January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

The odds are excellent that you will leave this forum hating someone.
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 17738
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Post by old salt »

ggait wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 5:15 pm Stars for Mr. Haig

NY Times

9/18/1974:

What raises such serious questions about the appointment [as Supreme Allied Commander in Europe] is the fact that it will further blur the vital dividing line between political and military authority. General Haig once again dons his uniform and returns to active duty, only seventeen months after making the deliberate decision to RESIGN HIS COMMISSION AND RETIRE FROM THE ARMY in order to serve in the White House in a position that inevitably placed him in the center of President Nixon's political struggle for survival.

Salty -- we're done on this now, right? Or do you have some more pettifogging for us?

https://www.nytimes.com/1974/09/18/arch ... -haig.html
By your logic that should have disqualified Haig from serving as a political appointee then returning to military service ? He switched twice.
...& speaking of pettifogging, you are the one who asserts that SS vets should be disqualified from a position like a lower level Deputy Chief of Staff.
Ornato did like Haig -- took a political appointee position then returned to the SS. Maybe Trump will appoint his as Sec of State when re-elected, like Haig & Powell. Did you research Colin Powell ?
a fan
Posts: 18005
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 9:05 pm

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Post by a fan »

Peter Brown wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 5:17 pm The same guy who cheated on his wife with an underling (whose pay he had influence on), who has proven to be a hyper partisan actor? I guess I should apologize for not respecting him equally with the guy who seems much cleaner.
:lol: So you've changed your mind yet again, and realize that a CV has nothing to do with whether or not someone cheats and lies.

Next time? Don't give us the guys CV....it's irrelevant, as you yourself are claiming here.
Peter Brown
Posts: 12878
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:19 am

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Post by Peter Brown »

a fan wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 6:41 pm
Peter Brown wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 5:17 pm The same guy who cheated on his wife with an underling (whose pay he had influence on), who has proven to be a hyper partisan actor? I guess I should apologize for not respecting him equally with the guy who seems much cleaner.
:lol: So you've changed your mind yet again, and realize that a CV has nothing to do with whether or not someone cheats and lies.

Next time? Don't give us the guys CV....it's irrelevant, as you yourself are claiming here.



Did I change my mind? Or are you making assumptions (again)?

Reminder: don’t be the guy who thinks he knows everything.
a fan
Posts: 18005
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 9:05 pm

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Post by a fan »

Peter Brown wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 6:56 pm
a fan wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 6:41 pm
Peter Brown wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 5:17 pm The same guy who cheated on his wife with an underling (whose pay he had influence on), who has proven to be a hyper partisan actor? I guess I should apologize for not respecting him equally with the guy who seems much cleaner.
:lol: So you've changed your mind yet again, and realize that a CV has nothing to do with whether or not someone cheats and lies.

Next time? Don't give us the guys CV....it's irrelevant, as you yourself are claiming here.
Did I change my mind?
Hilariously, you can't even tell us what you think anymore. :lol: You forgot what you're trolling.
Peter Brown
Posts: 12878
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:19 am

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Post by Peter Brown »

a fan wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 7:01 pm
Peter Brown wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 6:56 pm
a fan wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 6:41 pm
Peter Brown wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 5:17 pm The same guy who cheated on his wife with an underling (whose pay he had influence on), who has proven to be a hyper partisan actor? I guess I should apologize for not respecting him equally with the guy who seems much cleaner.
:lol: So you've changed your mind yet again, and realize that a CV has nothing to do with whether or not someone cheats and lies.

Next time? Don't give us the guys CV....it's irrelevant, as you yourself are claiming here.
Did I change my mind?
Hilariously, you can't even tell us what you think anymore. :lol: You forgot what you're trolling.



I’m fairly sure I know what I think.

I’m also equally sure you don’t, in spite of your repeated bizarre attempts.

Reminder: don’t be that guy who thinks he knows everything.
a fan
Posts: 18005
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 9:05 pm

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Post by a fan »

Peter Brown wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 7:06 pm I’m fairly sure I know what I think.
Oh I agree.

But you're not writing what you think. You're writing as a troll..just making up stupid stuff to no point.

And you can't remember what you wrote yesterday, let alone today.

It's hilarious.
ggait
Posts: 4105
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2018 1:23 pm

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Post by ggait »

It keeps getting worse for Mark Meadows:

Hutchinson told the committee at the time that, on the eve of her earlier March 7 deposition, an intermediary for former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows contacted her to say that her former boss valued her loyalty.

“[A person] let me know you have your deposition tomorrow,” read a slide that the Jan. 6 committee broadcast at the end of Hutchinson’s hearing, which Vice Chair Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) characterized as pressure on a key witness. “He wants me to let you know that he’s thinking about you. He knows you’re loyal, and you’re going to do the right thing when you go in for your deposition.” Meadows is the person whose name was redacted in that slide.


Hey Cassidy. Nice place you got here. It would be a pity if anything happened to it....

Looks like Meadows really could have used that pardon he was begging for.
Boycott stupid. If you ignore the gator troll, eventually he'll just go back under his bridge.
Peter Brown
Posts: 12878
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:19 am

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Post by Peter Brown »

ggait wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 7:48 pm It keeps getting worse for Mark Meadows:

Hutchinson told the committee at the time that, on the eve of her earlier March 7 deposition, an intermediary for former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows contacted her to say that her former boss valued her loyalty.

“[A person] let me know you have your deposition tomorrow,” read a slide that the Jan. 6 committee broadcast at the end of Hutchinson’s hearing, which Vice Chair Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) characterized as pressure on a key witness. “He wants me to let you know that he’s thinking about you. He knows you’re loyal, and you’re going to do the right thing when you go in for your deposition.” Meadows is the person whose name was redacted in that slide.


Hey Cassidy. Nice place you got here. It would be a pity if anything happened to it....

Looks like Meadows really could have used that pardon he was begging for.



“The walls are finally closing in on Trump," they say to themselves for the 1034509840958th time since 2016... (CH)

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
PizzaSnake
Posts: 4870
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 8:36 pm

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Post by PizzaSnake »

a fan wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 7:09 pm
Peter Brown wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 7:06 pm I’m fairly sure I know what I think.
Oh I agree.

But you're not writing what you think. You're writing as a troll..just making up stupid stuff to no point.

And you can't remember what you wrote yesterday, let alone today.

It's hilarious.
La donna e mobile…
"There is nothing more difficult and more dangerous to carry through than initiating changes. One makes enemies of those who prospered under the old order, and only lukewarm support from those who would prosper under the new."
a fan
Posts: 18005
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 9:05 pm

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Post by a fan »

PizzaSnake wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 9:00 pm
a fan wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 7:09 pm
Peter Brown wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 7:06 pm I’m fairly sure I know what I think.
Oh I agree.

But you're not writing what you think. You're writing as a troll..just making up stupid stuff to no point.

And you can't remember what you wrote yesterday, let alone today.

It's hilarious.
La donna e mobile…
Post of the week. Well done.....
Seacoaster(1)
Posts: 4471
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:49 am

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Post by Seacoaster(1) »

"Beholden" comes to mind....

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/30/us/t ... ssure.html

"Former President Donald J. Trump's political organization and his allies have paid for or promised to finance the legal fees of more than a dozen witnesses called in the congressional investigation into the Jan. 6 attack, raising legal and ethical questions about whether the former president may be influencing testimony with a direct bearing on him.

The arrangement drew new scrutiny this week after Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide in his White House, made an explosive appearance before the House panel, providing damning new details about Mr. Trump’s actions and statements on the day of the deadly riot.

She did so after firing a lawyer who had been recommended to her by two of Mr. Trump’s former aides and paid for by his political action committee, and hiring new counsel. Under the representation of the new lawyer, Jody Hunt, Ms. Hutchinson sat for a fourth interview with the committee in which she divulged more revelations and agreed to come forward publicly to testify to them.

