By Donna July 1, 2022 6:07 pm Category: Politics (0.0 from 0 votes) Rules of the Post Write A New Article How To Post Here Rate this article (5=best, 0=poor)

Pro-Trump groups paid the legal fees for multiple January 6 witnesses, the NYT reported.

It includes Cassidy Hutchinson, who later fired her lawyer and gave damning testimony, the NYT said.

The reported arrangements suggest Trump may be seeking to influence witnesses by paying their legal fees.

Former President Donald Trump's allies and supporters paid the legal fees for multiple people who had provided testimony to the January 6 committee, including the former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, The New York Times reported.

Hutchinson eventually fired the lawyer who was paid for by a pro-Trump group, and went on to provide damning testimony about Trump, the report said.

Two sources familiar with the committee told The Times that they believe Hutchinson's decision to part ways with the lawyer — who had been recommended by Trump allies and paid for by a pro-Trump PAC — likely played a role in her decision to provide new evidence...

The reported arrangements raise concerns that Trump is seeking to influence witnesses in the investigation. The committee has also shown messages from Trump allies to witnesses apparently warning them against testifying.

There are no laws against a third party paying for a witness' legal representation in a congressional inquiry, but the situation may raise some ethical concerns, according to the report. Witness tampering, however, is a federal crime.

Cited and related links:

1. businessinsider.com

Comments Start Below

by Curt_Anderson on July 1, 2022 9:23 pm There are obvious conflict of interest issues when a lawyer is being paid for by Trump or Trump-world. by HatetheSwamp on July 2, 2022 3:16 am Maybe that's why she lied. by Donna on July 2, 2022 7:50 am Really, Hate? That's what you gleened from that? LOL! I can only laugh at you now. Methinks, though, that you're pressing buttons. by HatetheSwamp on July 2, 2022 8:12 am I'm sure that your sources of news are ignoring this, but Ms Hutchinson applied for a job with Trump post-presidency...and wasn't hired. You can pretend that there's nuthin personal here but people who despise Trump, yet aren't obsessed, are not convinced. It's not only pb. Ms Hutchinson's lies, if they are lies, are perfect, hearsay/gossipy lies. She can always say, "Well, I did say, 'to the effect of.'" Brilliant! She's certain to get a ghost written tell all book out of this, at the very least. So, go ahead. Accuse me of pushing buttons. I'll accuse you be being intentionally ignorant... ...AND, conveniently naíve. by Curt_Anderson on July 2, 2022 9:02 am Who says that Cassidy Hutchinson wanted to work for Donald Trump after his presidency? Donald Trump said it but we all know his strained relationship with the truth. There is no evidence that she wanted to work for Trump after he left office. by HatetheSwamp on July 2, 2022 9:18 am And, of course, Ms Hutchinson's relationship with the truth is above suspicious, ain't? Bahahahahahahahahahaha. In fact, she's known for two things. One: Spreading gossip. Two: Being accused of lying by two Secret Service agents who are begging for the opportunity to call her a liar UNDER OATH! by Curt_Anderson on July 2, 2022 9:28 am They're begging to go under oath? I don't think so. They haven't even spoken publicly! They're supposed willingness to testify under oath are all secondhand and anonymous claims. If they really wanted to make under oath statements they wouldn't have had to wait for the committee to invite them. (The committee has invited them back by the way). All they would need to do is find a judge or notary public to make under oath statements. The under oath statement that Ornato would need to make is not what Trump DID in the car but whether or not he TOLD Cassidy Hutchinson that Trump lunged and grabbed the wheel as she recounted the story. by oldedude on July 2, 2022 7:14 pm Actually, if an employee were to take the stand regarding their job, it's very common for that entity to pay for the lawyer (both public and private entities). If it's a personal (civil suit regarding an ex, or something like that) then she pays. Who do you think is paying for the Secret Service agents? That said, I don't know anyone that doesn't have a couple of umbrella insurances to cover this. That would also be normal. This is just another straw pulling exercise by the far left world order. by HatetheSwamp on July 3, 2022 4:20 am Actually, if an employee were to take the stand regarding their job, it's very common for that entity to pay for the lawyer (both public and private entities). Exactly, OD. Of course the Secret Service has its hand in this. These guys were not personal bodyguards. They are employees of the US Treasury Department. The Committee has put the whole US government in a difficult position. What a bunch of hate obsessed morons. This account given by Ms Hutchinson was offered as a result a leading question from the TDSer-in-Chief, Liz Cheney. Honestly, if this testimony was to be given, it should have been given by the eyewitnesses, not by someone who got the story third hand. Apparently, the Secret Service agents are going to contradict the explosive testimony. And, if they do, the Committee will be shamed in the eyes of everyone who's not obsessed with Trump hate. And, the Committee asked for it. If that happens, the Committee brought it on themselves. There's no way this story, if it is true, should have been testified to by anyone but those two Secret Service agents. And, TDSers wonder why people accuse these hearings of being a fascist Show Trial! by Curt_Anderson on July 14, 2022 11:15 am It's been about three weeks since anonymous sources said Ornato wanted to testify under oath. Has he? Maybe he couldn't find a notery public. by oldedude on July 14, 2022 11:43 am It's been about three weeks since anonymous sources said Ornato wanted to testify under oath. First, you're trusting a source that doesn't want to be identified. Could be a setup either way. Secondly, he's already testified, and he hasn't had a second subpoena as far as we know. Thirdly, He works for someone (Secret Service). They have lawyers. Maybe he never said that, or; maybe he has a different story and his people, through lawyers don't want him to testify. OR they feel the J6 committee is just pulling their dicks and they are telling them to piss off. All of these can be true. He has to have a second subpoena to retestify. Or at least notification there are more questions. But honestly, without being a real "court," these subpoenas don't hold much weight. As I said, Congress is still waiting for Benghazi Subpoenas. Go To Top

Find old posts & articles

Show Most Recent Articles Articles by category: Politics+ Religion+ Law & Crime Military News Media History Health Sports+ Humor Entertainment Misc.

Report spam & abuse SelectSmart.com home page