The Tucker Carlson Show - Stefan Passantino: Liz Cheney’s J6 Crimes & Mission to Destroy Any Lawyer Who Dares Represent Trump

Episode Date: November 2, 2024

No one has ever gone to prison for the real crimes of January 6th. Liz Cheney destroyed a man’s life to cover up her role in the hoax. Here’s what really happened. (00:22) The January 6th Aftermath (05:24) What Role did Liz Cheney Play in the J6 Committee? (12:18) Cassidy Hutchinson’s Pivotal Testimony (32:27) Was Hutchinson’s Testimony True? (50:24) How CNN Manufactured the Narrative Against Passantino (59:07) The Intimidation Tactics Used Against Trump’s Lawyers (1:17:07) Hutchinson’s Motive (1:27:30) The Destruction of Evidence Paid partnerships with: Eight Sleep Get $350 off the Pod 4 Ultra https://EightSleep.com/Tucker  Levels https://Levels.Link/Tucker 2 extra months free Meriwether Farms https://MeriwetherFarms.com/Tucker Use promo code “TCN24” to save Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Whether it's a family member, friend or furry companion joining your summer road trip, enjoy the peace of mind that comes with Volvo's legendary safety. During Volvo Discover Days, enjoy limited time savings as you make plans to cruise through Muskoka or down Toronto's bustling streets. From now until June 30th, lease a 2025 Volvo XC60 from 1.74% and save up to $4,000. Conditions apply. Visit your GTA Volvo retailer or go to volvocars.ca for full details. Welcome to the Tucker Carlson Show.

We bring you stories that have not been showcased anywhere else. And they're not censored, 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. Check out all of our content at TuckerCarlson.com. Here's the episode. Okay, so I think a lot of us who are watching the January 6th committee hearings, et cetera, particularly those of us who knew Liz Cheney very well, began to suspect that, wow, this is not unfolding in a way that's recognizable. And then you begin to think, well, this could be completely illegitimate.

And then by the end, I'm thinking, and I'm texting this to Liz Cheney, by the way, as it's happening, this seems like police state stuff. You were in the middle of it. So just, if you wouldn't mind setting the story for us, what was your involvement in the January 6th aftermath? Yeah, so on the aftermath side, I'm a lawyer and I'd represented a number of witnesses who were giving testimony before the January 6th committee.

Yep. Mostly uneventful things. I had- What kind of lawyer were you? So, I'm a political lawyer, if you can call such a thing. I'm sort of the living embodiment of a lot of the sort of dysfunction of Washington, D.C. that you need to have such a thing as a political lawyer. Fair.

Dealing with all of the sort of regulatory world of if you want to engage with politicians, if you want to give them money, if you want to lobby them, if you want to give them gifts, if you want to advocate, there's a whole myriad of regulations that surround that, which create professions for people like me to help people navigate what are the rules of the road if I want to communicate. And that includes interfacing with government investigations, oversight hearings, all of those various activities. And so for 30 years, I've been a relatively anonymous lawyer whose job it's been to help people just follow the rules so that they can be heard. They have their opportunity to petition government. That's been my background. I had a sort of career

transforming moment where I went from running the political law compliance shop for one of the largest law firms in the world, a big major international law firm that had massive offices on K Street, heading up that political office to being asked by President Trump to be his deputy White House counsel. So for the first two years of his presidency, they decided that they were going to need someone who had been around the block for a little while to help them navigate. Because remember, unlike most incoming governments, which are staffed by people who have been in government their entire lives, and they just continue perpetuating the machine of being government people who are now working in the White House. That's how we do things in D.C. Except in 2016, when President Trump comes in and is not

only bringing in people who really don't come from the government background, they come from successful business backgrounds, and traditionally, not even so much from public companies. Just not used to the fact that there's myriad Washington rules that are foreign to anyone who's not been part of that world. They think that because voters chose Trump, they have power, but they don't realize voters have no power. Correct. Without a doubt. And my job was to be the person who came in and really helped orient people to how do you navigate this bureaucracy that's called Washington, D.C.? How do you deal with all of the rules that regulate getting the job done that you were elected for? So I was the deputy White House counsel whose job it was to make sure that people understood and followed the rules.

Now, of course, fast-forwarding, it became entirely too delicious. If you have the opportunity to make ethics allegations against Trump's ethics lawyer, that's a story that's too good to check. And so I became known after having gone into that work and having worked for the president. I 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 crosshairs. I did a lot of work for the Trump organization, and I did a lot of work for companies that wanted to interact and engage with the government, but I was no longer a government worker. I went back to being a practicing lawyer in Washington, D.C. And one of the things that that came along is the January 6th

investigation comes along, and that committee blanketed Washington, D.C. with subpoenas. You see a lot of the very big names all having been called in to testify, but there were some 2,000 people that were called before the January 6th committee, including very low-level staffers, very low-level campaign workers, all of whom got knocks on the door from the FBI handing them subpoenas, and all of whom were saying, hey, well, since I'm here handing you the subpoena, you want to just talk a little bit about your role as a junior campaign person or a junior staffer or XYZ within the White House. They were all getting brought in before this net. The scale was much larger than anything that happened during the 1950s and the HUAC period. And the number of people went to prison, much greater than during the McCarthy hearings. I mean, if you're looking for the emergence of fascism in the United States, like, we just saw it. Right.

If I can just say, sorry, I can't control myself. So, what role did Liz Cheney play in this? So Liz Cheney, who was, I guess, technically the vice chair of the January 6th Committee, which is, I don't think, actually technically a constitutional role, but she was one of the people who was running the January 6th Committee. And as they had been blanketing Washington, D.C.

with subpoenas, lots and lots of very, very young people would come back into talking to the folks that was colloquially accrued in Trump world. Hey, I just got contacted by the FBI. They want me to come testify. I have no idea what to do. And so there was a process for some of the younger lawyers to say, well, let's try to find lawyers for these people who will just help them navigate this investigation getting brought before the january are these people who smashed windows in the capitol or assaulted cops no no absolutely

these are the people who happen to have been working in the trump campaign in 2020 or had been working in the white house in 2020 or in some way had something to offer with respect to the dynamic some of them not at January 6th, the protest? Oh, yeah. Nobody who I was representing was at a protest. Everyone who I was representing were people who had either worked in the White House or had worked for the Trump campaign. So they had nothing to do with the January 6th demonstration?

No. The idea was to create a narrative of what was happening inside the White House, what was happening inside the campaign from the election in 2020 through January 6th and afterwards, and to try to create a political narrative of what was happening. And sort of one of the 101 investigative rules is always start with the junior, youngest, most people, intimidate them, get them to say things that you can then use to create a political narrative or whatever the narrative was. And I was, I'd represented a few of those fairly significant folks, but mostly I was being asked to help these very, very young people who

were just getting hailed before this committee to try to give testimony. And it was- And they're using the FBI for this, just to be clear. Oh, yes. No question. I literally, they would hand subpoenas. And I had one very young, she was working in the campaign office, couldn't have been more than 23, 24 years old, who told me the story. Not only did the FBI show up unannounced at her door, but when she answered the door, the FBI said, well, while we're here, you mind if we just ask you some questions about what you were doing? What was President Trump doing? What was the campaign doing with respect to messaging about January 6th? Which to me as a lawyer, correct. campaign workers. So she was helping to put out, doing junior research of what was now colloquially called the stop the steal effort, that they were going after these younger folks trying to find out what it was that they were talking about. And to me as a lawyer, in order for the system to work, full transparency also requires that people's rights be protected. And that includes the right that you have somebody there who's protecting your interests.

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

Correct. There's no craft legislation. Correct. There's no other purpose. Correct. Committees in the Congress do not exist to use the FBI to hound their political opponents into prison, correct? Correct. And not only that, but the framers of the Constitution made it very, very clear. There are to be three branches of government. There is a legislative branch that is only supposed to be making the laws. It's up to the executive branch to execute those laws and then the judiciary to actually enforce those laws. That's a very clear standard. And when you have a legislative body, and this is what happened to me, and I'm sure we're going to get into it, that decides that they are going to drift beyond their legislative function, their fact-finding function in support of passing legislation, and they're going to move into a law enforcement method.

