Sunday, July 09, 2023

Idle Legal Observation

No, I never practiced criminal law. But in the flood of legal commentary on this case, I saw what seemed to me sage advice: it may be Nauta has nothing to offer.

We don’t know what DOJ knows; and it’s likely they know enough without Nauta, that they charged him not to force his testimony, but because he’s already been caught in a lie (which makes him less than an ideal witness). And they have what he did on tape, and what’s he gonna do? Testify it was all his idea? Testify at all?

I keep coming back to this: how do Trump and Nauta put on affirmative defenses without testifying? Which they don’t dare do, especially Trump. What, is Trump going to do it through tweets and campaign rally rants?

Nauta flip? What would the DOJ get from that? The evidence in public is overwhelming. What would Nauta add? Especially assuming other MAL employees will already be witnesses.

No comments:

Post a Comment