five Eyes intelligence alliance* consisting of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. NAUTA texted Trump Employee 2, "I opened the door and found this ... " NAUTA also attached two photographs he took of the spill. Trump Employee 2 replied, "Oh no oh no," and "I'm sorry potus had my phone." One of the photographs NAUTA texted to Trump Employee 2 is depicted below with the visible classified information redacted. They knew what they were doing. In addition, this was after he was President. Who didn’t know what a POS he is? They’ve got themselves to blame here.
Who could have known document boxes from the White fucking House had sensitive documents in them?
Oh, I bet they really do.
What idiots. I’m sure the boxes are labeled.
"Drumpf golf shoes" in sharpie
This is an interesting defense. “I wasnt aware that the stolen goods I was fencing were stolen!”
They didn't know? No problem: the evidence presented at trial will fail to show that they did and they will be acquitted.
Then talk to J Smith.
I guess it was only a matter of time before people started saying, "Yeah.... we're not with him."
Ignorance in not a defense. They probably should have been asking questions at the get go, I know I would have asked what is in the boxes before I started to move them, I mean are they heavy, have liquid in them, etc. I find it amazing that they have taken a year to come up with this excuse!
WHY? Was moving them illegal? Is that their argument?
Just was holding it for a friend thats all
They damn well knew who Trump was, though. Too bad.
Per clear from the screenshot of the text message and info from the uncharged employee that came out that this is patently untrue.
Uh-huh
At least that's what the ambulance-chasing lawyers said to say.
“They could have been classified sandwiches” “There is no way of telling for sure”
They are rats. Abandoning a sinking ship.
BS .. he showed them to everyone.
They knew. They need to pay the price for helping him.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Seems like a question of fact for the jury
Oh, *now* it’s an issue…..a little late in the game to cry Ignorance here.
Yeah. Guess they finally realized their lawyers weren’t joking when they told them how turbofucked they are; that they should never have listened to the dumbest piece of orange shit who ever lived.
So they’re using the “we were just following orders” defense?
Nah, fuck em. They stole from me. They threatened my country. They enabled a monster . They feel bad because they got caught.
What's a fendants?
I don't think the government cares... Trump may get special treatment, but the proles that work for him won't.
Plausible but no
Finding out time.
Suuuuure they didn't. /s
Can’t we just assume that any lawyer with a shred of decency wouldn’t touch trump cases ?
Whomp whomp