Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

That is a hell of a lot of speculation with zero evidence... par for the course with this crowd of crazies.

---

Or, it's just a POTUS with the ability to raise funds helping protect his former team from lawfare intended to make anyone afraid to work for him.

The allegation is a spin that inadvertently casts him in a positive light.

---

There it is, folks. Fraud and obstruction aren't a bug, they're a feature.

---

It's not obstruction to raise money for legal defense, and you know it.

the fraud is using Congressional power to force partisan opponents into processes that require legal representation beyond the means of most individuals, in order to make people fear participating in politics.

We see what you are doing.
Remember: turnabout is fair play.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

That is a hell of a lot of speculation with zero evidence... par for the course with this crowd of crazies.

---

Or, it's just a POTUS with the ability to raise funds helping protect his former team from lawfare intended to make anyone afraid to work for him.

The allegation is a spin that inadvertently casts him in a positive light.

---

There it is, folks. Fraud and obstruction aren't a bug, they're a feature.

---

It's not obstruction to raise money for legal defense, and you know it.

the fraud is using Congressional power to force partisan opponents into processes that require legal representation beyond the means of most individuals, in order to make people fear participating in politics.

We see what you are doing.
Remember: turnabout is fair play.

---

I see what you're doing: making stuff up. Never did anyone say it was obstruction to raise money for legal defense.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

That is a hell of a lot of speculation with zero evidence... par for the course with this crowd of crazies.

---

Or, it's just a POTUS with the ability to raise funds helping protect his former team from lawfare intended to make anyone afraid to work for him.

The allegation is a spin that inadvertently casts him in a positive light.

---

There it is, folks. Fraud and obstruction aren't a bug, they're a feature.

---

It's not obstruction to raise money for legal defense, and you know it.

the fraud is using Congressional power to force partisan opponents into processes that require legal representation beyond the means of most individuals, in order to make people fear participating in politics.

We see what you are doing.
Remember: turnabout is fair play.

---

I see what you're doing: making stuff up. Never did anyone say it was obstruction to raise money for legal defense.

---

Now Sam is trying to make a joint defense agreement into a conspiracy to commit obstruction.

Stop making silly arguments and you won't look so silly.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

That is a hell of a lot of speculation with zero evidence... par for the course with this crowd of crazies.

---

Or, it's just a POTUS with the ability to raise funds helping protect his former team from lawfare intended to make anyone afraid to work for him.

The allegation is a spin that inadvertently casts him in a positive light.

---

There it is, folks. Fraud and obstruction aren't a bug, they're a feature.

---

It's not obstruction to raise money for legal defense, and you know it.

the fraud is using Congressional power to force partisan opponents into processes that require legal representation beyond the means of most individuals, in order to make people fear participating in politics.

We see what you are doing.
Remember: turnabout is fair play.

---

I see what you're doing: making stuff up. Never did anyone say it was obstruction to raise money for legal defense.

---

Now Sam is trying to make a joint defense agreement into a conspiracy to commit obstruction.

Stop making silly arguments and you won't look so silly.

---

There's nothing necessarily wrong with a JDA. Abramson makes the argument that Trump is using them to obstruct in some cases, and you haven't addressed the substance of this argument.

Congressional abuse of power is a different issue. You haven't supported that accusation or explained how it would justify fraud if it were true.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

That is a hell of a lot of speculation with zero evidence... par for the course with this crowd of crazies.

---

Or, it's just a POTUS with the ability to raise funds helping protect his former team from lawfare intended to make anyone afraid to work for him.

The allegation is a spin that inadvertently casts him in a positive light.

---

There it is, folks. Fraud and obstruction aren't a bug, they're a feature.

---

It's not obstruction to raise money for legal defense, and you know it.

the fraud is using Congressional power to force partisan opponents into processes that require legal representation beyond the means of most individuals, in order to make people fear participating in politics.

We see what you are doing.
Remember: turnabout is fair play.

---

I see what you're doing: making stuff up. Never did anyone say it was obstruction to raise money for legal defense.

---

Now Sam is trying to make a joint defense agreement into a conspiracy to commit obstruction.

Stop making silly arguments and you won't look so silly.

---

There's nothing necessarily wrong with a JDA. Abramson makes the argument that Trump is using them to obstruct in some cases, and you haven't addressed the substance of this argument.

Congressional abuse of power is a different issue. You haven't supported that accusation or explained how it would justify fraud if it were true.

---

LOL I did indeed address Abramson, who is arguing that a joint defense agreement IS obstruction. I called it silly. It is. Lawyers know that. They also know that few in the public know what a JDA is, and that it can pretty easily be made to sound sinister.

Trump is going to run in 2024. He'll probably win. And after he wins, he will need people to serve as advisors, cabinet officials, and senior agency management. he cannot afford to allow partisan lawfare to scare away talent he will need to rebuild the mess you have made. So he must demonstrate that he will not leave his supporters to their own devices on legal representation. And there is no reason why he should raise money to pay lawyer fees for people who are making up nonsense against him, like third-hand allegations involving a steering wheel as proof of insurrection.

You created this monster, Sam. And in the process you are establishing precedents that are incredibly harmful to the country. You could just let the voters decide. But you don't trust them. So you have to burn down the system to get your way.

You have become that which you claim to abhor.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

That is a hell of a lot of speculation with zero evidence... par for the course with this crowd of crazies.

---

Or, it's just a POTUS with the ability to raise funds helping protect his former team from lawfare intended to make anyone afraid to work for him.

The allegation is a spin that inadvertently casts him in a positive light.

---

There it is, folks. Fraud and obstruction aren't a bug, they're a feature.

---

It's not obstruction to raise money for legal defense, and you know it.

the fraud is using Congressional power to force partisan opponents into processes that require legal representation beyond the means of most individuals, in order to make people fear participating in politics.

We see what you are doing.
Remember: turnabout is fair play.

---

I see what you're doing: making stuff up. Never did anyone say it was obstruction to raise money for legal defense.