It is not known whether Ms. Hutchinson’s change in counsel led directly to her willingness to appear at a televised hearing and provide a more detailed, wide-ranging account of what she witnessed, but some members of the panel believe that it played a role, according to two people familiar with the committee’s work.

Mr. Trump claimed that Ms. Hutchinson’s new lawyer could have prompted her to make false statements. “Her story totally changed!” he complained on his social media site, Truth Social.

The episode raised questions about whether Mr. Trump and his allies may, implicitly or explicitly, be pressuring witnesses to hold back crucial information that might incriminate or cast a negative light on the former president. Mr. Trump and his advisers have been accused before of trying to influence witnesses in past investigations involving him. The committee is known to ask witnesses frequently during closed-door interviews whether anyone has tried to influence their testimony.

Ms. Hutchinson has told the Jan. 6 committee that she was among the witnesses who have been contacted by people around Mr. Trump suggesting that they would be better off if they remained loyal to the former president. Representative Liz Cheney, Republican of Wyoming and the vice chairwoman of the panel, quoted two witnesses making such claims on Tuesday and suggested that the committee was looking into the possibility that the former president or his allies were trying to obstruct its inquiry, saying that, “most people know that attempting to influence witnesses to testify untruthfully presents very serious concerns.”

Unlike witness tampering, which is a crime, there is nothing illegal about a third party covering legal fees for a witness. Aides to former President Bill Clinton reported being overwhelmed with legal bills because of the various inquiries into his and his family’s personal and business affairs, and were dismayed when a legal-defense fund set up by Mr. Clinton’s allies to help the first family pay its multimillion-dollar legal debts did not help them. Mr. Clinton later pledged to help raise money to cover his former aides’ legal expenses, but did not make any major effort to do so.

In the case of Mr. Trump, several former aides have requested that he pay their lawyers’ fees, many of them citing financial hardship and the exorbitant cost of representation in connection with a major congressional investigation. Still, given Mr. Trump’s potential criminal exposure and interest in the inquiry’s outcome, the practice has come under added scrutiny.

According to financial disclosures, in May alone, Mr. Trump’s “Save America” political action committee paid about $200,000 to law firms. That including $75,000 to JPRowley Law, which represents Cleta Mitchell, a pro-Trump lawyer who has filed suit to try to block the committee’s subpoena, and $50,000 to Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin & White, which has represented Stephen K. Bannon, a close ally of the former president who refused to meet with the panel and has been charged with criminal contempt. The managing partner at the firm representing Mr. Bannon declined to comment.

It was not immediately clear whether those payments were for covering legal fees connected to the Jan. 6 inquiry, but people familiar with the matter said the PAC has paid for the representation of several former officials and aides in the investigation, including some high-profile ones such as Stephen Miller, who served as a senior adviser to Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump’s PAC paid a portion of Mr. Miller’s legal bills.

A spokesman for Mr. Trump also declined to comment.

More than a dozen witnesses before the Jan. 6 committee have also received free legal advice and had attorney’s fees paid for by the American Conservative Union’s “First Amendment Fund,” which consults with Mr. Trump’s team about whose fees to cover from its “seven-figure” finances, according to Matt Schlapp, the organization’s chairman.

“We have pro bono lawyers who talk with the lawyers for the people who want help,” Mr. Schlapp said in an interview on Thursday. “Almost everybody has received payment.”


He said Matt Whitaker, a former acting attorney general who is on the board of one of Mr. Trump’s political organizations, was working with the legal group and has “spent a lot of late nights counseling younger staffers and giving us a lot of advice.”

Mr. Trump has come under scrutiny before for appearing to meddle in inquiries into his conduct. In 2017, a lawyer for Mr. Trump in the investigation into whether his campaign conspired with Russian officials during the 2016 presidential campaign dangled the prospect of pardons to two people under investigation, Michael T. Flynn and Paul Manafort.

In 2018, after Mr. Trump stopped paying for the legal fees of his personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, when he was under investigation by the Southern District of New York, Mr. Cohen eventually pleaded guilty and began cooperating with the special counsel investigating possible conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian officials.

Stephen Gillers, a professor at New York University’s law school who specializes in legal ethics, said there would be no issue if a third party paid the legal fees for a truly independent lawyer to represent a client. But he said things become more problematic if the entity paying the fee chooses or steers the lawyer toward the client and that lawyer has competing loyalties when it comes to the fee payer and the client’s best interests.

It is also problematic, he added, if the person or entity paying the fee has their own vested interest in how the client’s case turns out.

“The obvious example is organized crime, where the crime boss tells the lieutenant that, ‘Joe, here, is going to be your lawyer,’” Mr. Gillers said. “The lawyer’s loyalty, of course, is to the boss, not the lieutenant.”


Christopher Bartolomucci, a lawyer who is representing Judd Deere, a former White House press secretary, said he expected to receive some payment from Mr. Schlapp’s fund, which has a process for applying for assistance. There have been no strings attached to the help, he said.

“No one has attempted to influence me or my client,” Mr. Bartolomucci said in an interview.

Staffed with more than a dozen federal prosecutors, the Jan. 6 committee ran into some initial roadblocks last year as it began its investigation, when some of Mr. Trump’s top allies refused to cooperate. Investigators then took a page out of organized crime prosecutions, moving their inquiry down the hierarchy and quietly turning at least six lower-level former staff members to Mr. Trump into witnesses who provided information about their bosses’ activities.

Ms. Hutchinson had already been issued a subpoena when she approached Mr. Trump’s team seeking help with her legal representation, according to two people familiar with the matter. Mr. Trump had initially balked at covering some of the costs of legal representation for a number of former aides, but he acquiesced as some senior advisers told him he would draw negative news coverage if he failed to do so.

In some instances, lawyers who advised Mr. Trump sought unsuccessfully to have legal fees, or related costs, covered by entities supporting Mr. Trump. That included Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s former personal lawyer who encouraged him to try to subvert the results of the election. Mr. Giuliani’s allies complained publicly that Mr. Giuliani had high legal bills that he was left on his own to pay. There has been no move to cover his costs.

One of Mr. Trump’s allies may also be financing the legal defense of one of the extremists accused of helping to orchestrate the storming of the Capitol.

A dispute over those legal fees has emerged in one of the most prominent criminal cases connected to the Capitol attack — that of Stewart Rhodes, the Oath Keepers leader who has been charged with seditious conspiracy with eight of his subordinates.

Last week, prosecutors filed court papers that, citing published news articles, said Mr. Rhodes’s legal fees, and those of some of his co-defendants, were being paid by a nonprofit organization called Defending the Republic, which is run by Sidney Powell, the pro-Trump lawyer.

Ms. Powell is best known for having filed a series of conspiracy-laden lawsuits claiming that Mr. Trump lost the election because of a purported plot to hack into voting machines and secretly change ballots. She was also involved in a brazen effort with Mr. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, to persuade the former president to use his national security apparatus to seize voting machines across the country in a bid to stay in office.

Though prosecutors did not accuse Ms. Powell of an ethical breach, they did ask Judge Amit P. Mehta to examine whether she was in fact paying the fees and if there might be any conflict of interest.

For months, the committee has suggested that Mr. Trump or those close to him might be attempting to influence potential witnesses. Its members have suggested, for instance, that Mr. Trump may have had a hand in the refusal of Representative Kevin McCarthy, the House Republican leader, to cooperate with the investigation.

On Tuesday, Ms. Cheney displayed what she said were two examples of unnamed people associated with Mr. Trump attempting to influence witnesses. In one, Ms. Hutchinson told the panel she was told to “protect” certain individuals to “stay in good graces in Trump World.” In the other example, Ms. Hutchinson said she was encouraged to remain “loyal.”
User avatar
dislaxxic
Posts: 4558
Joined: Thu May 10, 2018 11:00 am
Location: Moving to Montana Soon...

