‘Trump Employee 4’ retracts testimony after changing lawyers, implicates former president, prosecutors say

[Matt]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump- ... cutors-say

[bmw]

I don't really know what to make of this. This person either lied the first time around or is lying now. Either way, he/she lied. I'm always suspicious of people who stand to make personal gain by changing their story.

That said, more relevant for determining the truth than this person's testimony will be the actual evidence that prosecutors presented this person with.

[TC Talks]

Do you think that the Trump supplied lawyer could have been offering bad advice?

"The target letter to Trump Employee 4 crystallized a conflict of interest arising from Mr. Woodward's concurrent representation of Trump Employee 4 and Nauta," prosecutors wrote.

They added: "Advising Trump Employee 4 to correct his sworn testimony would result in testimony incriminating Mr. Woodward's other client, Nauta; but permitting Trump Employee 4's false testimony to stand uncorrected would leave Trump Employee 4 exposed to criminal charges for perjury."

[bmw]

Absolutely. But so could have the new lawyer. The whole thing just sounds kinda fishy to me. Like I said, I'll hold judgment until we see the actual evidence that prosecutors supposedly showed this person that got them to change their mind. Because just generally speaking, I'm skeptical of ANYBODY who changes their mind (particularly when done so in both instances under oath) to not only incriminate someone else, but to save their own ass. This opinion of mine isn't specific to this particular instance.

[Rate This]

I don't really know what to make of this. This person either lied the first time around or is lying now. Either way, he/she lied. I'm always suspicious of people who stand to make personal gain by changing their story.

That said, more relevant for determining the truth than this person's testimony will be the actual evidence that prosecutors presented this person with.

It may very well be a “tell the truth and we won’t hurt you as much” kind of thing. Prosecutors use techniques like that to flip people or get the answers they need all the time…

[bmw]

But what I don't get is, if the prosecutor already has other evidence to prove the point in question (which this prosecutor may well have, I don't know), how do they benefit from trying to "flip" somebody who has already lied under oath and is thus a credibility liability to the prosecution? Because if this particular person gets called to the stand by prosecutors, the defense will shred this person's credibility under cross-examination. I mean, unless this person had other actual information that the prosecution didn't have.

[Rate This]

But what I don't get is, if the prosecutor already has other evidence to prove the point in question (which this prosecutor may well have, I don't know), how do they benefit from trying to "flip" somebody who has already lied under oath and is thus a credibility liability to the prosecution? Because if this particular person gets called to the stand by prosecutors, the defense will shred this person's credibility under cross-examination. I mean, unless this person had other actual information that the prosecution didn't have.

It could be that when he switched lawyers the new one told him he could fix his situation by correcting the record and withdrawing the original testimony… he’s unindicted… for now anyways.

[FakeAndyStuart]

But what I don't get is, if the prosecutor already has other evidence to prove the point in question (which this prosecutor may well have, I don't know), how do they benefit from trying to "flip" somebody who has already lied under oath and is thus a credibility liability to the prosecution? Because if this particular person gets called to the stand by prosecutors, the defense will shred this person's credibility under cross-examination. I mean, unless this person had other actual information that the prosecution didn't have.

It could be that when he switched lawyers the new one told him he could fix his situation by correcting the record and withdrawing the original testimony… he’s unindicted… for now anyways.

Winner winner, chicken dinner!!!!