Stefan Passantino: Liz Cheney’s J6 Crimes & Mission to Destroy Any Lawyer Who Dares Represent Trump

Okay, so I think a lot of us who were. watching the. the January 6th. committee hearings etc. Particularly.

those of us who knew Liz Cheney very. well, um began to suspect that wow, this is. not unfolding um in a way that's. recognizable. And then you begin to. think, well, this could be completely. illegitimate. And then by the end I'm. thinking, and I'm texting this to Liz. Cheney by the way as it's happening, um. this seems like police state stuff. Uh you were in the middle of it. So, just if you wouldn't mind. setting the this the story for us, what. what was your involvement in the January. 6th aftermath? Yeah, so on the aftermath.

side, I'm a lawyer and I'd represented a. number of witnesses who were giving. testimony before the January 6th. Committee, mostly on uneventful things. I had. What kind of lawyer were you? So, I'm a. political lawyer if you can call such a. thing. I I'm sort of the the living. embodiment of a lot of the sort of. dysfunction of Washington D.C. that you. need to have such a thing as a political. lawyer. Of dealing with all of the sort of. regulatory world of if you want to. engage with politicians, if you want to.

give them money, if you want to lobby. them, if you want to give them gifts, if. you want to advocate, there's a whole. myriad of regulations that surround. that, which create professions for. people like me to help people navigate. what are the rules of the road if I want. to communicate. And that includes. interfacing with government. investigations, oversight hearings, all. of those various act- activities. And. so, for 30 years I've been a relatively. anonymous lawyer whose job it's been to. help people just follow the rules so.

that they can be heard, they have their. opportunity to petition government. That's been my background. I had a sort. of career transforming moment where I. went from running the political law. compliance shop for one of the largest. law firms in the world, a big major. international law firm that had massive. offices on K Street, heading up that. political office to being asked by. President Trump to be his Deputy White. House Counsel. So, for the first 2 years.

of his presidency. they decided that they were going to. need someone who had been around the. block for a little while to help them. navigate because remember, unlike most. incoming governments, which are staffed. by people who have been in government. their entire lives and they just. continue perpetuating the machine of. being government people who are now. working in the White House. That's how we do things in D.C. Except in 2016 when President Trump. comes in and is not only bringing in. people who really don't come from the.

government background, they come from. successful business backgrounds and. traditionally not even so much from. public companies, just not used to the. fact that there's myriad Washington. rules that are foreign to anyone who's. not been part of that world. that because voters chose Trump they. have power, but they don't realize. voters have no power. Correct. Without a. doubt. And my job was to be the person. who came in and really helped orient. people to how do you navigate this. bureaucracy that's called Washington. D.C.? How do you deal with all of the.

rules that regulate getting the job done. that you were elected for? So, I was the. Deputy White House Counsel whose job it. was to make sure that people understood. and followed the rules. Now, of course. fast forwarding, it became entirely too. delicious if you have the opportunity to. make ethics allegations against Trump's. ethics lawyer, that's a story that's too. good to check. And so, I became known. after having gone into that work and. having worked for the president. I I did.

that for 2 years and then I moved. effectively to the other side of the. gates. I helped represent the companies. that were in the crosshairs. I did a lot. of work for the Trump Organization and I. did a lot of work for companies that. wanted to interact and engage with the. government, but I was no longer a. government worker. I went back to being. a practicing lawyer in Washington D.C. And one of the things that that came. along as the January 6th. investigation comes along and that. committee blanketed Washington D.C. with. subpoenas. You you see a lot of the very.

big names all having been called in to. testify, but there were some 2,000. people that were called before the. January 6th Committee, including very. low-level staffers, very low-level. campaign workers, all of whom got knocks. on the door from the FBI handing them. subpoenas. And all of whom were saying, "Hey, well, since I'm here handing you. the subpoena, you want to just talk a. little bit about your role as a junior. campaign person or a junior staffer or.

XYZ within the White House." They were. all getting brought in before this. committee. much uh the scale was much larger than. anything that happened during 1950s in. the HUAC period um and the number of. people went to prison much greater than. during the McCarthy hearings. I mean, if. you're looking for the emergence of. fascism in the United States, like we. just saw it. Right. If I can just say, sorry, I can't. control myself. Um so, what role did Liz. Cheney play in this? So, Liz Cheney, who. was, I guess, technically the vice chair. of the January 6th Committee, which is I.

don't think technically a constitutional. role, but she was one of the people who. was running the January 6th Committee. And as they had been blanketing. Washington D.C. with subpoenas, lots and. lots of very, very young people would. come back into talking to the folks. which colloquially are called in Trump. world, "Hey, I just got contacted by the. FBI. They want me to come testify. I. have no idea what to do." And so, there. was a process for some of the younger.

lawyers to say, "Well, let's try to find. lawyers for these people who will just. help them navigate this investigation. getting brought before the January. people who smashed windows in the. Capitol or or assaulted cops with flag. poles? These are the people who happened to. have been working in the Trump campaign. in 2020 or had been working in the White. House in 2020 or in some way had. something to offer with respect to the. dynamic. some of them not at January 6th, the. protest? Oh, yeah. Nobody who I was.

representing was at a protest. Everyone. who I was representing were people who. had either worked in the White House or. had worked for the Trump. to do with the January 6th. demonstration. No. The idea was to create. was to create a narrative of what was. happening inside the White House, what. was happening inside the campaign from. the election in 2020 through January 6th. and afterwards and to try to create a. political narrative of what was. happening. And sort of one of the 101.

investigative rules is always start with. the junior youngest most people, intimidate them, get them to say things. that you can then use to create a. political narrative or whatever the. narrative was. And I was I'd represented. a few of those fairly significant folks, but mostly I was being asked to help. these very, very young people who were. just getting hailed before this. committee to try to give testimony. And. it was in the context of that. for this, just to be clear. Oh, yes, no question. I literally they. would hand subpoenas and I had one very.

young, she was working in the campaign. office, couldn't have been more than 23, 24 years old, who told me the story, not. only did the FBI show up unannounced at. her door, but when she answered the. door, the FBI said, "Well, while we're. here, you mind if we just ask you some. questions about what you were doing, what was President Trump doing, what was. the campaign doing with respect to. messaging about January 6th?" Which. Messaging as a lawyer, correct. There.

Was this girl at January 6th? This girl. was a campaign worker. So, she was. helping to put out doing junior research. of. what was now colloquially called the. stop the steal effort. That they were. going after these younger folks trying. to find out what it was that they were. talking about. And to me as a lawyer, in order for the system to work, full transparency also requires that. people's rights be protected. And that. includes the right that you have. somebody there who's protecting your.

interest. If you are a junior person who. might have something to offer with. respect to what happened in January 6th. Query to me whether the January 6th even. served a legislative function at all, but stipulating that it was there for. some legislative purpose, people who are providing information. under subpoena and under oath and under. penalty of being found liable for false. statements should have somebody there to. protect their interests. make a point that people might not be. aware of. So, the Congress is the.

legislative branch of government. And so, the purpose of committee. hearings in the Congress is to craft. legislation. Correct. Right. There's no. other purpose. Correct. Committees don't in the Congress do not. exist to use the FBI to hound their. political opponents into prison, correct? Uh correct. And not only that, but the. the framers of the Constitution made it. very, very clear. There are to be three. branches of government. There is a. legislative branch that is only supposed. to be making the laws. It's up to the. executive branch to execute those laws.

And then the judiciary to actually. enforce those laws. That's a very clear. standard. And when you have a. legislative body, and this is what. happened to me and I'm sure we're going. to get into it, that decides that they. are going to drift beyond their. legislative function, their fact-finding. function in support of passing. legislation, and they're going to move. into a law enforcement method. We don't. like this person. This person. presents a narrative to us that we don't. like, we are going to use the full. weight and power of the United States.

government to. try and execute that person without any. due process of law, that is completely. unconstitutional. And that is ultimately. where I found myself at the end of this. road. So that's just that's a police state. function. That's not Exactly. And that. is that is in fact exactly what what. ended up happening to me. So um. you. discovered in the course of this I was. going to say you believe but it's not a. question of what you believe it's a fact. that Liz Cheney broke the law. during the course of of this.

investigation. Yeah, I mean the the nice thing I think. is there's nothing that I'm going to. tell you today that's not written out. under oath in testimony that's in black. and white for anyone to see. I've just been trying to get people to. pay attention and look at it. But as a. and I have filed a lawsuit against the. federal government on this point saying. that the federal government abused its. power and in this case against me by. incorporating and taking certain.

information distributing them out. obviously there's a number of things. that the government lets you sue them. for. There are a lot of things they. don't let you sue them for. But one of. the things that they did was they really. invaded my privacy and they did that in. a way to deny me my civil rights because. it was all in furtherance of the. But you're just the lawyer represent I. mean our our system affords every. accused person accused of a serious. crime legal representation, right? Correct. didn't you weren't at January 6th. I was. not at January 6th. planned an insurrection of any kind? I.

did not plan any insurrections. All. right. So I just want to be clear on. this. Like you're not the defendant. here. Correct. You're representing. low-level staffers who were not at. January 6th, not accused of any crime on. January 6th, who had nothing to do with. January 6th and you're just their lawyer. because they need a lawyer because the. people conducting these investigations. are so unscrupulous they can't go in. without legal representation. Correct. characterizing Correct. Exactly. And where I found myself in the. wood chipper was that one of those. people who I represented who had given.

some 15 hours of testimony under oath. before the committee. then terminated her relationship with me. and gave diametrically different. testimony to what had been said before. That's a crime, isn't it? Well. some would say, but it's Well but hold. on. Just without even getting into the. specifics of this which I hope you'll. explain to us, but. it is not legal to commit perjury, correct? Correct. Okay. And and it certainly. presents something of a conundrum when a.

witness has presented one set of. testimony under oath and then provides. testimony under oath which could be seen. as contradictory to the former testimony. and both of those elements of testimony. were under oath. Yeah, that presents a. significant problem. Correct. to jail. Correct. Well, it's one of the. lawyers greatest sort of Matlock. cross-examination that everyone dreams. of is were you lying then or were you. lying now? I've been there in depositions. You. know, they have the previous transcript. I mean this is but I'm only making the.

point that everyone knows this. This is. like really simple. You can't do that. You can't lie under oath, correct? Correct. So who was this person and what. did she say? So this is Cassidy. Hutchinson that we're talking about who. who famously testified live before the. committee and that it became. extraordinarily. well known that she was an extremely. powerful witness when she testified live. before the committee. And as one of the. elements of providing that testimony. there was significant discussion of the. fact that she had previously had this.

