Stefan Passantino: Liz Cheney’s J6 Crimes & Mission to Destroy Any Lawyer Who Dares Represent Trump
01:50:36 Share

This episode is brought you by live lock. The holidays mean more travel, more shopping, more time online and more personal info in places that could expose you to identity theft. That's why live lock monitors millions of data points every second.

If your identity is stolen, their U. S. Space restating specialists will fix IT guaranteed or your money back, give more holiday fun and less holiday worry with life lock save up to forty percent your first year visit live lock dog com slash podger terms apply.

Welcome the tucker carson show. We bring you stories that have not been showcased anywhere else. And they are not sensor, of course, because we're not gatekeepers. We are honest brokers here to tell you what we think you need to know. And do IT honestly ly check out all of our content and talk a crossing dot com here, the episode OK. So I think a lot of us who were watching the the january sixth committee hearings at set, particular those of us was training very well um began to suspect that wow, this is not unfolding um in a way that recognizable and then you begin to think, well this could be completely legitimate and then by the end i'm thinking i'm texting this still was training by the way, as it's happening um this seems like police state stuff uh you're in the middle of of IT so just if you wouldn't ind setting the the story for us, what was your involvement in the january six aftermath?

Yeah so on on the aftermath side, i'm a lawyer and I had represented a number of witnesses who were giving testimony before the january six committed here, mostly on evening things. I had, I liberal lawyer, if you can call such a thing, I am sort of the living embodiment of a lot of the sort of dis function of washington, D. C. That you need to have such a thing.

Political world dealing with .

all of those 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 murder of regulations that surround that which create professionals 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 very act activities. And so for thirty years i've been a relatively anonymous lawyer whose job is 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, and they were all the big major international law farm that had massive officers on k street heading up that political office, to being asked by present trump t to be his deputy White house council. So for the first two years of his presidency, they decided that they were going to need someone who had been around the block for a little while here to help them navigate. Because, remember, unlike most incoming governments, which are staff ed by people 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 dc.

except in twenty sixteen 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.

I think that because voters chose trump s 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, dc. 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 council whose job IT was to make sure that people understood and follow the rules.

Now, of course, fast forwarding IT became entirely too delicious. If you have the opportunity to make ethics allegations against trumps 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 did that for two years.

And then I moved effectively to the other side of the gates. I helped represent the companies that were in the crossings. 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 work. I went back to being a practicing lawyer and washing dc. And one of the things that that came along is the january six investigation comes along, and that committee blanket washington, dc. With sap inas.

You see a lot of the very big names all having been called to testify, but there were some two thousand people that were called before the january six committee, including very low level staffers, very low level campaign workers, all of whom got knocked on the door from the FBI, handing them seppa, and all of whom were saying, hey, well, since i'm here handing the pea, you want to just talk a little bit about your role. Has a junior campaign person or a junior staffer or X Y Z within the White house. They were all getting brought in before this that .

much the scale was much larger than anything that happened during one thousand nine hundred and fifties in the hua period um and the other people want to prison much greater than during them a carthy hearings. I mean, if you're looking for the emergence of fashion in the united states, like we just saw, IT, if I can say, can control myself. So what role did this I plan?

So this I who I guess technically the vice chair of the gene meeting, which I don't think actually technically a constitutional role, but he was one of the people who was running the january six committee. And as they had been blanketing washington, dc. With sepia s lots and lots of very, very Young people would come back into talking to the folks which locally accord 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, what's try to find lawyers for these people who will just help them navigate this investigation? Getting brought .

before the genre, these people who smashed windows in .

the capital s these are the people who happen to have been working in the trump campaign in twenty twenty, or had been working in the White house in twenty twenty, or in some way had something to offer .

with respect for not at generate six.

The protest, oh yeah, nobody who I was representing was at a protest. Everyone who I was representing where people who had either worked in the White house or had worked .

for nothing to do with the january six demonstration, no, is a narrow of .

what was happening inside the White house, what was happening inside the campaign from the election in twenty twenty three, january six and afterwards. And to try to create a political narrative of what was happening, and sort of one of the one or one 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 are just getting held before this committee to try give testy.

And if they are using the F. I. For this.

just to be clear, oh yes, I know question I literally they would have seen as and I had one very Young, he was working in the campaign office, couldn't have been more than twenty three, twenty four years old, who told me the story. Not only did the FBI show up unannounced at her door, but when he 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 of messaging about january six, which is a lawyer? correct? There was a.

was this girl at january six.

This girl was a campaign worker. So SHE was helping to put out doing junior research of what was now colloquy called. These stopped the steel 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 june, your person who might have something to offer with respect to what happened in january six, query to me whether the january six even serve the legislature function at all, but stipulating that IT was there for some legislator of purpose people who are providing information under sepa and under oath and under penalty of being found liable for false statements should have somebody there to protect their interest.

You make a point that people may not be work. So the congress is the legislative branch of government, and so the purpose of committed hearings in the congress is to craft legislation, correct? But there's no other purpose, correct? Committees don't, in the converse, do not exist to use the FBI to hand their political opponents into prison. correct?

correct. And only that the framers of the constitution made IT very, very clear. There are to be three branches of government.

There is a legislature 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 legislator of 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 they're legislate of function, they're 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 and constitutional. And that is ultimately where I found myself at the end of this world.

So that's just that's a police .

state function. That's exactly and that that is in fact exactly what what ended up happening to me.

So you discovered in the course of this, I was going to say you believe, but it's not a question of what you believe is the fact that this training broke the law during the course of this investor.

I think the nice thing I think is there's nothing that I am going to tell you today that's not written out under oath in testimony that 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 the losses against the federal government on this point, saying that the federal government abused its power and in this case, against me by.

In CoOperating and taking certain information distributing about. Obviously, there is 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 further in several years. The voyer represent, I mean, our system affords every accused person a serious crime. Legal representation, right? correct. So you didn't were in a january six.

I A U I have you .

ever planned interaction?

Did not plan any interactions.

right? So I just want to be clear on this, like you are not the defendant here, correct? You're representing low level staffers who were not at january six, not accused of any crime and january six who had nothing to do with january six. And you're just their lawyer because they need a lawyer because of people conducting these investigations are so unscrupulous they can go win without legal representation.

My, exactly. And where I found myself in the woodchipper was that one of those people who I represented, who had given some fifteen hours of testimony undergrowth before the committee, then terminated her relationship with me and gave diametrically different testimony to what had been said before.

That's a crime, well.

would say.

just without even getting into the specifics of this, which I hope you explain to. But IT is not legal to commit perjury. Y correct.

correct. O and and IT certainly presents something of a canonical m 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 signal that position correct. Go to jail.

correct? Well, it's one of the lawyers greatest sort of mt. Lock cross examination that everyone dreams of is where you lying then or you lying now.