---

Now Sam is trying to make a joint defense agreement into a conspiracy to commit obstruction.

Stop making silly arguments and you won't look so silly.

---

There's nothing necessarily wrong with a JDA. Abramson makes the argument that Trump is using them to obstruct in some cases, and you haven't addressed the substance of this argument.

Congressional abuse of power is a different issue. You haven't supported that accusation or explained how it would justify fraud if it were true.

---

LOL I did indeed address Abramson, who is arguing that a joint defense agreement IS obstruction.

---

He clearly is not. So why don't you start with his actual argument and save the verbal pyrotechnics for later.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

That is a hell of a lot of speculation with zero evidence... par for the course with this crowd of crazies.

---

Or, it's just a POTUS with the ability to raise funds helping protect his former team from lawfare intended to make anyone afraid to work for him.

The allegation is a spin that inadvertently casts him in a positive light.

---

There it is, folks. Fraud and obstruction aren't a bug, they're a feature.

---

It's not obstruction to raise money for legal defense, and you know it.

the fraud is using Congressional power to force partisan opponents into processes that require legal representation beyond the means of most individuals, in order to make people fear participating in politics.

We see what you are doing.
Remember: turnabout is fair play.

---

I see what you're doing: making stuff up. Never did anyone say it was obstruction to raise money for legal defense.

---

Now Sam is trying to make a joint defense agreement into a conspiracy to commit obstruction.

Stop making silly arguments and you won't look so silly.

---

There's nothing necessarily wrong with a JDA. Abramson makes the argument that Trump is using them to obstruct in some cases, and you haven't addressed the substance of this argument.

Congressional abuse of power is a different issue. You haven't supported that accusation or explained how it would justify fraud if it were true.

---

LOL I did indeed address Abramson, who is arguing that a joint defense agreement IS obstruction.

---

He clearly is not. So why don't you start with his actual argument and save the verbal pyrotechnics for later.

---

LOL. I did, Sam, and you know that. The faulty premise of his argument is that Trump is using JDA to obstruct.

Don't be so tedious.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

That is a hell of a lot of speculation with zero evidence... par for the course with this crowd of crazies.

---

Or, it's just a POTUS with the ability to raise funds helping protect his former team from lawfare intended to make anyone afraid to work for him.

The allegation is a spin that inadvertently casts him in a positive light.

---

There it is, folks. Fraud and obstruction aren't a bug, they're a feature.

---

It's not obstruction to raise money for legal defense, and you know it.

the fraud is using Congressional power to force partisan opponents into processes that require legal representation beyond the means of most individuals, in order to make people fear participating in politics.

We see what you are doing.
Remember: turnabout is fair play.

---

I see what you're doing: making stuff up. Never did anyone say it was obstruction to raise money for legal defense.

---

Now Sam is trying to make a joint defense agreement into a conspiracy to commit obstruction.

Stop making silly arguments and you won't look so silly.

---

There's nothing necessarily wrong with a JDA. Abramson makes the argument that Trump is using them to obstruct in some cases, and you haven't addressed the substance of this argument.

Congressional abuse of power is a different issue. You haven't supported that accusation or explained how it would justify fraud if it were true.

---

LOL I did indeed address Abramson, who is arguing that a joint defense agreement IS obstruction.

---

He clearly is not. So why don't you start with his actual argument and save the verbal pyrotechnics for later.

---

LOL. I did, Sam, and you know that. The faulty premise of his argument is that Trump is using JDA to obstruct.

Don't be so tedious.

---

"A JDA is obstruction" and "Trump is using JDAs to obstruct" are two different arguments. The first is a red herring you tossed out in your previous post. I'll assume you're abandoning it.

The second is Abramson's actual argument. He explains what makes Trump's use of JDAs different and why he concludes that it's obstruction. This is what you haven't addressed.

Canada2017 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Dnicknames said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Haven't followed the hearings much since it won't make a difference in how I vote, but it did see where the Secret Service seemed to totally contradict recent "bombshell" testimony about Trump in the car lunging for the steering wheel etc.. These hearings are clearly not about "finding the truth." No one calls a person to testify second-hand like that without first going to the sources who were there in the vehicle. That kind of embarrassing failure calls everything else into question.

---

The secret service hasn't contradicted anything she said. If they plan to do that, they can - under oath. Perhaps the Deputy Chief of Staff who told her the story would like to refute her under oath? That would be easy to clear up…

It's not hard to plant a story to contradict her statements, or to rant on TruthSocial. It's a different animal to say it under oath. Notice who testified under oath, and who has declined to testify? Notice which group pleads the 5th?

---

Good to hear a sane voice. Thank you

---

Except for the part where the agents want to testify that she lied, according to news outlets across the spectrum.

The best that can be said is that the two hearsay's cancel each other out.

---

Well at least the SS guys and the driver were actually there, so there's that.

---

Entire 'investigation ' is a political farce.

Only a hyper partisan could possibly believe it has been conducted fairly or in an unbiased manner.

---

Except our eyes saw the January 6 riot and sedition encouraged by the President. You cannot make rational people unsee truth.

Waco1947 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Dnicknames said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Haven't followed the hearings much since it won't make a difference in how I vote, but it did see where the Secret Service seemed to totally contradict recent "bombshell" testimony about Trump in the car lunging for the steering wheel etc.. These hearings are clearly not about "finding the truth." No one calls a person to testify second-hand like that without first going to the sources who were there in the vehicle. That kind of embarrassing failure calls everything else into question.

---

The secret service hasn't contradicted anything she said. If they plan to do that, they can - under oath. Perhaps the Deputy Chief of Staff who told her the story would like to refute her under oath? That would be easy to clear up…

It's not hard to plant a story to contradict her statements, or to rant on TruthSocial. It's a different animal to say it under oath. Notice who testified under oath, and who has declined to testify? Notice which group pleads the 5th?

---

Good to hear a sane voice. Thank you

---

Except for the part where the agents want to testify that she lied, according to news outlets across the spectrum.