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Post by dislaxxic »

AMID CLAIMS OF WITNESS TAMPERING, REVISITING PETER NAVARRO’S ALLEGED CONTEMPT
Bannon’s filing may be a stunt, but he may be right that DOJ didn’t charge Meadows and Scavino because they could claim to have been covered by both Executive Privilege and testimonial immunity (and in Meadows’ case, even attempted to comply with non-privileged materials).

Given the evidence in Tuesday’s hearing that Trump and his associates continued to try to influence Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony at least through March 7, I want to return to something I noted before: because Navarro didn’t lawyer up, whatever communications he exchanged with Trump’s lawyers would not be privileged.

After Bannon got indicted for contempt, DOJ obtained the call records for his lawyer, Robert Costello’s, communications going all the way back to when Costello’s previous representation of Bannon ended. If they did that with Navarro, they could get more than the call records, though.

Whatever else DOJ did with their charging decision, they also allowed themselves the greatest visibility into ongoing obstruction, while sustaining the case in chief.
When will don be put under oath? Mark? Rudy? Peter? Steve?

..
"The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity. With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog." - Calvin, to Hobbes
User avatar
cradleandshoot
Posts: 14182
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Post by cradleandshoot »

dislaxxic wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 8:16 am AMID CLAIMS OF WITNESS TAMPERING, REVISITING PETER NAVARRO’S ALLEGED CONTEMPT
Bannon’s filing may be a stunt, but he may be right that DOJ didn’t charge Meadows and Scavino because they could claim to have been covered by both Executive Privilege and testimonial immunity (and in Meadows’ case, even attempted to comply with non-privileged materials).

Given the evidence in Tuesday’s hearing that Trump and his associates continued to try to influence Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony at least through March 7, I want to return to something I noted before: because Navarro didn’t lawyer up, whatever communications he exchanged with Trump’s lawyers would not be privileged.

After Bannon got indicted for contempt, DOJ obtained the call records for his lawyer, Robert Costello’s, communications going all the way back to when Costello’s previous representation of Bannon ended. If they did that with Navarro, they could get more than the call records, though.

Whatever else DOJ did with their charging decision, they also allowed themselves the greatest visibility into ongoing obstruction, while sustaining the case in chief.
When will don be put under oath? Mark? Rudy? Peter? Steve?

..
I'm guessing that ships sails on election day in November. Your people better act quickly if they want to put the hammer down. I hope they do something. Failing that all we will read on this forum every day is non stop whining, b****ing and complaining from the usual suspects. :roll:
I use to be a people person until people ruined that for me.
PizzaSnake
Posts: 4870
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 8:36 pm

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Post by PizzaSnake »

Seacoaster(1) wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 7:05 am "Beholden" comes to mind....

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/30/us/t ... ssure.html

"Former President Donald J. Trump's political organization and his allies have paid for or promised to finance the legal fees of more than a dozen witnesses called in the congressional investigation into the Jan. 6 attack, raising legal and ethical questions about whether the former president may be influencing testimony with a direct bearing on him.

The arrangement drew new scrutiny this week after Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide in his White House, made an explosive appearance before the House panel, providing damning new details about Mr. Trump’s actions and statements on the day of the deadly riot.

She did so after firing a lawyer who had been recommended to her by two of Mr. Trump’s former aides and paid for by his political action committee, and hiring new counsel. Under the representation of the new lawyer, Jody Hunt, Ms. Hutchinson sat for a fourth interview with the committee in which she divulged more revelations and agreed to come forward publicly to testify to them.

It is not known whether Ms. Hutchinson’s change in counsel led directly to her willingness to appear at a televised hearing and provide a more detailed, wide-ranging account of what she witnessed, but some members of the panel believe that it played a role, according to two people familiar with the committee’s work.

Mr. Trump claimed that Ms. Hutchinson’s new lawyer could have prompted her to make false statements. “Her story totally changed!” he complained on his social media site, Truth Social.

The episode raised questions about whether Mr. Trump and his allies may, implicitly or explicitly, be pressuring witnesses to hold back crucial information that might incriminate or cast a negative light on the former president. Mr. Trump and his advisers have been accused before of trying to influence witnesses in past investigations involving him. The committee is known to ask witnesses frequently during closed-door interviews whether anyone has tried to influence their testimony.

Ms. Hutchinson has told the Jan. 6 committee that she was among the witnesses who have been contacted by people around Mr. Trump suggesting that they would be better off if they remained loyal to the former president. Representative Liz Cheney, Republican of Wyoming and the vice chairwoman of the panel, quoted two witnesses making such claims on Tuesday and suggested that the committee was looking into the possibility that the former president or his allies were trying to obstruct its inquiry, saying that, “most people know that attempting to influence witnesses to testify untruthfully presents very serious concerns.”

Unlike witness tampering, which is a crime, there is nothing illegal about a third party covering legal fees for a witness. Aides to former President Bill Clinton reported being overwhelmed with legal bills because of the various inquiries into his and his family’s personal and business affairs, and were dismayed when a legal-defense fund set up by Mr. Clinton’s allies to help the first family pay its multimillion-dollar legal debts did not help them. Mr. Clinton later pledged to help raise money to cover his former aides’ legal expenses, but did not make any major effort to do so.

In the case of Mr. Trump, several former aides have requested that he pay their lawyers’ fees, many of them citing financial hardship and the exorbitant cost of representation in connection with a major congressional investigation. Still, given Mr. Trump’s potential criminal exposure and interest in the inquiry’s outcome, the practice has come under added scrutiny.

According to financial disclosures, in May alone, Mr. Trump’s “Save America” political action committee paid about $200,000 to law firms. That including $75,000 to JPRowley Law, which represents Cleta Mitchell, a pro-Trump lawyer who has filed suit to try to block the committee’s subpoena, and $50,000 to Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin & White, which has represented Stephen K. Bannon, a close ally of the former president who refused to meet with the panel and has been charged with criminal contempt. The managing partner at the firm representing Mr. Bannon declined to comment.

It was not immediately clear whether those payments were for covering legal fees connected to the Jan. 6 inquiry, but people familiar with the matter said the PAC has paid for the representation of several former officials and aides in the investigation, including some high-profile ones such as Stephen Miller, who served as a senior adviser to Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump’s PAC paid a portion of Mr. Miller’s legal bills.

A spokesman for Mr. Trump also declined to comment.

More than a dozen witnesses before the Jan. 6 committee have also received free legal advice and had attorney’s fees paid for by the American Conservative Union’s “First Amendment Fund,” which consults with Mr. Trump’s team about whose fees to cover from its “seven-figure” finances, according to Matt Schlapp, the organization’s chairman.

“We have pro bono lawyers who talk with the lawyers for the people who want help,” Mr. Schlapp said in an interview on Thursday. “Almost everybody has received payment.”


He said Matt Whitaker, a former acting attorney general who is on the board of one of Mr. Trump’s political organizations, was working with the legal group and has “spent a lot of late nights counseling younger staffers and giving us a lot of advice.”

Mr. Trump has come under scrutiny before for appearing to meddle in inquiries into his conduct. In 2017, a lawyer for Mr. Trump in the investigation into whether his campaign conspired with Russian officials during the 2016 presidential campaign dangled the prospect of pardons to two people under investigation, Michael T. Flynn and Paul Manafort.

In 2018, after Mr. Trump stopped paying for the legal fees of his personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, when he was under investigation by the Southern District of New York, Mr. Cohen eventually pleaded guilty and began cooperating with the special counsel investigating possible conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian officials.

Stephen Gillers, a professor at New York University’s law school who specializes in legal ethics, said there would be no issue if a third party paid the legal fees for a truly independent lawyer to represent a client. But he said things become more problematic if the entity paying the fee chooses or steers the lawyer toward the client and that lawyer has competing loyalties when it comes to the fee payer and the client’s best interests.

It is also problematic, he added, if the person or entity paying the fee has their own vested interest in how the client’s case turns out.