I've been there in that position. They have the previous transform, only making the point that everyone knows this. This is like really simple.

You can do that. You can't line and out the correct, correct. So who is this person?

And you say, so this is casey hutchinson that we are talking about, who who famously testified live before the committee, and that IT became extraordinary, well known that he 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, he did recall all of those things were being accused of me. As layer was we I don't know that we actually over left in in the White house together. If we did, I didn't know.

But he came in as I believe started as an in turn. I think he was twenty five years old at the time and ultimately rose to a very prominent position with mark metals in the chief of staff office. And that SHE had proximately and access to a great deal that was happening in the White house.

And so he was one of these merit 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, that might have seen things, had provided her testimony. I thought I was over IT only happens subsequently that I learned that while I was representing her, liz Cheney was communicating with her behind my back. Ww, I was her lawyer.

Now that's a lawyer. One or one thing that you're just not allowed to do. One of the things that 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 barrel that says if somebody is represented by a lawyer with respective 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 rules in place to prevent people from circumventing the lord.

Is this brand new rules at long staining.

And well, this is one of those one.

one rule. So this is a core rule that any internet would be aware.

clearly a core rule that and it's also a core that you can't do knowingly, indirectly, what you can do directly, you can't. And this happened here from all 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 heard staffers, which were lawyers, were also communicating, and he was working through what I would call a cut out, which was elisa hira. Griffin was effectively Operating as casita s friend, who started the process .

as a go between. Griffin is like TV girl.

SHE is a prominent, a TV personality and also famously not just on the view, but also was A I think I contributor for CNN.

which a lot of folks and I just feel duty bound to report that she's tremendously stupid. I I just want to say that because I am aware for yes, so we are meeting here at T. C.

Any other day. I looked around, every other person had a kind of rudy vitality or pink cheeks, alertness is 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, 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'd all had a great night sleep are not making this up.

Almost everybody here uses a new sleep technology for the company called eight sleep. They sent IT to us and everyone here loves IT is 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 just the temperature of your bed, warmer or cool depending on what you want. And IT maintains an ideal sleeping environment all night long, so I didn't know this, but as you progressed through different phases of sleep, your bodies needs change, and eight sleep automatically keeps things exactly where they should be in the song 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 have 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 automatic adjust temperatures throughout the night through each phase of sleep. And IT does this independently for each sleeping 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 eight sleep doc com slash tucker, use the promo code tucker to get extra three hundred and fifty bucks off the pod for ultra. You can try IT with zero obligation for a month, and if you don't like you to send you back again, that's eight sleep dog com slash tucker. Better sleep today and look great in your morning meetings, as our guys do.

This episode is brought you by live lock. The holidays mean more travel, more shopping, more time online and more personal info in places that could expose you to identity theft. That's why live lock monitors millions of data points every second.

If your identity is stolen, their U. S. Space restoration specialists will fix guaranteed or your money back. Give more holiday fun and less holiday worry with life lock, save up to forty percent your first year visit life lock 到 com slash podcast ms apply。

Blind stop commas picking off the savings early with black make deals. All of a blind stock on design expert can help me make the perfect selection on your schedule. We can even handle everything from measure to your old town for just one with over twenty five million windows covered line saw com is the number one online retailer of custom window coverings .

get up to forty five percent of sight under free professional measure right now at line. So was reactions.

man.

So okay. So casey hudson son is while you're representing her, is communicating with the other side.

correct? And what that resulted in, and we've now learned through some fantastic work that has been done by the house chairman latterman.

Look of the house had an oversight 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 this chain 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 Cathy hutchinson wants to provide, whether that because SHE chose to provide different testimony or because he felt ja just wasn't asked the right questions. Whatever the reason was, there was this backline communication that was created completely on bone ones. To me, that there was going to be an opportunity for another investigation of caci hutchinson.

But most importantly to me, IT was a parallel element of, well, not only hay, I want to change my story, and I want to say a lot of really inflaming tory things about Donald trump that I didn't testify two under the previous times when I was before you, but also, we are not going to tell my lawyer, this trump lawyer, that we are 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 and law enforcement sting Operation to get me to effectively blocker dragged a of their silence are stopped from testifying. In this third interview .

was they were setting you up as her lawyer, correct?

And the idea was that they were going to not only get these very inflaming facts, new facts, out of casey hudson son, but in the process of doing that, we're setting up a third interview that I was going to be an attendance at, and at which time this chain, I was going to ask casey hutchinson certain questions that casey had already veers. Think 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 will, that I was going to obstructor, that I was going to drag a rather.

I was going to do something.

They did this on purpose, clearly, on purpose.

They test anyone is willing to, that 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 you don't have to comment, but they set up generate six itself was a was effectively uh he was fake um and so it's it's the same way of thinking. Yes, it's not straight forward. It's totally deceptive.

stealthy and we is respective this IT was explicitly and off the records Operation bill's chi, I had this conversation with her staff afterwards. So you can imagine we had in the course of his in february ary in march, we had gone through, we ve done her testimony and we done her depositions SHE. Given the testimony, those transcripts were out there. And then almost two months later, I get to follow what phone call saying this.

Jenny wants to do a special interview with casey hutchinson, one on in purpose person in the capital building, which was all of which was highly unusual because all every other investigation conducted by the general six committee was being done other by zoom or in person with numerous representatives from the committee, their staff members, if they wanted to attend, to attend this one, I was told, must be in person. It's going to be just as chi, just her staffer, just me, just a hutson. And the way that they set this up, you will remember this is in twenty twenty two, when all of the federal government was completely and locked down because of cover, 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 he was very surreal because as we were let into this deposition and we walking in with the top floor of the cannon office building, there's A A little anti chAmber off of one of the elevators that was completely close to the public and is that we were walking through there, me and Cassie harson, there were capital police everywhere I was, and I remember marking to myself at the time. This is surreal.

How can I closed office building? There are all of these capital police for this interview that i'm conducting with liz chai as a cheat. Really surprising. SHE has so much protection in a close building. What I didn't realized as they were there for me, they were there because the expectation was that when Cathy hutchinson testified to the things that he had already preorders ized, SHE was going to testify with this chain that I might get violent. I might be the one who does something to her. And you going to get violent was the expectation, and that I am surprizing, that by the fact that in a closed office building, as I walk into this interview, which was literally only me, casti hutchinson, lisa Cheney and dan George, her staff, and then there was a video archive, a court reporter who were there, IT was just us, and they were .

captain europe, physical threat. This is like this weird feminist passive aggression that rules all of our relationships now. And IT comes to be publicly training like she's out of the closet fascist. But you're the threat.

But the thing that was really interesting and and the part that I should 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 casti hutton son had testified while I was representing her, there would suddenly be leaks in real time about the fact he had testified, what a great witness and he was.