We don't like this person. This person presents a narrative to us that we don't like. We are going to use the full weight and power of the United States government to try and execute that person without any due process of law. That is completely unconstitutional. And that is ultimately where I found myself at the end of this road.

So that's just, that's a police state function. Exactly. And that is, 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. It's a fact that Liz Cheney broke the law during the course of this investigation. Yeah. I mean, the nice thing I think is there's nothing that I'm going to tell you today that's not written out under oath in testimony that's in black and white for anyone to see. I've just been trying to get people to pay attention and look at it. But as a, and I have filed a lawsuit against the federal government on this point, saying that the federal government abused its power,

and in this case, against me, by incorporating and taking certain information, distributing them out. Obviously, there's a number of things that the government lets you sue them for. There are a lot of things they don't let you sue them for. But one of the things that they did was they really invaded my privacy. And they did that in a way to deny me my civil rights, because it was all in further and further narrative. But you're just the lawyer representing, I mean, our system affords every

accused person accused of a serious crime legal representation, right? Correct. So you didn't, you weren't a January 6th. I was not at January 6th. Have you ever planned an insurrection of any kind? I did not plan any insurrections. Right, so I just want to be clear on this. Like you're not the defendant here. Correct. You're representing low-level staffers

who were not at January 6th, not accused of any crime on January 6th, who had nothing to do with January 6th, and you're just their lawyer because they need a lawyer because the people conducting these investigations are so unscrupulous they can't go in without legal representation. Am I characterizing that correctly? Exactly. And where I found myself in the wood chipper was that one of those people who I represented, who had given some 15 hours of testimony under oath before the committee, then terminated her relationship with me and gave

diametrically different testimony to what had been said before. That's a crime, isn't it? Some would say, but it's clearly a crime. Hold on, no, just without even getting into the specifics of this, which I hope you'll explain to us, but it is not legal to commit perjury, correct? Correct. And it certainly presents something of a conundrum when a witness has presented one set of testimony under oath and then provides testimony under oath, which could be seen as contradictory to the former testimony. And both of those elements of testimony were under oath.

Yeah, that presents a significant potential problem. Try that in a deposition. Correct. You go to jail. Correct. Well, it's one of the lawyer's greatest sort of, that presents a significant potential problem. Try that in a deposition. Correct. You go to jail. Correct. Well, it's one of the lawyer's greatest sort of Matlock

cross-examination that everyone dreams of is, were you lying then or were you lying now? I've been there in depositions. You know, they have the previous transcript.

But I'm only making the point that everyone knows this. This is like really simple. You can't do that. You can't lie under oath. Correct? Correct. So who was this person

and what did she say? So this is Cassidy Hutchinson that we were talking about, who famously testified live before the committee, and that it became extraordinarily well known that she was an extremely powerful witness when she testified live before the committee. And as one of the elements of providing that testimony, there was significant discussion of the fact that she had previously had this Trump lawyer who had effectively coached her not to tell the truth, had coached her to say, I don't recall when in fact she did recall. All of those things were being accused of me as the lawyer. Who was Cassidy Hutchinson? So Cassidy Hutchinson, I don't know that we actually overlapped

in the White House together. And if we did, I didn't know her. But she came in as, I believe, started as an intern. I think she was 25 years old at the time and ultimately rose to a very prominent position with Mark Meadows in the chief of staff office in that she had proximity and access to a great deal that was happening in the White House. And so she was one of these myriad of witnesses, not to my mind, unlike a number of the other witnesses who I had

been bringing before the committee, who might have observed things and might have seen things, had provided her testimony, I thought it was over. It only happened subsequently that I learned that while I was representing her, Liz Cheney was communicating with her behind my back while I was her lawyer. Now, that's a lawyer 101 thing that you're just not allowed to do. One of the things that's set up within our legal rules of ethics in order to prevent an unscrupulous lawyer from manipulating the client is there is a very clear bar rule that says if somebody is represented by a lawyer with respect to a particular matter, you, the lawyer on the other side, don't have the right to communicate directly to that client except through the lawyer. And that rule is in place

to prevent people from circumventing the lawyer. Is this a brand new rule or is it longstanding? This is a longstanding. This is one of those 101 rules. Okay, this is a core rule that any attorney would be aware of. Clearly a core rule. And it's also a core rule that any attorney would be aware of. Clearly a core rule that, and it's also a core rule that you can't do knowingly indirectly, which you can't 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 her staffers, which were lawyers, were also communicating, and she was working through what I would call a cutout, which was Alyssa Farrah Griffin was effectively operating as Cassidy's friend who started the process as a go-between. Alyssa Farrah Griffin is like some TV girl?

She is a prominent TV personality, and also famously not just on The View but also was a I think a contributor for CNN which a lot of folks and I just feel duty-bound to report that she's tremendously stupid I just want to say that because I'm aware of her yes so we were in a meeting here at TCN the other day and I looked around the room and every other person had a kind of ruddy vitality, sort of pink cheeks, alertness, bright eyes, full mental acuity and a cheerfulness you could almost smell. And I asked, why does everyone look so good? And part of the answer, of course, is they like what we do for a living.

It's really interesting. We think it's important. But another reason everyone looks so good is because they'd all had a great night sleep. I'm not making this up. Almost everybody here uses a new sleep technology from a company called Eat Sleep. They sent it to us and everyone here loves it. It's called the Pod. It's a high-tech mattress cover effectively that you add to your existing bed you don't need a new bed or anything like that you just throw this over what you have what it does is it adjusts the temperature of your bed warmer or cooler depending on what you want and it maintains an ideal sleeping environment all night long so i didn't know this but as you progress through different phases of sleep,

your body's needs change. And eight sleep automatically keeps things exactly where they should be in the sweet spot through the entire night. It's been proven to increase the quality of your sleep, the amount you sleep every night. It improves your recovery time from physical exertion, and it may even improve your cognitive performance and enhance your overall health. It seems to be doing that in our office. So it learns and adapts to your sleep patterns over time and automatically adjusts temperatures throughout the night through each phase of sleep. And it does this independently for each sleeper on either side of the bed. That's pretty cool.

So you can sleep well and feel much better and be more effective the next morning as we are here. Try it for yourself. Go to 8sleep.com slash Tucker. Use the promo code Tucker to get an extra 350 bucks off the Pod 4 Ultra. You can try it with zero obligation for a month. And if you don't like it,

just send it back again. That's eight sleep.com slash Tucker better sleep today and look great in your morning meetings as our guys do. Introducing TurboTax business, a brand new way to file your own T2 return all while getting help from an expert who actually knows small businesses. Got a tattoo studio, toy store? Tiny but mighty taco stand? We've got someone who gets small business taxes inside and out. Experts are standing by to help and review while you file, so you know your return's done right. Intuit TurboTax Business, new

from TurboTax Canada. Some regional exclusions apply. Learn more at TurboTax.ca slash business tax. Mom, mom, did you see my race? Of course I did, darling. Look, you did your best. You tried. The thing is, it's not about winning. It's about taking part. Next year you might do better.

But I did win, mom. You did? When it's sunny, make sure you can still see. At Specsavers, get two pairs of glasses from $149 and one can be prescription sunglasses. Hey, the sun won't wait. Visit specsavers.ca for details. Conditions apply. so okay so cassie hutchinson is while you're representing her is communicating with the other side correct and and what that resulted in and we've now learned through some fantastic work that has been done by the house. Chairman Loudermilk of the House Admin 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 Liz Cheney and her staff, both of whom are lawyers and others, effectively to say, we have more we want to say. We have more testimony that Cassidy Hutchinson wants to provide, whether that's because she chose to provide different testimony or because she felt, gee, I just wasn't asked the right questions. Whatever the reason was, there was this backline communication that was created completely unbeknownst to me that there was going to be an opportunity for another investigation of Cassidy Hutchinson. But most importantly to me, it was a parallel element of, well, not only, hey, I want to change

my story and I want to say a lot of really inflammatory things about Donald Trump that I didn't testify to under the previous times when I was before you, but also we're not going to tell my lawyer, this Trump lawyer, that we're having this conversation and we are going to bombard both of you with questions that they had already communicated what those questions were going to be with an effort to try to get me to obstruct Congress in the face of this deposition. It was effectively a law enforcement sting operation to get me to effectively block her, drag her out of there, silence her, stop her from testifying in this third interview. It was a very serious- Wait, so they were setting you up as her lawyer? Correct. And the idea was that they were going to not only get these very inflammatory facts,

new facts out of Cassidy Hutchinson, but in the process of doing that, we're setting up a third interview that I was going to be in attendance at. And at which time, Liz Cheney was going to ask Cassidy Hutchinson certain questions that Cassidy had already fed her, saying, these are things I want to say. And she talks about in her testimony that they knew that I was going to be extremely upset that these questions

were being asked, and the expectation was that I was going to obstruct her, that I was going to drag her out of, I was going to do something. And they did this on purpose? Clearly on purpose. They testified to it. So anyone who's willing to, I mean, most normal people's brains don't even go to places like that. You just don't think that way.