“The obvious example is organized crime, where the crime boss tells the lieutenant that, ‘Joe, here, is going to be your lawyer,’” Mr. Gillers said. “The lawyer’s loyalty, of course, is to the boss, not the lieutenant.”


Christopher Bartolomucci, a lawyer who is representing Judd Deere, a former White House press secretary, said he expected to receive some payment from Mr. Schlapp’s fund, which has a process for applying for assistance. There have been no strings attached to the help, he said.

“No one has attempted to influence me or my client,” Mr. Bartolomucci said in an interview.

Staffed with more than a dozen federal prosecutors, the Jan. 6 committee ran into some initial roadblocks last year as it began its investigation, when some of Mr. Trump’s top allies refused to cooperate. Investigators then took a page out of organized crime prosecutions, moving their inquiry down the hierarchy and quietly turning at least six lower-level former staff members to Mr. Trump into witnesses who provided information about their bosses’ activities.

Ms. Hutchinson had already been issued a subpoena when she approached Mr. Trump’s team seeking help with her legal representation, according to two people familiar with the matter. Mr. Trump had initially balked at covering some of the costs of legal representation for a number of former aides, but he acquiesced as some senior advisers told him he would draw negative news coverage if he failed to do so.

In some instances, lawyers who advised Mr. Trump sought unsuccessfully to have legal fees, or related costs, covered by entities supporting Mr. Trump. That included Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s former personal lawyer who encouraged him to try to subvert the results of the election. Mr. Giuliani’s allies complained publicly that Mr. Giuliani had high legal bills that he was left on his own to pay. There has been no move to cover his costs.

One of Mr. Trump’s allies may also be financing the legal defense of one of the extremists accused of helping to orchestrate the storming of the Capitol.

A dispute over those legal fees has emerged in one of the most prominent criminal cases connected to the Capitol attack — that of Stewart Rhodes, the Oath Keepers leader who has been charged with seditious conspiracy with eight of his subordinates.

Last week, prosecutors filed court papers that, citing published news articles, said Mr. Rhodes’s legal fees, and those of some of his co-defendants, were being paid by a nonprofit organization called Defending the Republic, which is run by Sidney Powell, the pro-Trump lawyer.

Ms. Powell is best known for having filed a series of conspiracy-laden lawsuits claiming that Mr. Trump lost the election because of a purported plot to hack into voting machines and secretly change ballots. She was also involved in a brazen effort with Mr. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, to persuade the former president to use his national security apparatus to seize voting machines across the country in a bid to stay in office.

Though prosecutors did not accuse Ms. Powell of an ethical breach, they did ask Judge Amit P. Mehta to examine whether she was in fact paying the fees and if there might be any conflict of interest.

For months, the committee has suggested that Mr. Trump or those close to him might be attempting to influence potential witnesses. Its members have suggested, for instance, that Mr. Trump may have had a hand in the refusal of Representative Kevin McCarthy, the House Republican leader, to cooperate with the investigation.

On Tuesday, Ms. Cheney displayed what she said were two examples of unnamed people associated with Mr. Trump attempting to influence witnesses. In one, Ms. Hutchinson told the panel she was told to “protect” certain individuals to “stay in good graces in Trump World.” In the other example, Ms. Hutchinson said she was encouraged to remain “loyal.”
Staight-to-cable Mob movie comes to mine.
"There is nothing more difficult and more dangerous to carry through than initiating changes. One makes enemies of those who prospered under the old order, and only lukewarm support from those who would prosper under the new."
User avatar
Kismet
Posts: 4483
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 6:42 pm

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Post by Kismet »

PizzaSnake wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 9:02 am
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 7:05 am "Beholden" comes to mind....

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/30/us/t ... ssure.html

"Former President Donald J. Trump's political organization and his allies have paid for or promised to finance the legal fees of more than a dozen witnesses called in the congressional investigation into the Jan. 6 attack, raising legal and ethical questions about whether the former president may be influencing testimony with a direct bearing on him.

The arrangement drew new scrutiny this week after Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide in his White House, made an explosive appearance before the House panel, providing damning new details about Mr. Trump’s actions and statements on the day of the deadly riot.

She did so after firing a lawyer who had been recommended to her by two of Mr. Trump’s former aides and paid for by his political action committee, and hiring new counsel. Under the representation of the new lawyer, Jody Hunt, Ms. Hutchinson sat for a fourth interview with the committee in which she divulged more revelations and agreed to come forward publicly to testify to them.

It is not known whether Ms. Hutchinson’s change in counsel led directly to her willingness to appear at a televised hearing and provide a more detailed, wide-ranging account of what she witnessed, but some members of the panel believe that it played a role, according to two people familiar with the committee’s work.

Mr. Trump claimed that Ms. Hutchinson’s new lawyer could have prompted her to make false statements. “Her story totally changed!” he complained on his social media site, Truth Social.

The episode raised questions about whether Mr. Trump and his allies may, implicitly or explicitly, be pressuring witnesses to hold back crucial information that might incriminate or cast a negative light on the former president. Mr. Trump and his advisers have been accused before of trying to influence witnesses in past investigations involving him. The committee is known to ask witnesses frequently during closed-door interviews whether anyone has tried to influence their testimony.

Ms. Hutchinson has told the Jan. 6 committee that she was among the witnesses who have been contacted by people around Mr. Trump suggesting that they would be better off if they remained loyal to the former president. Representative Liz Cheney, Republican of Wyoming and the vice chairwoman of the panel, quoted two witnesses making such claims on Tuesday and suggested that the committee was looking into the possibility that the former president or his allies were trying to obstruct its inquiry, saying that, “most people know that attempting to influence witnesses to testify untruthfully presents very serious concerns.”

Unlike witness tampering, which is a crime, there is nothing illegal about a third party covering legal fees for a witness. Aides to former President Bill Clinton reported being overwhelmed with legal bills because of the various inquiries into his and his family’s personal and business affairs, and were dismayed when a legal-defense fund set up by Mr. Clinton’s allies to help the first family pay its multimillion-dollar legal debts did not help them. Mr. Clinton later pledged to help raise money to cover his former aides’ legal expenses, but did not make any major effort to do so.

In the case of Mr. Trump, several former aides have requested that he pay their lawyers’ fees, many of them citing financial hardship and the exorbitant cost of representation in connection with a major congressional investigation. Still, given Mr. Trump’s potential criminal exposure and interest in the inquiry’s outcome, the practice has come under added scrutiny.

According to financial disclosures, in May alone, Mr. Trump’s “Save America” political action committee paid about $200,000 to law firms. That including $75,000 to JPRowley Law, which represents Cleta Mitchell, a pro-Trump lawyer who has filed suit to try to block the committee’s subpoena, and $50,000 to Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin & White, which has represented Stephen K. Bannon, a close ally of the former president who refused to meet with the panel and has been charged with criminal contempt. The managing partner at the firm representing Mr. Bannon declined to comment.

It was not immediately clear whether those payments were for covering legal fees connected to the Jan. 6 inquiry, but people familiar with the matter said the PAC has paid for the representation of several former officials and aides in the investigation, including some high-profile ones such as Stephen Miller, who served as a senior adviser to Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump’s PAC paid a portion of Mr. Miller’s legal bills.

A spokesman for Mr. Trump also declined to comment.

More than a dozen witnesses before the Jan. 6 committee have also received free legal advice and had attorney’s fees paid for by the American Conservative Union’s “First Amendment Fund,” which consults with Mr. Trump’s team about whose fees to cover from its “seven-figure” finances, according to Matt Schlapp, the organization’s chairman.

“We have pro bono lawyers who talk with the lawyers for the people who want help,” Mr. Schlapp said in an interview on Thursday. “Almost everybody has received payment.”


He said Matt Whitaker, a former acting attorney general who is on the board of one of Mr. Trump’s political organizations, was working with the legal group and has “spent a lot of late nights counseling younger staffers and giving us a lot of advice.”