And my obvious initial assumptions, 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 six 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? And 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 leagues kept happening and and I kept assuming that I was the january six me. So after this third interview, the one that I am describing to you, which was there was only four of us in the room, literally as a, 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 who's leaking to the press.

So I took a screen shot of that, and I sent IT to din George, the staffer. I was really upset. I sent my text, I still have all these text.

And I said, well, that was really fast. You guys did that. And I had a subsequent conversation.

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 talking about this third interview.

You're destroying any career opportunity you might have had. And what dan George told me, he says, I assure you, this was not us who lead. Nobody on the committee knew we were doing this interview.

IT was only liz chain and I and that danger 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 in the fact that we had gone in. But IT was extraordinary ly .

unusual to me .

that so who did IT? Who did the leaking? Yeah, well, I can speculate as they as they say in the in the horror movies, the call might have come from inside the house. Yeah, that might have been my client who is. And in fact, one of the things .

of you think I was cast into .

that I I have known, we have known, of course. But what I do know is that in real time, when all of the allegations against me broke, I was reached out to by former friends of cash hutched singing. I can't believe what they're doing to you.

I have text messages in real time between me, the friend, and in which cause of saying the diametrically opposite stuff on wants me to CoOperate. The committee, I don't want to CoOperate with the committee and also saying stuff on assures me that the committees not going to leak. But I don't trust that I and this is a hudson and 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 in political, and she's already talking at the very outset of our representation that SHE doesn't trust that this will stay quiet and that he wanted to run her own investigation. I filed a defamation lawsuit against a wiseman A M, S, N, B, C person. I included all of .

these tender ways. Yes, the .

federal prosecution, as you can imagine, when all these stories came out, I had just unending scorn. But one of the things that casey hutchinson had testified to in her deposition, when he was talking about me, among all of the negative and bad things that he said about me, some of which I think we're just not true, but largely a lot of which, and IT sounds a little weird coming for me, can be explained as a somewhat impressionable person coming in thinking she's going into an adversary relationship.

But but one of the things that came out of that IT was casti was very, very clear. Stephon never told me to life, never told me. And that when Andrew wiseman and others, literally tweed, 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 gonna a victim anymore. We have deformation laws for a purpose. I'm going to fail myself of them. And in that complaint, the text messages that i've just described to you, i've screen shot there 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 unbaLanced to me. Now I basing that on just text messages that i've seen and basing on the fact that list chinese 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 the George had this, I was sort of, I, I was still, at that point, sort of a naive institutional is washington lawyer. I grown up and washing my whole life. I'd been around that 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 band, George, the staff forum said, 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 is said, dangeau's, then 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 have practiced law for thirty 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 chain to ever leak. And I and I asked him at the time, I said, I want you to please go and tell his chini how much respect I have for her, and that I would never leak something that came out of the committee.

A danger red tells me he had that conversation with china, I don't know, 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, the small international view, lots of security. But I didn't think anything of IT at at the time.

I was unusual, but I moved on. IT was only later after I had been fired, his city's lawyer, and after he had testified live on T. V, that SHE subsequently provided lots of testimony describing in detail the nature of our interact together. And I was in that september transcript that I learned all of these back 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 laugh about how 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 can and office building, the two of us we've completed in interview, I didn't obstructor the transcript or there. I never blocked her from testifying y testifying.

I never told her I never created objections to coach. 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 jane George, literally behind my back, saying something, the effect of mouth and so screwed and the dane George mouse back to her, i'm sorry.

Now when i'm reading this in the transcript is all there for anyone who wants to read IT. I realized this whole thing had been a set up. And if I was simply a question of where we just want to get the truth from castel, 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 and flaming testimony with the eye towards having nee obstructor in some way.

Why are they so intended and 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 provided testimony one way, asked open ended questions where the lawyer didn't obstruct, didn't block the person. In fact, in the first two interviews, the only objections I have erased was when dan George was asking a really incoherent questions and I would say, do you mean this and he would literally thank me it's all on the record 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 has asked, hey, what happened on the eliph and tells one story now wants to tell a very diametrically different story about strangling the present, strangling secret service or lots of things.

having the wheel of the living these .

all came out as new evidence so let just .

can we get specific about some of the allegations that he made in her subsequent interview, which you say contradicts previous testimony?

Yeah so so I am I miss remembering .

or did is he the one who said that trump was such a luna tech that he tried to steer the beast, the presentin limagne.

the back? That testimony came for the first time, I believe, in her live testimony. That was the sort, very dramatic testimony where he says, I, you know, they grab b the cloud and all of this great, that test mony came out alive. The two things that .

he ever told you that before.

no, now. And and I want to be fair to casi, which might might seem odd, i'm thinking, but I want to be fair her, because SHE testifies that in our first meetings, SHE started to describe to me this traumatic thing that he'd heard second or third hand 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 he had raised, oh, i'm very concerned that I heard third hand about a thing that I would have got. I said, look, that's not what you're here for your 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 fact they're going to interview every single person who you had anything to do with the january six incidents. They're going to talk to the drivers, talk to secret service. It's not your job to go and talk about things that you think might have happened. I cheap out .

there on television. It's quite a large story. IT was everywhere. And okay, so now, two years later, do we know that was true? Did anyone ever comfort and say I saw trump grab the wheel of assault a secret service agent?

I mean, here's what we do know. We do know that in real time, immediately after that live testimony, tony or nato, who was the secret service detail, I think he was working the chief of staffs office. I think he's 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 .

casey agency never claimed that he saw .

was he was that this this was a second, a third hand.

And then are you like to throw that out and hearing, just like I heard that yes.

it's not it's not here say rules was okay. You're thinking is like, well, you can't talk about IT out of court statement for the rules are little more wide open than that you can talk about here saying and I would allow witnesses to describe. I heard fred say, X, Y, Z happen.

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 casey and that didn't happen and 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 the 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. And then he 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 six, who had been very closely in relating with the Operations people. This is in to imagine those that test mode happened, and 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, have have you had any other conversations with any witnesses about your testimony to? Have you ever talked to trump about you to know i've never done? That's a very standard set of questions that you talk anyone about your witness other than you're lawyer.

He says, no, no, no, await. He says, actually, I did talk to him. He says immediately after casey hudson testified live on T, V, tony or nato called me and said, this makes no sense to me.

I don't understand why 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 Cathy hudson was fired because i'm a trump lawyer. I'm now representing a different witness who is testifying.

I had no know ledge that he was going to provide that testimony, but he is now testifying that in real time, either wild custody was on T. V. Or in the immediate aftermath, the fact witness with knowledge had called this Young's 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 he 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 not an inconvenient truth for this, because I heard him testify. Coincidence or not, within a month I received A D O J seppa criminal seppa.