These are the people who, and you don't have to comment, but they set up January 6th itself was effectively, it was fake. And so it's the same way of thinking of thinking. It's not straightforward. It's totally deceptive. It's stealthy. And with respect to this, it was explicitly an off-the-records operation by Liz Cheney. I had this conversation with her staff afterwards. So, you can imagine, we had in the course of, it was in February and March, we had gone through, we'd done

her testimony, we'd done her depositions, she'd given the testimony, those transcripts were out there. And then almost two months later, I get a follow-up phone call saying, Liz Cheney wants to do a special interview with Cassidy Hutchinson, one-on-one, in-purpose person in the Capitol building, which was, all of which was highly unusual because all, every other investigation conducted by the January 6th committee was being done either by Zoom or in person with numerous representatives from the committee, their staff, members, if they wanted to attend, could attend. This one, I was told, must be in person. It's going to be just Liz Cheney, just her staffer, just me, just Cassidy Hutchinson.

And the way that they set this up, you'll remember this is in 2022, when all of the federal government was completely in lockdown because of COVID. There was no public access to the people's house. You couldn't get in. But we were going to be afforded access for the purpose of this special interview that was going to be conducted. And it was very surreal because as we were led into this deposition and we walk in, it was the top floor of the Cannon office building. There's a little antechamber off of one of the elevators that was completely closed to the public. And as we were walking through there, me and Cassie Hutchinson, there were Capitol police everywhere. And I remember remarking to myself at the time, this is surreal how in a closed office building,

there are all of these Capitol Police for this interview that I'm conducting with Liz Cheney. I said, it's really surprising she has so much protection in a closed building. What I didn't realize is they were there for me. They were there because the expectation was that when Cassidy Hutchinson testified to the things that she had already

pre-organized, she was going to testify with Liz Cheney, that I might get violent. I might be the one who does something to her. And they had- You're going to get violent? That was the expectation. I am surmising that by the fact that in a closed office building, as I walk into this interview, which was literally only me, Cassidy Hutchinson, Liz Cheney, and Dan George, her staff. And then there was a videographer and a court reporter who were there. It was just us. And there were capitalists everywhere. And you're a physical threat. This is like this weird feminized passive aggression that rules all of our relationships now. And it comes from people like Liz Cheney, like she's out of the closet fascist,

but you're the threat. But the thing that was really interesting and the part that I found particularly unusual is that coming out of that, it was a phenomenon in every one of our interviews that every time after Cassidy Hutchinson had testified while I was representing her, there would suddenly be leaks in real time about the fact she had testified, what a great witness she was. And my obvious initial assumption is this committee is leaking on me immediately, as soon as my client goes in. And it was my job to protect her. My job, she was somebody who had presented to me as saying, I don't want to testify. I don't like the January 6th committee. I don't want to do any of this. How do I get through this process

and be able to have a job on the back end? That was the mission as it was presented to me. I will testify if I have to, but I want to be able to get through it. But these leaks kept happening. And I kept assuming that it was the January 6th committee. So after this third interview, the one that I'm describing to you,

which was, there was only four of us in the room, literally as Cassidy and I are in the cab driving out together, I have on my phone a text message that had clearly come while we were testifying, asking me about her testimony. And I was livid about that, that in fact, in real time,

somebody's leaking to the press. So I took a screenshot of that and I sent it to Dan George, the staffer, in real time, somebody's leaking to the press. So I took a screenshot of that and I sent it to Dan George, the staffer, and I was really upset. I sent him a text and I still have all these texts. And I said, well, that was really fast. You guys did that. And I had a subsequent conversation where I said, why are you destroying this poor girl's life by every time she testifies, you are leaking about it. And now you're leaking about this third interview. You're destroying any career opportunities she might've had.

And what Dan George told me, he says, I assure you, this was not us who leaked. Nobody on the committee knew we were doing this interview. It was only Liz Cheney and I. And that Dan George said to me, and in fact, the other committee members would probably be upset if they knew that Liz Cheney had done that.

And he told me all of that in the context of trying to assure me that they weren't the ones who had leaked in real time the fact that we had gone in. But it was extraordinarily unusual to me that there was- So, who did it? Who did the leaking? Yeah. Well, I can speculate, as they say in the horror movies, the call might have come from inside the house. Yeah. It might have been my client, who is...

And in fact, one of the things that... Oh, you think it was Cassidy Hutchinson did that? I have no way of knowing, 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 Cassidy Hutchinson saying, I can't believe what they're doing to you. I have text messages in real time between me, the friend, and Cassidy, in which Cassidy is saying the diametrically opposite.

Stefan wants me to cooperate with the committee. I don't want to cooperate with the committee. And also saying, Stefan assures me that the committee's not going to leak, but I don't trust that. I, and this is Cassidy Hutchinson texting to her friend, I'm going to run my own parallel operation. And she identifies,

I'm going to have a line of communication with the New York Times and Politico. And she's already talking at the very outset of our representation that she doesn't trust that this will stay quiet and that she wanted to run her own investigation. I filed a defamation lawsuit against Weissman, an MSNBC person. I included all of these text messages. Andrew Weissman.

Yes. The federal prosecutor. Yes. Who, as you can imagine, when all these stories came out, I had just unending scorn. But one of the things that Cassie Hutchinson had testified to in her deposition when she was talking about me, among all of the negative and bad things that she said about me, some of which I think were just not true, but largely a lot of which, and it sounds a little weird coming from me, can be explained as a somewhat impressionable person coming in thinking she's going into an adversarial relationship. But one of the things that came out of that was Cassidy was very,

very clear. Stefan never told me to lie, never told me to lie. And that when Andrew Weissman and others literally tweeted, well, her new lawyers are the good lawyers, unlike the lawyer that told her to lie. Well, I just had had enough at that point. It's like, I'm just not going to be a victim anymore. We have defamation laws for a purpose. I'm going to avail myself of them. And in that complaint, the text messages that I've just described to you, I've screenshotted and they're in the complaint. But it was somewhat clear to me from text messages that I've seen that there appears to have been from the very outset, a messaging operation that was being run by my own client completely unbeknownst to me. Now, I'm basing that on just text messages that I've seen and basing it on the fact that Liz Cheney's staffers

assured me nobody else knew that this was happening and they would never leak it because they wouldn't have wanted their own committee to know. And it's ironic. I'm a little almost embarrassed about it now, but in the context of that conversation that I had with Dan George, I had this, I was sort of, I was still at that point sort of a naive institutionalist Washington lawyer. I had grown up in Washington my whole life. I'd been around that. I had incredible respect for the institutions of Washington, for Congress, for the media, for when Walter Cronkite said something, it was a fact. Incredible respect for the agencies, the State Department, the intelligence. And so I was still somewhat in that world where I had this respect. And as I'm having this

conversation with Dan George, the staffer, I'm saying, I cannot believe you guys were leaking literally while we're in there. And he was assuring me he hadn't. I had a conversation with Dan George. I said, Dan George, Dan, you and I are going to work in this town far too long to be playing games with any leaking to the press. And I said, I assure you, I've practiced law for 30 years. This is not how I do business. And I have too much respect for the Congress. And I said, and I have too much respect for Liz Cheney to ever leak. And I asked him at the time, I said,