Trump lawyer who had effectively coached. her not to tell the truth, had coached. her to say I don't recall when in fact. she did recall. All of those things were. being accused of me as the lawyer. Who was Cassidy Hutchinson? So Cassidy. Hutchinson. we I don't know that we actually. overlapped in in the White House. together and if we did I I didn't know. her. But she came in as I believe. started as an intern. I think she was 25.

years old at the time and ultimately. rose to a very. prominent position with Mark Meadows in. the chief of staff office in that she. had ac- proximity and access to a great. deal that was happening in the White. House. And so she was one of these. myriad of witnesses. not to my mind unlike a number of the. other witnesses who I had been bringing. before the committee who might have. observed things and might have seen. things had provided her testimony. I.

thought it was over. It only happened subsequently that I. learned that while I was representing. her. Liz Cheney was communicating with her. behind my back while I was her lawyer. Now. that's a lawyer 101 thing that you're. just not allowed to do. One of the. things that's set up within our legal. rules of ethics in order to prevent an. unscrupulous lawyer from manipulating. the client is there is a very clear bar.

rule that says if somebody is. represented by a lawyer with respect to. a particular matter you the lawyer on. the other side don't have the right to. communicate directly to that client. except through the lawyer. And that's. rule is in place to prevent people from. circumventing the lawyer and. manipulating the testimony. or is it long-standing and well known? This is one of those 101 rules. Okay. So this is a core rule that any. attorney would be aware of. Clearly a core rule that and it's also a. core rule that you can't do knowingly.

indirectly what you can't do directly. You can't and this happened here from. all of the things that I've seen. Like I. said, you don't have to believe a word. I'm saying. It's right in the testimony. that her staffers which were lawyers. were also communicating and she was. working through what I would call a. cutout which was Alyssa Farah Griffin. was effectively operating as Cassidy's. friend who started the process as a. go-between. Alyssa Farah Griffin is like. some TV girl? She is a a prominent uh TV.

personality and also famously not just. on The View but also was a I think a. contributor for CNN which Right. a lot. of folks. And I just feel duty bound to report. that she's. tremendously stupid. I I just want to. say that. Cuz uh I'm I'm aware of her, yes. So we. were at a meeting here at TCN the other. day and I looked around the room and. every other person had a kind of ruddy. vitality. with pink cheeks alertness bright eyes.

full mental acuity and a cheerfulness. you could almost smell. And I asked why does everyone look so. good? And part of the answer of course is they. like what we do for a living. It's. really interesting. We think it's. important. But another reason everyone. looks so good is because they had all. had a great night's sleep. I'm not. making this up. Almost everybody here uses a new sleep. technology from a company called Eight.

Sleep. They sent it to us and everyone. here loves it. It's called the Pod. It's. a high-tech mattress cover effectively. that you add to your existing bed. You. don't need a new bed or anything like. that. You just throw this over what you. have. What it does is adjust the temperature. of your bed warmer or cooler depending. on what you want and it maintains an. ideal sleeping environment all night. long. So I didn't know this, but as you. progress through different phases of. sleep your body's needs change and Eight.

Sleep automatically keeps things exactly. where they should be in the sweet spot. through the entire night. It's been proven to increase the quality. of your sleep, the amount you sleep. every night. It improves your recovery. time from physical exertion and it may. even improve your cognitive performance. and enhance enhance your overall health. It seems to be doing that in our office. So it learns and adapts to your sleep. patterns over time and automatically. adjusts temperatures throughout the. night through each phase of sleep and it.

does this. independently for each sleeper on either. side of the bed. That's pretty cool. So you can sleep well and feel much. better and be more effective the next. morning as we are here. Try it for yourself. Go to. eightsleep.com/tucker. Use the promo code Tucker to get an. extra 350 bucks off the Pod for Ultra. You can try it with zero obligation for. a month and if you don't like it just. send it back.

Again, that's eightsleep.com/tucker. Better sleep today and look great in. your morning meetings as our guys do. So. okay. So. Cassidy Hutchinson is while you're. representing her is communicating with. the other side. Correct. And and what. that resulted in and we've now learned. through some fantastic work has been. done by the House Chairman Loudermilk of. the House Admin committee. uncovered documents that I just would. not have believed still existed or would.

have been turned over to the government. which effectively prove that there was. this back channel of conversation. between Liz Cheney and her staff both of. whom are lawyers and others effectively. to say. we have more we want to say. We have. more testimony that Cassidy Hutchinson. wants to provide. Whether that's because. she chose to provide different testimony. or because she felt gee, I just wasn't. asked the right questions. Whatever the. reason was there was this back line.

communication that was created. completely unbeknownst to me that there. was going to be an opportunity for. another. investigation of Cassidy Hutchinson but. most importantly to me. it was a parallel element of well not. only hey, I want to change my story and. I want to say a lot of really. inflammatory things about Donald Trump. that I didn't testify to under the. previous times when I was before you, but also.

we're not going to tell my lawyer, this. Trump lawyer, that we're having this. conversation and we are going to bombard. both of you with questions that they had. already communicated what those. questions were going to be. with an effort to try to get me to. obstruct Congress in the face of this. deposition. It was effectively a law. enforcement sting operation to get me to. effectively block her, drag her out of. there, silence her, stop her from. testifying in this third interview. It.

was a. Wait, so they were they were setting you. up as her lawyer? Correct. And the idea. was that they were going to not only get. these very inflammatory facts, new facts. out of Cassidy Hutchinson, but in the. process of doing that we're setting up a. third interview that I was going to be. in attendance at and at which time Liz. Cheney was going to ask Cassidy. Hutchinson certain questions that. Cassidy had already fed her saying these. are things I want to say. And she talks about in her testimony.

that they knew that I was going to be. extremely upset that these questions. were being asked and the expectation was. that I was going to obstruct her, that I. was going to drag her out of I was going. to do something. And they did this on. purpose? Clearly on purpose. They they testified. who's willing to I mean most normal. people's brains don't even go to places. like that. You just don't think that. way. These are the people who and I'm. you don't have to comment, but they set. up January 6th itself was a. was effectively.

it was fake. Um. and so it it's the same way of thinking. It's not straightforward. It's totally. deceptive, stealthy. And and and with. respect to this, it was explicitly an. off the records operation by Liz Cheney. I had this conversation with her staff. afterwards. So you can imagine. we had in the course of it was in. February and March we had gone through. we'd done her testimony, we'd done her. depositions, she'd given the testimony, those transcripts were out there and. then almost 2 months later I get a.

follow-up phone call saying Liz Cheney. wants to do a special interview with. Cassidy Hutchinson one-on-one in purpose. person in the Capitol Building which was. all of which was highly unusual because. all every other investigation conducted. by the January 6th Committee was being. done either by Zoom or in person with. numerous representatives from the. committee, their staff members if they. wanted to attend could attend. This one. I was told must be in person. It's going. to be just Liz Cheney, just her staffer,

just me, just Cassidy Hutchinson. And. the way that they set this up, you'll. remember this is in 2022. when all of the federal government was. completely in lockdown because of COVID. There was no public access to the to the. people's house. You couldn't get in. But. we were going to be afforded access for. the purpose of this special interview. that was going to be conducted. And it. was very surreal because. as we were led into this deposition and. we walk in and it was the top floor of. the Cannon Office Building. There's a a.

little antechamber off of one of the. elevators that was completely closed to. the public and as I we were walking. through there me and Cassidy Hutchinson, there were Capitol Police everywhere. I. was and I remember remarking to myself. at the time this is surreal how in a. closed office building there were all of. these Capitol Police for this interview. that I'm conducting with Liz Cheney. I. said she it's really surprising she has. so much protection in a closed building. What what I didn't realize is they were. there for me. They were there because. the expectation was that when Cassidy.

Hutchinson testified to the things that. she had already pre-organized she was. going to testify with Liz Cheney that I. might get violent. I might be the one. who does something to her and they had. You're going to get violent? That was the expectation. I mean that's. I am surmising that by the fact that in. a closed office building as I walk into. this interview which was literally only. me, Cassidy Hutchinson, Liz Cheney and. Dan George her staffer and then there. was a videographer and a court reporter.

who were there. It was just us and there. were Capitol Police everywhere. And. you're a physical threat. This is like. this weird feminized passive aggression. that rules all of our. relationships now and it comes from. people like Liz Cheney. Like she's out. of the closet fascist, but you're the. threat. But the thing that was really. interesting. And and and the part that I found. particularly unusual is that coming out. of that it it was a phenomenon in every. one of our interviews that every time. after Cassidy Hutchinson had testified. while I was representing her, there.

would suddenly be leaks in real time. about the fact she had testified, what a. great witness she was and my obvious. initial assumption is this committee is. leaking on me immediately as soon as my. client goes in and it was my job to. protect her. My job she was somebody who. had presented to me as saying. I don't want to testify. I don't like. the January 6th Committee. I don't want. to do any of this. How do I get through this process and be. able to have a job on the back end? That. was the mission as it was presented to. me. I will testify if I have to, but I.

want to be able to get through it. But. these leaks kept happening. And and I. kept assuming that it was the January. 6th Committee. So after this third. interview, the one that I'm describing. to you which was there was only four of. us in the room. Literally as Cassidy and I are in the. cab driving out together, I have on my. phone a text message that had clearly. come while we were testifying. asking me about her testimony. And I was. livid about that that in fact in real.

time somebody's leaking to the press. So. I took a screenshot of that and I sent. it to Dan George the staffer and I was. really upset. I sent him a text and I. still have all these texts and I said. well that was really fast. You guys did. that. And I had a subsequent. conversation where I said. why are you destroying this poor girl's. life by every time she testifies you are. leaking about it and now you're leaking. about this third interview. You're. destroying any career opportunity she. might have had. And what Dan George told. me he says I assure you this was not us.

who leaked. Nobody on the committee knew. we were doing this interview. It was. only Liz Cheney and I and that Dan. George said to me and in fact the other. committee members would probably be. upset if they knew that Liz Cheney had. done that. And he told me all of that in. the context of trying to assure me. that they weren't the ones who had. leaked in real time the fact that we had. gone in. But it was extraordinarily unusual to me. that there was a Who did it? Who did the leaking? Yeah. Well, um.