Any subject of a criminal investigation. I also has sane. I, 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 interests and I responded to him, I said a lawyers who represent, which is would have the ability to share information, there is no secret about that, I said. But here then i'm telling you, I did not tell this Young person to say that story. He said, that story i'm telling you, I didn't happen.

Who is the in George? exactly?

So they in George is a lawyer. I think I think that he, he, he was one of the senior lead investigation. I worked with him on a number of witnesses. The part there was little shocking to me as .

he he's a congressional .

staff progression al staffer, uh, who then went to the department of justice after this. I think he might I don't. I think he was working with j.

smith. I think he might be now in the U. S.

atterley. office. He might be assist in U. S. Attorney and connect cut or somewhere I don't know, but he wasn't department of justice before he was then he .

sounds as honest.

We had a very good report. 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 you are very concerned that I had been feeding this information and then I got a confirming email from him saying we had this conversation you'd denied that you've 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 D O J criminal sippens that I am 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 committee. S, I done a lot of work for the super packs. There was a lot of talk of how was money flow happening.

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 thing is that was really interesting is the sepa from the deo James. We want to know all of your communications with tony or nato, which i'd never had any, when we want all of your text messages and signal messages and everything with cat huge, and send in all of your other witnesses that you would write. I was clearly getting a forensic criminal audit from the department of justice was responding that but still didn't have super high blood pressures that that's just a cost of life of working in washington in being a thump er, if you haven't been supine, I guess you haven't really practice 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 cash hutchinson.

And that that happened is a way to explain why her testimony changed. correct. We didn't interview that with a woman called casey means she's stanford to educated surgeon, and really one of the most remarkable people I have ever met in the interview.

He explained how the food that we eat produced by huge food companies, big food, in conjunction with farma, is destroying our health, making this a week and seek country the levels of cloning, disease or beyond belief. What casey means, we've not stop thought, thinking about ever since, is the code of a healthcare technology company called levels. And we are proud to announced today that we are partnering with levels.

And by proud, I mean sincere ly. Proud levels is a really interesting company in a great product that gives you insight into what's going on inside your body, your meta lic health, that helps you understand how the food they are eating, the things you're doing every single day or affecting your body in real time. You put stuff in your mouth being for myself anyway, and you don't think about IT.

You've no idea what you're putting in your mouth. You've no idea what is doing to your body. But over time, you feel weak and tired, and spaces and over even longer paid time can get really sick.

So was worth knowing what the food you eat is doing to you. The levels. APP works for something called the continuous blue coast monitor, A C G.

M. You can get one as part of the planet. You can bring your own IT doesn't matter. But the bottom mine is big tech, big farmer and big food, combined together to form an incredibly moez lent force, pumping newton of garbage and healthy food with artificial sugars and hurting you and hurting the entire country.

So with levels you be able to see immediately what all of this is doing to you, you get access to real time, personalize data, and they take critical step to changing your behavior. Those of us who like oros can tell you, first hand, this isn't talk king in your doctor and annual physical looking backwards about things you did in the past. This is up to the second information and how your body is responding to different foods and activities that seems that give you stress your sleep at sea, sea, it's easy to use, gives you powerful personalized health data, and 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, three months when you go to levels dot link slash tucker. That's levels dot link slash tucker is the beginning of what we hope will be a long and happy partnership with levels. And doctor casey means.

And so unless they blamed you for that, they would have to explain, like how exactly did SHE testified something a pretty .

different one couldn't firm that that was in fact, the purpose and and what what had happened, which was shocked in the part that really is sort of up ended my world and and made me then realized the degree to which the institutions were all aligned to create a narrative to further a political purpose, as opposed anything else, was I think this was by december of twenty twenty two.

I got 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 casey hutchinson. We are going to identify those people I said, well, that's great, but I didn't have anything to do with. And he says, no, we CNN are in possession of a transcript that casti hutchinson gave, one hundred and fifty page transcript SHE gave on september four, teeth in which he identifies you step on as the person who told her a lie, who coached her to say, I don't recall when I do all of these things, we are 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 six command never called mesa witness.

They called two thousand people. They never called me. And if this is a fact finding mission, you would think that perhaps I would be called, at a minimum to be to.

since you actually crime.

film obstruction, witness tampering ing, these 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 are going to accuse you of a crime. Of course, I was shocked as that i've never heard this. I can't really provide a lot of comment well on that monday.

as the star world is collapsed.

my world is not yet collapsed. I at that point have never received notice from scene and 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 casey hudson'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, steffon, we're telling active to CoOperate and SHE didn't want to CoOperate. Now I have a conversation at that point with kitchen poland at CNN, who's the CNN reporter who's running this story before head come out. And I called kate lin myself.

I said, katine, I am aware that you're going to run this story that is going to literally accuse me of a crime. And i'm 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 caused these text messages of saying stuff on 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, kelan, I said, i'm not asking you to exonerate me, but if CNN is gone to run a story identifying me as a criminal, and you are in possession of additional facts .

that sculptor and tory documents.

you have an observation to run that. And celine pollenz direct quote to me was, that's not news worthy. I said, how's that not news worthy? This is directly really, that he said that to me in polls of CNN, who is still there at CNN. And I then had my lawyer communicate and have numerous conversations. I say, I know, and those text matches were referring to are the ones that I put in.

He didn't didn't kate and poland did not deny having those text.

did not deny, said, I was not news worthy. So then at that point.

I know this is just crazy. So CNN just for to state the obvious, CNN is participating or not cover news. They're participating as you 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 this so corrupt. It's hard. Well, he gets worse for me, unfortunately, which is that story then comes out the next day, and you can imagine what a .

bomb shell is did did they include the exploration .

text to this day? And in fact, the things that .

that I bet liars, corrupt liars.

CNN ah I beg CNN I said you are going to release a transcript in which a witnesses 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 tools that the public can see well, let me actually read the transcript of stuff on representing cassidy hutchinson son and let me judge for myself whether he did the things he was accused of doing. I have text messages with panel around saying, please, i'm begging you if you're going to destroy my 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 .

what if the Brown, Brown is the SHE was a produced .

or I think that he is, she's moved on. SHE might have been the one who reached out because he had known me .

previously SHE on person he SHE .

was not SHE isn't another personal SHE has .

a news program and I think .

he took a higher he was having a child or children and but I think she's back on the air and but I think her involvement I have only been that he was the one who was calling me to just let me know that this was coming and then saying, but you need to call k land because she's running that so I beg them, please put this up I don't I think if you go on CNN today and you say Cathy hudsons and transcribe the only thing that comes up as the september transcript accusing me, I don't think I don't think you could even find those here.

But this is where I 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 we are on the january six committee who might potentially have had reason to give this to scene are now all contributors. Kenza gar is over there.