I want you to please go and tell Liz Cheney how much respect I have for her and that I would never leak something that came out of the committee. Now, Dan George tells me he had that conversation with Cheney, I don't know if they actually did, but all of these are reasons why, to me, I was confronted with a highly, highly unusual scenario whereby there was this small operation that was done, this small interview, lots of security, but I didn't think anything

of it. At the time, it was unusual, but it moved on. It was only later, after I had been fired as Cassidy's lawyer, and after she had testified live on TV, that she subsequently provided lots of testimony describing in detail the nature of our interaction together. And it was in that September transcript that I learned all of these 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 laughed about how surprised I was that a lot of these new facts were coming out. And she literally testifies in that interview that as we're walking out of the Cannon office building, the two of us, we've completed this interview. I didn't obstruct her. The transcripts are there. I never blocked her from testifying. I never told her. I never created objections to coach her. I didn't do any of those things. But she literally describes in her testimony, as we're walking out the door, she turns around to Dan George, literally behind my back, saying something to the effect of mouthing, I'm so screwed. And the Dan George mouths back to her, I'm sorry. Now, when I'm reading this in the transcript, and it's all there for anyone who wants to read it, I realize this whole thing

had been a setup. And if it was simply a question of, well, we just want to get the truth from Cassidy, well, then just fire me, get a new lawyer, let her testify. No, this was very important that I be sitting next to her while she provided this new inflammatory testimony with the eye towards having me obstruct her in some way. Why were they so intent on hurting you? You're just a lawyer. Well, I'm speculating on that, but one could infer that you need to have a reason why testimony changed. Why was it that somebody who provided testimony one way asked open-ended questions where the lawyer didn't obstruct, didn't block the person? In fact, in the first two interviews, the only objections I ever raised was when Dan George was asking really incoherent questions, and I would say,

do you mean this? And he would literally thank me. It's all on the record. You don't have to believe me. Those are the only times I interrupted. But now you have to say, well, now the person who was asked, hey, what happened on the ellipse and tells one story now wants to tell a very diametrically different story about strangling the president, strangling Secret Service or lots of things. Grabbing the wheel of the limousine. These all came out as new evidence. So let's just, can we get specific about some of the allegations that she made in her subsequent interview, which you say contradicts previous testimony?

Yeah. So. So am I misremembering or did, is she the one who said that Trump was such a lunatic that he tried to steer the beast, the presidential limousine from the back? That testimony came for the first time, I believe, in her live testimony. That was the sort of very dramatic testimony where she says, I, you know, they grabbed the clavicle and all of those. That testimony came out live. The two things that- Had she ever told you that before?

No. And I want to be fair to Cassidy, which might seem odd that I'm saying that, but I want to be fair to her because she testifies that in our first meetings, she started to describe to me this traumatic thing that she had heard second or 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 she had raised, oh, I'm very concerned that I heard third hand about a thing that I would have cut her off. I said, look, that's not what you're here for.

You're a fact witness. Your job is to testify to the facts that you know. You're not an expert witness. You're not a speculation witness. You're not a I'm guessing witness. You talk about the facts. They're going to interview every single person who had anything to do with the January 6th incidents. They're going to talk to the drivers, talk to Secret Service. It's not your

job to go and talk about things that you think might have happened. I could have had that. But she threw it out there and on television, it's quite a lurid story. It was everywhere. And okay, so now, two years later, do we know if that was true did anyone ever come forward and say i saw trump grab the wheel of or assault a secret service agent i mean well here's what we do know um we do know that in real time immediately after that live testimony tony ornato who was the secret service detailee i think think he was working the chief of staff's office. I think he was like a deputy of operations. He testified immediately, or at least said publicly, that's not true. And there was another really interesting- And Cassie Hutchinson never claimed

that she saw it. Oh, she was never. This was a second or third hand. And then when she testified- Are you allowed to throw that out in a hearing? Just like I heard that... Yeah, it's not hearsay rules. Okay, you're thinking it's like, well, you can't talk about an out-of-court statement. The rules are a little more wide open than that. You can talk about hearsay. And I would allow witnesses to describe, I heard Fred say X, Y, Z happened. Well, that's something you heard. You are absolutely entitled to testify to all of those things. But what happened in this case is she testified about, I had heard that this happened. Well, the people who would have told her that said,

I didn't talk to Cassidy and that didn't happen. And I knew I was in trouble. I want to back up a little. When I knew that I had just sort of gone from, this was just another client and just sort of an unusual set of circumstances, I had been fired. I had been very publicly fired

because I was a Trump lawyer and she had put out very publicly, I want to testify. I don't feel comfortable having this Trump lawyer. All fair. I mean, that's perfectly her right to do. After all, and then she had given this very dramatic testimony that had been refuted by people who were physically there.

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

and the deposition ends in a very standard way where the investigator says, hey, have you had any other conversations with any witnesses about your testimony today? Have you ever talked to Trump about your testimony? No, I've never done that. It's a very standard set of questions. Have you talked to anyone about your witness other than your lawyer? And he says, no, no, no. He says, oh, wait. He says, actually, I did talk to somebody. He says, immediately after Cassidy Hutchinson testified live on TV, Tony Ornato called me and said, this makes no sense to me. I don't understand.

Why is she doing this? What have we missed? He testified, and this is all in the transcript. It's all out there. But I'm sitting there as now the lawyer that the committee knows used to represent Cassidy Hutchinson was fired because I'm a Trump lawyer. I'm now representing a different witness who is testifying. I had no knowledge that he was going to provide that testimony, but he is now testifying that in real time, either while Cassidy was on TV or in the immediate aftermath, the fact witness with knowledge had called this young person and said, this isn't true. Now, you can imagine for me, as I'm sitting representing this witness,

all of the eyes in the Zoom come to me. And that was when I realized I'm in trouble here because I heard my witness give a story that's inconsistent with the star witness. She had already testified on TV. She was already the star witness for the committee. I knew they can't bury that nugget the way they could have buried everything else because I heard it. And when I saw all of the eyes on that Zoom turn to me was when I knew I am now an inconvenient truth for this, because I heard him testify. Coincidence or not, within a month, I received a DOJ subpoena, criminal subpoena. I'm the subject of a criminal investigation. I also received- This is insane.

I, yes. And I received an email, of course, that I still have from Dan George again saying, we're really concerned that you've been sharing information between clients. We think you have a conflict of interest. And I responded to him. I said, A, lawyers who represent witnesses would have the ability to share information. There's no secret about that. I said, but here, Dan, I'm telling you, I did not tell this young person to say that story. He said that story. I'm telling you it didn't happen. Who is Dan George exactly? So, Dan George is a lawyer. I think that he was one of the senior lead investigators. I worked with him on a number of witnesses. The part that was a little shocking to me is-

He's a congressional staffer. He's a congressional staffer who then went to the Department of Justice after this. I think he might, I don't know for sure. Not really. I think he was working with Jack Smith. I think he might be now in the U.S. Attorney's Office. He might be an assistant U.S. attorney

in Connecticut or somewhere. I don't know. He was in Department of Justice before. He was then staffer. He sounds dishonest. We had a very good rapport. I was surprised by what was happening. And he and I had worked together on some very sensitive things, and I thought we had something of a level of trust. I just know what, I just know the things that happened. I know that right after this young witness gave that testimony that directly contradicted the star witness, that I received a phone call from Dan George basically saying they were very concerned that I had been feeding

this information. And then I got a confirming email from him saying, we had this conversation, you denied that you've shared it. That's all fair enough. But that was when I knew that I was in trouble. And then out of the blue, I start getting DOJ criminal subpoenas that I'm suddenly under criminal investigation. I have no idea what for. I clearly had been part of doing a lot of work representing a lot of Trump-aligned committees. I'd done a lot of work for the super PACs. There was a lot of talk of a lot of Trump-aligned committees. I'd done a lot of work for the super PACs. There was a lot of talk of how was money flow happening. It was, in my mind, still a legitimate area of inquiry for the Department of Justice. I didn't really think a lot of it at the

time. Clearly, I'd never been the subject of a criminal investigation in my life. I don't hope to be again. But that conversation then happened. I then had to hire a lawyer to start providing all of the information. One of the things that was really interesting is the subpoena from the DOJ. We want to know all of your communications with Tony Ornato, which I'd never had any.