I can speculate as they as they say in. the in the horror movies the call might. have come from inside the house. Uh it might have been my client who is. and in fact one of the things that. think it was Cassidy Hutchinson did. that? I I have no way of knowing of. course, but what I do know is that in. real time when all the allegations. against me broke, I was reached out to. by former friends of Cassidy Hutchinson. I can't believe what they're doing to. you. I have text messages in real time.

between me, the friend and Cassidy in. which Cassidy is saying the. diametrically opposite. Stefan wants me. to cooperate with the committee. I don't. want to cooperate with the committee and. also saying Stefan assures me that the. committee's not going to leak, but I. don't trust that. I and this is Cassidy. Hutchinson texting to her friend I'm. going to run my own parallel operation. I'm and she identifies I'm going to have. a line of communication with the New. York Times and Politico. And she's. already talking at the very outset of.

our representation that she doesn't. trust that this will stay quiet and that. she wanted to run her own investigation. I filed a defamation lawsuit against. Weisman, a MSNBC person. I included all. of these text messages. the federal prosecutor. Yes. Who. as you can imagine when all these. stories came out I had just unending. scorn, but. one of the things that Cassidy. Hutchinson had testified to in her. deposition when she was talking about me. among all of the negative and bad things.

that she said about me, some of which. I think were just not true, but largely. a lot of which. and it sounds a little weird coming from. me. can be explained as a somewhat. impressionable person coming in thinking. she's going into an adversarial. relationship, but but one of the things. that came out of that it was Cassidy was. very very clear. Stefan never told me to. lie. Never told me to lie. And that when. Andrew Weisman and others literally. tweeted well. her new lawyers are the good lawyers.

unlike the lawyer that told her to lie. Well, I just had had enough at that. point. It's like I'm just not going to. be a victim anymore. We have defamation. laws for a purpose. I'm going to avail. myself of them and in that complaint the. text messages that I've just described. to you I've screenshot and they're in. they're in the complaint. But it was. somewhat clear to me from text messages. that I've seen that there appears to. have been from the very outset. a messaging operation that was being run. by my own client completely unbeknownst. to me. Now I'm.

basing that on just text messages that. I've seen and basing it on the fact that. Liz Cheney's staffers assured me nobody. else knew that this was happening and. they would never leak it because they. wouldn't have wanted their own committee. to know. And it's it's ironic. I'm a. little almost embarrassed about it now, but in the context of that conversation. that I had with Dan George. I had this. I was sort of I was I was still at that. point sort of a naive institutionalist. Washington lawyer. I had grown up in. Washington my whole life. I'd been. around that I had incredible respect for.

the institutions of Washington, for. Congress, for the media, for when Walter. Cronkite said something it was a fact, incredible respect for the agencies, the. State Department, the intelligence. And. so I was still somewhat in in that world. where I had this respect. And as I'm. having this conversation with Dan. George, the staffer, I'm saying, "I. cannot believe you guys were leaking. literally while we're in there." And he. was assuring me he hadn't. I had a conversation with Dan George. I. said, "Dan George, Dan, you and I are.

going to work in this town far too long. to be playing games with any leaking to. the press." And I said, "I assure you. I've practiced law for 30 years. This is. not how I do business, and I have too. much respect for the Congress." And I. said, "And I have too much respect for. Liz Cheney to ever leak." And I And I. asked him at the time, I said, "I want. you to please go and tell Liz Cheney how. much respect I have for her, and that I. would never leak something that came out. of the committee." Now, Dan George tells. me he had that conversation with Cheney.

I don't know if they actually did. But. all of these are reasons why, to me, I. was confronted with a highly, highly. unusual scenario whereby there was this. small. operation that was done, this small. inter- interview. Lots of security. But I didn't think. anything of it. At the At the time, it. was unusual, but it moved on. It was. only later after I had been fired as. Cassidy's lawyer, and after she had. testified live on TV, that.

she subsequently provided lots of. testimony describing in detail the. nature of our interaction together. And. it was in that September. transcript that I learned all of these. channel things. I learned the degree to. which there had been communications that. had been going on, how they had set up. this interview, how they had expected me. to block her from testifying, how they. had sort of laughed about how s-. surprised I was that a lot of these new.

facts were coming out. And she literally. testifies in that interview that. as as we're walking out of the Cannon. Office Building, the two of us, we've. completed this interview, I didn't. obstruct her, the transcripts are there, I never blocked her from testifony. testifying, I never. told her, I never created objections to. coach her, I didn't do any of those. things. But she literally describes in. her testimony, as we're walking out the. door, she turns around to Dan George, literally behind my back, saying. something to the effect of mouthing, "I'm so screwed." And then Dan George.

mouths back to her, "I'm sorry." Now, when I'm reading this in the transcript, and it's all there for anyone who wants. to read it, I realize. this whole thing had been a setup. And. if it was simply a question of, "Well, we just want to get the truth from. Cassidy," well, then just fire me, get a. new lawyer, let her testify. No, this. was very important that I be sitting. next to her while she provided this new. inflammatory testimony with the eye. towards having me obstruct her in some. way. Why were they so intent on hurting.

you? You're just a lawyer. Well, I'm speculating on on that. Um but but. one could infer that you need to have a. reason why testimony changed. Why was it. that somebody who provided testimony one. way asked open-ended questions where. where the lawyer didn't obstruct, didn't. block the person. In fact, in the first two interviews, the only objections I ever raised was. when Dan George was asking really. incoherent questions, and I would say, "Do you mean this?" And he would. literally thank me. It's all on the.

record. You don't have to believe me. Those are the only times I interrupted. Um. but now you have to say, "Well, now the. person who was asked, 'Hey, what. happened on the ellipse?'. and tells one story, now wants to tell a. very diametrically different story about. strangling the president strangling. Secret Service or lots of things that. have to be reasoned.". of the limousine. These all came out as new evidence. So, let's just Can we get specific about. some of some of the allegations that she. made in her subsequent interview, which. you say contradicts previous testimony?

Yeah. So, So, she Am I misremembering, or did Is. she the one who said that Trump was such. a lunatic that he tried to steer the. Beast, the presidential limousine, from. the back? That That testimony came for the first. time, I believe, in her live testimony. That was the sort of very dramatic. testimony where she says, "I You know, they grabbed the clavicle and all of. those That testimony came out live. The. two things that Had she ever told you. that before? No. Now, and I And I want.

to be fair. to Cassidy, which might might seem odd. that I'm saying that, but I want to be. fair to her because she testifies that. in our first meetings, she started to. describe to me. this traumatic thing that she had heard. second or thirdhand about some incident. that had happened in the drive back from. the ellipse, and how I had been cutting. her off. Now, I don't have any. recollection of that conversation. happening between us. But I can also say. if she had raised, "Oh, I'm very.

concerned that I heard thirdhand about a. thing that ha- I would have cut her off. I said, 'Look, that's not what you're. here for. You're a fact witness. Your. job is to testify to the facts that you. know. You're not an expert witness. You're not a speculation witness. You're. not a I'm guessing witness. You talk. about the facts. They're going to. interview every single person who had. anything to do with the January 6th. incidents. They're going to talk to the. drivers. They're talk to Secret Service. It's not your job to go and talk about.

things that you think might have. happened. But she threw it out. and on television, it's quite a lurid. story. It was everywhere. And. Okay, so now, 2 years later, do we know. that it was true? Did anyone ever come. forward and say, "I saw Trump grab the. wheel of or assault a Secret Service. agent?" I mean, Well, here's what we do. know. Um we do know that in real time, immediately after that live testimony, Tony Ornato, who was the Secret Service.

detailly, I think he was working the um. Chief of Staff's office. I think he was. like a deputy of operations. He. testified immediately or at least said. publicly, "That's not true." And And. there was another really interesting And. Cassidy Hutchinson never claimed that. she saw it. was there. This was This was a second or. thirdhand. And then when she testified. that out in a hearing? Just like, "I heard that". Yeah, it's not it's not hearsay rules. where it's, "Okay, you're thinking it's. like, well, you can't talk about it.

out-of-court statement.". The rules are a little more wide open. than that. You can talk about hearsay. And And I would allow witnesses to. describe, "I heard Fred say XYZ. happened." Well, that's something you. heard. You are absolutely entitled to. testify to all of those things. But what. happened in this case is she testified. about, "I had heard that this happened.". Well, the people who would have told her. that said, "I didn't talk to Cassidy, and that. didn't happen." And I And I I knew I was. in trouble. I want to back up a little.

When I knew that I would just sort of. gone from This was just another client. and just sort of an unusual set of. circumstances, I had been fired. I had been very. publicly fired because I was a Trump. lawyer, and she had put out very. publicly, "I want to testify. I don't feel. comfortable having this Trump lawyer". All fair. I mean, that's perfectly her. right to do. After all of And then she had given this. very dramatic testimony that had been. refuted by people who were physically. there. I was representing another. witness, another very junior witness who.

had been working in the White House on. January 6th, who had been very closely. interated. relating with the operations people. This is in So, you imagine those That. testimony would happened in, say, June, that she testified live on TV. In July, a month after this had happened, I'm. still representing witnesses before the. committee. One of these witnesses, who had been. working in the White House, had been. asking, and we went through an entire. deposition.

And the deposition ends in a very. standard way where the investigator. says, "Hey, have you had any other. conversations with any witnesses about. your testimony today? Have you ever. talked to Trump about your te- No, I've. never done that." It's a very standard. set of questions. "Have you talked to. anyone about your witness other than. your lawyer?" And he says, "No, no, no.". He says, "Oh, wait." He says, "Actually, I did talk to someone." He says, "Immediately. after Cassie Hutchinson testified live. on TV, Tony Ornato called me and said, 'This makes no sense to me.