Eliza hair, griffith now contribute over there. Some of these dropping hate by a, some would, yes, clearly being paid. But what? What was particularly painful for me was two 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 three hours. The dc bar does not Operate within three hours based on seeing something on scene for the first time.

IT is clear that in addition to working with CNN before breaking the story, the january six 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. It's 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 and .

see why trump has trouble getting lawyers, well, me represent trump p or people around trump to .

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 council. Everyone has the right IT does not matter if you are a guantanamo detainee or if you are a republican, you are entitled to council, even if you might be out of favor with the establishment elite.

And as shakespeare said in Henry the six, 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 organization set up.

There's a group called the sixty five project which filed bar complaints. And the sixty five project is named because these are these sixty five lawyers that they originally file bar complaints who had been working with president trump out of twenty twenty, they advertised to this day. If you go on the sixty five project website, you will see they proudly advertise a six figure ad by that's running right now in the six wing states, destined for republican lawyer saying, do not rep.

Resent president trump, we, you will be disparted do not represent any of these conservative. We are watching you. That is on their website right now.

Any idea who's behind that group?

Yeah, it's a group. There's a lawyer out of utah. I am actually I filed a bar complaining against I M 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 extraordinary ily difficult to get a big law lawyer to represent a republican is just we can't get those people. You can't be a lawyer in a White, you, or a major laughter and represent a republican.

And this is explicitly advertised within maybe a month after I received this sixty five project bar complaint, I get a phone call at seven thirty the morning from the new york time saying we are 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 come? And that was at seven thirty in the morning.

By eight thirty in the morning, the new york times was running this multiple page complaint, uh, alleging, accusing me of numerous crimes, lots of bar violation. Say, very proud. Ly, we found these bar complaints, and this is signed.

And you can imagine i've been an established more in my whole life. I reveal these institutions. They got more signature on that complaint in all online. I don't particularly want to want to read IT, but it's there. The the bar complaint was signed by I think they ve got more than the fifty one former intel officers.

IT was four filed by former tennis general, former deans of various law schools, multiple past presidents of various bars, this whose who of the glitter of of the legal professional, all of whom signed on to this letter, like I said, law professors, former state senators, former tourneys general, and what was, of course, most concerning to me. He was four past president of the dc bar had signed onto a letter knowing nothing about me other than what had been fed to them accusing me of crimes to take my license so well. For me, I imagine now, really, I have to now defend my bar license before the dc bar against the complaint signed by sixty, some luminary, including four past presence of the very bar that i'm gonna defending myself against.

It's pretty easy to feel like the entire world is a rate 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 war, they conducted a thrown 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 because I was too cynical at that point to .

believe it's also, I mean, considering the number of actual criminal layers I know who behaved in a criminal way. I mean, most lawyers I know, I would classify his criminals and know them ever get their bar license is bult I made IT doesn't this is not a self policing profession and just.

is just not no and and yet.

but they are going after you. But if you represent trump, then that that trigger the enforcement.

And they are explicit messaging today, as we're talking right now on the sixty five 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 threatened 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 trumps 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 there. They're proudly doing IT and it's having a 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 cross hair of this institutional machine.

Now when you clearly seen and bread lesser reported, how I would have 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 said they never wanted to report any those things. It's only the story and then move on. But for me, the damage was invaluable. I for me, IT was impossible to have faith and trust in clients. And but it's it's a concerted effort and and he was one that the .

cost must have been real too. Oh.

a very, 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 that was, it's unusual. I felt that lawsuit eighteen months ago against the federal government, IT, takes a long time to do this. I made a lot of factual allegations in the complaint because I knew them to be true in my head.

I had lived that experience, but I had no expectations. I was going to be able to prove IT was basically one person's word against an entire industry, y's word as to what had happened I was shocked at, and I filed that complaining. Anyway, I made all of these allegations that i've describing here.

I made those allegations in writing eighteen months ago. Well, chairman latter milk, I have no idea how doggedly conducted investigation. And he actually produced all of the text messages between liz chaining and casey describing everything that I had put in my complaint.

I never thought I would happen. Why would I assume that? Cathy hudson, son, what she's doing this is screenshot signalled encrypted communications from cast from liz Cheney and turning them over the congress. I I had no expectation that he would do that, but he did .

glad she's not like genus either. But i'm thankful that he did show to list chaining what crimes do believe .

SHE committed. Well, so what I firmly believe happened and i've filed a bar complaint against this change on this. And this is all spell I did um this prohibition.

If you are a member of congress and you write the laws of the country, you have the privilege of shield ding yourself from a lot of the consequences of your own actions. It's built right into the constitution, a speech and debate class. You cannot go after a sitting number of congress for anything they do in furtherance of a legitimate legislature or purpose.

I don't think this was that, but put that as at 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 he is a member of the bar and I have black and White evidence that in fact, he acted in away that contrary to her professional obligations we have filed, the amErica first legal is on 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 are 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 bomb shell testimony and is unreachable in the face of all of the other events that might make IT impetuous IT became politically expedient to destroy me and the united states congress and all of the mechanisms of this legislation of not law enforcement body was working with CNN and bark groups to bring all and all of the media attention that they had the ability to bring. And I didn't even know their allegations. All of the might of the federal government was brought to bear to deny me life, liberty and property with no due e process of law whatsoever.

Even putting aside this constitutional separation of powers that you had talked about before, which was the legislative branch has supose to legislate the department of just as if they had simply just done a referable. And of course, both casti hutchins and testifies that he did a criminal referred this. Cheney told abc news that he had done a criminal referral.

Me, fair enough. That's the job because the department of justice has two hundred and fifty years of regulations that designed to protect the due process rights of the accused. The D.

O, J will never comment on or confirm that there's an ongoing investigation principal, and that's designed to protect the rights of the innocence, of course. And those rules are there because the department of justice is jobs to enforce the law. Will 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 gonna out.

They had been rolling out transcripts of all of the various testimony on that tuesday whatever that was the twenty second or whatever of the same was right before Christmas IT was IT was horrifying um the hate mail that one receives on Christmas um from T I I received um so many beyond like this death read s but so many lawyers email and you think you're disGrace to the legal profession I am thinking to myself you're a lawyer you just tried, convicted, executed me without ever hearing for me without affording me any due process or right to confront my accuser and you're using me of being the disGrace to the bar. You're the one who is circumventing all of these things that you were trained in 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 in inconvenient truth to that and the fact that the united states congress, a legislator body, was able to martial all of those resources in an unconstitional, tional way to destroy me. There's, 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 martial all of the legislative resources we have in conjunction with outside bark 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, Stephen broke the law and he's a lawyer, should he be disparted before he goes to to jail or should go to jail and then be that was the panel discussion. The take was which had happens mostly seen in, well, I mean, certainly M S N B.