And we want all of your text messages and signal messages and everything with Cassidy Hutchinson and all of your other witnesses that you would write. I was clearly getting a forensic criminal audit from the Department of Justice. Was responding to that, but still didn't have super high blood pressure. I just thought that's just a cost of life of working in Washington, D.C., I guess. But it was only later when, out of the blue, I learned that I was effectively going to be made the fall guy for obstruction, all of the obstruction that had happened for Cassidy Hutchinson. And that happened right then. As a way to explain why her testimony changed.

Correct. We did an interview with a woman called Casey Means. She's a Stanford-educated surgeon and really one of the most remarkable people I have ever met. In the interview, she explained how the food that we eat, produced by huge food companies, big food in conjunction with pharma, is destroying our health, making this a weak and sick country. The levels of chronic disease are beyond belief. What Casey means, who we've not stopped thinking about ever since, is the co-founder of a healthcare technology company called Levels.

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

but over time you feel weak and tired and spacey and over an even longer period of time you can get really sick so it's worth knowing what the food you eat is doing to you the levels app works with something called a continuous glucose monitor, a CGM. You can get one as part of the plan or you can bring your own. It doesn't matter. But the bottom line is big tech, big pharma, and big food combine together to form an incredibly malevolent force, pumping you full of garbage, unhealthy food with artificial sugars, and hurting you and hurting the entire country. So with levels, you'll be able to see immediately what all this is doing to you.

You get access to real-time personalized data, and it's a critical step to changing your behavior. Those of us who like Oreos can tell you firsthand. This isn't talking to your doctor at an annual physical, looking backwards about things you did in the past. This is up to the second information on how your body is responding to different foods and activities, the things that give you stress, your sleep, etc., etc. It's easy to use. It gives you powerful personalized health

data, and you can make much better choices about how you feel. And over time, it'll have a huge effect. Right now, you can get an additional two free months when you go to levels.link slash Tucker. That's levels.link slash Tucker. This is the beginning of what we hope will be a long and happy partnership with Levels and Dr. Casey Means. It's one of the saddest things about this country. The country's getting sicker. Despite all of our wealth and technology, Americans aren't doing well overall obesity heart disease autoimmune conditions all kinds of horrible chronic illnesses weird cancers are all on the rise probably a lot of reasons for this but one of them definitely is americans don't eat very well anymore they don't eat real food instead they eat industrial substitutes and it's

not good it's time for something new and that's where masa chips come in. Masas decide to revive real food by creating snacks, how they used to be made, how they're supposed to be made. A masa chip has just three simple ingredients, not 117. Three. No seed oils, no artificial additives, just real delicious food. And I know this because we eat a ton of them in my house. And by the way, I feel great. So you can still continue to snack, but you can do it in a healthy way with chips without feeling guilty about it. Masa chips are delicious. They taste how a tortilla chip is supposed to taste. But the thing is, you can hit them really, really hard, and I have, and not feel bloated or sluggish after.

You feel like you've done something decent for your body. You don't feel like you got a head injury or you don't feel filled with guilt. You feel light and energetic. It's the kind of snack your grandparents ate. Worth bringing back. So you can go to mossachips.com, moss is M-A-S-A, by the way, mossachips.com slash Tucker to start snacking. Get 25% off. We enjoy them. You will too. Remember in 2020 when CNN told you the George Floyd riots were mostly peaceful? Even as flames rose in the background? It was ridiculous, but it was also a metaphor for the way our leaders run this country. They're constantly telling you, everything is fine.

Everything is fine. Don't worry. Everything's under control. Nothing to see here. Move along and obey. No one believes that. Crime is not going away. Supply chains remain fragile.

It does feel like some kind of global conflict could break out at any time. So the question is, if things went south tomorrow, would you be ready? Well, if you're not certain that you'd be ready, you need Ammo Squared. Ammo Squared is the only service that lets you build an ammunition stockpile automatically. You literally set it on autopilot. You pick the calibers you want, how much you want to save every month, then they'll ship it to you or they'll store it for you and ship it when you say so. You get 24-7 access to manage the whole thing.

So don't let the people in charge, don't let CNN lull you into a fake sense of safety. Take control of your life, protect your family, be prepared. Go to AmmoSquared.com to learn more. and so unless they blamed you for that they would have to explain like how exactly did she testify to something completely different one could infer that that was in fact the purpose and and what what had happened which was, the part that really just sort of upended my world and made me then realize the degree to which the institutions were all aligned to create a narrative to further a political purpose as opposed to anything else, was I think this was by December of 2022, I get a phone call from Pam Brown of CNN, who I had known previously, saying, hey, the committee has been talking that they are going to out the various people who are

obstructing Congress, obstructing Cassidy Hutchinson. We are going to identify those people. I said, well, that's great, but I didn't have anything to do with that. And she says, no, we, CNN, are in possession of a transcript that Cassidy Hutchinson gave, 150-page transcript that she gave on September 14th, in which she identifies you, Stefan, as the person who told her to lie, who couched her to say, I don't recall when I do all of these things. We're going to run with that story. And I said, well, I'm telling you, I know nothing of these allegations. I've never heard these allegations.

The January 6th committee never called me as a witness. They called 2000 people. They never called me in. If this is a fact-finding mission, you would think that perhaps I would be called at a minimum to be told- Especially since you're being accused of a crime. Literally a crime. Two crimes, a felony of obstruction, witness tampering. These are,

these are felonies. And CNN tells me we're going to run a story tomorrow in which we are going to identify you as the person who obstructed this witness. We're going to accuse you of a crime. Of course, I was shocked. I said, I've never heard this. I can't really provide a lot of comment. Well, on that Monday, as the story is breaking- So your world is collapsing. My world has not yet collapsed. I, at that point, have now received notice from CNN that tomorrow, Tuesday, they're going to identify me as the person. On that day, on Monday, I receive a phone call from one of Cassie Hutchinson's former friends saying, this is outrageous what they're doing to you. I have text messages that I have previously provided

to CNN and other news networks. And these text messages make clear that you, Stefan, were telling Cassidy to cooperate and she didn't want to cooperate. Now, I have a conversation at that point with Caitlin Polance at CNN, who's the CNN reporter who's running this story before it had come out. And I called Caitlin myself. I said, Caitlin, 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 have a transcript that I have never seen before that is going to make these accusations. But I'm also aware that you are in possession of text messages that directly contradict that narrative. You have Cassidy's text messages saying, Stefan wants me to cooperate.

I don't want to cooperate. I am going to be the one who's going to do this media narrative on my own behind his back. And so I said, Caitlin, I said, I'm not asking you to exonerate me, but if CNN is going to run a story identifying me as a criminal, and you are in possession of additional facts that create exculpatory documents, you have an obligation to run that. And Caitlin Polance's direct quote to me was that's not newsworthy i said how is that not newsworthy this is directly relevant she said that she said that

to me caitlin polance caitlin polance of cnn who is still there at cnn and i then had my lawyer communicate and have numerous conversations where i say, I know, and those text messages we're referring to are the ones that I put in the, in the, she didn't, didn't Caitlin Polance did not deny having those text messages, did not deny said it was not newsworthy. So then at that point, I know this is just crazy. So CNN, just for to state the obvious CNN is participating. They're not covering news. They're participating as, you know, a part of the machine to destroy you. Correct. And it is clear to me that CNN has received confidential congressional documents pertaining to me that I have never seen. CNN had had, for however long it was, CNN had had this transcript to work on the story.

I had no idea of these allegations. This is so corrupt. It's hard to believe. It gets worse for me, unfortunately, which is that story then comes out the next day. And you can imagine what a bombshell it is. Did they include the exculpatory text messages? Oh, never. To this day, never.

