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.

  • Natanael@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    But if they DON’T say anything he WILL go to prison for perjury anyway as they can already prove he’s lying, the only thing this does is give him a chance to avoid prison. That’s like literally the opposite of extortion, because the threat isn’t too hurt him, the “threat”, if anything, is to do nothing and let him go to jail. “If you tell the truth we will help you” isn’t extortion.

    • aelwero@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not “if you tell the truth”… It’s “if you say what we say is the truth”…

      If there’s proof that what he’s going to testify to now is the truth, what the fuck do they need his testimony for? They have proof of this ostensible “truth” you’re claiming they want him to say, so why is it necessary to have a known liar testify?

      This is bullshit. I’m not fucking buying this. You can’t testify to something directly in opposition to a prior testimony and have any value whatsoever, period.

      • TerryMathews@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is bullshit. I’m not fucking buying this. You can’t testify to something directly in opposition to a prior testimony and have any value whatsoever, period.

        Sure you can. Especially if he can bring receipts related to why he was lying. Threats, promises of compensation, etc. Is it ideal that he lied under oath? Of course not. And it opens a giant door for the defense to challenge all of his testimony but it’s not irrecoverable.

        Much as you seem to wish it was.

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

          “And it opens a giant door for the defense to challenge all of his testimony but it’s not irrecoverable.”

          I just simply don’t agree on the irrecoverable part :) or more accurately, I don’t believe it’s worth the effort to “recover” evidence from a shitbag. Dudes a testimony for sale, nothing he has to say has any value as truth.

          “Much as you seem to wish it was.”

          I don’t wish that (I don’t really care much outside of wishing the word trump would gain some fucking obscurity… it’s like a really bad penny), I just don’t like that this entire process is pretty clearly a matter of politics rather than justice. It’s a political headhunt, and it’s very reminiscent of pre-collapse Soviet government. We’re trying to fill the gulags up in this motherfucker. I’m not really speaking in support of the defense, Im speaking against the witch hunt.

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

            I just don’t like that this entire process is pretty clearly a matter of politics rather than justice. It’s a political headhunt, and it’s very reminiscent of pre-collapse Soviet government. We’re trying to fill the gulags up in this motherfucker. I’m not really speaking in support of the defense, Im speaking against the witch hunt.

            You have really jumped the shark, friend. This is anything but a politically-motivated protection. And your allusion to Soviet Russia is comical, in a world where Putin blew up a rival last month.

            Trump brought us as close to the collapse of American democracy as we have been since the Civil War, and arguably closer. It’s hard to deny there were two plots to replace Mike Pence before the election was certified: a subgroup of the protesters wanted to hang him, and part of the Secret Service detail was ready to escort/detain him away from the capital. They didn’t even try to hide it - Grassley said he planned on presiding over the Senate. They walked it back, but it happened.

            If this were truly a political witch-hunt, Trump would be either incarcerated for life already, or dead and buried.

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

              Why all the fucking lawyers (indictment of them)? Why a massive laundry list of false statements, false testimony, et al? Why not charges of sedition, insurrection, electoral fraud… the shit you’re talking about.

              Nobody is being charged with what you’re describing. If that’s what they’re trying to prosecute trump for, then fucking charge him with it. The Twitter bullshit was sedition. The pence shenanigans was electoral fraud (maybe not pence personally, but the conversation was absolutely fraud on Trump’s part).

              I’m not quite willing to go as far as calling that stupid a coup or any shit like that, I don’t think it qualifies, it lacks the organization, planning, and intelligence… but we have words that describe it perfectly accurately… Like sedition. If trump called for the jan 6 crap, that’s sedition. If he tried to affect the conduct of an election within the electoral college, that’s electoral fraud. These are felonies man. Big time shit.

              What that mugshot for again? Mishandling documents? False testimony? That sounds exactly like what you’re describing… Not…

              The charges reflect a fishing expedition. We don’t like this guy, lets dig some shit up… trump up some charges to use an old phrase that’s hilariously apropos. Let’s go for all his lawyers, all his buddies, anyone allied too close, and that is the comparison to old school Russia, political officers fishing for shit to gulag someone over…

              The genesis of my concern however, isn’t actually trump or his cronies, I don’t give a fuck if he gets prosecuted at all (id love it if he’d acquire some fucking obscurity though, the fact that he’s still so relevant is garbage). The genesis of my concern is the normalization and acceptance of all this. They’re going to go after Biden on a fishing trip, because we the people aren’t calling out the current fishing trip. Ya know? Aside from the normalization of it, I kinda don’t care. My pony was definitely not in defense of trump, and frankly, I know full well that i cause shit assumptions with stuff like this, and don’t fucking care about that either. Just trying to be a moderate voice of reason in a very tribal political environment (which is to say that I don’t really disagree with you)

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

                Why all the fucking lawyers (indictment of them)? Why a massive laundry list of false statements, false testimony, et al?

                Because lawyers have a sworn obligation to enter evidence and testimony they understand to be truthful and argue in pleadings in a manner that they understand to be legally sound and in compliance with the rules of the court in the state of the filing. Trump used a number of lawyers - dating at least back to Cohen - who were willing and comfortable breaking both of those ethical obligations.

                Put simply, lawyers do not have a free speech right to say anything they wish in court.

                Nobody is being charged with what you’re describing. If that’s what they’re trying to prosecute trump for, then fucking charge him with it. The Twitter bullshit was sedition. The pence shenanigans was electoral fraud (maybe not pence personally, but the conversation was absolutely fraud on Trump’s part).

                They’ve got to be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, and realistically he’s getting more deference on that front than any other American in history. The number of people who believe nothing he does is wrong, is astounding. I fully expect the Georgia indictment to add charges through discovery and witness cooperation deals. The RICO indictment gives them a lot of wiggle room to tie Trump to the crimes of others.

                The charges reflect a fishing expedition. We don’t like this guy, lets dig some shit up…

                Hard disagree. The charges reflect the stark reality that the normal institutions that should have handled this situation are broken. In any normal reality, Trump should have been successfully impeached during one of his two impeachments or impeached a third time for January 6th. Mitch McConnell’s argument that a trial was moot, was not founded in the law. As impeachment includes barring the convict from future Federal office they could have and should have tried him in the Senate.

                I have zero doubt that the currently sitting Republicans will weaponize government against anyone who didn’t bend the knee including Biden. They’re not even waiting, if you’re following along they’re trying their best to remove or pressure Fani Willis in the middle of a perfectly valid criminal trial. That is the weaponization of government.

      • Natanael@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Because if he said he wasn’t at X but they can prove he was at X that doesn’t mean they can prove everything he saw and heard there, but on the other hand they can get him to testify he was there and tell what he saw and heard there with that proof of his presence included.

        That doesn’t mean his new testimony will be considered fully trustworthy by the court, but it does mean they can now submit his story into evidence when they previously couldn’t.

        Then they can additionally ask others about details in his testimony to uncover further evidence and try to prove their case.