Mr. Trump has come under scrutiny before for appearing to meddle in inquiries into his conduct. In 2017, a lawyer for Mr. Trump in the investigation into whether his campaign conspired with Russian officials during the 2016 presidential campaign dangled the prospect of pardons to two people under investigation, Michael T. Flynn and Paul Manafort.

In 2018, after Mr. Trump stopped paying for the legal fees of his personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, when he was under investigation by the Southern District of New York, Mr. Cohen eventually pleaded guilty and began cooperating with the special counsel investigating possible conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian officials.

Stephen Gillers, a professor at New York University’s law school who specializes in legal ethics, said there would be no issue if a third party paid the legal fees for a truly independent lawyer to represent a client. But he said things become more problematic if the entity paying the fee chooses or steers the lawyer toward the client and that lawyer has competing loyalties when it comes to the fee payer and the client’s best interests.

It is also problematic, he added, if the person or entity paying the fee has their own vested interest in how the client’s case turns out.

“The obvious example is organized crime, where the crime boss tells the lieutenant that, ‘Joe, here, is going to be your lawyer,’” Mr. Gillers said. “The lawyer’s loyalty, of course, is to the boss, not the lieutenant.”


Christopher Bartolomucci, a lawyer who is representing Judd Deere, a former White House press secretary, said he expected to receive some payment from Mr. Schlapp’s fund, which has a process for applying for assistance. There have been no strings attached to the help, he said.

“No one has attempted to influence me or my client,” Mr. Bartolomucci said in an interview.

Staffed with more than a dozen federal prosecutors, the Jan. 6 committee ran into some initial roadblocks last year as it began its investigation, when some of Mr. Trump’s top allies refused to cooperate. Investigators then took a page out of organized crime prosecutions, moving their inquiry down the hierarchy and quietly turning at least six lower-level former staff members to Mr. Trump into witnesses who provided information about their bosses’ activities.

Ms. Hutchinson had already been issued a subpoena when she approached Mr. Trump’s team seeking help with her legal representation, according to two people familiar with the matter. Mr. Trump had initially balked at covering some of the costs of legal representation for a number of former aides, but he acquiesced as some senior advisers told him he would draw negative news coverage if he failed to do so.

In some instances, lawyers who advised Mr. Trump sought unsuccessfully to have legal fees, or related costs, covered by entities supporting Mr. Trump. That included Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s former personal lawyer who encouraged him to try to subvert the results of the election. Mr. Giuliani’s allies complained publicly that Mr. Giuliani had high legal bills that he was left on his own to pay. There has been no move to cover his costs.

One of Mr. Trump’s allies may also be financing the legal defense of one of the extremists accused of helping to orchestrate the storming of the Capitol.

A dispute over those legal fees has emerged in one of the most prominent criminal cases connected to the Capitol attack — that of Stewart Rhodes, the Oath Keepers leader who has been charged with seditious conspiracy with eight of his subordinates.

Last week, prosecutors filed court papers that, citing published news articles, said Mr. Rhodes’s legal fees, and those of some of his co-defendants, were being paid by a nonprofit organization called Defending the Republic, which is run by Sidney Powell, the pro-Trump lawyer.

Ms. Powell is best known for having filed a series of conspiracy-laden lawsuits claiming that Mr. Trump lost the election because of a purported plot to hack into voting machines and secretly change ballots. She was also involved in a brazen effort with Mr. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, to persuade the former president to use his national security apparatus to seize voting machines across the country in a bid to stay in office.

Though prosecutors did not accuse Ms. Powell of an ethical breach, they did ask Judge Amit P. Mehta to examine whether she was in fact paying the fees and if there might be any conflict of interest.

For months, the committee has suggested that Mr. Trump or those close to him might be attempting to influence potential witnesses. Its members have suggested, for instance, that Mr. Trump may have had a hand in the refusal of Representative Kevin McCarthy, the House Republican leader, to cooperate with the investigation.

On Tuesday, Ms. Cheney displayed what she said were two examples of unnamed people associated with Mr. Trump attempting to influence witnesses. In one, Ms. Hutchinson told the panel she was told to “protect” certain individuals to “stay in good graces in Trump World.” In the other example, Ms. Hutchinson said she was encouraged to remain “loyal.”
Staight-to-cable Mob movie comes to mine.
"Leave the gun, Take the cannolis"
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Seacoaster(1)
Posts: 4471
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:49 am

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Post by Seacoaster(1) »

Kismet wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 9:07 am
PizzaSnake wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 9:02 am
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 7:05 am "Beholden" comes to mind....

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/30/us/t ... ssure.html

"Former President Donald J. Trump's political organization and his allies have paid for or promised to finance the legal fees of more than a dozen witnesses called in the congressional investigation into the Jan. 6 attack, raising legal and ethical questions about whether the former president may be influencing testimony with a direct bearing on him.

The arrangement drew new scrutiny this week after Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide in his White House, made an explosive appearance before the House panel, providing damning new details about Mr. Trump’s actions and statements on the day of the deadly riot.

She did so after firing a lawyer who had been recommended to her by two of Mr. Trump’s former aides and paid for by his political action committee, and hiring new counsel. Under the representation of the new lawyer, Jody Hunt, Ms. Hutchinson sat for a fourth interview with the committee in which she divulged more revelations and agreed to come forward publicly to testify to them.

It is not known whether Ms. Hutchinson’s change in counsel led directly to her willingness to appear at a televised hearing and provide a more detailed, wide-ranging account of what she witnessed, but some members of the panel believe that it played a role, according to two people familiar with the committee’s work.

Mr. Trump claimed that Ms. Hutchinson’s new lawyer could have prompted her to make false statements. “Her story totally changed!” he complained on his social media site, Truth Social.

The episode raised questions about whether Mr. Trump and his allies may, implicitly or explicitly, be pressuring witnesses to hold back crucial information that might incriminate or cast a negative light on the former president. Mr. Trump and his advisers have been accused before of trying to influence witnesses in past investigations involving him. The committee is known to ask witnesses frequently during closed-door interviews whether anyone has tried to influence their testimony.

Ms. Hutchinson has told the Jan. 6 committee that she was among the witnesses who have been contacted by people around Mr. Trump suggesting that they would be better off if they remained loyal to the former president. Representative Liz Cheney, Republican of Wyoming and the vice chairwoman of the panel, quoted two witnesses making such claims on Tuesday and suggested that the committee was looking into the possibility that the former president or his allies were trying to obstruct its inquiry, saying that, “most people know that attempting to influence witnesses to testify untruthfully presents very serious concerns.”

Unlike witness tampering, which is a crime, there is nothing illegal about a third party covering legal fees for a witness. Aides to former President Bill Clinton reported being overwhelmed with legal bills because of the various inquiries into his and his family’s personal and business affairs, and were dismayed when a legal-defense fund set up by Mr. Clinton’s allies to help the first family pay its multimillion-dollar legal debts did not help them. Mr. Clinton later pledged to help raise money to cover his former aides’ legal expenses, but did not make any major effort to do so.

In the case of Mr. Trump, several former aides have requested that he pay their lawyers’ fees, many of them citing financial hardship and the exorbitant cost of representation in connection with a major congressional investigation. Still, given Mr. Trump’s potential criminal exposure and interest in the inquiry’s outcome, the practice has come under added scrutiny.

According to financial disclosures, in May alone, Mr. Trump’s “Save America” political action committee paid about $200,000 to law firms. That including $75,000 to JPRowley Law, which represents Cleta Mitchell, a pro-Trump lawyer who has filed suit to try to block the committee’s subpoena, and $50,000 to Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin & White, which has represented Stephen K. Bannon, a close ally of the former president who refused to meet with the panel and has been charged with criminal contempt. The managing partner at the firm representing Mr. Bannon declined to comment.

It was not immediately clear whether those payments were for covering legal fees connected to the Jan. 6 inquiry, but people familiar with the matter said the PAC has paid for the representation of several former officials and aides in the investigation, including some high-profile ones such as Stephen Miller, who served as a senior adviser to Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump’s PAC paid a portion of Mr. Miller’s legal bills.