And in fact, the things that I begged CNN- What liars, what corrupt liars CNN is. Yeah, I begged CNN. I said, you're going to release a transcript in which a witness is saying that I coached her to lie while I was representing. You have in your possession the actual transcripts of me representing her at a minimum post those two

so that the public can see. Well, let me actually read the transcript of Stefan representing Cassidy Hutchinson and let me judge for myself whether he did the things he was accused of doing. I have text messages with Pamela Brown saying, please, I'm begging you, if you're going to destroy my career and you're going to put up this transcript accusing me, at least put up the others. To this day, I don't think that they have. What if Pam Brown is the chorus? She was a producer. I think that she's moved on. She might've been the one who reached out because she had known me previously.

She's not an on-air person. She was not. She is an on-air person. Right. Okay. So I thought Pamela Brown, right? Yeah. She has a news program and I think she took a hiatus because she was having a child or children, but I think she's back on the air. But I think her involvement might have only been that she was the one who was calling me to just let me know that this was coming, and then saying, but you need to call Caitlin because she's running this. So I begged them, please put this up. I think if you go on CNN today and you say Cassie Hutchinson transcript, the only thing that comes up is the September transcript accusing me.

I don't think you could even find those here. But this is where it became clear that there was this interplay. Not only did I realize that on the day these allegations came out, CNN had all of this already. And it was not lost on me that a lot of the people who were on the January 6th committee who might potentially have had reason to give this

to CNN are now all contributors. Kinziger is over there. Alyssa Farrow Griffin is now a contributor over there. Some of these- They're all being paid by CNN. Some would, yes, clearly being paid. But what was 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 CNN for the first time. It is clear that in addition to working with CNN before breaking this story, the January 6th committee or somebody was also working with the various bar organizations that I'm a member of to set this story up. I literally received bar complaints

created on their own accord within hours of this story breaking. That does not happen unless they have been forewarned that all of this is coming. And as you can imagine- You can see why Trump has trouble getting lawyers. Well- I mean, represent Trump or people around Trump that destroy your life. And that is the real core concern, that it is fundamental to this democracy that everyone have effective assistance of counsel. Everyone has the right. It does not matter if you are a Guantanamo detainee or if you're a Republican. You are entitled to counsel, even if you might be out of favor with the establishment elite. And as Shakespeare said in Henry VI, if you want to destroy a society, the first thing you do is kill all the lawyers. Well, that's what's happening now. Within, I would say, within a few months, I started getting bar complaints filed against me by the various institutional organizations set up. There's a group called the 65 Project, which filed bar complaints. And the 65 Project is named because these are the 65

lawyers that they originally filed bar complaints who had been working with President Trump out of 2020. They advertise. To this day, if you go on the 65 Project website, you will see they proudly advertise a six-figure ad buy that's running right now in the six swing states destined for Republican lawyers saying, do not represent President Trump. You will be disbarred. Do not represent any of these conservatives. We are watching you. That is on their website right now. Any idea who's behind that group?

Yeah, it's a group. There's 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'm actually, I filed a bar complaint against him just recently for this, but these are groups that are designed to intimidate Republicans against representing conservatives. And the whole idea is, it is extraordinarily difficult to get a big law lawyer to represent a Republican. It's just, we can't get those people. You can't be a lawyer in a white shoe or a major law firm and represent a Republican. And this is explicitly advertised. Within maybe a month after I received this 65 Project bar complaint, I get a phone call at 7.30 in the morning from the New York Times saying, we're going to run a story about a group called Lawyers Defending American Democracy that has filed this very, very in-depth bar complaint against you. Would you care to comment?

That was at 7.30 in the morning. By 8.30 in the morning, the New York Times was running this multiple page complaint, alleging, accusing me of numerous crimes, lots of bar violations, saying very proudly, we filed these bar complaints. And this is signed. And you can imagine, I've been an established lawyer my whole life. I revere these institutions. They got more signatories on that complaint. And it's all online. I don't particularly want anyone to read it, but it's there. The bar complaint was signed by, I think they got more than the 51 former intel officers. It was filed by former attorneys general, former deans of various law schools, multiple past presidents of various bars, this who's who of the glitterati of the legal profession, all of whom sign on to this letter. Like I said, law professors, former state

senators, former attorneys general, and what was, of course, most concerning to me was four past presidents of the D.C. bar had signed on to a letter knowing nothing about me other than what had been fed to them, accusing me of crimes to take my license away. Well, for me, I imagine now really, I have to now defend my bar license before the DC bar against a complaint signed by 60-some luminaries, including four past presidents of the very bar that I'm going to be defending myself against. It's pretty easy to feel like the entire world is arrayed against you. You have no chance whatsoever. Now, I have to say, in all fairness, I was pleasantly surprised at how professional the DC Bar and the Georgia Bar were. They conducted a thorough investigation of me and all of these facts. And even in light of all of this happening, the DC Bar dismissed my cases with no discipline.

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

lawyers are going to see it, threatening them, do not represent Trump in any post-election challenge because we will come after your license. And that is clearly an effort to intimidate lawyers against defending anyone's rights, clearly President Trump's rights. It's running in the swing states. They're proudly doing it right now. It's not speculation why they're doing it. They're proudly doing it, and it's having the desired effect. It's very difficult now to get a lawyer who's willing to do election integrity work for Republicans because you know you're putting yourself in the crosshair of this institutional machine. Now, when, you know, clearly CNN breathlessly reported how I was subject to all of these bar complaints, they never reported that

I was cleared of those claims or that my bar was never in jeopardy and that I never received, they never wanted to report any of those things. It's only the story and then move on. But for me, the damage was incalculable. For me, it was impossible to have faith and trust in clients. But it's a concerted effort. And it was one that continued. And the cost must have been real too. Oh, very real.

I mean, as you can imagine, I had criminal complaints against me. I've had bar complaints against me. I have also, I also filed my own lawsuit against the federal government for all of these things. And it was, it's unusual. I filed that lawsuit 18 months ago against the federal government. It takes a long time to do this. I made a lot of factual allegations in that complaint because I knew them to be true in my head. I had lived that experience, but I had no expectations I was going to be able to prove it. Well, Chairman Loudermilk, I have no idea how doggedly conducted investigation, and he actually produced all of the text messages between Liz Cheney and Cassidy describing everything that I had put in my complaint. I never thought it would happen. Why would I assume that Cassidy Hutchinson, while she's doing this, is screenshotting signaled encrypted communications from Liz Cheney and

turning them over to Congress? I had no expectation that she would do that, but she did. Well, I'm glad. She doesn't sound like a genius either, but I'm thankful that she did. So, to Liz Cheney, what crimes do you believe she committed? Well, so, what I firmly believe happened, and I've filed a bar complaint against Liz Cheney, what crimes do you believe she committed? Well, so what I firmly believe happened, and I've filed a bar complaint against Liz Cheney on this, and this is all spelled out, this prohibition. Now, if you're a member of Congress

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

obligations. We have filed the America First Legal. It's done a fantastic job. It's all up on their website. You can read all of it, articulating all of the various ways that the various lawyers who were involved were clearly violating their fiduciary obligations to the bar. But to me, it's not even so much that. What I am most concerned with is it was clear to me that it became politically expedient, it became necessary in order for the political narrative to be presented to the United States that this witness is presenting this bombshell testimony and is unimpeachable in the face of all of the other evidence that might make it impeachable, it became politically expedient to destroy me. And the United States Congress and all of the mechanisms of this legislative, not law enforcement body, was working with CNN and bar groups to bring all and all of the media attention that they had the ability to bring. And I didn't even know there were allegations, all of the might of the federal government was brought to bear to deny me life, liberty, and property with no due process of law whatsoever. Even putting aside this constitutional separation of powers that you

had talked about before, which was the legislative branch is supposed to legislate, the Department of Justice, if they had simply just done a referral, and of course, both Cassidy Hutchinson testifies that she did a criminal referral. Liz Cheney told ABC News that she had done a criminal referral on me. Fair enough, that's the job. Because the Department of Justice has 250 years of regulations that are designed to protect the due process rights of the accused, the DOJ will never comment on or confirm that there's an ongoing investigation pre-indictment. And that's designed to protect the rights of the innocent. Of course. And those rules are there because the Department of Justice's job is to enforce the law. Well,