The best that can be said is that the two hearsay's cancel each other out.

---

Well at least the SS guys and the driver were actually there, so there's that.

---

Entire 'investigation ' is a political farce.

Only a hyper partisan could possibly believe it has been conducted fairly or in an unbiased manner.

---

Except our eyes saw the January 6 riot and sedition encouraged by the President. You cannot make rational people unsee truth.

---

your eyes, not our eyes..

People see what they are biased to see. People cant unsee their bias..

J.B.Katz said:

---

BREAKING NEWS (CNN, on-air): House January 6 Committee “Concerned” Trump May Be Using the Hundreds of Millions He Raised to Overturn the Election to Pay for Lawyers for Those He Doesn’t Want to Testify Before Congress, “Coercing” Them Not to Do So in What May Be Witness Tampering pic.twitter.com/RouaMWsoch

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

1/ I think I know what the Committee is referring to—as Trump engaged in the same illegal witness-tampering scheme in the Russia investigation and the Ukraine investigation. What he does is create joint defense agreements with witnesses whose legal interests don’t align with his.

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

2/ Normally a joint defense agreement only exists between individuals who share a common legal interest, and normally there is no particular association between the lawyers representing the two JDA’d individuals—only between the individuals themselves as to their legal interests.

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

3/ Because Trump hires a lot of people who rely on him to be their patron not just politically but financially, and because federal litigation is expensive, there are many people Trump has brought into his sphere who cannot afford their own attorneys. He takes advantage of this.

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

5/ Without fail, those in Trump’s sphere represented by attorneys who are part of his sphere—and who have entered into joint defense agreements with him at the urging of these attorneys—refuse to give testimony against Trump *even if it would be in their legal interest to do so*.

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

6/ You are probably now wondering, or should be, whether it is unethical for an attorney to advise someone to enter into a joint defense agreement when it is not in their own legal interest to do so (while having a conflict of interest because of attachment to Trump). Yes—it is.

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

7/ Add to that unethical conduct these hypotheticals:

▪️ Trump is paying for the witness’s lawyer
▪️ Trump is paying illegally, from funds raised for a different purpose that can’t be used for this one
▪️ Trump tells the witness they lose the lawyer if they testify against him

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

8/ Then add two more hypotheticals:

▪️ Per the JDA the witness’s lawyer is issuing regular reports to Trump or one of his agents on attorney-client privileged information the witness has given the lawyer
▪️ The lawyer is aware that if he stops doing this, he’ll stop getting paid

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

9/ If all of this sounds like mafia tactics to you, congratulations, you now understand how Donald Trump—who is a career criminal—operates. He has publicly said that his model for a lawyer is the late Roy Cohn, a disbarred criminal. Trump wants his attorneys to be criminals, too.

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

10/ In writing the three books of the bestselling Proof trilogy, I encountered repeated instances of Trump directly speaking with people in his circle about their federal cases as he was sharing a lawyer (and JDA) with them. It was obvious witness tampering, and it always worked.

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

11/ Indeed, the Mueller Report made clear that its outcome would have been dramatically different if investigators had had cooperation from Paul Manafort, who Trump repeatedly tampered with, both directly and indirectly, during the pendency of that federal criminal investigation.

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

14/ All of the money Trump raised after the 2020 presidential election was raised fraudulently from gullible schmucks who were, sadly, the victim of Wire Fraud. None of the money they sent him went to the purposes they were told it would go to, even as Trump got them to pay up...

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

---

Trump continues in his criminal behavior and his cult followers continue to condone it because they value radical right agendas more than democracy and Jesus.

C. Jordan said:

---

Trump continues in his criminal behavior and his cult followers continue to condone it because they value radical right agendas more than democracy and Jesus.

---

dont know whats worse, your take or the fact you quoted all that to give it..

C. Jordan said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

BREAKING NEWS (CNN, on-air): House January 6 Committee “Concerned” Trump May Be Using the Hundreds of Millions He Raised to Overturn the Election to Pay for Lawyers for Those He Doesn’t Want to Testify Before Congress, “Coercing” Them Not to Do So in What May Be Witness Tampering pic.twitter.com/RouaMWsoch

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

1/ I think I know what the Committee is referring to—as Trump engaged in the same illegal witness-tampering scheme in the Russia investigation and the Ukraine investigation. What he does is create joint defense agreements with witnesses whose legal interests don’t align with his.

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

2/ Normally a joint defense agreement only exists between individuals who share a common legal interest, and normally there is no particular association between the lawyers representing the two JDA’d individuals—only between the individuals themselves as to their legal interests.

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

3/ Because Trump hires a lot of people who rely on him to be their patron not just politically but financially, and because federal litigation is expensive, there are many people Trump has brought into his sphere who cannot afford their own attorneys. He takes advantage of this.

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

5/ Without fail, those in Trump’s sphere represented by attorneys who are part of his sphere—and who have entered into joint defense agreements with him at the urging of these attorneys—refuse to give testimony against Trump *even if it would be in their legal interest to do so*.

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

6/ You are probably now wondering, or should be, whether it is unethical for an attorney to advise someone to enter into a joint defense agreement when it is not in their own legal interest to do so (while having a conflict of interest because of attachment to Trump). Yes—it is.

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

7/ Add to that unethical conduct these hypotheticals:

▪️ Trump is paying for the witness’s lawyer
▪️ Trump is paying illegally, from funds raised for a different purpose that can’t be used for this one
▪️ Trump tells the witness they lose the lawyer if they testify against him

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

8/ Then add two more hypotheticals:

▪️ Per the JDA the witness’s lawyer is issuing regular reports to Trump or one of his agents on attorney-client privileged information the witness has given the lawyer
▪️ The lawyer is aware that if he stops doing this, he’ll stop getting paid

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

9/ If all of this sounds like mafia tactics to you, congratulations, you now understand how Donald Trump—who is a career criminal—operates. He has publicly said that his model for a lawyer is the late Roy Cohn, a disbarred criminal. Trump wants his attorneys to be criminals, too.