A spokesman for Mr. Trump also declined to comment.

More than a dozen witnesses before the Jan. 6 committee have also received free legal advice and had attorney’s fees paid for by the American Conservative Union’s “First Amendment Fund,” which consults with Mr. Trump’s team about whose fees to cover from its “seven-figure” finances, according to Matt Schlapp, the organization’s chairman.

“We have pro bono lawyers who talk with the lawyers for the people who want help,” Mr. Schlapp said in an interview on Thursday. “Almost everybody has received payment.”


He said Matt Whitaker, a former acting attorney general who is on the board of one of Mr. Trump’s political organizations, was working with the legal group and has “spent a lot of late nights counseling younger staffers and giving us a lot of advice.”

Mr. Trump has come under scrutiny before for appearing to meddle in inquiries into his conduct. In 2017, a lawyer for Mr. Trump in the investigation into whether his campaign conspired with Russian officials during the 2016 presidential campaign dangled the prospect of pardons to two people under investigation, Michael T. Flynn and Paul Manafort.

In 2018, after Mr. Trump stopped paying for the legal fees of his personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, when he was under investigation by the Southern District of New York, Mr. Cohen eventually pleaded guilty and began cooperating with the special counsel investigating possible conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian officials.

Stephen Gillers, a professor at New York University’s law school who specializes in legal ethics, said there would be no issue if a third party paid the legal fees for a truly independent lawyer to represent a client. But he said things become more problematic if the entity paying the fee chooses or steers the lawyer toward the client and that lawyer has competing loyalties when it comes to the fee payer and the client’s best interests.

It is also problematic, he added, if the person or entity paying the fee has their own vested interest in how the client’s case turns out.

“The obvious example is organized crime, where the crime boss tells the lieutenant that, ‘Joe, here, is going to be your lawyer,’” Mr. Gillers said. “The lawyer’s loyalty, of course, is to the boss, not the lieutenant.”


Christopher Bartolomucci, a lawyer who is representing Judd Deere, a former White House press secretary, said he expected to receive some payment from Mr. Schlapp’s fund, which has a process for applying for assistance. There have been no strings attached to the help, he said.

“No one has attempted to influence me or my client,” Mr. Bartolomucci said in an interview.

Staffed with more than a dozen federal prosecutors, the Jan. 6 committee ran into some initial roadblocks last year as it began its investigation, when some of Mr. Trump’s top allies refused to cooperate. Investigators then took a page out of organized crime prosecutions, moving their inquiry down the hierarchy and quietly turning at least six lower-level former staff members to Mr. Trump into witnesses who provided information about their bosses’ activities.

Ms. Hutchinson had already been issued a subpoena when she approached Mr. Trump’s team seeking help with her legal representation, according to two people familiar with the matter. Mr. Trump had initially balked at covering some of the costs of legal representation for a number of former aides, but he acquiesced as some senior advisers told him he would draw negative news coverage if he failed to do so.

In some instances, lawyers who advised Mr. Trump sought unsuccessfully to have legal fees, or related costs, covered by entities supporting Mr. Trump. That included Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s former personal lawyer who encouraged him to try to subvert the results of the election. Mr. Giuliani’s allies complained publicly that Mr. Giuliani had high legal bills that he was left on his own to pay. There has been no move to cover his costs.

One of Mr. Trump’s allies may also be financing the legal defense of one of the extremists accused of helping to orchestrate the storming of the Capitol.

A dispute over those legal fees has emerged in one of the most prominent criminal cases connected to the Capitol attack — that of Stewart Rhodes, the Oath Keepers leader who has been charged with seditious conspiracy with eight of his subordinates.

Last week, prosecutors filed court papers that, citing published news articles, said Mr. Rhodes’s legal fees, and those of some of his co-defendants, were being paid by a nonprofit organization called Defending the Republic, which is run by Sidney Powell, the pro-Trump lawyer.

Ms. Powell is best known for having filed a series of conspiracy-laden lawsuits claiming that Mr. Trump lost the election because of a purported plot to hack into voting machines and secretly change ballots. She was also involved in a brazen effort with Mr. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, to persuade the former president to use his national security apparatus to seize voting machines across the country in a bid to stay in office.

Though prosecutors did not accuse Ms. Powell of an ethical breach, they did ask Judge Amit P. Mehta to examine whether she was in fact paying the fees and if there might be any conflict of interest.

For months, the committee has suggested that Mr. Trump or those close to him might be attempting to influence potential witnesses. Its members have suggested, for instance, that Mr. Trump may have had a hand in the refusal of Representative Kevin McCarthy, the House Republican leader, to cooperate with the investigation.

On Tuesday, Ms. Cheney displayed what she said were two examples of unnamed people associated with Mr. Trump attempting to influence witnesses. In one, Ms. Hutchinson told the panel she was told to “protect” certain individuals to “stay in good graces in Trump World.” In the other example, Ms. Hutchinson said she was encouraged to remain “loyal.”
Staight-to-cable Mob movie comes to mine.
"Leave the gun, Take the cannolis"
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Is that the greatest of Clemenza's lines?
Typical Lax Dad
Posts: 32420
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Post by Typical Lax Dad »

Seacoaster(1) wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 9:13 am
Kismet wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 9:07 am
PizzaSnake wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 9:02 am
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 7:05 am "Beholden" comes to mind....

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/30/us/t ... ssure.html

"Former President Donald J. Trump's political organization and his allies have paid for or promised to finance the legal fees of more than a dozen witnesses called in the congressional investigation into the Jan. 6 attack, raising legal and ethical questions about whether the former president may be influencing testimony with a direct bearing on him.

The arrangement drew new scrutiny this week after Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide in his White House, made an explosive appearance before the House panel, providing damning new details about Mr. Trump’s actions and statements on the day of the deadly riot.

She did so after firing a lawyer who had been recommended to her by two of Mr. Trump’s former aides and paid for by his political action committee, and hiring new counsel. Under the representation of the new lawyer, Jody Hunt, Ms. Hutchinson sat for a fourth interview with the committee in which she divulged more revelations and agreed to come forward publicly to testify to them.

It is not known whether Ms. Hutchinson’s change in counsel led directly to her willingness to appear at a televised hearing and provide a more detailed, wide-ranging account of what she witnessed, but some members of the panel believe that it played a role, according to two people familiar with the committee’s work.

Mr. Trump claimed that Ms. Hutchinson’s new lawyer could have prompted her to make false statements. “Her story totally changed!” he complained on his social media site, Truth Social.

The episode raised questions about whether Mr. Trump and his allies may, implicitly or explicitly, be pressuring witnesses to hold back crucial information that might incriminate or cast a negative light on the former president. Mr. Trump and his advisers have been accused before of trying to influence witnesses in past investigations involving him. The committee is known to ask witnesses frequently during closed-door interviews whether anyone has tried to influence their testimony.

Ms. Hutchinson has told the Jan. 6 committee that she was among the witnesses who have been contacted by people around Mr. Trump suggesting that they would be better off if they remained loyal to the former president. Representative Liz Cheney, Republican of Wyoming and the vice chairwoman of the panel, quoted two witnesses making such claims on Tuesday and suggested that the committee was looking into the possibility that the former president or his allies were trying to obstruct its inquiry, saying that, “most people know that attempting to influence witnesses to testify untruthfully presents very serious concerns.”

Unlike witness tampering, which is a crime, there is nothing illegal about a third party covering legal fees for a witness. Aides to former President Bill Clinton reported being overwhelmed with legal bills because of the various inquiries into his and his family’s personal and business affairs, and were dismayed when a legal-defense fund set up by Mr. Clinton’s allies to help the first family pay its multimillion-dollar legal debts did not help them. Mr. Clinton later pledged to help raise money to cover his former aides’ legal expenses, but did not make any major effort to do so.