C. And but he was there was a lot of omission to me. 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 the story? They knew me but just I can't report my producers will never get this past the other as um I I somewhat turned out and and you can imagine it's not just me who's going through IT. I've i've been married for thirty years.

I have grown children. I have children who are just about cassidy age, and I have to sit and, and I live 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 i'll tell you another another anc, which is I I mean IT IT was one of the sort of most traumatic .

parts of .

this whole there. 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 they are going to be litigation is going be happening. I'm actively pursuing my own last. I can't speak at that point, and I know if I do, it's my word against an an entire world's word. And I have no doubt that at the end of our relationship, Kathy hudson son was taping me. I have no doubt that they have the ability to pull out slipper's note.

What happened was, now that all these text messages come out that completely track everything that I said, that the text message that chairman latter milk has produced, exactly track the conversations that I was having with casey, where SHE was saying old stuff on telling me this is exactly the things that I was telling her it's in real time. He was only later, after I ve been fired, that all of this changed. But this all happens and on and I, and i'll remember, I said, well, i'm not going to say I was going to a low.

I'm anonymous. I'm just gonna low. Fast ford, perhaps a year on on the day that my dad and I get a notification, Cathy hutchins, since coming out with a book and the teaser of the book, is explicitly says, and she's going to talk about her interplay with a trump lawyer who told her life.

So all of a sun, I realized, and of course, it's all the day that my father passed away. I'm going to have to relieve the entire experience again and a books tour again. And all of this is an, I am power less.

And I remember that IT was extraordinary traumatic. I think her first was he goes on Rachel medal. The first time is like sort of the first launch from this, from this bookstore.

And i'm sitting there on the sofa with my wife, and I know whatever words come out of her mouth with Rachel medal in this in live interview, i'm going to own. My wife is going to own. My children are gonna for the rest of their lives.

Whatever allegations are made, i'm going to own. And SHE went through, and he told the story. Now, at this point, the story that he told in the original september transcript got water down a little bit for the book, and the book was still prety horrific.

But I was water 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 matter thing. And Rachel matto says, and when we come back from break, casey is going to discuss the seven man who sexually assaulted her in the course of her interaction with the trump world. Cut to break, come back.

Seven men.

the seven men or five man or whatever was IT. It's what it's what's on the tape where they say that's the topic of conversation the men who who's sexually solter and i'm sitting here, i'm looking at my wife and I say, I promise you I never touched her.

I promise you we can and but the trauma of IT was if SHE had chosen to to identify me as one of the people who had I was defenseless, I would, I couldn't have denied IT if he had said we'd had a relationship or that I had done something onto. I was helpless. There was nothing that I could have done.

Unfortunately, he never said any of those things. He said that about other people, but at 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 have everyone to do these things as he really a criminal and you know, all faith and credit to her for sticking by me into my kids. And if I was somewhat shocking to me, the degree to which millennial s now they don't have the same reference for media. I remember sitting down, I hate some, some really bad stuff is going to come out about dad and it's not true and I they're like, we don't believe that. Don't worry about and I remember that making the joke me is like we didn't think you were cool enough to get cancelled and it's like, well, I guess I did get cancelled.

But what he said is so true, so true people under thirty won't occur r them to believe cna they .

don't and and that and can .

ask what cai husson and i'm sure you're prohibited from saying things because sounds you're still involved um in the suits but what is her motivation?

Do you think so? okay. Now this might shock you. It's very possible to take a pretty charger view of the circumstances that surrounded casing SHE testifies that link the body, body very conflicted trouble, things that I had no knowledge of at the time when I was representing her. But when SHE gave her september transferred. What he describes is this traumatic fear of having bit trump person who thought he was going to go down and work in the office of the former president, dana morocco didn't get that job, had difficulty finding a job because anyone who comes with trump labels is very difficult time at her job. And then he gets win, that she's going to be receiving the sepa. And I didn't know any of this, but SHE testifies to IT that she's traumatized about the consequence of, and that he talks about how he went to all these different lawyers trying to find a layer who would represent her, and how these lawyers, for what we should have been a one day deposition, were asking one hundred and fifty thousand dollars or ten just this traumatic experience of funding a lawyer.

She's totally alone and .

exactly and he also testifies how she's having these conflicted conversations with her mother with a former member of congressman. 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 he had finally given up. SHE couldn't afford to hire her own lawyer.

SHE finally had to sort, let the devil into the house and hire me to represent, have me represent her. And that SHE was extraordinary ily conflict. He came into our relationship with an adversarial mindset that I was completely unaware of.

SHE thought everything he told me, I was going to turn right around and tell trumps. 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, was all things he said to me. And there are all things they put in text messages to all of our friends. Those text messages are all out there now, but it's very easier 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 steps that when I would stand up and go to the men's room while we were doing a prep section, SHE testifies. SHE went on to my computer to look up all of my email to see who my clients are like. He was running an investigation on me, literally behind my back.

Now i'm not making that up. That's in her testimony. I had no knowledge that there was this adversary 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 gives the same advice. Your jobs to tell the facts know. You don't speculate, you know.

Guess you wait for the next question to be asked. You're not to go and find new facts. You wait for the 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 that question. Every lawyer gives some version of that at this, of course, just like I did. But if you come into a relationship with this hostel mindset that this person is not my lawyer, this person is somebody else's lawyer, and I am forced to work with them when the lawyer gives that same administers, say, I don't want you to go and seek out facts. I literally said to her because he wanted to, like, put together calendars SHE want to do internet research.

I literally said, ironically, it's not your job to write the book on january six, I literally said that her, I said they're going to interview thousands of witnesses and those thousands of witness is are all gna tell their version of facts and create the music. You only tell the facts that you know you don't guess. But if you are coming into that, expecting to be misled in furtherance of somebody else's objective, and you are twenty five world who's never been through this, I guess it's possible that you could feel like, oh, he's wink.

wink telling me, well, what to do.

So it's possible to now clearly and end when you look at the text messages between charity and elisa as they're describing the book channel, all of the things the chairman latter milk has now uncovered, you can see they're having that exact conversation stuff on 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 steff one's going to tell the and George, we are only going to comply with sepa. We are ultimately gone to comply. But I want you to have a seppa say, you can tell people later, you they described this whole conversation entirely accurate.

Those were the conversations we are having sometime between that june six, when all the text methods happened. June eight or nights whenever I got fired. And thereafter things became dramatically different. By september, SHE was giving testimony to lose, accusing me of crimes and accusing me of telling her to lie, things that just as chairman leverman for just don't hold up.

right? So she's weak and afraid. And so SHE was about Rachel. Here's something made out of known. Back in two thousand fifteen, the congress of the united states repealed something called the country of origin labeling act.

And why is this relevant to you? Well, that means of the other things that when you buy beef at the supermarket that says made in the U. S.