I don't understand. Why is she doing. this? What have we missed?'" He. testified And this is all in the. transcript. It's all out there. But I'm. sitting there as now the lawyer that the. committee knows used to represent. Cassidy Hutchinson, was fired because I am a Trump lawyer. I'm now representing a different witness. who is testifying I had no knowledge. that he was going to provide that. testimony. But he is now testifying that. in real time, either while Cassidy was.

on TV or in the immediate aftermath, the fact witness with knowledge had. called this young person and said, "This isn't true." Now, you can imagine. for me, as I'm sitting representing this. witness, all of the eyes in the Zoom. come to me. And that was when I realized. I'm in trouble here because. I heard my witness. give a story that's inconsistent with. the star witness. She had already. testified on TV. She was already the. star witness for the committee. I knew.

they can't bury that nugget the way they. could have buried everything else, because I heard it. And when I saw all. of the eyes on that Zoom turn to me, was. when I knew I am now an inconvenient. truth for this, because I heard him. testify. Coincidence or not, within a month, I received a DOJ. subpoena, criminal subpoena. I'm the. subject of a criminal investigation. I. also received. This is insane. I Uh yes. And I And I.

received an email, of course, that I. still have, uh from Dan George again, saying, "We're. really concerned that you've been. sharing information between clients. We. think you have a conflict of interest. And I responded to him. I said, A, lawyers who represent witnesses would. have the ability to share information. There's no secret about that. I said, but here, Dan, I'm telling you, I did. not tell this young person to say that.

story. He said that story. I'm telling. you it didn't happen. Who is Dan George, exactly? Can you So, Dan George is a. lawyer. I think. I think that he I mean, he was he was. one of the senior lead investigators. I. worked with him on a number of. witnesses. The part that was a little. shocking to me is He he's a. congressional staffer. staffer. uh who then went to the Department of. Justice after this. I think he might I I. don't know for sure. I think he was working with Jack Smith. I think he might be now in the US. Attorney's Office. He might be an.

assistant US Attorney in Connecticut or. somewhere. I don't know. But he he was. in Department of Justice before. He was. then. He sounds dishonest. We had a very good. rapport. Um I was surprised by what was. happening. And and. he and I had worked together on some. very sensitive things, and I thought we. had something of a level of trust. I. just know what I just know the things. that happened. I know that right after. this young witness gave that testimony. that. directly contradicted the star witness,

that I received a phone call from Dan. George. basically saying they were very. concerned that I had been feeding this. information, and then I got a confirming. email from him saying, "We had this. conversation. You denied that you shared. it." That's all fair enough. Um but that. was when I knew that that I was in. trouble. And then, out of the blue, I. start getting DOJ criminal subpoenas. that I'm suddenly under criminal. investigation. I have no idea what for. I clearly had been part of doing a lot. of work representing a lot of.

Trump-aligned committees. I'd done a lot. of work for the super PACs. There was a. lot of talk of how was money flow. happening. It was in my mind still a. legitimate area of inquiry for the. Department of Justice. I didn't really. think a lot of it at the time. Clearly, I'd never been the subject of a criminal. investigation in my life. I don't hope. to be again. Um. but. that conversation then happened. I then. have to hire a lawyer to start providing. all of the information. One of the. things that was really interesting is.

the. subpoena from the DOJ, you know, we want. we want to know all of your. communications with Tony Ornato, which. I'd never had any. And we want all of. your text messages and signal messages. and everything with Cassidy Hutchinson. and all of your other witnesses that you. would I was clearly getting a forensic. criminal audit from the Department of. Justice. Was responding that, but still didn't. have super high blood pressure. I just. thought that's just a cost of life of. working in Washington and being a Trump. lawyer. If you haven't been subpoenaed, I guess you haven't really practiced law.

in Washington, D.C., I guess. But it was. only. later when. out of the blue, I learned that I was. effectively going to be made the fall. guy for. obstruction, all of the obstruction that. had happened for Cassidy Hutchinson. And. that that happened right here. to explain. why her testimony changed. Correct. We did an interview with a woman called. Casey Means. She's a Stanford-educated. surgeon and really one of the most.

remarkable people I have ever met. In. the interview, she explained how the. food that we eat, produced by huge food. companies, big food, in conjunction with. pharma, is destroying our health, making. this a weak and sick country. The levels. of chronic disease are beyond belief. Well, Casey Means, who we've not stopped. thought thinking about ever since, is. the co-founder of a health care. technology company called Levels. And we. are proud to announce today that we are.

partnering with Levels. And by proud, I. mean sincerely proud. Levels is a really interesting company. and a great product. It gives you. insight into what's going on inside your. body, your metabolic health. It helps. you understand how the food that you're. eating, the things that you're doing. every single day are affecting your body. in real time. You put stuff in your. mouth, speaking for myself, anyway, and you. don't think about it. You've no idea. what you're putting in your mouth, and. you've no idea what it's doing to your. body. But over time, you feel weak and.

tired and spacey. And over an even. longer period of time, you can get. really sick. So, it's worth knowing what. the food you eat is doing to you. The. Levels app works with something called a. continuous glucose monitor, a CGM. You. can get one as part of the plan, or you. can bring your own. It doesn't matter. But the bottom line is big tech, big. pharma, and big food combine together to. form an incredibly malevolent force, pumping you full of garbage, unhealthy.

food with artificial sugars, and hurting you and hurting the entire. country. So, with Levels, you'll be able. to see immediately what all of this is. doing to you. You get access to real-time personalized. data, and that's a critical step to. changing your behavior. Those of us who. like Oreos can tell you firsthand. This isn't talking your doctor in annual. physical, looking backwards about things. you did in the past. This is. up-to-the-second information on how your. body is responding to different foods. and activities, the things that give you.

stress, your sleep, etc., etc. It's easy to use. It gives you powerful, personalized health data, and then you. can make much better choices about how. you feel. And over time, it'll have a. huge effect. Right now, you can get an. additional two free months when you go. to levels.link/tucker. That's levels.link/tucker. This is the beginning of what we hope. will be a long and happy partnership. with Levels and Dr. Casey Means. And so, so unless they blamed you for that, they.

would have to explain like how exactly. did she testify to something completely. different? One could infer that that was in fact. the purpose. And and what what had. happened, which was shocking, the part. that really just sort of upended my. world and and. made me then realize the degree to which. the institutions were all aligned to. create a narrative. to further a political purpose as. opposed to anything else, was I think this was by December of. 2022. I get a phone call from Pam Brown of.

CNN, who I had known previously, saying, "Hey, the committee has been talking. that they're going to out the various. people who are obstructing Congress, obstructing Cassidy Hutchinson. We are. going to identify those people." And I. said, "Well, that's. great, but I didn't have anything to do. with that." And she says, "No, we, CNN, are in possession of a transcript that. Cassidy Hutchinson gave, a 150-page. transcript that she gave on September. 14th, in which she identifies you, Stefan, as.

the person who told her to lie, who. coached her to say, 'I don't recall when. I do' all of these things. We're going. to run with that story." And I said, "Well, I'm telling you, I know nothing. of these allegations. I've never heard. these allegations. The January 6th. Committee never called me as a witness. They called 2,000 people. They never. called me in. If this is a fact-finding. mission, you would think that perhaps I. would be called at a minimum to be told. Especially since you're being accused of.

a crime. Literally a crime. Two crimes, a felony of obstruction, witness. tampering. These are These are felonies. And CNN tells me, "We are going to run a. story tomorrow in which we are going to. identify you as the person who. obstructed this witness. We're going to. accuse you of a crime." Of course, I was. shocked. I said, "I've never heard this. I can't really provide a lot of. comment." Well, on that Monday, as the. story is breaking, my. my world has not yet collapsed. I at that point have now received notice.

from CNN that tomorrow, Tuesday, they're. going to identify me as the person. On. that day, on Monday, I receive a phone call from one of. Cassidy Hutchinson's former friends, saying, "This is outrageous what they're. doing to you. I have text messages that. I have previously provided to CNN and. other news networks. And these text. messages make clear that you, Stefan, were telling Cassidy to cooperate, and. she didn't want to cooperate." Now, I.

have a conversation at that point with. Kaitlan Polantz at CNN, who's the CNN. reporter who's running this story before. it had come out. And I called Kaitlan my. self. I said, "Kaitlan, I am aware that you are going to run. this story that is going to literally. accuse me of a crime. And I am aware. that you have a transcript that I have. never seen before that is going to make. these accusations. But I'm also aware. that you are in possession of text. messages that directly contradict that. narrative. You have Cassidy's text.

messages saying, 'Stefan wants me to. cooperate. I don't want to cooperate. I. am going to be the one who's going to do. this media narrative on my own behind. his back.' And so, I said Kaitlan, I. said, "I'm not asking you to exonerate. me. But if CNN is going to run a story. identifying me as a criminal, and you. are in possession of additional facts. that create. exculpatory documents, you have an. obligation to run that." And Kaitlan.

Polantz's direct quote to me was, "That's not newsworthy.". I said, "How is that not newsworthy? This is directly relevant.". She said that to me. Kaitlan Polantz? Kaitlan Polantz of CNN, who is still. there at CNN. And I then had my lawyer. communicate and have numerous. conversations where I say, "I know and. those text messages we're referring to. are the ones that I put in the in the. letter to the. didn't Kaitlan Polantz did not deny. having those text messages. Correct. Did not deny. Said it was not. newsworthy. So, then,

at that point, I know I'm. just crazy. So, CNN, just for to state. the obvious, CNN is participating. They're not covering news, they're. participating. as you know, a part of the machine to. destroy you. Correct. And it is clear to me that CNN. has received confidential congressional. documents pertaining to me that I have. never seen. CNN had had for however long. it was CNN had had this transcript to. work on the story. I had no idea of. these allegations. It's so corrupt, it's hard to believe.

gets worse for me, unfortunately, which. is. that story then comes out the next day, and you can imagine what a bombshell it. is. Did Did they include the exculpatory. text messages? To this day, never. And in fact, the. things that that I begged. What corrupt liars CNN is. Yeah, I I begged CNN I said, "You're. going to release a transcript in which a. witness is saying that I coached her to. lie while I was representing. You have.

in your possession the actual. transcripts of me representing her. At a. minimum, post those two so that the. public can see. Well, let me actually. read the transcript of Stefan. representing Cassidy Hutchinson, and let. me judge for myself whether he did the. things he was accused of doing.". I have text messages with Pamela Brown. saying, "Please, I'm begging you. If. you're going to destroy my career, and. you're going to put up this transcript. accusing me, at least put up the.