In the case of Mr. Trump, several former aides have requested that he pay their lawyers’ fees, many of them citing financial hardship and the exorbitant cost of representation in connection with a major congressional investigation. Still, given Mr. Trump’s potential criminal exposure and interest in the inquiry’s outcome, the practice has come under added scrutiny.

According to financial disclosures, in May alone, Mr. Trump’s “Save America” political action committee paid about $200,000 to law firms. That including $75,000 to JPRowley Law, which represents Cleta Mitchell, a pro-Trump lawyer who has filed suit to try to block the committee’s subpoena, and $50,000 to Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin & White, which has represented Stephen K. Bannon, a close ally of the former president who refused to meet with the panel and has been charged with criminal contempt. The managing partner at the firm representing Mr. Bannon declined to comment.

It was not immediately clear whether those payments were for covering legal fees connected to the Jan. 6 inquiry, but people familiar with the matter said the PAC has paid for the representation of several former officials and aides in the investigation, including some high-profile ones such as Stephen Miller, who served as a senior adviser to Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump’s PAC paid a portion of Mr. Miller’s legal bills.

A spokesman for Mr. Trump also declined to comment.

More than a dozen witnesses before the Jan. 6 committee have also received free legal advice and had attorney’s fees paid for by the American Conservative Union’s “First Amendment Fund,” which consults with Mr. Trump’s team about whose fees to cover from its “seven-figure” finances, according to Matt Schlapp, the organization’s chairman.

“We have pro bono lawyers who talk with the lawyers for the people who want help,” Mr. Schlapp said in an interview on Thursday. “Almost everybody has received payment.”


He said Matt Whitaker, a former acting attorney general who is on the board of one of Mr. Trump’s political organizations, was working with the legal group and has “spent a lot of late nights counseling younger staffers and giving us a lot of advice.”

Mr. Trump has come under scrutiny before for appearing to meddle in inquiries into his conduct. In 2017, a lawyer for Mr. Trump in the investigation into whether his campaign conspired with Russian officials during the 2016 presidential campaign dangled the prospect of pardons to two people under investigation, Michael T. Flynn and Paul Manafort.

In 2018, after Mr. Trump stopped paying for the legal fees of his personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, when he was under investigation by the Southern District of New York, Mr. Cohen eventually pleaded guilty and began cooperating with the special counsel investigating possible conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian officials.

Stephen Gillers, a professor at New York University’s law school who specializes in legal ethics, said there would be no issue if a third party paid the legal fees for a truly independent lawyer to represent a client. But he said things become more problematic if the entity paying the fee chooses or steers the lawyer toward the client and that lawyer has competing loyalties when it comes to the fee payer and the client’s best interests.

It is also problematic, he added, if the person or entity paying the fee has their own vested interest in how the client’s case turns out.

“The obvious example is organized crime, where the crime boss tells the lieutenant that, ‘Joe, here, is going to be your lawyer,’” Mr. Gillers said. “The lawyer’s loyalty, of course, is to the boss, not the lieutenant.”


Christopher Bartolomucci, a lawyer who is representing Judd Deere, a former White House press secretary, said he expected to receive some payment from Mr. Schlapp’s fund, which has a process for applying for assistance. There have been no strings attached to the help, he said.

“No one has attempted to influence me or my client,” Mr. Bartolomucci said in an interview.

Staffed with more than a dozen federal prosecutors, the Jan. 6 committee ran into some initial roadblocks last year as it began its investigation, when some of Mr. Trump’s top allies refused to cooperate. Investigators then took a page out of organized crime prosecutions, moving their inquiry down the hierarchy and quietly turning at least six lower-level former staff members to Mr. Trump into witnesses who provided information about their bosses’ activities.

Ms. Hutchinson had already been issued a subpoena when she approached Mr. Trump’s team seeking help with her legal representation, according to two people familiar with the matter. Mr. Trump had initially balked at covering some of the costs of legal representation for a number of former aides, but he acquiesced as some senior advisers told him he would draw negative news coverage if he failed to do so.

In some instances, lawyers who advised Mr. Trump sought unsuccessfully to have legal fees, or related costs, covered by entities supporting Mr. Trump. That included Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s former personal lawyer who encouraged him to try to subvert the results of the election. Mr. Giuliani’s allies complained publicly that Mr. Giuliani had high legal bills that he was left on his own to pay. There has been no move to cover his costs.

One of Mr. Trump’s allies may also be financing the legal defense of one of the extremists accused of helping to orchestrate the storming of the Capitol.

A dispute over those legal fees has emerged in one of the most prominent criminal cases connected to the Capitol attack — that of Stewart Rhodes, the Oath Keepers leader who has been charged with seditious conspiracy with eight of his subordinates.

Last week, prosecutors filed court papers that, citing published news articles, said Mr. Rhodes’s legal fees, and those of some of his co-defendants, were being paid by a nonprofit organization called Defending the Republic, which is run by Sidney Powell, the pro-Trump lawyer.

Ms. Powell is best known for having filed a series of conspiracy-laden lawsuits claiming that Mr. Trump lost the election because of a purported plot to hack into voting machines and secretly change ballots. She was also involved in a brazen effort with Mr. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, to persuade the former president to use his national security apparatus to seize voting machines across the country in a bid to stay in office.

Though prosecutors did not accuse Ms. Powell of an ethical breach, they did ask Judge Amit P. Mehta to examine whether she was in fact paying the fees and if there might be any conflict of interest.

For months, the committee has suggested that Mr. Trump or those close to him might be attempting to influence potential witnesses. Its members have suggested, for instance, that Mr. Trump may have had a hand in the refusal of Representative Kevin McCarthy, the House Republican leader, to cooperate with the investigation.

On Tuesday, Ms. Cheney displayed what she said were two examples of unnamed people associated with Mr. Trump attempting to influence witnesses. In one, Ms. Hutchinson told the panel she was told to “protect” certain individuals to “stay in good graces in Trump World.” In the other example, Ms. Hutchinson said she was encouraged to remain “loyal.”
Staight-to-cable Mob movie comes to mine.
"Leave the gun, Take the cannolis"
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Is that the greatest of Clemenza's lines?
Yep. It was an ad lib.
“You lucky I ain’t read wretched yet!”
User avatar
Kismet
Posts: 4483
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 6:42 pm

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Post by Kismet »

Typical Lax Dad wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 9:36 am
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 9:13 am
Kismet wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 9:07 am
PizzaSnake wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 9:02 am
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 7:05 am "Beholden" comes to mind....

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/30/us/t ... ssure.html

"Former President Donald J. Trump's political organization and his allies have paid for or promised to finance the legal fees of more than a dozen witnesses called in the congressional investigation into the Jan. 6 attack, raising legal and ethical questions about whether the former president may be influencing testimony with a direct bearing on him.

The arrangement drew new scrutiny this week after Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide in his White House, made an explosive appearance before the House panel, providing damning new details about Mr. Trump’s actions and statements on the day of the deadly riot.

She did so after firing a lawyer who had been recommended to her by two of Mr. Trump’s former aides and paid for by his political action committee, and hiring new counsel. Under the representation of the new lawyer, Jody Hunt, Ms. Hutchinson sat for a fourth interview with the committee in which she divulged more revelations and agreed to come forward publicly to testify to them.

It is not known whether Ms. Hutchinson’s change in counsel led directly to her willingness to appear at a televised hearing and provide a more detailed, wide-ranging account of what she witnessed, but some members of the panel believe that it played a role, according to two people familiar with the committee’s work.

Mr. Trump claimed that Ms. Hutchinson’s new lawyer could have prompted her to make false statements. “Her story totally changed!” he complained on his social media site, Truth Social.

The episode raised questions about whether Mr. Trump and his allies may, implicitly or explicitly, be pressuring witnesses to hold back crucial information that might incriminate or cast a negative light on the former president. Mr. Trump and his advisers have been accused before of trying to influence witnesses in past investigations involving him. The committee is known to ask witnesses frequently during closed-door interviews whether anyone has tried to influence their testimony.