A, IT may not actually be. In fact, IT could be likely is from a foreign country. IT means that we packaging foreign meat can be enough to get the made USA designation.

It's a lie. It's an absolute. Most people don't even know it's happening.

So how can you be sure that the meat your eating is from the united states has been raised with the highest quality standards? And is the taste is truly made here? Well, it's simple.

You can go to our friends at marry, whether farms. Marry, whether farms is an american small business is based in riverton ton. And we know the people run IT in their 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 groceries for a midleton, their Prices are actually cheaper, ten to thirty percent cheaper.

For the best me, they're the real deal. Again, we eat that meat at this table from riva che n whale ing. They're the best mary weather farms. Doc, come use the discount code T C N twenty four and you get an extra ten percent off again. That's mary weather farms meer I U E T H E R farms dot com is worth IT.

okay. So your experience suggests such a level of sinter corruption that it's be thinking about this all week. But let's sum out a little bit and try to understand what this kind of behavior from list training 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 on september, september, january six, member eleven. All these dates to give track of, we don't have know they're hiding the video OS. They can they won't answer this questions.

But how many under couple of enforcement there on the day? 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, now and i'm guided to a great extent by, again, chairman latter milk, the the whole latter milk that has had been 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 the city, I was doing all of these coaching and I said, well, there's video tape. All I need to do is get the video tape and show and and that will looks, honor ate me and I was having trouble getting that video tape. So I called up chairman latter.

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 video tapes of my representation of clash? Because that will, to my extent, to logic tent, vindicate me.

And he's okay. sure. We'll get that he realizes like they're all destroyed like he realized not only were the documents, these video tapes all destroyed. And this is not speculation. He has letters from many thoms and saying, we destroyed the video tapes because we got advice we didn't .

have to keep .

of all the witnesses who were the post, right? So when I was sitting next, where all of the witnesses who .

provided I would .

destroy with you, wonder why? Then I would. The committee says, well, we saved the train scrips. So we didn't need to keep the video.

Or that was IT expensive to keep .

video exactly the opposite. And in fact, as a as a legal matter, more technical, it's the video tape that's the evidence. The transcript is simply an aid to that because .

lot of evidence.

well, that's what chairman lam has made his mission and he has been dogged in that. And IT is chairman, if I can speak for him, firm conclusion that, in fact, the evidence was .

a human louder milk. I mean, the houses in republican hands. They have a speaker whose third from the present cy, his name is mike Johnson, a he could instantly reveal all of this stuff to the public. Two humid belongs, including the many tens of thousands of hours a video tape from january six. But they're not doing that.

Why is speaker Johnson allowing the stuff to remain secret at the very moment when common Harris in the rest of the democratic party is campaigning for president on lies about jannero six? Why not released at all and let the public know it's their house. It's their property. They own if they own this government. But i'm totally confused as to why speaker my Johnson is doing that.

Well, I am that person, isy, above my pay grade. But at the same time, things we're destroyed. In fact, as I recall, perhaps even your offices had an opportunity. Look at a lot of the video .

tape and not a video, but you know one tenth of one percent of the existing classified video tape. And that showed that there was peace inside the capital. And the uniformed law enforcement were allowing people into the senate chAmber at the same moment of telling us it's an interaction. So like IT, the video tape that we got, which is a tiny percentage of the existing classic video tape, showed that their story about january six is a complete lies to be made up.

Well, I heard a rumor, and you can tell me it's not true that when some of your producers first started looking through the video tape, there are all sorts of annotations and there are all sorts of cross references to allow you to be surfed. Nobody knew that I was someone to filling ated with you was looking at IT. And that then subsequently, when I was learned that perhaps an outside force associated with you was looking at the video tape, all those animators disappeared. There might be false but that's .

what I heard that's correctly I D shortly after um and was attacked you know by people I I worked with that fox news for daring to air video tape the belongings to the public that shows an account of what actually happened. So like the the complicity of institutions in washington and maintaining the lie that january six was the interaction by trumpets is complete like everyone was involved in a conspiracy. Actually from what I can tell you.

I think one of the lessons to take from this is that never again should there be a congressional committee that's not by party now if there was an error that was made, the fact you cannot have congress running a what is qazi criminal investigation like this ever again.

we will find out how many um uncovered the law enforcement agent were at the six .

do I don't know I again, i'm just reading the newspaper like everyone else at this point .

on on those issues. That's a question though. Try to understand what happened just as an attorney who is involved, and I and I know you are not involved in trying to help witnesses, you know, but big picture, why wouldn't the public be allowed to know that? No.

no 了 呀。 Clearly, anything that conducted in the name of the people belongs to the people, just like the building in which that investigations conducted.

the people's yes and .

the investigation belongs. And I mean, again, 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 we're going to be shipped off to the archives. But they knew that when the new incoming speaker, a carthy, 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 first hand, but what i'd heard was 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 powers says, hey, and what 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 the secret service or whom ever and that's been really thwarting .

congressional inquiry into is so corrupt is hard to believe .

this is our government IT say it's certainly had IT certainly had a corrupting impact on on me in terms of what happened, how government abuse power in a way that should not happen. But IT also, you cannot have an astanding ble truth finding organic Operation that has a political objective. The two are not compatible if you're going to be searching for the truth that cannot be well.

And also I mean, look, the truth is the capital hill police use deadly force against an unarmed woman on january sixth there was never any investigation into why they murdered actually by which they did um Michael bird who had demonstrated recall behavior with a loaded firearm leaving a loaded glock in the men's room in the capital he murdered murdered actually about that my view but we we can speak authoritative because there was no investin into shooting an our updraft in the capital um the whole thing like that can say where there any republicans do you know in the congress who we demanded an answer to these questions IT doesn't .

seem there were heart right. It's been hardness. Ss, and I know as part of my efforts I was seek. I said, well, I want to have all the internal staff emails.

Let me see the emails that we're going on ww, all of the things that I was interested in, we're happening and i'm getting a lot of resistance. Well, we really don't want that. We don't think it's appropriate to turn over staff emails.

So I think wot we're the public, if there were emails about me that we're being sent by official staff, there shouldn't be some proprietary reason or there shouldn't be some queensbury ry rules that says, well, we don't think it's coth 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 searching. Everything can be to has obligated to be turned over wise congress, not subject to those same rules.

why? Why do we not have that same transparency? Why are we cleaning to some esoteric notion that, well, I just wouldn't be gentlemanly or I wouldn't be cool for us to reveal staff emails, uh, because then maybe they might do that to us was like, no, how about you guys only do things in the name of the people that you are willing to stay and behind? How about that being the rule? But that doesn't .

seem to be so how is this um we are just talking about this off camera, but maybe you would like to talk about a long camera as the product of fun of someone who worked for the government. I mean exactly the same position. Um how is this change your view of how the city Operates in its institutions?

yes. Well, I mean, it's shocking. Of course, what are the psychic break of all that? And we had talk, we had almost the same. I of bringing washington cp schools.