others." To this day, I don't think that. they have. To this day, Brown's Pam Brown is the She was a. producer. I think that she's she's moved. on. I She might have been the one who. reached out because she had known me. previously. I think. She's not an on-air person. She was She. was not. She is an on-air person. Right. Okay, so I thought Pam Brown, right. she she has a news program, and I think. she she took a hiatus cuz she was having. uh a child or children. But I think. she's back on the air. And but I think. her involvement might have only been. that she was the one who.

was calling me to just let me know that. this was coming, and then saying, "But. you need to call Caitlin cuz she's. running this." So, I begged them, "Please put this up.". I don't I think if you go on CNN today. and you say, "Cassie Hutchinson. transcript," the only thing that comes. up is the September transcript accusing. me. I don't think. I don't think you could even find those. here. But this is where it became clear. that there was this interplay. Not only. did I realize that on the day these. allegations came out, CNN had all of this already. And it was.

not lost on me that a lot of the people. who were on the January 6th Committee, who might potentially have had reason to. give this to CNN, are now all. contributors. Kinzinger is over there. Alyssa Farah. Griffin is now a contributor over there. Some of these. They're all being paid by CNN. Some would Yes, clearly being paid. But. what was What was particularly painful. for me was 2 hours after that story. breaks, I then get a notification from the. District of Columbia Bar saying, "This.

is to notify you that we have an open. bar investigation. relating to all of this conduct." Within. 3 hours. The DC Bar does not operate within 3. hours based on seeing something on CNN. for the first time. It is clear that in. addition to working with CNN before. breaking this story, the January 6th. Committee, or somebody, was also working. with the various bar organizations that. I'm a member of to set this story up. I. literally received bar complaints. created on their own accord within hours.

of this story breaking. That does not. happen unless they have been forewarned. that all of this is coming. And as you can imagine. see why Trump has trouble getting. lawyers. Well, I mean, represent Trump or people around. Trump, they destroy your life. And that is that is the real core. concern, that it is fundamental to this. democracy that everyone have effective. assistance of counsel. Everyone has the. right. It does not matter if you're a.

Guantanamo detainee or if you're a. Republican, you are entitled to. counsel, even if you might be out of. favor with the establishment elite. And. as Shakespeare said in Henry VI, "If you. want to destroy a society, the first. thing you do is kill all the lawyers.". Well, that's what's happening now. One. within. I would say within a few months, I. started getting bar complaints filed. against me by the various institutional. organizations set up. There's a group.

called the 65 Project, which. filed bar complaints. And the 65 Project. is named because these are the 65. lawyers that they originally filed bar. complaints who had been working with. President Trump out of 2020. They. advertise To this day, if you go on the. 65 Project website, you will see they. proudly advertise a six-figure ad buy. that's running right now in the six. swing states, destined for Republican. lawyers saying, "Do not represent.

President Trump. We You will be. disbarred. Do not represent any of these. conservatives. We are watching you.". That is on their website right now. Any idea who's behind that group? Uh. Yeah, it's a It's It's a group There's a. lawyer out of Utah. I I'm actually I. filed a bar complaint against him just. recently for for this. But. but these are groups that are designed. to intimidate Republicans against. representing conservatives. And the. whole idea is. it is extraordinarily difficult to get a.

big law lawyer to represent a. Republican. It's just. we can't get those people. You can't be. a lawyer in a white-shoe or a major law. firm and represent a Republican. And. this is explicitly advertised within. maybe a month after I received this 65. Project bar complaint, I get a phone. call at 7:30 in the morning from the New. York Times saying, "We're going to run a story about a. group called Lawyers Defending American.

Democracy that has filed this. very, very in-depth bar complaint. against you. Would you care to comment?". That was at 7:30 in the morning. By 8:30. in the morning, the New York Times was. running this. multiple-page complaint uh alleging. accusing me of numerous crimes, lots of. bar violations, saying very proudly, "We. filed these bar complaints." And this is. signed, and you can imagine I've been an. established lawyer my whole life. I I. revere these institutions. They got more. signatories on that complaint. And it's.

all online. I. don't particularly want anyone to read. it, but it's there. The The bar. complaint was signed by I think they got. more than the 51 former intel officers. It was for filed by former attorneys. general, former deans of various law schools, multiple past presidents of various. bars. This who's who of the glitterati of of. the legal profession, all of whom sign. on to this letter. Like I said, law professors, former. state senators, former attorneys.

general. And what was of course most. concerning to me was four past. presidents of the DC Bar had signed on. to a letter knowing nothing about me. other than what had been fed to them, accusing me of crimes to take my license. away. Well, for me, I I imagine now. really I have to now defend my bar. license before the DC Bar against a. complaint signed by 60-some luminaries, including four past presidents of the. very bar that I'm going to be defending. myself against. It's pretty easy to feel. like the entire world is arrayed against.

you. You have no chance whatsoever. Now, I have to say, in all fairness, I was. pleasantly surprised at how professional. the DC Bar and the Georgia Bar were. They conducted a thorough investigation. of me and all of these facts. And even. in light of all of this happening, the. DC Bar dismissed my cases with no. discipline. I was shocked cuz I was too. cynical at that point to believe Well, it's also I mean, considering the number. of actual criminal lawyers I know you.

know, who behaved in a criminal way. I. mean, most lawyers I know I would. classify as criminals, and none of them. ever get their bar licenses pulled. I. mean, it doesn't This is not a. self-policing profession. It just It's. just not. No. And but there's. And yet but they're going after you. But. if you represent Trump, then that that. does trigger the enforcement. are explicitly messaging today, as we're. talking right now, on the 65 Project, they have proudly, "We are running this. campaign in the swing states geared. where big law lawyers and the partners.

at these law firms and these lawyers are. going to see it.". Threatening them, "Do not represent. Trump in any post-election challenge. because we will come after your. license." And that is clearly an effort. to intimidate lawyers against defending. anyone's rights, clearly President. Trump's rights. It's running in the. swing states. They're proudly doing it. right now. You It's not speculation why they're. doing it. They're They're proudly doing. it. And it's having the desired effect. It's very difficult now to get a lawyer.

who's willing to do election integrity. work for Republicans because you know. you're putting yourself in the. crosshairs of this institutional. machine. Now, when, you know, clearly CNN breathlessly. reported how I had a subject to all of. these bar complaints, they never reported that I was cleared. of those claims or that my bar was never. in jeopardy and that I never received. They never wanted to report any of those.

things. It's only the story and then. move on. But for me, the damage was. incalculable. Uh for me, it was impossible to have faith and. trust in clients and all But it's it's a. concerted effort. And And it was one. that continued. must have been real, too. Oh, a very. real. I mean, that as you can imagine, I. had criminal complaints against me. I've. had bar complaints against me. I have also I also filed my own lawsuit. against the federal government for all. of these things. And it was It's.

unusual. I filed that lawsuit 18 months. ago against the federal government. It. takes a long time to do this. I made a. lot of factual allegations in that. complaint because I knew them to be true. in my head. I had lived that experience. But I had no expectation that I was. going to be able to prove it. It was. basically one person's word against an. entire industry's word as to what had. happened. I was shocked at and I filed that. complaint anyway. I made all of these. allegations that I'm describing here. I. made those allegations in writing 18.

months ago. Well, Chairman Loudermilk, I have no. idea how doggedly conducted. investigation and he actually produced. all of the text messages between Liz. Cheney and Cassidy describing everything. that I had put in my complaint. I never. thought it would happen. Why would I. assume that Cassidy Hutchinson, while. she's doing this, is screenshotting. signal encrypted communications from. Cass from Liz Cheney and turning them. over to the Congress. I I had no. expectation that she would do that, but.

she did. Well, I'm glad she doesn't sound like a. genius either, but I'm thankful that she. did. So, to Liz Cheney, what crimes do. you believe she committed? Well, so. what I firmly believe happened and and. I've filed a bar complaint against Liz. Cheney on this and this is all spelled. out. the. um. this prohibition. Now, there there if. you're a member of Congress and you. write the laws of the country, you have. the privilege of shielding yourself from. a lot of the consequences of your own.

actions. It's built right into the. Constitution a speech and debate clause. You cannot go after a sitting member of. Congress for anything they do in. furtherance of a legitimate legislative. purpose. I don't think this was that, but put. that as it may, but it's also. very very difficult to go after a member. of Congress for things that they have. done and that's probably appropriate. that that's the case. But she is a. member of the bar and I have black and. white. evidence that in fact she acted in a way. that's contrary to her professional.

obligations. We have filed the America. First Legal uh has done a fantastic job. It's all up on their website. You can. read all of it uh articulating all of. the various ways that the various. lawyers. who were involved were clearly violating. their. fiduciary obligations to the bar. But to. me, it's not even so much. that what. what I am most concerned with is it was. clear to me.

that it became politically expedient it. became necessary in order for the. political narrative to be presented to. the United States that this witness is. presenting this bombshell testimony and. is unimpeachable in the face of all of. the other evidence that might make it. impeachable. It became politically expedient to. destroy me and the United States. Congress. and all of the mechanisms of this. legislative not law enforcement body was.

working with CNN and bar groups to bring. all and all of the media attention that. they had the ability to bring and I. didn't even know there were allegations. All of the might of the federal. government was brought to bear to deny. me life, liberty, and property with no. due process of law whatsoever. Even putting aside this constitutional. separation of powers that you had talked. about before, which was. the legislative branch is supposed to. legislate. The Department of Justice if they had.

simply just done a referral and of. course. both Cassidy Hutchinson testifies that. she did a criminal referral. Liz Cheney. told ABC News that she had done a. criminal referral on me. Fair enough, that's the job. Because the Department. of Justice has 250 years of regulations. that are designed to protect the due. process rights of the accused. The DOJ. will never comment on or confirm that. there's an ongoing investigation. pre-indictment and that's designed to.

protect the rights of the innocent. Of course. And those rules are there. because the Department of Justice's job. is to enforce the law. Well, Congress. circumvented all of that with regard to. me. They went right from we need to. present a narrative we need to destroy. this person. We are going to use and. literally. they highlighted the day before that. this was going to come out. They had been rolling out transcripts of. all of the various testimony. On that. Tuesday or whatever that was, the 22nd.

or whatever of December. It was right. before Christmas. It was it was it was. horrifying um the the hate mail that one. receives on Christmas um from I I. received um so many it beyond like just. death threats, but so many lawyers. emailing me saying you're a disgrace to. the legal profession. I'm thinking to. myself. you're a lawyer, you just tried, convicted, executed me without ever. hearing from me, without affording me.

any due process or a right to confront. my accuser, and you're accusing me of. being the disgrace to the bar. You're. the one who is circumventing all of. these things that you were trained in. law school and that's effectively what. Congress did as well. It was a concerted. effort to create a political narrative. and I was a very inconvenient truth to. that and the fact that the United States. Congress, a legislative body, was able. to marshal all of those resources in an. unconstitutional way to destroy me.

