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

Beware the Orange Svengali for he can control your mind and make you believe that the 2020 election was rigged.

I stopped reading at CNN.

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

Good grief. Even when you don't type a single word, your posts are still tl;dr. You're the only one who could have managed that.

TL/DR: Trump has lawyers and employees.

ScottS said:

---

I stopped reading at CNN.

---

Beat ya. Stopped at JBKatz.

There is a text limit in tweets for a reason.

"Concerned", "may be", "what may be"

Now that is some solid reporting right there

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"Concerned", "may be", "what may be"

Now that is some solid reporting right there

---

Wait for Sam to bring back "implications" and this will be an open and shut case. At least that's what "some say".

Well, good news! it was pointed out to me the other day that this is not a trial so there's no such thing as witness tampering just like there's no such thing as hearsay!

Next time just post the Lead Tweet with a link.. plus your thoughts.

Since you are so good at finding information about the J6 committee, can you find where they said how this aids the legislative process? Inquiring minds want to know..

4th and Inches said:

---

Well, good news! it was pointed out to me the other day that this is not a trial so there's no such thing as witness tampering just like there's no such thing as hearsay!

---

Don't you wish!

The NeverTrumper/Democrat anthem has just been selected, according to unnamed sources, relayed to our reporters through anonymous envelopes under bathroom stall doors in local WMA airports.

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Well, good news! it was pointed out to me the other day that this is not a trial so there's no such thing as witness tampering just like there's no such thing as hearsay!

---

Don't you wish!

---

oh i got popcorn for the Bannon trial hoss.. that gonna be lit!

This whole congressional thing is fake bullsh.. just ban him already from running. You dont have the votes you say? Gonna lose your rear in November you say? Pissing your base off faster than Usain Bolt runs the 40 you say? Life sounds tough for you right now..

Trumps base is primarying people and his endorsements are winning 10-1. Even if he never runs again, he has a bigger following than any GOP canidate ever. He is the party and they are scared of it so they continue to make up stuff like they did with the suckers and losers smear.

Follow the signs to the nearest safe space!

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.

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Well, good news! it was pointed out to me the other day that this is not a trial so there's no such thing as witness tampering just like there's no such thing as hearsay!

---

Don't you wish!

---

was that a reporter's question?

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.

---

Democrats are masters at political theatre (Republicans not so much). Couple that with a collaborating media and you have something to sell to the masses,

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.

---

Secret service agents and the driver both willing to testify under oath what she said is a falsehood.

Just the ladies body language gives you pause, seemed like Blasey Ford round 2 when she was speaking.

But, we all know the dems playbook, always accuse you of what they are actually doing. That means they are likely coaching if not outright tampering with some witnesses.


All that said, even though this is clearly political theatre and nothing more, hopefully there is no way Trump is running again, there are much better choices on the republican side. And I just don't want to see him on the ticket.

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?

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?

---

Notice which group gets to decide who testifies at all?

This is the best political comment I have seen of the persons "testimony" and the entire "hearing" in IMO.

Quote:

---

This is so absurd. It makes a mockery of the concept of a justice system, it belittles the american public by offering sensationalism without evidence of actual crimes and appeals to base emotion in order to effectuate a verdict in the court of public opinion with foolish rantings. It's very sad to see what has become of the nation and what these politicians are allowing.

---

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?

---

easy huh, how you get the committee to call them if they dont want rebutting testimony? Asking for well everybody..

whitetrash said:

---

---

Did you read the content?

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

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

This is the best political comment I have seen of the persons "testimony" and the entire "hearing" in IMO.

Quote:

---

This is so absurd. It makes a mockery of the concept of a justice system, it belittles the american public by offering sensationalism without evidence of actual crimes and appeals to base emotion in order to effectuate a verdict in the court of public opinion with foolish rantings. It's very sad to see what has become of the nation and what these politicians are allowing.

---

---

Within the testimonies context of other illegal activities it is not absurd.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"Concerned", "may be", "what may be"

Now that is some solid reporting right there

---

Ever listened to Hannity, or tucker or oan or newsmax? Still the content is intriguing and not be ignored.

We spent $40M on a the Russian Hoax, which turned out the be a Clinton campaign attack in conjunction with the Obama administration.

We have a Stalinesque Show Trial by the same Russian Hoaxters whereby no GOP on the committee, no cross examination, and previous proven instances of faking evidence.

The tow "bombshells" already have been disproven - no Capitol tour and no grabbing of a steering wheel.

You morons that buy this stuff are like the guys that wear three masks while driving alone. You'll believe anything a fool tells you.

dems in power in DC are lost , truly despicable representation of society.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

We spent $40M on a the Russian Hoax, which turned out the be a Clinton campaign attack in conjunction with the Obama administration. Trump got off because of the GOP lack of morality

We have a Stalinesque Show Trial by the same Russian Hoaxters whereby no GOP on the committee, no cross examination, and previous proven instances of faking evidence. No GOP bc they chose not to be on the committee.

The tow "bombshells" already have been disproven - no Capitol tour and no grabbing of a steering wheel.

You morons that buy this stuff are like the guys that wear three masks while driving alone. You'll believe anything a fool tells you.

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

This is the best political comment I have seen of the persons "testimony" and the entire "hearing" in IMO.

Quote:

---

This is so absurd. It makes a mockery of the concept of a justice system, it belittles the american public by offering sensationalism without evidence of actual crimes and appeals to base emotion in order to effectuate a verdict in the court of public opinion with foolish rantings. It's very sad to see what has become of the nation and what these politicians are allowing.

---

---

the selective testimonies presented do create context of possible illegal activities. when viewed this way, it is not absurd.

---

helped clarify..

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?

---

Like I said, I haven't followed it much. Just going by what I read a while back on CNN.

4th and Inches 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?

---

easy huh, how you get the committee to call them if they dont want rebutting testimony? Asking for well everybody..

---

Before this is over, we will be hearing testimony from Ornato, *****, Cipollone, and Meadows. Or they will plead the 5th.

If Cassidy was making up her sworn testimony, they will need to say that under oath. I don't think she is lying about what she heard or watched.

Let's see what Pat Cipollone says under oath…Let's see what the SS Agent in charge that day says under oath.

Waco1947 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

We spent $40M on a the Russian Hoax, which turned out the be a Clinton campaign attack in conjunction with the Obama administration. Trump got off because of the GOP lack of morality

We have a Stalinesque Show Trial by the same Russian Hoaxters whereby no GOP on the committee, no cross examination, and previous proven instances of faking evidence. No GOP bc they chose not to be on the committee.

The tow "bombshells" already have been disproven - no Capitol tour and no grabbing of a steering wheel.

You morons that buy this stuff are like the guys that wear three masks while driving alone. You'll believe anything a fool tells you.

---

---

Wait ... do you still think the Russian Hoax was real? I mean you actually are one of the 0.5% that believe it? You're just joking with us right?

No sweetheart, the Stalins would not allow the GOP to sit members, again violating polity and tradition for their Show Trial. You need to read some newspapers.