Congress circumvented all of that with regard to me. They went right from, we need to present a narrative. We need to destroy this person. We are going to use, and literally they highlighted the day before that this was going to come out. They had been rolling out transcripts of all of the various testimony. On that Tuesday, whatever that was, the 22nd or whatever of December it was right before Christmas it was it was it was horrifying um the the hate mail that one receives on Christmas um from I I received um so many beyond like just death threats but so many lawyers emailing me saying, you're a disgrace to the legal profession. I'm thinking to myself, you're a lawyer. You just tried, convicted, executed me without ever hearing from me,

without affording me any due process or a right to confront my accuser. And you're accusing me of being the disgrace to the bar? You're the one who is circumventing all of these things that you were trained in law school. And that's effectively what Congress did as well. It was a concerted effort to create a political narrative. And I was a very inconvenient truth to that. And the fact that the United States Congress, a legislative body, was able to marshal all of those resources

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

No one would listen to me, of course, for an entire week after that. You couldn't even turn on the television. It was panel discussions of, well, Stefan broke the law and he's a lawyer. Should he be disbarred before he goes to jail or should he go to jail and then be disbarred? That was the panel discussion. The give and take was which should happen first. Was it mostly CNN? Well, I mean, certainly MSNBC.

But there was a lot of omission to me. should happen first. Was it mostly CNN? Well, I mean, certainly MSNBC and, but it 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 this story, they knew me, but just, I can't report. My producers will never get this past the editors. I somewhat tuned out and you can imagine it's not just me who's going through this. I've been married for 30 years. I have grown children. I have children who are just about Cassidy's age. And I have to sit, and I lived this experience. I knew what happened between us. Imagine the faith that it takes and the loyalty

that it takes for my wife and for my children to sit and watch on TV these accusations. This is the criminal thing that your dad did or your husband did. And I'll tell you another, another anecdote, which is, I mean, it was one of the sort of most traumatic parts of this whole experience. Yes there. Yes, traumatic experience. So I go through all that, and at the time that all of this is coming out, I am an active subject of a criminal investigation. I'm clearly anticipating that there are going to be litigation is going to be happening. I'm actively pursuing my own lawsuit. I can't speak at that point, and I know if I do, it's my word against an entire world's word. And I have no

doubt that at the end of our relationship, Cassidy Hutchinson was taping me. I have no doubt that they have the ability to pull out snippets. Now, what happened was, now that all these text messages come out that completely track everything that I said, that the text messages that Chairman Loudermilk has produced exactly track the conversations that I was having with Cassidy, where she was saying, oh, Stefan's telling me this. It's exactly the things that I was telling her. It's in real time. It was only later after I'd been fired that all of this changed. But this all happens. And I'll remember that I said, well, I'm not going to say anything. I'm just going to lay low.

I'm anonymous. I'm just going to lay low. Fast forward perhaps a year. On the day that my dad died, I get a notification, Cassie Hutchinson's coming out with a book. And the teaser of the book is explicitly says, and she's going to talk about her interplay with the Trump lawyer who told her lie. So all of a sudden I realize, and of course it's on the day that my father passed away, I'm going to have to relive this entire experience again, and a book tour again, and all of this is, and I am powerless. And I remember that it was

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

the story that she told in the original September transcript got watered down a little bit for the book and the book was still pretty horrific, but it was watered down version of the September. But I remember watching this with my wife and it's just an act of faith for my wife to sit here with me and just stay with me for this. But I remember at the end of that first commercial break, and I'm sitting on the sofa with my wife watching the Rachel Maddow thing. And Rachel Maddow says, and when we come back from break, Cassidy is going to discuss the seven men who sexually assaulted her in the course of her interaction with the Trump world. Cut to break, come back

after. The seven men? The seven men or five men or whatever it was. It's what's on the tape where they say, that's the topic of conversation, the men who sexually assault her. And I'm sitting here and I'm looking at my wife and I say, I promise you, I never touched her. I promise you. But the trauma of it was if she had chosen to identify me as one of the people who had, I was defenseless. I couldn't have denied it if she had said we'd had a relationship or that I had done something unto her. I was helpless. There was nothing that I could have done. Now, fortunately, she never said any of those things. She said that about other people. But it highlights the trauma of going from a fairly well-respected lawyer who doesn't mind going to the grocery store and being seen by their friends to my kids. And it was so much shocking to me the degree to which millennials now, they don't have the same reverence for media. No, no.

I remember sitting down saying, hey, some really bad stuff is going to come out about dad and it's not true. And they're like, we don't believe that. Don't worry about it. And I remember them making the joke to me. It's like, we didn't think you were cool enough to get canceled. And I was like, yeah, well, I guess I did get canceled. But what she said is so true. That is so true. People under 30 wouldn't even occur to them to believe CNN. They don't.

And that- Can I just ask about Cassidy Hutchinson? I'm sure you're prohibited from saying things because it sounds like you're still involved in these suits. But what is her motivation, do you think? So, okay, now this might shock you. It's very possible to take a pretty charitable view of the circumstance that surrounded Cassandra. She testifies at length about a very conflicted trouble, things that I had no knowledge of at the time when I was representing her. But when she gave her September transcript,

what she describes is this traumatic fear of having been a Trump person who thought she was going to go down and work in the office of the former president down in Mar-a-Lago, didn't get that job, had difficulty finding a job because anyone who comes with a Trump label has a very difficult time getting a job. And then she gets wind

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

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

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

while I was representing her, the degree of the conflict was such that when I would stand up and go to the men's room while we were doing a prep session, she testifies, she went onto my computer to look up all of my emails to see who my clients are. Like she was running an investigation on me literally behind my back. Now, I'm not making that up. That's in her testimony. That's crazy. 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 gets the same advice. Your job is to tell the facts as you know them. You don't speculate. You don't guess. is to tell the facts as you know them. You don't speculate. You don't guess. You wait for the next question to be asked. You're not to go and find new facts.

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

with them, when the lawyer gives that same admonition to say, I don't want you to go and seek out facts. I literally said to her, because she wanted to like put together calendars. She wanted to do internet research. I literally said, ironically, it's not your job to write the book on January 6th. I literally said that to her. I said, they're going to interview thousands of witnesses

and those thousands of witnesses are all going to tell their version of the facts and create the mosaic. You only tell the facts that you know, you don't guess. But if you are coming in to say, expecting to be misled in furtherance of somebody else's objective, and you're a 25 year old who's never been through this, I guess it's possible that you could feel like, oh, he's wink, wink, telling me what to do. Exactly. like, oh, he's wink, wink, telling me what to do. So it's possible to, now clearly, and when you

look at the text messages between Cassidy and Alyssa, as they're describing the back channel, all of the things that Chairman Loudermilk has now uncovered, you can see they're having that exact conversation. Stefan says, well, if they're going to bring you in for a third interview, we can't make it look like you're eager to do a third. You'll never get a job. So Stefan's going to tell Dan George, we're only going to comply with subpoena. We're ultimately going to comply, but I want you to have a subpoena so you can tell people later. They described this whole conversation entirely accurately. Those were the conversations we were having. Sometime between that June 6th,

when all these text messages happened, June 8th or 9th, whenever I got fired, and thereafter, things became dramatically different. By September, she was giving testimony to Liz Cheney accusing me of crimes and accusing me of telling her to lie. Things that just, as Chairman Larry McFaul, just don't hold up.

Right, so she's weak and afraid, and so she winds up on Rachel Maddow. Here's something you may not have known. Back in 2015, the Congress of the United States repealed something called the Country of Origin Labeling Act. Now, why is this relevant to you? Well, it means among other things that when you buy beef at

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

It's based in Riverton, Wyoming. We know the people who run it and they're great people and they have great meat. They ship the highest quality meat raised free from growth hormones and antibiotics directly to your doorstep. It's delicious. We eat it a lot, including at this table. These are Americans. These are American made products. And because they're cutting out the grocery store middlemen, their prices are actually cheaper, 10 to 30% cheaper for the best meat. They're the real deal. Again, we eat that meat at this table from Riverton, Wyoming. They're the best. MerriweatherFarms.com. Use the discount code TCN24 and you get an extra 10% off. Again, that's MerriweatherFarms, M-E-R-I-W-E-T-H-E-R

farms.com. It's worth it. This episode is brought to you by Square. You're not just running a restaurant. You're building something big. And Square's there for all of it. Giving your customers more ways to order. Whether that's in person with Square Kiosk or online. Instant access to your sales, plus the funding you need to go even bigger. And real-time insights so you know what's working, what's not, and what's next. Because when you're doing big things, your tools should too. Visit square.ca to get started.