There's. I I've been in practice a long time. I. have a lot of very influential clients. I'm a relatively connected person. If Congress can destroy me at a whim. they could do that to anyone and nobody. would want to live in a world where. either a single member of Congress or a. single committee of Congress could. select an individual citizen and say we. select this person for execution and we. are going to marshal all of the. legislative resources we have in. conjunction with outside bar groups and.

in conjunction with media organizations. and we are going to create a narrative. that is unrecoverable. No one would. listen to me of course for an entire. week after that. I you couldn't even. turn on the television. It was panel discussions of. well, Stefan broke the law and he's a. lawyer. Should he be disbarred before he. goes to the to jail or should he go to. jail and then be disbarred? That was the. panel discussion. The give and take was. what should happen first. CNN? Uh well, I mean certainly MSNBC and.

but it was. there was a lot of omission to me. I I. had fairly good relationships with a lot. of reporters, a lot of print from New. York Times and Washington Post and who. knew that this story they knew me, but. just I can't report that. My producers. will never get this past the editors. Um. I I somewhat. tuned out and and you can imagine it's. not just me who's going through this. I've. I've been married for 30 years. I have. grown children. I have children who are.

just about Cassidy's age and. I have to sit and and I lived this. experience. I knew what happened between. us. Imagine the faith that it takes and the. loyalty that it takes for my wife and. for my children to sit and watch on TV. these accusations. This is the criminal. thing that your dad did or your husband. did. And and I'll tell you another. another anec which is. I know it I mean it it it was one of the. sort of most traumatic parts of this. whole experience.

Yes, traumatic experience. So, I go. through all that and and at the time. that all of this is coming out, I am an. active subject of a criminal. investigation. I'm clearly anticipating. that there are going to be. litigation is going to be happening. I'm. actively pursuing my own lawsuit. I. can't speak at that point and I know if. I do, it's my word against an entire. world's word and I have no doubt that at. the end of our relationship Cassidy. Hutchinson was taping me. I have no. doubt that they have the ability to pull.

out snippets. Now, what happened was. now that all these text messages come. out that completely track everything. that I said that the text messages that. Chairman Loudermilk has produced exactly. track the conversations that I was. having with Cassidy where she was. saying, "Oh, Stefan's telling me this.". It's exactly the things that I was. telling her. It's in real time. It was. only later after I'd been fired that all. of this changed, but. this all happens. and on and I'll and I'll remember that I.

said, "Well, I I'm not going to say. anything. I'm just going to lay low. I'm. anonymous. I'm just going to lay low.". Fast forward perhaps a year. On on the day that my dad died, I get a. notification Cassidy Hutchinson's coming. out with a book and the teaser of the. book is explicitly says and she's going. to talk about her. interplay with the Trump lawyer who told. her lies. So, all of a sudden I realize. and of course it's on the day that my. father passed away, I'm going to have to. relive this entire experience again and. a book tour again and all of this is and. I am powerless.

And I remember. that it was extraordinarily traumatic. I. think her first was she goes on Rachel. Maddow the first time uh is like sort of. the first launch of from this from this. book tour. And I'm sitting there on the. sofa with my wife and I know whatever. words come out of her mouth with Rachel. Maddow in this live interview, I'm going. to own, my wife is going to own, my. children are going to own for the rest. of their lives. Whatever allegations are.

made, I'm going to own. And she went. through and she told the story. Now, at. this point. the the story that she told in the. original September transcript got. watered down a little bit for the book. and the book was still pretty horrific, but it was watered down version of the. September. But I remember watching this with my. wife and and it's just an act of faith. for my wife to sit here with me and just. stay with me for this. But I remember. at the end of that first commercial. break and I'm sitting on the sofa with. my wife watching the Rachel Maddow.

thing. And Rachel Maddow says, "And when. we come back from break, Cassie is going. to discuss the seven men who sexually. assaulted her in the course of her. interaction with the Trump world." Cut. to break. This is seven men who sexually. men or five men or whatever it was. It's. what It's what's on the tape where they. say, "That's the topic of conversation, the men who sexually assault her.". And I'm sitting here and I'm looking at. my wife. And I say, "I promise you I never touched her. I I. promise you I never And but but the.

trauma of it was if she had chosen. This is so nuts. to identify me as one of the people who. had. I was defenseless. I would have I. couldn't have denied it. If she had said. we'd had a relationship or that I had. done something unto her. I was helpless. I There was nothing that I could have. done. Unfortunately, she never said any. of those things. She said that about. other people, but it highlights the. trauma of going from a fairly. well-respected lawyer who doesn't mind. going to the grocery store and being.

seen by their friends to having everyone. Did he do these things? Is he really a. criminal? And you know, all faith and. credit to her for sticking by me and to. my kids. And it's I was somewhat. shocking to me the degree to which. millennials now they don't have the same. reverence for No. No. I I remember. sitting down saying, "Hey, some some. really bad stuff is going to come out. about dad and it's not true." And I. remember And they're. "We don't believe that. Don't worry. about it." And I remember them making. the joke to me. It's like, "We didn't. think you were cool enough to get.

canceled." And I was like, "Yeah, well, I I guess I did get canceled." But. What What she said is so true. That is. so true. People under 30 wouldn't even. occur to them to believe CNN. They don't. And And that And can I just. ask you with Cassidy Hutchinson, I'm. sure you're prohibited from saying. things because I'm. Sounds like you're still involved um in. these suits, but. what is her motivation, do you think? So, okay. Now, this might shock you. It's very possible to take a pretty. charitable view of the circumstance that.

surrounded Cassidy. She testifies at. length about a very conflicted trouble. Things that I had no knowledge of at the. time when I was representing her. But. when she gave her September transcript, what she describes is this traumatic. fear of having been a Trump person who. thought she was going to go down and. work in the office of the former. president down at Mar-a-Lago, didn't get. that job, had difficulty finding a job. because anyone who comes with the Trump. label has very difficult time getting a. job. And then she gets wind that she's going.

to be receiving the subpoena. And I. didn't know any of this, but she. testifies to it that she's traumatized. about the consequence of And that she. talks about how she went to all these. different lawyers trying to find a. lawyer who would represent her and how. these lawyers, for what should have been. a one-day deposition, were asking. $150,000 retainer. Just this traumatic. experience of finding a lawyer. She's. totally alone under attack. exactly. And she also testifies how. she's having these conflicted. conversations with her mother, with a. former member of Congress saying, "Don't.

sell out. Don't let Trump people. represent you. Once you sell your soul. to the Trump people, they're going to. own you." And she testifies that she. brought to our relationship this baggage. that she had finally given up. She. couldn't afford to hire her own lawyer. She finally had to sort of let the devil. into the house and hire me to represent. have me represent her. And that she was. extraordinarily conflicted. She came. into our relationship with an. adversarial mindset that I was.

completely unaware of. She thought. everything she told me I was going to. turn right around and tell Trump. So, of. course, you're going to go and tell that. person everything you think Trump wants. to hear. "I don't want to testify. I. just want to be loyal. I just want to. get through this. I just want to have a. good job." Those are all things she said. to me and they're all things she put in. text messages to all of her friends. Those text messages are all out there. now. But it's very easy to see how. someone would come into the relationship. not trusting their own lawyer.

Right. And she testifies Of course, she. testifies numerous times about all the. different times she lied to me during. the relationship, but I was shocked to. learn that while I was representing her, the degree of the conflict was such that. when I would stand up and go to the. men's room while we were doing a prep. session, she testifies she went onto my. computer to look up all of my emails to. see who my clients are. Like, she was. running an investigation on me literally. behind my back. Now, I'm not making that. up. That's in her testimony.

had no knowledge that there was this. adversarial relationship. And for me, she comes in my job, like I had for. numerous other people, a single message. I come in, I tell what I know, I don't. speculate. Every lawyer gives the same. advice. Anyone who's ever been deposed. gets the same advice. Your job is to. tell the facts as you know them. You. don't speculate. You don't guess. You. wait for the next question to be asked. You're not to go and find new facts. You.

wait for their question. You answer. honestly that question. You wait for the. next question. If you don't know the. answer to a question, it's perfectly. appropriate to say, "I don't know the. answer to that question." Every lawyer. gives. some version of that advice. Of course. Just like I did. But if you. come into a relationship with this. hostile mindset that this person is not. my lawyer, this person is somebody. else's lawyer and I'm forced to work. with them. When the lawyer gives that. same admonition to say, "I don't want you to go and seek out.

facts." I literally said to her, because. she wanted to like put together. calendars, she wanted to do internet. research. I literally said, ironically, "It's not your job to write the book on. January 6th." I literally said that to. her. I said, "They're going to interview. thousands of witnesses and those. thousands of witnesses are all going to. tell their version of facts and create. the mosaic. You only tell the facts that. you know. You don't guess." But if you. are coming into say expecting to be. misled in furtherance of somebody else's. objective, and a you're a 25-year-old.

who's never been through this, I guess. it's possible that you could feel like, "Oh, he's wink wink telling me. Well, exactly. Exactly. possible to Now, clearly and and when. you look at the text messages between. Cassidy and Alyssa as they're describing. the backchannel, all of the things that. Chairman Loudermilk has now uncovered, you can see they're having that exact. conversation. Stefan says, "Well, if they're going to bring you in. for a third interview, we can't make it.

look like you're eager to do a third. You'll never get a job. So, Stefan's. going to tell Dan George we're only. going to comply with a subpoena. We're. ultimately going to comply, but I want. you to have a subpoena so you can tell. people later you went you They describe. this whole conversation entirely. accurately. Those were the conversations. we were having. Sometime between that June 6th when all. these text messages happened, June 8th. or 9th, whenever I got fired, and thereafter, things became dramatically different. By. September, she was giving testimony to.