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

10/ In writing the three books of the bestselling Proof trilogy, I encountered repeated instances of Trump directly speaking with people in his circle about their federal cases as he was sharing a lawyer (and JDA) with them. It was obvious witness tampering, and it always worked.

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

11/ Indeed, the Mueller Report made clear that its outcome would have been dramatically different if investigators had had cooperation from Paul Manafort, who Trump repeatedly tampered with, both directly and indirectly, during the pendency of that federal criminal investigation.

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

12/ The problem Trump had at that time—because his liquid assets are profoundly limited—is that he didn’t have the money to pay for witnesses’ lawyers or for their silence himself. This is why Manafort was given millions by Trump allies as soon as he left the 2016 Trump campaign.

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

14/ All of the money Trump raised after the 2020 presidential election was raised fraudulently from gullible schmucks who were, sadly, the victim of Wire Fraud. None of the money they sent him went to the purposes they were told it would go to, even as Trump got them to pay up...

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

---

Trump continues in his criminal behavior and his cult followers continue to condone it because they value radical right agendas more than democracy and Jesus.

---

Nice cut and paste. Criminal you say?

Love me some democracy and Jesus.

C. Jordan said:

---

Trump continues in his criminal behavior and his cult followers continue to condone it because they value radical right agendas more than democracy and Jesus.

---

Says the poster whose party supports infanticide and promotes sexual sin.

Sure bro.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

That is a hell of a lot of speculation with zero evidence... par for the course with this crowd of crazies.

---

Or, it's just a POTUS with the ability to raise funds helping protect his former team from lawfare intended to make anyone afraid to work for him.

The allegation is a spin that inadvertently casts him in a positive light.

---

There it is, folks. Fraud and obstruction aren't a bug, they're a feature.

---

It's not obstruction to raise money for legal defense, and you know it.

the fraud is using Congressional power to force partisan opponents into processes that require legal representation beyond the means of most individuals, in order to make people fear participating in politics.

We see what you are doing.
Remember: turnabout is fair play.

---

I see what you're doing: making stuff up. Never did anyone say it was obstruction to raise money for legal defense.

---

Now Sam is trying to make a joint defense agreement into a conspiracy to commit obstruction.

Stop making silly arguments and you won't look so silly.

---

There's nothing necessarily wrong with a JDA. Abramson makes the argument that Trump is using them to obstruct in some cases, and you haven't addressed the substance of this argument.

Congressional abuse of power is a different issue. You haven't supported that accusation or explained how it would justify fraud if it were true.

---

You created this monster, Sam. And in the process you are establishing precedents that are incredibly harmful to the country. You could just let the voters decide. But you don't trust them. So you have to burn down the system to get your way.

You have become that which you claim to abhor.

---

He's a shell of his former self. Has almost completely abandoned any limited govt. principles he once believed.

C. Jordan said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

BREAKING NEWS (CNN, on-air): House January 6 Committee “Concerned” Trump May Be Using the Hundreds of Millions He Raised to Overturn the Election to Pay for Lawyers for Those He Doesn’t Want to Testify Before Congress, “Coercing” Them Not to Do So in What May Be Witness Tampering pic.twitter.com/RouaMWsoch

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

1/ I think I know what the Committee is referring to—as Trump engaged in the same illegal witness-tampering scheme in the Russia investigation and the Ukraine investigation. What he does is create joint defense agreements with witnesses whose legal interests don’t align with his.

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

2/ Normally a joint defense agreement only exists between individuals who share a common legal interest, and normally there is no particular association between the lawyers representing the two JDA’d individuals—only between the individuals themselves as to their legal interests.

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

3/ Because Trump hires a lot of people who rely on him to be their patron not just politically but financially, and because federal litigation is expensive, there are many people Trump has brought into his sphere who cannot afford their own attorneys. He takes advantage of this.

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

5/ Without fail, those in Trump’s sphere represented by attorneys who are part of his sphere—and who have entered into joint defense agreements with him at the urging of these attorneys—refuse to give testimony against Trump *even if it would be in their legal interest to do so*.

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

6/ You are probably now wondering, or should be, whether it is unethical for an attorney to advise someone to enter into a joint defense agreement when it is not in their own legal interest to do so (while having a conflict of interest because of attachment to Trump). Yes—it is.

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

7/ Add to that unethical conduct these hypotheticals:

▪️ Trump is paying for the witness’s lawyer
▪️ Trump is paying illegally, from funds raised for a different purpose that can’t be used for this one
▪️ Trump tells the witness they lose the lawyer if they testify against him

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

8/ Then add two more hypotheticals:

▪️ Per the JDA the witness’s lawyer is issuing regular reports to Trump or one of his agents on attorney-client privileged information the witness has given the lawyer
▪️ The lawyer is aware that if he stops doing this, he’ll stop getting paid

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

9/ If all of this sounds like mafia tactics to you, congratulations, you now understand how Donald Trump—who is a career criminal—operates. He has publicly said that his model for a lawyer is the late Roy Cohn, a disbarred criminal. Trump wants his attorneys to be criminals, too.

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

10/ In writing the three books of the bestselling Proof trilogy, I encountered repeated instances of Trump directly speaking with people in his circle about their federal cases as he was sharing a lawyer (and JDA) with them. It was obvious witness tampering, and it always worked.

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

11/ Indeed, the Mueller Report made clear that its outcome would have been dramatically different if investigators had had cooperation from Paul Manafort, who Trump repeatedly tampered with, both directly and indirectly, during the pendency of that federal criminal investigation.

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

12/ The problem Trump had at that time—because his liquid assets are profoundly limited—is that he didn’t have the money to pay for witnesses’ lawyers or for their silence himself. This is why Manafort was given millions by Trump allies as soon as he left the 2016 Trump campaign.

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

14/ All of the money Trump raised after the 2020 presidential election was raised fraudulently from gullible schmucks who were, sadly, the victim of Wire Fraud. None of the money they sent him went to the purposes they were told it would go to, even as Trump got them to pay up...