Ms. Hutchinson has told the Jan. 6 committee that she was among the witnesses who have been contacted by people around Mr. Trump suggesting that they would be better off if they remained loyal to the former president. Representative Liz Cheney, Republican of Wyoming and the vice chairwoman of the panel, quoted two witnesses making such claims on Tuesday and suggested that the committee was looking into the possibility that the former president or his allies were trying to obstruct its inquiry, saying that, “most people know that attempting to influence witnesses to testify untruthfully presents very serious concerns.”

Unlike witness tampering, which is a crime, there is nothing illegal about a third party covering legal fees for a witness. Aides to former President Bill Clinton reported being overwhelmed with legal bills because of the various inquiries into his and his family’s personal and business affairs, and were dismayed when a legal-defense fund set up by Mr. Clinton’s allies to help the first family pay its multimillion-dollar legal debts did not help them. Mr. Clinton later pledged to help raise money to cover his former aides’ legal expenses, but did not make any major effort to do so.

In the case of Mr. Trump, several former aides have requested that he pay their lawyers’ fees, many of them citing financial hardship and the exorbitant cost of representation in connection with a major congressional investigation. Still, given Mr. Trump’s potential criminal exposure and interest in the inquiry’s outcome, the practice has come under added scrutiny.

According to financial disclosures, in May alone, Mr. Trump’s “Save America” political action committee paid about $200,000 to law firms. That including $75,000 to JPRowley Law, which represents Cleta Mitchell, a pro-Trump lawyer who has filed suit to try to block the committee’s subpoena, and $50,000 to Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin & White, which has represented Stephen K. Bannon, a close ally of the former president who refused to meet with the panel and has been charged with criminal contempt. The managing partner at the firm representing Mr. Bannon declined to comment.

It was not immediately clear whether those payments were for covering legal fees connected to the Jan. 6 inquiry, but people familiar with the matter said the PAC has paid for the representation of several former officials and aides in the investigation, including some high-profile ones such as Stephen Miller, who served as a senior adviser to Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump’s PAC paid a portion of Mr. Miller’s legal bills.

A spokesman for Mr. Trump also declined to comment.

More than a dozen witnesses before the Jan. 6 committee have also received free legal advice and had attorney’s fees paid for by the American Conservative Union’s “First Amendment Fund,” which consults with Mr. Trump’s team about whose fees to cover from its “seven-figure” finances, according to Matt Schlapp, the organization’s chairman.

“We have pro bono lawyers who talk with the lawyers for the people who want help,” Mr. Schlapp said in an interview on Thursday. “Almost everybody has received payment.”


He said Matt Whitaker, a former acting attorney general who is on the board of one of Mr. Trump’s political organizations, was working with the legal group and has “spent a lot of late nights counseling younger staffers and giving us a lot of advice.”

Mr. Trump has come under scrutiny before for appearing to meddle in inquiries into his conduct. In 2017, a lawyer for Mr. Trump in the investigation into whether his campaign conspired with Russian officials during the 2016 presidential campaign dangled the prospect of pardons to two people under investigation, Michael T. Flynn and Paul Manafort.

In 2018, after Mr. Trump stopped paying for the legal fees of his personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, when he was under investigation by the Southern District of New York, Mr. Cohen eventually pleaded guilty and began cooperating with the special counsel investigating possible conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian officials.

Stephen Gillers, a professor at New York University’s law school who specializes in legal ethics, said there would be no issue if a third party paid the legal fees for a truly independent lawyer to represent a client. But he said things become more problematic if the entity paying the fee chooses or steers the lawyer toward the client and that lawyer has competing loyalties when it comes to the fee payer and the client’s best interests.

It is also problematic, he added, if the person or entity paying the fee has their own vested interest in how the client’s case turns out.

“The obvious example is organized crime, where the crime boss tells the lieutenant that, ‘Joe, here, is going to be your lawyer,’” Mr. Gillers said. “The lawyer’s loyalty, of course, is to the boss, not the lieutenant.”


Christopher Bartolomucci, a lawyer who is representing Judd Deere, a former White House press secretary, said he expected to receive some payment from Mr. Schlapp’s fund, which has a process for applying for assistance. There have been no strings attached to the help, he said.

“No one has attempted to influence me or my client,” Mr. Bartolomucci said in an interview.

Staffed with more than a dozen federal prosecutors, the Jan. 6 committee ran into some initial roadblocks last year as it began its investigation, when some of Mr. Trump’s top allies refused to cooperate. Investigators then took a page out of organized crime prosecutions, moving their inquiry down the hierarchy and quietly turning at least six lower-level former staff members to Mr. Trump into witnesses who provided information about their bosses’ activities.

Ms. Hutchinson had already been issued a subpoena when she approached Mr. Trump’s team seeking help with her legal representation, according to two people familiar with the matter. Mr. Trump had initially balked at covering some of the costs of legal representation for a number of former aides, but he acquiesced as some senior advisers told him he would draw negative news coverage if he failed to do so.

In some instances, lawyers who advised Mr. Trump sought unsuccessfully to have legal fees, or related costs, covered by entities supporting Mr. Trump. That included Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s former personal lawyer who encouraged him to try to subvert the results of the election. Mr. Giuliani’s allies complained publicly that Mr. Giuliani had high legal bills that he was left on his own to pay. There has been no move to cover his costs.

One of Mr. Trump’s allies may also be financing the legal defense of one of the extremists accused of helping to orchestrate the storming of the Capitol.

A dispute over those legal fees has emerged in one of the most prominent criminal cases connected to the Capitol attack — that of Stewart Rhodes, the Oath Keepers leader who has been charged with seditious conspiracy with eight of his subordinates.

Last week, prosecutors filed court papers that, citing published news articles, said Mr. Rhodes’s legal fees, and those of some of his co-defendants, were being paid by a nonprofit organization called Defending the Republic, which is run by Sidney Powell, the pro-Trump lawyer.

Ms. Powell is best known for having filed a series of conspiracy-laden lawsuits claiming that Mr. Trump lost the election because of a purported plot to hack into voting machines and secretly change ballots. She was also involved in a brazen effort with Mr. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, to persuade the former president to use his national security apparatus to seize voting machines across the country in a bid to stay in office.

Though prosecutors did not accuse Ms. Powell of an ethical breach, they did ask Judge Amit P. Mehta to examine whether she was in fact paying the fees and if there might be any conflict of interest.

For months, the committee has suggested that Mr. Trump or those close to him might be attempting to influence potential witnesses. Its members have suggested, for instance, that Mr. Trump may have had a hand in the refusal of Representative Kevin McCarthy, the House Republican leader, to cooperate with the investigation.

On Tuesday, Ms. Cheney displayed what she said were two examples of unnamed people associated with Mr. Trump attempting to influence witnesses. In one, Ms. Hutchinson told the panel she was told to “protect” certain individuals to “stay in good graces in Trump World.” In the other example, Ms. Hutchinson said she was encouraged to remain “loyal.”
Staight-to-cable Mob movie comes to mine.
"Leave the gun, Take the cannolis"
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Is that the greatest of Clemenza's lines?
Yep. It was an ad lib.
only the cannolis part. The line in the script was "Leave the gun".
User avatar
dislaxxic
Posts: 4558
Joined: Thu May 10, 2018 11:00 am
Location: Moving to Montana Soon...

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Post by dislaxxic »

cradleandshoot wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 8:31 amI'm guessing that ships sails on election day in November. Your people better act quickly if they want to put the hammer down. I hope they do something. Failing that all we will read on this forum every day is non stop whining, b****ing and complaining from the usual suspects. :roll:
Au contraire, mon ami crankie...Merrick Garland will carry the case forward in the DoJ long after the J6 committee is closed down.

..
"The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity. With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog." - Calvin, to Hobbes
Post Reply

Return to “POLITICS”