Liz Cheney accusing me of crimes and. accusing me of telling her to lie. Things that just as Chairman Loudermilk. I just don't hold up. Right. So, she's weak and afraid and so. she winds up in Rachel Maddow. Here's. something you may not have known. Back. in 2015, the Congress of the United. States repealed something called the. Country of Origin Labeling Act. Now, why. is this relevant to you? Well, it means. among other things that when you buy. beef at the supermarket that says made. in the USA, it may not actually be. In.

fact, it could be, likely is, from a. foreign country. It means that repackaging foreign meat. can be enough to get the made in USA. designation. It's a lie. It's an. absolute lie. Most people don't even. know what's happening. So, how can you. be sure that the meat you're eating is. from the United States and has been. raised with the highest quality. standards and is the tastiest, is truly. made here? Well, it's simple. You can go. to our friends at Merryweather Farms. Merryweather Farms is an American small. business. It's based in Riverton,

Wyoming. We know the people who run it. and they're great people. And they have. great meat. They ship the highest. quality meat raised free from growth. hormones and antibiotics directly to. your doorstep. It's delicious. We eat it. a lot, including at this table. These. are Americans. These are American-made. products. And because they're cutting. out the grocery store middleman, their. prices are actually cheaper, 10 to 30%. cheaper for the best meat. They are the. real deal. Again, we eat that meat at. this table from Riverton, Wyoming. They're the best. Merryweather Farms dot.

com. Use the discount code TCN24. and you get an extra 10% off. Again, that's Merryweather Farms, m e r i w e t. h e r farms dot com. It's worth it. Okay, so your experience Your experience. suggests such a level of sinister. corruption that it's it's kind of It's. kind of going to be thinking about this. all week. Um but let's zoom out a little. bit and try to understand what this kind. of behavior from Liz Cheney and the.

professional staff on the committee. means for the investigation itself. It. I'm now convinced that they had no. interest in finding out what happened on. Sep- on September September January 6th. September 11th. All these dates to keep. track of. Um. We don't have, you know, they they're. hiding the videos. They can't They won't. answer basic questions about how many. undercover law enforcement were there on. that day, etc. etc. etc. But just to. your conclusions, tell me what they are. Do you think this was a good faith. effort to find out what happened that. day? Well, no. Uh and and I'm guided to.

a great extent by, again, Chairman. Loudermilk. The the whole Loudermilk House Admin. Oversight Committee investigation, to. some extent, and he'll have to speak for. himself. I might have started some of. that in that when all these allegations. came out about me alleging that when I. was representing Cassidy, I was doing. all of these coaching up. I said, well, there's videotape. All I. need to do is get the videotape and show. it and that will exonerate me. And I was.

having trouble getting that videotape. So, I called up Chairman Loudermilk and. I said, look, I just need some help on. this. There are documents that I need for a. matter that's personal to me that I'm. working on. Can you get me the. videotapes of my representation of. Cassidy cuz that will. to my extent to a large extent vindicate. me. And he said, okay, sure, we'll get that. And he realized he's like, they're all. destroyed. Like he realized not only. were the documents, these videotapes all. destroyed. And this is not speculation.

He has letters from Bennie Thompson. saying, we destroyed the videotapes. because we got advice we didn't have to. keep videotapes of what? Of all the. witnesses who were deposed, right? So, when I was. sitting next to all of the witnesses who. provided testimony. those videotapes? Well, you would wonder. why they're not what the committee says, well, we saved the transcripts. So, we. didn't need to keep the video. Well, that. Was it expensive to keep video? Exactly. the opposite. In fact, as a as a legal. matter, more technical, it's the.

videotape that's the evidence. The. transcript is just simply an aid to that. because lots So, they destroyed all the. evidence. Well, that's what Chairman. Loudermilk has made his mission and he. has been dogged in that. And it is. Chairman Loudermilk's, if I can speak. for him, firm conclusion that in fact the. evidence was manipulated. Chairman Loudermilk, I mean, the House. is in Republican hands. They have a. speaker who's third from the presidency. His name is Mike Johnson of Louisiana. He could instantly reveal all of this. stuff to the public to whom it belongs,

including the many tens of thousands of. hours of videotape from January 6th. Mhm. But they're not doing that. Why is. Speaker Johnson. allowing this stuff to remain secret at. the very moment when Kamala Harris and. the rest of the Democratic Party is. campaigning for president on lies about. January 6th? Why not release it all and. let the public know? It's their house. It's their property. They own it. They. own this government. I'm totally. confused as to why Speaker Mike Johnson. is doing that. Yeah. Well, I mean, that's perhaps an issue above my pay.

grade, but at the same time things were. destroyed. In fact, as I recall, perhaps. even. insane. Your offices had an opportunity to look. at a lot of the videotape. Not a lot of the videotape, but you. know, 1/10 of 1% of the existing. classified videotape and it showed that. I mean, there was peace inside the. Capitol and that uniformed law. enforcement were allowing people into. the Senate Chamber at the same moment. they're telling us it's an insurrection. So, like. it the videotape that we got, which is a. tiny percentage of the existing.

classified videotape, showed that their. story about January 6th is a complete. lie. It's totally made up. Yeah. I well, I heard a rumor and you. can tell me if it's not true that when. some of your producers first started. looking through the videotape, there. were all sorts of annotations and there. were all sorts of cross-references to. allow it to be searched. Nobody knew. that it was someone affiliated with you. was looking at it. And that. then subsequently when it was learned. that perhaps an outside force associated. with you was looking at the videotape, all those annotations disappeared. That. might be false, but that's what I heard.

That's correct and I got fired uh. shortly after. um and was attacked, you know, by people. I I worked with at Fox News for daring. to air videotape that belongs to the. public that shows an unexpurgated. account of what actually happened. So, like the the complicity of institutions. in Washington in maintaining the lie. that January 6th was an insurrection by. Trumpists. uh is complete. Like everyone was. involved in the conspiracy, actually, from what I can tell. Yeah. I think one. of the lessons to take from this is that. never again should there be a.

congressional committee that's not. bipartisan. Now, if there was an error. that was made, the fact you cannot have. Congress running a what is. quasi-criminal investigation like this. ever again. Did we ever find out how many um. undercover law enforcement agents were. at January 6th? Do we know that? I I don't know. I Again, I'm just. reading the newspaper like everyone else. at this point on on those issues. a core question though. Like if we're. trying to understand what happened. um just as an attorney who was involved. and I and I know you were, you know, involved in trying to.

help witnesses, you know, um but big picture, why wouldn't the public be allowed to. know that? Do you know? Yeah. Now, clearly that clearly anything. that's conducted in the name of the. people belongs to the people. Just like. the building in which that investigation. is conducted belongs to the people. Exactly. And the investigation belongs. And I. mean, it again, I I don't know for sure, but certainly what I had heard was that. as Congress was turning over, there were. a number of documents that were in the.

possession of Congress that. were going to be shipped off to the. archives, but they knew that when the. new incoming Speaker McCarthy. took power that he was just going to. call those documents back from the. archives. And so, what happened, and. again, I don't know this firsthand, but. what I'd heard was that a lot of these. documents were then shipped over to the. executive branch to allow the executive. branch to give them to the archives so. that when McCarthy comes into power and. says, hey, I want my documents back, the. archivist says, no, no, this came from.

the executive branch. You have no power. You don't get these documents. We gave. them all over to Secret Service or. whomever. And that that's been really. thwarting congressional inquiry into. what happened. corrupt, it's hard to believe this is. our government. It's It's certainly had It's certainly. had a corrupting impact on on me in. terms of what happened, how government. abused power in a way that should not. happen. But it also you cannot have an. ostensible truth-finding. organiz- operation that has a political.

objective. The two are not compatible. If you're going to be searching for the. truth, it cannot be in. Well, and also, I mean, look, the truth. is. the Capitol Hill police used deadly. force against an unarmed woman on. January 6th. There was never any investigation into. why they murdered Ashley Babbitt, which. they did. Um Michael Byrd uh who had. demonstrated reckless behavior with a. loaded firearm, leaving a loaded Glock. in the men's room in the Capitol, he. murdered murdered Ashley Babbitt. That's. my view.

Uh but we. we can't speak authoritatively because. there was no investigation into shooting. an unarmed woman in the Capitol. Um. the whole thing is like. that's insane. Were there any. Republicans, do you know, in the Congress who. like demanded an answer to these. questions? It doesn't seem like there. were. It It seems bipartisan, actually. right. It's been hard pressed and I know. as part of my efforts I I was seek I. said, well, I want to have all the. internal staff emails. Let me see the.

emails that were going on while all of. the things that I was interested in were. happening. And I'm getting a lot of. resistance. Well, we really don't want. to we don't think it's appropriate to. turn over staff emails. So, it's like, what? We're the public. If there were emails. about me that were being sent by. official staff, there shouldn't be some. proprietary reason or there shouldn't be. some Queensbury rules that says, well, we don't think it's cooth for us to be.

turning over the private emails of our. staffers. Well, when I was working in. the White House, every single document. that we It was all presidential records. Everything was searchable. Everything. can be has obligated to be turned over. Why is Congress not subject to those. same rules? Why Why do we not have that. same transparency? Why are we clinging. to some. esoteric notion that well, it just. wouldn't be. gentlemanly or it wouldn't be cooth for. us to reveal staff emails.

because then maybe they might do that to. us. It's like, no, how about you guys. only do things in the name of the people. that you're willing to stand behind. How. about that being the rule? But that. doesn't seem to be So, how is this um. we're just talking about this off. camera, but maybe you would like to talk. about it on camera as the product of. Washington, son of someone who worked. for the government, I mean, exactly the. same position. Um how has this changed. your view of how the city operates and. its institutions? Yeah. Well, I mean, it's it's shocking. Of course, sort of.

the psychic break of all of that as that. we had talked we had almost the same. upbringing, Washington D.C. private. schools. Everyone who was my friend were. the children of people who were either. in the private sector or public sector. working in these revered institutions. And I grew up and until extremely. recently had nothing but the highest. respect for our agencies and the media. I mean, as I said, if if Walter Cronkite. said it was true, if the State. Department said it was true. I was class of 1984. So, I'm a little.