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

---

Trump continues in his criminal behavior and his cult followers continue to condone it because they value radical right agendas more than democracy and Jesus.

---

Let's all keep reposting jinx's useless spam no one bothers reading and see how long we can make this thread.

Waco1947 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Dnicknames said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Haven't followed the hearings much since it won't make a difference in how I vote, but it did see where the Secret Service seemed to totally contradict recent "bombshell" testimony about Trump in the car lunging for the steering wheel etc.. These hearings are clearly not about "finding the truth." No one calls a person to testify second-hand like that without first going to the sources who were there in the vehicle. That kind of embarrassing failure calls everything else into question.

---

The secret service hasn't contradicted anything she said. If they plan to do that, they can - under oath. Perhaps the Deputy Chief of Staff who told her the story would like to refute her under oath? That would be easy to clear up…

It's not hard to plant a story to contradict her statements, or to rant on TruthSocial. It's a different animal to say it under oath. Notice who testified under oath, and who has declined to testify? Notice which group pleads the 5th?

---

Good to hear a sane voice. Thank you

---

Except for the part where the agents want to testify that she lied, according to news outlets across the spectrum.

The best that can be said is that the two hearsay's cancel each other out.

---

Well at least the SS guys and the driver were actually there, so there's that.

---

Entire 'investigation ' is a political farce.

Only a hyper partisan could possibly believe it has been conducted fairly or in an unbiased manner.

---

Except our eyes saw the January 6 riot and sedition encouraged by the President. You cannot make rational people unsee truth.

---

You are not remotely rational.

C. Jordan said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

BREAKING NEWS (CNN, on-air): House January 6 Committee “Concerned” Trump May Be Using the Hundreds of Millions He Raised to Overturn the Election to Pay for Lawyers for Those He Doesn’t Want to Testify Before Congress, “Coercing” Them Not to Do So in What May Be Witness Tampering pic.twitter.com/RouaMWsoch

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

1/ I think I know what the Committee is referring to—as Trump engaged in the same illegal witness-tampering scheme in the Russia investigation and the Ukraine investigation. What he does is create joint defense agreements with witnesses whose legal interests don’t align with his.

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

2/ Normally a joint defense agreement only exists between individuals who share a common legal interest, and normally there is no particular association between the lawyers representing the two JDA’d individuals—only between the individuals themselves as to their legal interests.

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

3/ Because Trump hires a lot of people who rely on him to be their patron not just politically but financially, and because federal litigation is expensive, there are many people Trump has brought into his sphere who cannot afford their own attorneys. He takes advantage of this.

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

5/ Without fail, those in Trump’s sphere represented by attorneys who are part of his sphere—and who have entered into joint defense agreements with him at the urging of these attorneys—refuse to give testimony against Trump *even if it would be in their legal interest to do so*.

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

6/ You are probably now wondering, or should be, whether it is unethical for an attorney to advise someone to enter into a joint defense agreement when it is not in their own legal interest to do so (while having a conflict of interest because of attachment to Trump). Yes—it is.

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

7/ Add to that unethical conduct these hypotheticals:

▪️ Trump is paying for the witness’s lawyer
▪️ Trump is paying illegally, from funds raised for a different purpose that can’t be used for this one
▪️ Trump tells the witness they lose the lawyer if they testify against him

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

8/ Then add two more hypotheticals:

▪️ Per the JDA the witness’s lawyer is issuing regular reports to Trump or one of his agents on attorney-client privileged information the witness has given the lawyer
▪️ The lawyer is aware that if he stops doing this, he’ll stop getting paid

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

9/ If all of this sounds like mafia tactics to you, congratulations, you now understand how Donald Trump—who is a career criminal—operates. He has publicly said that his model for a lawyer is the late Roy Cohn, a disbarred criminal. Trump wants his attorneys to be criminals, too.

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

10/ In writing the three books of the bestselling Proof trilogy, I encountered repeated instances of Trump directly speaking with people in his circle about their federal cases as he was sharing a lawyer (and JDA) with them. It was obvious witness tampering, and it always worked.

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

11/ Indeed, the Mueller Report made clear that its outcome would have been dramatically different if investigators had had cooperation from Paul Manafort, who Trump repeatedly tampered with, both directly and indirectly, during the pendency of that federal criminal investigation.

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

12/ The problem Trump had at that time—because his liquid assets are profoundly limited—is that he didn’t have the money to pay for witnesses’ lawyers or for their silence himself. This is why Manafort was given millions by Trump allies as soon as he left the 2016 Trump campaign.

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

14/ All of the money Trump raised after the 2020 presidential election was raised fraudulently from gullible schmucks who were, sadly, the victim of Wire Fraud. None of the money they sent him went to the purposes they were told it would go to, even as Trump got them to pay up...

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

---

Trump continues in his criminal behavior and his cult followers continue to condone it because they value radical right agendas more than democracy and Jesus.

---

Seriously. Who's in? Let's all keep reposting jinx's useless spam no one bothers reading and see how long we can make this thread.

Golem said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

BREAKING NEWS (CNN, on-air): House January 6 Committee “Concerned” Trump May Be Using the Hundreds of Millions He Raised to Overturn the Election to Pay for Lawyers for Those He Doesn’t Want to Testify Before Congress, “Coercing” Them Not to Do So in What May Be Witness Tampering pic.twitter.com/RouaMWsoch

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

1/ I think I know what the Committee is referring to—as Trump engaged in the same illegal witness-tampering scheme in the Russia investigation and the Ukraine investigation. What he does is create joint defense agreements with witnesses whose legal interests don’t align with his.

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

2/ Normally a joint defense agreement only exists between individuals who share a common legal interest, and normally there is no particular association between the lawyers representing the two JDA’d individuals—only between the individuals themselves as to their legal interests.

