And that’s why you’d never make it as a Trump lawyer.
FBI Search and Seizure at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Residence, August 8, 2022, Case Dismissed July 15, 2024
IANAL. I would assume that, ethically, he would be required to inform his client that an offer had been made and to make sure he understood that offer. But, I would assume that a lawyer has some leeway to give his client a subjective assessment of whether that offer is worth it.
He can say that he believes that the evidence isn’t sufficient to successfully prosecute Nauta; he could say that he thinks that they might get a better offer if they keep holding out; and he could, factually, say that Nauta would need to find and pay for his own lawyer if he decided to take the offer.
A lawyer isn’t (I would be surprised otherwise) required to tell his client that he must take any and all offers ever made, nor to advise him to take those offers.
Again, I’m not a lawyer, this is just my understanding and going from what seems reasonable.
That all said, we know from cases like Powell’s and Eastman’s that a lawyer can give advise so insanely unreasonable and obviously malevolent that the subjectivity of it all goes out the window. That can be an ethical issue with the Bar or a more criminal matter, depending on the specifics.
Now that he’s been charged, Nauta might change his mind and change his lawyer.
That’s a pretty absurd hypothetical – particularly when the subject is Donald Trump.
Oh.
No.
Wait.
The lawyer allegedly failed to disclose previous immunity offers as several of her clients recently implicated a fellow phony elector in wrongdoing.
Well, I’ll be damned 
NB: I’m not sure who was/wasn’t paying that attorney.
But there’s no way to followup exactly what the lawyer does or doesn’t say in conveying the offer, right? I mean, the lawyer could come back to Nauta and say “That sleazy DoJ scumbag offered to take a few years off your sentence if you betrayed the President and disgraced yourself, but we’re going to beat his ass in court, right? You’re going to walk out of that courtroom a free man. You don’t want any part of this filthy deal, right? You’re going to be loyal to President Trump, aren’t you? I thought so.” And he would still technically be conveying the offer to Nauta.
trump is actually paying a lawyer? Cite? 
It’s just a figure of speech.
Lol 
So… This is real “glass half full” thinking, and these glasses might be so rosy as to be almost opaque. But bear with me.
Let’s just say, hypothetically, that they have one of the most open-and-shut cases imaginable. They have scads of witnesses, piles (literally) of evidence, recordings of Trump unambiguously and inarguably confessing to serious crimes. Going to trial is like an “any given Sunday” idea that you can’t ever guarantee a conviction, but this is as close a conviction as you can get. Let’s say that they’re not too worried about Trump being found guilty, or at least it’s low on their list of concerns.
The next logical question will be, what are the consequences if he’s found guilty. The narrative for years has been that everything is a witch hunt. Everyone is out to get Trump and people are in on it. It’s the “Biden DOJ” trying to steal the election preemptively just as they stole the previous election. And so on. There may be some riots, or maybe some lone crazies trying to blow stuff up or take potshots at people.
So the best way they figure to get ahead of it, is to show how not rigged it is. Put it in the place that would be friendliest to him. Put it in front of a judge who has shown a clear bias in his favor. Do all that, and still get a conviction. Do all you can to convince anyone but the most die-hard Trump cultists that he was convicted fairly and solely based on the facts and evidence.
If that kind of thing is true, then hopefully it means they really do have a solid case. It’s just total speculation on my part.
If Nauta believed that his lawyer had broken the law then he could report a crime to the authorities.
Since we don’t know what was said, in confidence, to Nauta by his lawyer, we certainly don’t have any way of objecting to its reasonability. And if we assume that Nauta is not a lawyer and doesn’t know what is and isn’t reasonable for his lawyer to say, it’s unlikely that he will complain.
The most plausible course for this sort of thing to occur would be that Nauta retains a new lawyer, explains the advise that he was given by his previous lawyer, and that person advises Nauta to report the previous guy and sue him for damages.
Something about this gives me flashbacks to 2016, when many liberals were actively cheering for Trump to get the nomination because it would guarantee a win for the Democrats.
I don’t think any prosecutor (at least one as intelligent as Smith seems to be) would consider a conviction a sure thing no matter what venue and judge.
I’m sure it’s extremely wishful thinking, yes. It might have been something more mundane, such as maintaining propriety by putting it in the venue of the judge who previously dealt with a similar issue, and wasn’t part of any sort of master strategy at all.
Meh, I can dream.
For sale: professional ethics, never used.
Just in case anyone needs it, when dealing with Trumpistas:
‘In my administration, I’m going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the law.’ – Donald J. Trump, August 2016
Ridiculous, and insulting to Smith.
You get indicted where you allegedly committed the bulk of the offenses.
Yeah. But this one’s squishy, kuz Trump. Documents stolen from Washington DC. Stored and moved and hidden and lied about and covered with blankets, Florida. Bedminister, New Jersey?? Oh, all that happened there was we showed them off a little bit.
This smells like public witness tampering. All those good things TFG said but left out, “shame if anything would happen to you.”
Has there been any speculation as to who the author was in the Bedminster episode? Woodward, maybe?
Several such statements (on video) from Trump in 2016 are part of the evidence against him listed in the indictment.
They blow up the frequent defense-of-Trump that he wasn’t a government guy, so he had no idea that keeping documents safe was important. They explode the notion that Trump was fully ignorant of the connection between classified or sensitive documents, and our national security.
In other words: they show that Trump knew what he was doing when he took the documents and attempted to hide his possession of them from the FBI and other relevant agencies.
I think it was the author/ghostwriter of Mark Meadow’s book, whoever that is.
I really don’t see how Trump avoids conviction. And they clearly don’t need Nauta to flip.
Read the indictment again. All those references to Lawyer # whatever or Employee # whatever are witnesses against Trump.
What are they going to say? The things in the indictment. What are they going to use in support? The pictures in the indictment. And the call logs or texts referenced in the indictment.
Those conversations with reporters? The case will include those reporters testifying, and then playing the tapes.
If you think the indictment adds up to a violation of law, then the only question you have to ask is if the Feds have the evidence to prove it. This indictment is their roadmap. At trial, can they deliver?
It sounds pretty clear, at least to me, and based on the conversations that are described and the documentation that will show that these conversations were authentic, that a jury will be presented a damning case.