The prosecutors in the office of special counsel Jack Smith had asked for conflict-of-interest hearings for Nauta’s lawyer Stanley Woodward and De Oliveira’s lawyer John Irving, due to the fact they might be constrained at trial because of divided loyalties to their current and former clients.
My own personal opinion on this, Cannon was appointed by Trump and has been in his favor from the onset. I’m glad there are jurisdictions that are more balanced that are taking him to court.
She’s a Federalist plant, says everything you need to know. Unfortunately for us all, Cannon is set on making sure we’re all also aware of just how incompetent and biased she is.
My opinion of the Federalist Society is shifting. That paper, “The Scope and Force of Section Three” - written by two members of the Federalist Society. Judge Scott McAfee in Georgia - whose handling of the Chesebro and Powell cases in pretrial (as well as other cases) has been excellent - member of the Federalist Society.
I don’t think one can accurately write off the Federalist Society with no other arguments. Cannon is awful, unfit to be a jurist of any kind, all on her own, with disregard to the Federalists.
you’ll notice that the federalist society recomendations are all individuals how have a history of voting against freedoms that are counter to evangelical christian bullshit… such as abortion and RvW, LGBTQ rights and such matters.
They’re absolutely a danger to society writ large. They’re supposedly about freedom, but only the freedom to worship their god… and the entire principle of Originalism was founded with the goal of pushing their political agenda rather than creating fair rulings. nevermind that the constitution was meant to change as society change, flaws worked out out, that sort of thing.
It doesn’t matter if a few can write a reasonable sounding essay, they’re still a direct threat to democracy. in fact, that a few are ‘more reasonable sounding’ makes them more, not less, of a threat.
I didn’t say I was fully in favor of them, just that my opinion was shifting. I absolutely continue to watch keenly.
“Sure, their members on the Supreme Court have rolled back protections for the LGBT community, destroyed abortion rights, killed off affirmative action, and really REALLY want to repeal the civil rights act and make it illegal to not be a Christian but I DUNNO MAN A COUPLE OF THEIR PEOPLE AREN’T COMPLETE ASSHOLES so I’m gonna give them the benefit of the doubt.”
Fuck off.
Settle down, Francis. Your vitriol is misplaced.
It is not, Nazi Bar.
And it’s “lighten up.”
The entire purpose of the Federalist Society is to get conservative christian judges in place to overturn policies that are deemed too liberal, and to cultivate said conservatives in law… precisely because those conservative policies (like repealing the Civil Rights Act, banning abortion, banning contraceptives, repealing equal protection for LGBTQ+, and overturning decades of precedent because they happen to disagree with it)…
And you think it’s maybe not so bad because two of them were some what loquacious?
Either you’re far from the keen observer you present yourself as, or you do in fact already agree with them.
Either you’re far from the keen observer you present yourself as, or you do in fact already agree with them.
I know you’ve seen plenty of my comments for a while, and I don’t think you believe either one of those.
I believe that some members of the federalist society are capable of following decent jurisprudence while also acknowledging that the organization is an attempt to use the judicial system for right wing causes and follow a legal theory that’s absurd and unproductive to modern society.
Brett kavinaugh has pleasantly surprised me in some cases as well, but I still disapprove of his position on the Supreme Court and believe he’s overall prone to bad decisions
She needs to be removed from the bench.
The way a lot of these articles are written about her and the case, the authors should be fired as well.
Surprise request??? These things are fucking standard in these situations. Fucking media always giving these extremists legitimacy via platforming their bs.
Journalistic integrity is dead and capitalism killed it
Aileen “Special Master for Master Trump” Canon doesn’t get to complain about wasted time.
Timeline of events:
Woodward is a lawyer hired by the Trump PAC to represent Trump’s co-defendants, including Nauta, and Tavares. De Oliveira is represented by another lawyer, Irving, also hired by the Trump PAC.
Tavares changed lawyers to one that is not funded by the Trump PAC, and has changed his testimony.
Prosecution files paperwork citing concerns about Woodward’s ability to cross examine Tavares or call his credibility into question during closing arguments. At that time, the prosecution did not request a hearing because it wasn’t clear that Tavares would be a witness yet.