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

3/ Because Trump hires a lot of people who rely on him to be their patron not just politically but financially, and because federal litigation is expensive, there are many people Trump has brought into his sphere who cannot afford their own attorneys. He takes advantage of this.

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

5/ Without fail, those in Trump’s sphere represented by attorneys who are part of his sphere—and who have entered into joint defense agreements with him at the urging of these attorneys—refuse to give testimony against Trump *even if it would be in their legal interest to do so*.

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

6/ You are probably now wondering, or should be, whether it is unethical for an attorney to advise someone to enter into a joint defense agreement when it is not in their own legal interest to do so (while having a conflict of interest because of attachment to Trump). Yes—it is.

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

7/ Add to that unethical conduct these hypotheticals:

▪️ Trump is paying for the witness’s lawyer
▪️ Trump is paying illegally, from funds raised for a different purpose that can’t be used for this one
▪️ Trump tells the witness they lose the lawyer if they testify against him

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

8/ Then add two more hypotheticals:

▪️ Per the JDA the witness’s lawyer is issuing regular reports to Trump or one of his agents on attorney-client privileged information the witness has given the lawyer
▪️ The lawyer is aware that if he stops doing this, he’ll stop getting paid

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

9/ If all of this sounds like mafia tactics to you, congratulations, you now understand how Donald Trump—who is a career criminal—operates. He has publicly said that his model for a lawyer is the late Roy Cohn, a disbarred criminal. Trump wants his attorneys to be criminals, too.

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

10/ In writing the three books of the bestselling Proof trilogy, I encountered repeated instances of Trump directly speaking with people in his circle about their federal cases as he was sharing a lawyer (and JDA) with them. It was obvious witness tampering, and it always worked.

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

11/ Indeed, the Mueller Report made clear that its outcome would have been dramatically different if investigators had had cooperation from Paul Manafort, who Trump repeatedly tampered with, both directly and indirectly, during the pendency of that federal criminal investigation.

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

12/ The problem Trump had at that time—because his liquid assets are profoundly limited—is that he didn’t have the money to pay for witnesses’ lawyers or for their silence himself. This is why Manafort was given millions by Trump allies as soon as he left the 2016 Trump campaign.

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

14/ All of the money Trump raised after the 2020 presidential election was raised fraudulently from gullible schmucks who were, sadly, the victim of Wire Fraud. None of the money they sent him went to the purposes they were told it would go to, even as Trump got them to pay up...

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022

---

Trump continues in his criminal behavior and his cult followers continue to condone it because they value radical right agendas more than democracy and Jesus.

---

Seriously. Who's in? Let's all keep reposting jinx's useless spam no one bothers reading and see how long we can make this thread.

---

i ws gonna but my soaps are on.. that new one, J6 committee is good!

CNN's preferred way to neutralize a witness:

Golem said:

---

Seriously. Who's in? Let's all keep reposting jinx's useless spam no one bothers reading and see how long we can make this thread.

---

Maybe whiterock will read it eventually.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Golem said:

---

Seriously. Who's in? Let's all keep reposting jinx's useless spam no one bothers reading and see how long we can make this thread.

---

Maybe whiterock will read it eventually.

---

Why would he bother reading Leftist BS wishful thinking?

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

It's not obstruction to raise money for legal defense, and you know it.

the fraud is using Congressional power to force partisan opponents into processes that require legal representation beyond the means of most individuals, in order to make people fear participating in politics.

We see what you are doing.
Remember: turnabout is fair play.

---

I see what you're doing: making stuff up. Never did anyone say it was obstruction to raise money for legal defense.

---

Now Sam is trying to make a joint defense agreement into a conspiracy to commit obstruction.

Stop making silly arguments and you won't look so silly.

---

There's nothing necessarily wrong with a JDA. Abramson makes the argument that Trump is using them to obstruct in some cases, and you haven't addressed the substance of this argument.

Congressional abuse of power is a different issue. You haven't supported that accusation or explained how it would justify fraud if it were true.

---

You created this monster, Sam. And in the process you are establishing precedents that are incredibly harmful to the country. You could just let the voters decide. But you don't trust them. So you have to burn down the system to get your way.

You have become that which you claim to abhor.

---

He's a shell of his former self. Has almost completely abandoned any limited govt. principles he once believed.

---

He's discovered that government power can be quite useful in attacking political adversaries. Now, he's trying to portray a JDA as a tool for obstruction.

He's going for obstruction now that he realizes he's failed on insurrection.

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

It's not obstruction to raise money for legal defense, and you know it.

the fraud is using Congressional power to force partisan opponents into processes that require legal representation beyond the means of most individuals, in order to make people fear participating in politics.

We see what you are doing.
Remember: turnabout is fair play.

---

I see what you're doing: making stuff up. Never did anyone say it was obstruction to raise money for legal defense.

---

Now Sam is trying to make a joint defense agreement into a conspiracy to commit obstruction.

Stop making silly arguments and you won't look so silly.

---

There's nothing necessarily wrong with a JDA. Abramson makes the argument that Trump is using them to obstruct in some cases, and you haven't addressed the substance of this argument.

Congressional abuse of power is a different issue. You haven't supported that accusation or explained how it would justify fraud if it were true.

---

You created this monster, Sam. And in the process you are establishing precedents that are incredibly harmful to the country. You could just let the voters decide. But you don't trust them. So you have to burn down the system to get your way.

You have become that which you claim to abhor.

---

He's a shell of his former self. Has almost completely abandoned any limited govt. principles he once believed.

---

He's discovered that government power can be quite useful in attacking political adversaries. Now, he's trying to portray a JDA as a tool for obstruction.

He's going for obstruction now that he realizes he's failed on insurrection.

---

Abramson is portraying JDAs as a potential tool of obstruction and asserting that Trump has used them in such a way. I'm just asking whether anyone has any comments on the substance of that argument. So far the answer has been a resounding silence.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

It's not obstruction to raise money for legal defense, and you know it.

the fraud is using Congressional power to force partisan opponents into processes that require legal representation beyond the means of most individuals, in order to make people fear participating in politics.

