Without commenting on which defense is credible, it is clear that this is a classic case of antagonistic defenses. The government has broad discretion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(b) to join defendants in a single case but, at the same time, the Court has equally broad discretion under Rule 14 to sever defendants when it appears that justice would be better served by trying the defendants separately. Severance is the better course in this case for two basic reasons: First, defendants Christian and Nosal have such antagonistically different defenses that trying them together makes each, in effect, a second prosecutor against the other.