older than you. And um. But same world. Same exact world. All of. my friends and grew up having a dad who. was from that world doing work that I. really respected. That was what I believed. And and even. while working in the White House, never had a concept that there was any. sort of conflict between the. institutional sort of intelligence world. and us in the White House. Well, one of. my jobs, as I said, I was the compliance. person when I came in. And so, we did.

all of the onboarding. I brought all of. these folks in. And it was my job to do. here the rules of Washington briefing. for all of the White House staff. Well, I was also the adjunct to the National. Security Council. So, it's sort of like. a. intel arm advisors to the president, which are career staffers. primarily. And I said, well, we're all. on the same team now. Trump, we've just. come in. I had no idea that Comey was. having in- interviews with Mike Flynn, you know, at the same time. I had no.

idea this was happening. But I thought, well, we're all on the same team. Let me. just invite all of the NSC folks in for. the same briefing that I'm doing for the. staff because we're all on the same. team. And I just naively thought. It's only been eight years, but it's it. seems crazy to even think something like. that now. And so, literally I do these briefings. and I get phone calls two days later. from the Washington Post saying we have. three people who are in your briefing. who all said you said X and that this is. this horrible thing for for Trump. I. said.

that's A not true. Why would three. people randomly select you Washington. Post reporter to tell the exact same. story to? This kind of sounds like an op. against the Trump administration. It was. going to highlight it was something that. was not going to paint Trump in an. unfair light that the ethics lawyer had. said whatever the rules were. And that's when I realized. we're not all on the same team here that. there's this operation that's going on. and and there's a real sort of psychic. disconnect for me because I had.

tremendous respect for these and I I had. tremendous respect for the FBI and the. DOJ and I and I have to say in all. candor with respect to me. as far as I can tell they've they've. been honorable in everything they've. done with respect to me but what you see. on TV um. there's a lack of trust and my children. and my children's friends have zero. institutional faith in these. organizations that I grew up revering. and one of the things Did your children.

grow up in the area DC? Uh no they were. outside of the DC bubble. I I left DC. you know sometime after I after I. graduated high school but still sort of. keep up and I practice out of DC. That's. where I live. I go there at that's where. I work. That's my life. But it's a much. different core philosophy. It's a. different view of how these institutions. operate and one of the things that if. Trump were to win that really needs to. happen is we need to restore these.

institutions the faith in these. institutions that if State Department is. doing something if the intel agencies. are doing something that they're doing. in the interest of the public. We can't. have the. 51 intel officers suppressing. We can't. have that happening anymore. I mean. that's one of the things that just I you. know. for me what's changed me is. I'm a lawyer. The legal institution is. is of prime importance to me. We cannot. be subjecting lawyers to attack because.

of who they represent. That's. undemocratic. That's unconstitutional. We can't have a philosophy where you. kill all of the lawyers for one side. This whole notion of legal warfare that. we are going to intimidate people. against representing disfavored. political parties under threat of. disbarment. That has to change and. that's something that I'm pretty. passionate about and that's something. that's sort of my. life mission now to the extent I'm. surviving all of this.

We just have to fix these institutions. We have to return them to what they had. So you've decided to fight back. I I. know a bunch of other lawyers who I I. don't think I know anyone who's. equate and subjected to what. you went through but. I know a bunch of people have been. hassled and most of them decided I just. I just want to get away from this. I. don't want anything to do with this. It. doesn't help me in any way. It doesn't. help my kids. My wife doesn't care for. it you know etc. You've decided to fight. Um. what are you going to be doing.

to fix this system? So I mean you are the first person who's. wanted to hear my story. So just getting. the facts out. I mean this has been two. years and I have spoken to so many. reporters. I said you don't have to. believe a word I say. Just read the. transcript. It's all sitting right. there. Nobody wants to touch it. Nobody's ever wanted to report it. Well. in the words of CNN it's not newsworthy. It's not newsworthy. Exactly. And so. getting the word out is important but. I've been really blessed to be working. with the America First Legal which are.

they recognize we can't have a. functioning democracy if lawyers are. operating under this culture of fear. I. think you're the ones who coined the. phrase it's it's a culture of fear that. nobody wants to raise their head above. the waterline for fear that they're. going to be the one who get popped off. and it's very disconcerting. knowing that we have an election coming. up where everyone is determined to have. rule of law enforced and the only way. rule of law is enforced and people have. faith in democracy faith in the. integrity of our elections is if they.

know that there's going to be true. accountability on both sides of the. aisle that the rules are going to be. followed and you cannot have rules in. democracy being followed unless you have. lawyers to help navigate and today as we. speak there's an active ongoing effort. to intimidate Republican lawyers from. engaging in any of this conduct for fear. of getting disbarred for fear of getting. kicked out of their law firms for fear. of being banished from polite society in. the legal circles. I mean I certainly. received.

a bar complaint by 60 some prominent. members of the bar and prominent members. of legal academia. Have you ever seen. any of them since? I've never met any of. them ever. I mean this this was. No. But. but I am now filing bar complaints. I'm doing what little I can do to create. some accountability and transparency. Clearly if it's just me I will be. squished again as quickly and easily as. I was squished the first time. But I have a little window to maybe try.

to create some awareness that we can't. go on as a society where not everybody. has the right to effective lawyers. And. I and I have to say. one of the things that's been really. gratifying of this whole experience. I. mean I have a lot of clients and. a lot of clients who I represent would. have had every opportunity to distance. themselves from me for their own. personal gain. I mean I've I've. represented Newt Gingrich since 1998. I've represented a number.

Senator Kelly Loeffler, Herschel Walker. a lot of a lot of corporate groups who I. won't name because if I name them. that'll cause them harm just the fact. that they're associated with me but they. could have left me out of political. expediency and you learn who your. friends are. None of them did. They. stuck with me said we know you. We know. your core even though there's there's a. risk to us in associating with you as. our lawyer we're going to stand by you. Now there are a lot of people who didn't. do that. A lot of people said whoop this. is you're too hot. We're going to. terminate our relationship with you but. the one gratifying thing out of all this.

you learn who your friends are. You. learn who will stick with you through. thick and thin and like I said it's you. you can't go through something like this. without learning how strong your. relationship is with your spouse. How. strong your relationship is with your. children. How strong your relationship. is with your God. Amen. Like if we. didn't have those pillars and if those. pillars weren't tested every now and. then you never know how strong they are. So the one good thing that comes out of. this is that those pillars of faith and. family and professional relationships. have been stress tested for me to an.

extent that I wouldn't wish on anyone. but withstood that Now we'll see what. the repercussions are of this but that. said that's my mission now is if I can. sort of contribute back to. rebalancing our legal institution or. having some small role in rebalancing. our government institutions to the. respect that they used to have I think. that's a pretty noble mission. At least. it makes what I went through potentially. worth it if you can say that. Well I I do think I mean I can relate to.

a lot of what you're saying. I can empathize and I I do think. learning who your friends are and. finding out that your family really does. love you no matter what. I mean that is. a massive upside. Like that's a. beautiful thing. I personally feel privileged to have. gone through events that have proved. that everyone I love really loves me. back. I know that for a fact. I'm not. guessing. They had an opportunity. They. had an opportunity to go the other way. No it's I mean I'll speak for myself. I.

haven't gone through anything like. you've gone through but you know. It's well worth it just to find out that. your kids really do love you. You know. it's pretty great. Well my mission in life is to make this. worth it and I'm still figuring that. path. So last question what do you what do you. think when you know you flip on the tube. and you see. Liz Cheney and Cassidy Hutchinson. campaigning with Kamala Harris? Yeah well I mean what's what's. particularly painful for me is that the. the basis of that conversation is to.

highlight the importance of ethics and. the importance of government norms. Like. that's the message that's being. conveyed. It's like we're the party that. reveres ethical behavior and by us being. here together we show which side we're. on. That's a very tough message for me to. take. I mean I just think big picture there's. no place more unethical than Washington. I mean they never apologized for the. Iraq war. You know it's like it's that's.

not hard. You know if you can't even apologize for. the Iraq war then you know you're truly. rotten and you know that you are. Does. it drive you crazy when you see them? Well sure because this is all fairly. post-traumatic stress disorder for me. I. mean everything is I mean obviously my. life has changed. My psychology has. changed. I am not the same person I was. I am more difficult to be around. I I do. not trust clients. I am a very hard. person to talk to at times because of. this psychic.

your kind. It's it's being in your. presence. I'm happy to do it but it's. it's very difficult. It's very very. difficult to trust clients. Um but it is. one of those things where you have to. make good come of bad things. You have. to and that's my mission. Don't you find that there you know there. are a lot of people who will betray you. and who are. cruel and hollow and serving evil but. they're also some just absolutely. wonderful people and don't you see them. more clearly now than you did before?

Yeah well and you learn and I'm I mean. clearly it's easy for someone to feel. sorry for themselves. It's easy for me. to feel sorry. But there are people in. prison right now who would did nothing. more than walk through escorted through. the grounds of the capital. There are. people who are subjected to much worse. than what I've been subjected to. And. so, you have to have a perspective. In a. lot of respects, I'm very fortunate. I I. have resources. I have means. I have. contacts. I have very good friends who. have the ability to make things happen.

I'm not helpless in all of this. And this all happened to me. It makes me. much more concerned for people who don't. have access to all of these resources. And it's my mission in life like it's a. lot of people's mission in life to take. care of those people. They can't do this. I can have some. small say in that, and that's what I'm. going to do. Bless you. Thank you for. telling your story. I really appreciate. it. for having me. I'm really grateful for. you. Oh my gosh. It's I you can't say it. enough. It's a corrupt system that um. has no claim on our allegiance at all.

Um that's my view. Thank you. Thank you. So, it turns out that YouTube is. suppressing our show. I know. Shocking that in an election. year with everything at stake, Google. would be putting its thumb on the scale. and preventing you from hearing anything. that the people in charge don't want you. to hear. But, it turns out it's. happening. So, what can you do about it? Well, we could whine about it. That's a. waste of time. I'm not in charge of.

Google. Or, we could find a way around. it, a way that you could actually get. information that's true. It's not. intentionally deceptive. And the way to. do that on YouTube, we think, is to. subscribe to our channel. Subscribe, and. you'll have a much higher chance of. hearing what we say, and we hope you. will.