We see what you are doing.
Remember: turnabout is fair play.

---

I see what you're doing: making stuff up. Never did anyone say it was obstruction to raise money for legal defense.

---

Now Sam is trying to make a joint defense agreement into a conspiracy to commit obstruction.

Stop making silly arguments and you won't look so silly.

---

There's nothing necessarily wrong with a JDA. Abramson makes the argument that Trump is using them to obstruct in some cases, and you haven't addressed the substance of this argument.

Congressional abuse of power is a different issue. You haven't supported that accusation or explained how it would justify fraud if it were true.

---

You created this monster, Sam. And in the process you are establishing precedents that are incredibly harmful to the country. You could just let the voters decide. But you don't trust them. So you have to burn down the system to get your way.

You have become that which you claim to abhor.

---

He's a shell of his former self. Has almost completely abandoned any limited govt. principles he once believed.

---

He's discovered that government power can be quite useful in attacking political adversaries. Now, he's trying to portray a JDA as a tool for obstruction.

He's going for obstruction now that he realizes he's failed on insurrection.

---

Abramson is portraying JDAs as a potential tool of obstruction and asserting that Trump has used them in such a way. I'm just asking whether anyone has any comments on the substance of that argument. So far the answer has been a resounding silence.

---

Well, potentially, you are a co-conspirator in Abramson's in misinformation which warrants investigation to determine the extent of Russian involvement. Your resounding silence on your innocence is damning indeed.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

It's not obstruction to raise money for legal defense, and you know it.

the fraud is using Congressional power to force partisan opponents into processes that require legal representation beyond the means of most individuals, in order to make people fear participating in politics.

We see what you are doing.
Remember: turnabout is fair play.

---

I see what you're doing: making stuff up. Never did anyone say it was obstruction to raise money for legal defense.

---

Now Sam is trying to make a joint defense agreement into a conspiracy to commit obstruction.

Stop making silly arguments and you won't look so silly.

---

There's nothing necessarily wrong with a JDA. Abramson makes the argument that Trump is using them to obstruct in some cases, and you haven't addressed the substance of this argument.

Congressional abuse of power is a different issue. You haven't supported that accusation or explained how it would justify fraud if it were true.

---

You created this monster, Sam. And in the process you are establishing precedents that are incredibly harmful to the country. You could just let the voters decide. But you don't trust them. So you have to burn down the system to get your way.

You have become that which you claim to abhor.

---

He's a shell of his former self. Has almost completely abandoned any limited govt. principles he once believed.

---

He's discovered that government power can be quite useful in attacking political adversaries. Now, he's trying to portray a JDA as a tool for obstruction.

He's going for obstruction now that he realizes he's failed on insurrection.

---

Abramson is portraying JDAs as a potential tool of obstruction and asserting that Trump has used them in such a way. I'm just asking whether anyone has any comments on the substance of that argument. So far the answer has been a resounding silence.

---

Well, potentially, you are a co-conspirator in Abramson's in misinformation which warrants investigation to determine the extent of Russian involvement. Your resounding silence on your innocence is damning indeed.

---

The difference being that Abramson presents evidence for his claim. I know it's tedious to harp on such a trivial point, but evidence is a thing that some people get hung up on.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Now Sam is trying to make a joint defense agreement into a conspiracy to commit obstruction.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Stop making silly arguments and you won't look so silly.

---

There's nothing necessarily wrong with a JDA. Abramson makes the argument that Trump is using them to obstruct in some cases, and you haven't addressed the substance of this argument.

Congressional abuse of power is a different issue. You haven't supported that accusation or explained how it would justify fraud if it were true.

You created this monster, Sam. And in the process you are establishing precedents that are incredibly harmful to the country. You could just let the voters decide. But you don't trust them. So you have to burn down the system to get your way.

You have become that which you claim to abhor.

---

He's a shell of his former self. Has almost completely abandoned any limited govt. principles he once believed.

---

He's discovered that government power can be quite useful in attacking political adversaries. Now, he's trying to portray a JDA as a tool for obstruction.

He's going for obstruction now that he realizes he's failed on insurrection.

---

Abramson is portraying JDAs as a potential tool of obstruction and asserting that Trump has used them in such a way. I'm just asking whether anyone has any comments on the substance of that argument. So far the answer has been a resounding silence.

---

Well, potentially, you are a co-conspirator in Abramson's in misinformation which warrants investigation to determine the extent of Russian involvement. Your resounding silence on your innocence is damning indeed.

---

The difference being that Abramson presents evidence for his claim. I know it's tedious to harp on such a trivial point, but evidence is a thing that some people get hung up on.

---

You have posted the same kind evidence here, dozens of times every day, month after month on the J6 issue.

I believe you said earlier that circumstantial evidence is still evidence. So you have quite a heavy burden to overcome.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Now Sam is trying to make a joint defense agreement into a conspiracy to commit obstruction.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Stop making silly arguments and you won't look so silly.

---

There's nothing necessarily wrong with a JDA. Abramson makes the argument that Trump is using them to obstruct in some cases, and you haven't addressed the substance of this argument.

Congressional abuse of power is a different issue. You haven't supported that accusation or explained how it would justify fraud if it were true.

You created this monster, Sam. And in the process you are establishing precedents that are incredibly harmful to the country. You could just let the voters decide. But you don't trust them. So you have to burn down the system to get your way.

You have become that which you claim to abhor.

---

He's a shell of his former self. Has almost completely abandoned any limited govt. principles he once believed.

---

He's discovered that government power can be quite useful in attacking political adversaries. Now, he's trying to portray a JDA as a tool for obstruction.

He's going for obstruction now that he realizes he's failed on insurrection.

---

Abramson is portraying JDAs as a potential tool of obstruction and asserting that Trump has used them in such a way. I'm just asking whether anyone has any comments on the substance of that argument. So far the answer has been a resounding silence.