Side note, lawyers are required to maintain privilege even after they are fired. Woodward may have privileged information about Tavares that would create an ethical conflict, like for instance if Tavares told Woodward something in confidence and then lied about it on the stand, Woodward would be in a quandry. He cannot challenge the testimony without breaching his responsibility to his former client, and he cannot give a closing argument where he says “That guy’s a liar, and I would know because I was his lawyer.”
So this was a known, expected issue.
During this hearing, the prosecution announced that they intend to call Tavares as a witness, and requested the separate hearing.
Woodward played dumb, saying he hadn’t prepared to argue this point, and how shocked and appalled he was that such a thing could even be questioned. This despite the fact that there was already a previous hearing for Irving, who represented three other witnesses and will have one of his associates do thise cross examinations.
The judge, deeply in the bag for Trump, played along with the farce. However, she will be required to hold the hearing, and will likely need to rule that Woodward cannot cross examine Tavares or attack his testimony in closing arguments. Anything less, and it will be a layup appeal for either side. The prosecution could argue that Woodward was utilizing privileged information, and the defendant could argue that he did not get a proper defense because his lawyer had competing interests.
So while we can predict the outcome, it’s also likely that she will use this as another reason to stall the trial and pretend she isn’t trying to drag it out and give Trump a chance to be elected before he gets convicted. The judge admonishing the prosecution is just a little cherry on the shit sundae that is this trial. The concerns were raised previously, and the cited caselaw is “ibid.” The judge was looking for a reason to justify an attack on the prosecution.
The prosecution could argue that Woodward was utilizing privileged information, and the defendant could argue that he did not get a proper defense because his lawyer had competing interests.
Pretty sure that’s the reason the prosecution asked for the hearing. it’s protecting it’s expected conviction from appeals. or trying to at any rate.
It’s really impressive to see MAGA official in action when they think they can’t be touched. Just openly and brazenly doing whatever the fuck they want and not even pretending to justify themselves. This is kind of behavior is what you would expect from a group of people that does not believe in the legitimacy of our government at any level, and I think that applies. Basically, all positions MAGA can occupy bend towards the goal of replacing our government with a single man who knows their wishes and can “cut through the bullshit” to “just fix everything”, just don’t call it a dictatorship.
Is she trying to get removed from this case?
“You’re honor, we’re reaching out to your boss for a conflict of interest hearing… regarding your presence presiding over this case.”
This is the best summary I could come up with:
US district judge Aileen Cannon abruptly postponed the hearing after getting the request to prevent the lawyer from doing cross-examination and closing arguments of a former client at trial – which came after prosecutors had first said they would not seek disqualification.
She added she was “disappointed” that David Harbach, one of the prosecutors, had raised the request without warning, and without citing supporting cases from the southern district of Florida.
The hearing was the second in a pair of proceedings scheduled so Trump’s co-defendants, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, could be told of their lawyers’ prior representation of witnesses during the grand jury investigation who could testify against them at trial.
The complication emerged at the hearing for Nauta, when prosecutors said they could not be sure how Woodward might cross-examine “Trump Employee 4”, identified by the Guardian as the IT director of Mar-a-Lago, Yuscil Taveras.
But asking to preclude Woodward from doing closing arguments was a new request in the eyes of Cannon, who pressed Harbach on why it was being raised for the first time at the hearing.
De Oliveira’s language skills have been a topic of discussion inside the Trump legal team for months, according to people familiar with the matter.
The original article contains 737 words, the summary contains 206 words. Saved 72%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
I get the source of ire, assuming the bot summary is correct:
“prosecutors had first said they would not seek disqualification.”
then…
“getting the request to prevent the lawyer from doing cross-examination and closing arguments of a former client at trial”
And that they…
“raised the request without warning, and without citing supporting cases from the southern district of Florida.”
I still think she’s an asshat, but in this case, seems justified…
Did… OP just admit he didn’t even read the article, but just the bot summary?
At least they’re honest about it.
Whoops, nevermind. Wrong flair, that’s a mod, not OP.
Article was paywalled when I clicked it. Only had the summary to work with.
Was it inaccurate though?
