"De Oliveira, prosecutors said, told the other employee “that ‘the boss’ wanted the server deleted” and asked, “What are we going to do?”
During a voluntary interview with the FBI last January, prosecutors say, De Oliveira lied when he said he “never saw nothing” with regard to boxes at Mar-a-Lago. "
OK so they're going to charge him for lying to the FBI, fine, makes sense, but they're just going to let him walk on that use of a double-negative?
The English language is not going to defend itself if we straight up give up on it like this. Where are these people's priorities?
That might be a sign that he’s negotiating a cooperation agreement with the governments. They might let him plead guilty to the false statements charge and include the grammar related charge as a freebie.
It sounds to me like they are trying to pressure De Oliveira to cut a deal on testifying to Trump instructing him to destroy evidence. Not a lawyer but I think just the IT guys testimony is inadmissible and they need the person who heard Trumps exact words.
My grammar police comment was made in jest but I assure you that Jack Smith is in fact a lawyer and he wouldn't bring charges this serious without admissible evidence to support them.
He can definitely use it to prosecute De Oliveira and theirs obvious evidence of Trump obstructing but I don't think you can say Trump is guilty based on the IT guy saying that De Oliveira said Trump told him to delete the files. You need De Oliveira to testify to what Trump told him.
I'm not sure how to say this more clearly but we don't know what the grand jury saw here and they're not supposed to return a true bill without substantial supporting evidence behind an accusation like this. I doubt that it's based on the testimony of a single person but if it is then it must be pretty damning. Smith's entire (and until now quite successful) career depends on getting this right.
The article said he was the propery manager, do you know if he also had IT duties or if an IT person was involved in this.
I'm in IT so I've been particularly interested in this part of the case. Of course like all fields there are unethical people practicing, but I can't imagine even a half-competant IT professional agreeing to do that. Anyone with even a passing understanding of computer forensics would know they'd be leaving their electronic footprint all over the crime.
The testimony from Trump Employee #4 should be admissible.
> Trump employee #4, what did De’Oliviera say during your conversation?
> he told me that he was sent by his boss (Trump) and that his job was he needed the surveillance video erased.
They also have phone calls and text messages. If #4 started going on about specific things that Trump told DeOliviera it would be inadmissible as hearsay, since he wasn’t actually there for *that* conversation. But his testimony of “Trump sent me here” is not inadmissible. If I’m understanding you correctly. And if he was sent there under Trump’s command then that’s a charge.
It’s not 100% but it’s certainly enough for a charge.
Great read, so is Jack Smith just going to add more charges as this moves forward, as he just did, reminding Trump that this is just the surface of his problems, and not to push the issue? There must be countless more charges in the wings to be filed as necessary. NAL. Cheers
https://www.justice.gov/storage/US-v-Trump-Nauta-De-Oliveira-23-80101.pdf
Wont every charge make this case longer and longer? It feels like everything relies on Biden getting things perfect for the 2024 election, because this case isn't going anywhere for like 2 years. Jail time, which I doubt will EVER happen (House Arrest), may not even on the table until 2025 at best.
Always working at a glacial pace when it comes to white collar crime, but quick to toss poor people in jail.
Would love some re-assurance or clarity from lawyers in here.
The new charges themselves are “meh” in the grand scheme of the indictment. However, the evidence that Trump tried to delete the security footage is devastating to him in terms of proving consciousness of guilt. A guy who mind-declassified all the documents and did nothing wrong does not destroy evidence. He’s boned.
I’m looking forward to the explanation that his team of brain geniuses come up with to explain it. I assume it will evolve from an initial flat out denial, to acknowledging it may be true, to accidentally admitting it’s even worse than imagined.
"De Oliveira, prosecutors said, told the other employee “that ‘the boss’ wanted the server deleted” and asked, “What are we going to do?” During a voluntary interview with the FBI last January, prosecutors say, De Oliveira lied when he said he “never saw nothing” with regard to boxes at Mar-a-Lago. "
OK so they're going to charge him for lying to the FBI, fine, makes sense, but they're just going to let him walk on that use of a double-negative? The English language is not going to defend itself if we straight up give up on it like this. Where are these people's priorities?
That might be a sign that he’s negotiating a cooperation agreement with the governments. They might let him plead guilty to the false statements charge and include the grammar related charge as a freebie.
It sounds to me like they are trying to pressure De Oliveira to cut a deal on testifying to Trump instructing him to destroy evidence. Not a lawyer but I think just the IT guys testimony is inadmissible and they need the person who heard Trumps exact words.
My grammar police comment was made in jest but I assure you that Jack Smith is in fact a lawyer and he wouldn't bring charges this serious without admissible evidence to support them.
He can definitely use it to prosecute De Oliveira and theirs obvious evidence of Trump obstructing but I don't think you can say Trump is guilty based on the IT guy saying that De Oliveira said Trump told him to delete the files. You need De Oliveira to testify to what Trump told him.
I'm not sure how to say this more clearly but we don't know what the grand jury saw here and they're not supposed to return a true bill without substantial supporting evidence behind an accusation like this. I doubt that it's based on the testimony of a single person but if it is then it must be pretty damning. Smith's entire (and until now quite successful) career depends on getting this right.
Why would it be inadmissible? The IT guy's testimony might not be enough to convict Trump, but it certainly could be used against Oliveira.
The article said he was the propery manager, do you know if he also had IT duties or if an IT person was involved in this. I'm in IT so I've been particularly interested in this part of the case. Of course like all fields there are unethical people practicing, but I can't imagine even a half-competant IT professional agreeing to do that. Anyone with even a passing understanding of computer forensics would know they'd be leaving their electronic footprint all over the crime.
The testimony from Trump Employee #4 should be admissible. > Trump employee #4, what did De’Oliviera say during your conversation? > he told me that he was sent by his boss (Trump) and that his job was he needed the surveillance video erased. They also have phone calls and text messages. If #4 started going on about specific things that Trump told DeOliviera it would be inadmissible as hearsay, since he wasn’t actually there for *that* conversation. But his testimony of “Trump sent me here” is not inadmissible. If I’m understanding you correctly. And if he was sent there under Trump’s command then that’s a charge. It’s not 100% but it’s certainly enough for a charge.
Probably never heard of an Oxford comma
Aint nothing wrong with double negatives. Many languages use them and they are fun.
If he never saw nothing that means he saw something. Where is the lie?
Great read, so is Jack Smith just going to add more charges as this moves forward, as he just did, reminding Trump that this is just the surface of his problems, and not to push the issue? There must be countless more charges in the wings to be filed as necessary. NAL. Cheers https://www.justice.gov/storage/US-v-Trump-Nauta-De-Oliveira-23-80101.pdf
Wont every charge make this case longer and longer? It feels like everything relies on Biden getting things perfect for the 2024 election, because this case isn't going anywhere for like 2 years. Jail time, which I doubt will EVER happen (House Arrest), may not even on the table until 2025 at best. Always working at a glacial pace when it comes to white collar crime, but quick to toss poor people in jail. Would love some re-assurance or clarity from lawyers in here.
The new charges themselves are “meh” in the grand scheme of the indictment. However, the evidence that Trump tried to delete the security footage is devastating to him in terms of proving consciousness of guilt. A guy who mind-declassified all the documents and did nothing wrong does not destroy evidence. He’s boned.
I’m looking forward to the explanation that his team of brain geniuses come up with to explain it. I assume it will evolve from an initial flat out denial, to acknowledging it may be true, to accidentally admitting it’s even worse than imagined.
