Woodward says an easy way to avoid a conflict of interest is simply to never call Defendant 4 for testimony against trump. Easy peasy.
From the above linked Politico article:
Harbach dismissed a suggestion by Woodward in an earlier filing that one way to address any alleged conflict would be for the government not to call Taveras at any trial in the documents case.
“The Government is unaware of one, in which a court has excluded evidence to avoid a conflict on facts remotely similar to this case, where the Government put Mr. Woodward on notice long ago about potential conflicts,” Harbach wrote, “and he is now seeking to affirmatively use those conflicts to gain a tactical advantage at trial by excluding highly incriminating evidence to the benefit of not only his own client but also a co-defendant [Trump] whose PAC is paying his legal fees.”
I can’t see any way Cannon can avoid a Garcia hearing after all this has come out.
I am fairly certain that she’s just incompetent. I see many people assuming that she’s in the bag for Trump because he appointed her, but he appointed a number of judges who have ruled against him, sometimes harshly. They owe him nothing and have absolutely nothing to gain by fudging things in his favor, and everything to lose if they get caught doing it. (It’s not like he can take back the appointment or anything.)
In addition, she’s pretty inexperienced. To me it explains all of the screw-ups. She might be a bit biased in his favor, which would explain why the mistakes favor him, but that’s different from being totally corrupt and doing everything she can to help him.
She was, according to her Wikipedia page: a clerk for a judge for a year, a practicing lawyer for 3 years, and a Federal prosecutor for over 6 years. Is it common for someone with several years’ experience in court to make such rookie mistakes as a judge? I’d make worse mistakes, but I’ve never been in court, or to law school. I’m sure it’s a step up from prosecutor to judge, but the legal reviews of her rulings in the documents cases are pretty scathing.
It’s more than enough to know that you don’t disclose the fact of ongoing grand jury proceedings in your minute orders. Which she did very recently.
It’s more than enough to know that when the circuit court for your district gives you a hard slap, you don’t double down and repeat the mistake. Which she did less recently.
True. Even we lay people/non-lawyers know stuff like that.
It doesn’t excuse her, but clerk for one year, practicing for three? Hell, my “experience” from watching every single episode of Law & Order at least twice (I own the boxed set) equates to more experience than that.
Or he wasn’t willing to do it or at least knew he shouldn’t be caught doing it, but also knew if he outright refused for any reason, he’d get fired, so he lied about what privs he had (very easy to lie to non-technical people about such things) and thus passed the buck.
Not me. Mar A Lago is just one location belonging to a longer organization, I expect. When the IT guy said he didn’t have permissions, that might have been legitimate.
I’m an IT guy for a few field offices right now, and I’m fairly limited in what I can do with anything server-related. That’s a whole WAN/network group that manages it for the organization as a whole. What the guy is quoted as saying sounds exactly like something I’ve said countless times, both where I work and other jobs.
Sort of like:
“You realize that the lawyer you have also represents your boss? And your boss and his lawyer are going to throw you under the bus and make you the fall guy for all his criming? You OK with that?”