Everyone who is my friend were the children of people who were either in the private sector or public sector working in these revealed institutions. And I grew up, and until extremely recently, had nothing but the highest respect for our agencies and the media. And as I said, if if water crank, i'd said I was true.

If you.

I was seven and exact, all of my friends .

grew up having .

a dad who was from that world doing work that I really respected. That was what I believed. 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.

When I one of my jobs, as I said, I was the compliance person when I came in. And so we did all of the on boarding. 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 add june s to the national security council. So it's sort of a intelleck m advisers to the presidents, which are career staffers primarily.

I said, well, we're all on the same team now trump, we've just come and I had no idea that Tommy was having in interviews with michelin. You at the same time, I had no idea this was happening, but I thought, but 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 step because we're all on the same team. And I just naively.

it's only been eight years, but this seems crazy even.

And so literally, I do these briefings and I get phone calls two days later from the washing posting. We have three people who are in your briefing who all said, you said x and that this is this horrible thing for for I said that a not true. Why would three people randomly select you, washington and post reporter, to tell the exact same story to this kind? Sounds like an APP against the trumpet straw.

He was gonna highlight IT was something that was not going to paint trump in a fair light that the ethics lawyer had said whatever the rules were. And that's when I realized we're not all in the same team here that there is 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'd tremendous respect for the FBI in the D. O.

J. And and I have to say in all, kander, with restrict to me, as far as I can tell, they've they've been honorable and everything they've done with respect to me. But what you see on TV um there's a lack of trust and my children, my children's friends have zero institutional faith in these organizations that I grew up revering and one of the things your .

children group in the area.

oh no, they were outside of the D C bubble. I, I, I left D C. You know, sometime after I, after I graduate in high school, but still sort of keep up and I practice how A D, C, if I, if I go there, 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 have state departments doing something.

If the intel agencies are doing something that they're doing in the interests of the public, we can't have the fifty one intel officers suppressing. We can't have that happening anymore. That's one of the things that just you know for me which changed me is i'm a lawyer.

The legal institution is part is of prime importance to me. We cannot be subjecting lawyers to attack because of who they represent. That's undemocratic.

That's on constitutional. We can't have a philosophy where you kill all of the lawyers for one side. This whole notion of legal warfare, we are going to intimidate people against representing this favoured political parties under threat of department.

That has to change. And that's something that i'm pretty passionate about, and that's something that sort of my life mission. Now to the extent of surviving all of this, uh, we just have to fix these institutions. We have to return them to what they so you've .

decided to fight back. I know bunch of other lawyers who I don't think I know anyone, quipped, subjected to what you want through, but any bunch you will been hassled. And most of decided, I 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, doesn't my kids, my wife doesn't care for IT. It's said you 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 believe a word I say, just read the transcript. It's all sitting right there. Nobody wants to touch IT. Nobody else ever wanted to report IT.

Well, in the words of seen.

and it's not news worthy, it's not news worthy. 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 of lawyers are Operating under this culture of fear. I think you're a 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 gonna 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 laws enforced and people have faith in democracy, faith in the integrity elections, is if they know that there is going to be true accountability on both sides of the air, that the rules are going to be followed, and you cannot have rules and democracy being followed unless you have lawyers to help navigate in today as we speak, there's an active ongoing effort to intimidate republic and lawyers from engaging in any of this contact for fear of getting disparted, for fear of getting kicked out of their law firms, for fear of being vanished from polite society and the legal circles. I mean, I certainly received a bar complaint by sixty some prominent members of the bar and prominent members of legal academia.

Have you ever seen any of them since I ve .

never made 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 a society where not everybody has the right to effective lawyers.

And and I have to say one of the things that 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 further own personal again. I mean, i've i've represented newton collister gingrich since nineteen ninety eight. I've represented a number senator Kelly left or hertie works, a lot of a lot of corporate groups.

So I won't name because if I name them, that caused them harm. Just the fact that they associated with me, but they could have left me at a political experience 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 and associating with you as our lawyer, we're going to stand by you. Now a lot of people who didn't do that, a lot of people said, this is your too hot.

We're going to termine our relationship with you. But the one gratifying thing out of all you learn your friends are you learn who will stick with you through thick and thin. And like I said at 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, and have a strong your relationship is with your god.

Like if we didn't have those pillars and if those pillars weren't tested every now, 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 stressed test for me to an extent that I wouldn't wish on anyone, but withstood that. And I will see what the repercussions are of this. But that said, that 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 that.

If you can say that, well, I do think I think I can really do a lot of what what you're saying. I can empathy, and I do think learning who your friends are in 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, not guessing, not.

Just hoping like through anything .

like you gone through but you know not done all bit. It's well worth that just to find out that your kids really do love you. You know it's pretty great.

Well, my mission life is to make this worth IT and yeah.

figuring that path. So last question, what do you what do you think when you know you stop on the tube and you see liz chi and casti hutchinson campaigning with commoner herr's?

Yeah well, I mean, what what's particularly painful for me is that the the basis of that conversation is to highlight the importance of essex and the importance of government norms like that's the message that's being convened like we're the party that reveals ethical behavior and by us being here together we show which side we're on um that's a .

very tough message for me to take so not I mean, I just think big picture, there's no place more unethical than washington. I mean, they never apologized the iraq war. You know it's like it's that's not hard. You know if you can even apologize for the iraq war, you're truly rotten and you know that you are does drive you crazy when you see them.

What's short? Because this is all fairly post traumatic stress disorder for me. I mean, everything I made, 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 do not trust clients. I A very hard person to talk to at times because of baLance to me, your kind that is being in your presence, i'm happy. It's it's very difficult um 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 there are a lot of people who will betray you and who cruel and hollow and serving evil but they're also so just absolutely wonderful people. And don't you see them more clearly? Yeah now then you did before yeah well.

and you learn. And I 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 we did nothing more than walk through, escorted through the grounds of the capital. There are people who are subject to to much worse than what i've been subjected to. And so you have to have a perspective in a lot respect.

I'm very fortunate. I, I have resources, I have means, I have context. 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 concern for people who don't have mission in life, like it's a lot of people's mission in life to take care of those people. They can do this. I can have some small saying, and that's what i'm gonna you.

Thank you for telling a story I really appreciate.

Thank you for having .

them really grateful. Oh, my goi can't say IT enough. It's a corruption. Stem has no claim on our allegiance at all. That's my view.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thanks for listen to stock across some show. If you enjoy IT, you can go to talk to cross in the calm to see everything that we have made the complete library, cross dock.