---

Well, potentially, you are a co-conspirator in Abramson's in misinformation which warrants investigation to determine the extent of Russian involvement. Your resounding silence on your innocence is damning indeed.

---

The difference being that Abramson presents evidence for his claim. I know it's tedious to harp on such a trivial point, but evidence is a thing that some people get hung up on.

---

You have posted the same kind evidence here, dozens of times every day, month after month on the J6 issue.

I believe you said earlier that circumstantial evidence is still evidence. So you have quite a heavy burden to overcome.

---

What kind of evidence? How does your hallucinatory rambling place any burden on me?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

He's discovered that government power can be quite useful in attacking political adversaries. Now, he's trying to portray a JDA as a tool for obstruction.

He's going for obstruction now that he realizes he's failed on insurrection.

---

Abramson is portraying JDAs as a potential tool of obstruction and asserting that Trump has used them in such a way. I'm just asking whether anyone has any comments on the substance of that argument. So far the answer has been a resounding silence.

---

Well, potentially, you are a co-conspirator in Abramson's in misinformation which warrants investigation to determine the extent of Russian involvement. Your resounding silence on your innocence is damning indeed.

---

The difference being that Abramson presents evidence for his claim. I know it's tedious to harp on such a trivial point, but evidence is a thing that some people get hung up on.

---

You have posted the same kind evidence here, dozens of times every day, month after month on the J6 issue.

I believe you said earlier that circumstantial evidence is still evidence. So you have quite a heavy burden to overcome.

---

What kind of evidence? How does your hallucinatory rambling place any burden on me?

---

ignorance is no defense, counselor....

Sam Lowry said:

---

So what about those JDAs with unaligned parties? Is anyone denying that Trump uses them?

---

Anyone?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

So what about those JDAs with unaligned parties? Is anyone denying that Trump uses them?

---

Anyone?

---

Lawfare. A Democrat Congress using its powers to grind up people who do not give the testimony Democrats need to pursue their J6 agenda will tend to send people looking for safe harbor. JDAs are completely legal, of course, unless they frustrate Democrat agendas, in which case they are nefarious.

Aren't you in the least concerned about your defense next year when a Republican Congress investigates misinformation? Wouldn't you accept help from Cheney-DefFund? I mean, you've been saying mostly the same things she's been saying, and we all know what a deragned lunatic she became usurping Congressional power to destroy political opponents. So it's just a matter of time before they get down the ladder to you. If you did what was completely logical and in your best interest to defend against lawfare, join a JDA with like-minded individuals, be warned that jumping under her defense umbrella would be evidence of nefarious conspiracy. And goodness help you if the investigations stretch into 2025 when a Giuliani-led DOJ would have prosecutorial discretion over any referrals coming from the GOP J6 cmee.

Remember, however you play the game establishes precedence for others to play the game. All that is necessary, according to Democrats, is to establish the narrative to justify it - using power to punish, contriving every act as a conspiracy toward notional misdeeds.

Quite a legacy you're leaving, Sam. You are encouraging what you should be denouncing = corruption of every process and institution in order to destroy what cannot be defeated.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

It's not obstruction to raise money for legal defense, and you know it.

the fraud is using Congressional power to force partisan opponents into processes that require legal representation beyond the means of most individuals, in order to make people fear participating in politics.

We see what you are doing.
Remember: turnabout is fair play.

---

I see what you're doing: making stuff up. Never did anyone say it was obstruction to raise money for legal defense.

---

Now Sam is trying to make a joint defense agreement into a conspiracy to commit obstruction.

Stop making silly arguments and you won't look so silly.

---

There's nothing necessarily wrong with a JDA. Abramson makes the argument that Trump is using them to obstruct in some cases, and you haven't addressed the substance of this argument.

Congressional abuse of power is a different issue. You haven't supported that accusation or explained how it would justify fraud if it were true.

---

You created this monster, Sam. And in the process you are establishing precedents that are incredibly harmful to the country. You could just let the voters decide. But you don't trust them. So you have to burn down the system to get your way.

You have become that which you claim to abhor.

---

He's a shell of his former self. Has almost completely abandoned any limited govt. principles he once believed.

---

He's discovered that government power can be quite useful in attacking political adversaries. Now, he's trying to portray a JDA as a tool for obstruction.

He's going for obstruction now that he realizes he's failed on insurrection.

---

Abramson is portraying JDAs as a potential tool of obstruction and asserting that Trump has used them in such a way. I'm just asking whether anyone has any comments on the substance of that argument. So far the answer has been a resounding silence.

---

Well, potentially, you are a co-conspirator in Abramson's in misinformation which warrants investigation to determine the extent of Russian involvement. Your resounding silence on your innocence is damning indeed.

---

The difference being that Abramson presents evidence for his claim. I know it's tedious to harp on such a trivial point, but evidence is a thing that some people get hung up on.

---

Not really. Abramson is making an argument. There isn't really any evidence, at least anything that would be admissible, in his tweets. Lots of conjecture and speculation.

Doesn't mean that his argument is unpersuasive, but evidence? You know better.

Your concern is patently insincere. The people entering these agreements are being victimized and coerced by Trump's lawyers to act against their own best interests. And that's just fine with you as long as it protects Trump. Corruption, indeed.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Your concern is patently insincere. The people entering these agreements are being victimized and coerced by Trump's lawyers to act against their own best interests. And that's just fine with you as long as it protects Trump. Corruption, indeed.

---

Victimized by not voluntarily joining a JDA?


How about "victimized by not joining the prosecution?"

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Your concern is patently insincere. The people entering these agreements are being victimized and coerced by Trump's lawyers to act against their own best interests. And that's just fine with you as long as it protects Trump. Corruption, indeed.

---

Victimized by not voluntarily joining a JDA?


How about "victimized by not joining the prosecution?"

---

You're assuming the prosecution is corrupt. If that is the case (and during the Russia investigation I often argued that it was), then that's another issue which ought to be investigated in its own right. It does not excuse fraud or obstruction on the part of the accused...or do you disagree?