No Frills delivers. Get groceries delivered to your door from No Frills with PC Express. Shop online and get $15 in PC Optimum points on your first five orders. Shop now at nofrills.ca. Okay, so your experience suggests such a level of sinister corruption that it's kind of, I'm going to be thinking about this all week. But let's zoom out a little bit and try to understand what this kind of behavior from Liz Cheney and the professional staff on the committee means for the investigation itself. I'm now convinced that they had no interest in finding out what happened on September, January 6th, September 11th,

all these dates to keep track of. We don't have, you know, they're hiding the videos. They won't answer basic questions about how many undercover law enforcement were there on that day, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. But just to your conclusions, tell me what they are. Do you think this was a good faith effort to find out what happened that day?

Well, no, and I'm guided to a great extent by, again, Chairman Ladermilk. The whole Ladermilk House Admin Oversight Committee investigation, to some extent, and he'll have to speak for himself, I might have started some of that in that when all these allegations came out about me alleging that when I was representing Cassidy, I was doing all of these coaching. I said, well, there's videotape. All I need to do is get the videotape and show it, and that will exonerate me. And I was having trouble getting that videotape. So I called up Chairman Loudermilk. I said, look, I just need some help on this. There are documents that I

need for a matter that's personal to me that I'm working on. Can you get me the videotapes of my representation of Cassie? Because that will, to my extent, to a large extent, vindicate me. And he said, okay, sure, we'll get that. And he realized, he's like, they're all destroyed. Like he realized not only were the documents, these videotapes all destroyed, and this is not speculation. He has letters from Benny Thompson saying, we destroyed the videotapes because we got advice. We didn't have to keep videotapes of what? Of all the witnesses who were deposed. Right. So when I was sitting next to all of the witnesses who provided testimony. Why would you destroy those videotapes? You would wonder why. Now what the committee says, well, we've saved the transcript so we didn't need to keep the video well that was it expensive to keep videos exactly the opposite in fact as a as a legal matter more technical it's the videotape that's the evidence the transcripts just simply

an aid to that because lots of so they destroyed all the evidence well that's what chairman ladder milk has made his mission and he has been dogged in that. And it is Chairman Loudermilk, if I can speak for him, firm conclusion that, in fact, the evidence was manipulated. Chairman Loudermilk, I mean, the House is in Republican hands. They have a speaker who's third from the presidency. His name is Mike Johnson of Louisiana. He could instantly reveal all of this stuff to the public, to whom it belongs, including the many tens of thousands of hours of videotape from January 6th. But they're not doing that. Why is Speaker Johnson allowing this stuff to remain secret at the very moment when Kamala

Harris and the rest of the Democratic Party is campaigning for president on lies about January 6th? Why not release it all and let the public know it's their house? It's their property. It's their property. They own it. They own this government. I'm totally confused as to why Speaker Mike Johnson is doing that. Yeah. Well, I mean, that's perhaps an issue above my pay grade, but at the same time, things were destroyed. In fact, as I recall, perhaps even- This is insane. Your offices had an opportunity to look at a lot of the videotape. Not a lot of the videotape, but, you know, one-tenth of one percent of the existing classified

videotape. And it showed that there was peace inside the Capitol and that uniformed law enforcement were allowing people into the Senate chamber at the same moment they're telling us it's an insurrection. So, like, the videotape that we got, which is a tiny percentage of the existing classified videotape, showed that their story about January 6th is a complete lie. It's totally made up. Well, I heard a rumor, and you can tell me if it's not true, that when some of your producers first started looking through the videotape, there were all sorts of annotations and there were all sorts of cross-references to allow it to be searched. Nobody knew that it was someone affiliated with you was looking at it. And that then subsequently when it was learned that perhaps an outside force associated with you was looking at the videotape, all those annotations disappeared. Yes.

That might be false, but that's what I heard. That's correct. And I got fired shortly after and was attacked, you know, by people. I worked with at Fox News for daring to air videotape that belongs to the public that shows an unexpurgated account of what actually happened. So, like, the complicity of institutions in Washington and maintaining the lie that January 6th was the insurrection by Trumpists is complete. Like, everyone was involved in the conspiracy, actually, from what I can tell. Yeah. I think one of the lessons to take from this is that never again should there be a congressional committee that's not bipartisan.

Now, if there was an error that was made, the fact you cannot have Congress running a what is quasi-criminal investigation like this ever again. Did we ever find out how many undercover law enforcement agents were at January 6th? Do we know that? I don't know. Again, I'm just reading the newspaper like everyone else at this point on those issues. So that's a core question, though. Like, if we're trying to understand what happened, just as an attorney who was involved, and I know you were, you know, involved in trying to help witnesses, you know, but big picture, why wouldn't the public be allowed to know that? Yeah. Well, clearly that, clearly anything that's conducted in the name of the people belongs to the people, just like the building in which that

investigation is conducted belongs to the people. Oh, the people's house. Yeah. Exactly. 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 were going to be shipped off to the archives, but they knew that when the new incoming Speaker McCarthy took power, that he was just going to call those documents back from the archives. And so what happened, and again, I don't know this firsthand, but what I'd heard was that a lot of these documents were then shipped over to the executive branch

to allow the executive branch to give them to the archives so that when McCarthy comes into power and says, hey, I want my documents back, the archivist says, no, no, this came from the executive branch. You have no power. You don't get these documents. We gave them all over to Secret Service or whomever. And that that's been really thwarting congressional inquiry into what happened. It's so corrupt, it's hard to believe this is our government. It certainly had a corrupting impact on me in terms of what happened, how government abused power in a way that should not happen. But it also, you cannot have an ostensible truth-finding organization that has a political objective.

The two are not compatible. If you're going to be searching for the truth, it cannot be. Well, and also, I mean, look, the truth is the Capitol Hill police used deadly force against an unarmed woman on January 6th. There was never any investigation

into why they murdered Ashley Babbitt, which they did. Michael Byrd, who had demonstrated reckless behavior with a loaded firearm, leaving a loaded Glock in the men's room in the Capitol. He murdered, murdered Ashley Beuth. That's my view. But we can't speak authoritatively because there was no investigation into shooting an unarmed woman in the Capitol. The whole thing, like, that's insane. Were there any Republicans, do you know, in the Congress who demanded an answer to these questions?

It doesn't seem like there were. It seems bipartisan, actually. Right. It's been hard-pressed. And I know, as part of my efforts, I was seeking, I said, well, I want to have all the internal staff emails. Let me see the emails that were going on while all of the things that I was interested in were happening. And I'm getting a lot of resistance. Well, we really don't want to, we don't think it's appropriate to turn over staff emails. It's like, Wyatt, we're the public. If there were emails about me that were being sent by official staff, there shouldn't be some proprietary reason

or there shouldn't be some Queensbury rules that says, well, we don't think it's couth for us to be turning over the private emails of our staffers. Well, when I was working in the White House, every single document that we, it was all presidential records, everything was searchable, everything can be, has obligated to be turned over. Why is Congress not subject to those same rules? Why do we not have that same transparency? Why are we clinging to some esoteric notion that, well, it just wouldn't be gentlemanly or it wouldn't be couth for us to reveal staff emails because then maybe they might do that to us. I was like, no, how about you guys only do things in the name of the people

that you're willing to stand behind? How about that being the rule? But that doesn't seem to be. So how is this, we were just talking about this off camera, but maybe you would like to talk about it on camera as the product of Washington, son of someone who worked for the government,

I mean, exactly the same position. How has this changed your view of how the city operates in its institutions? Yeah, well, I mean, it's shocking. Of course, sort of the psychic break of all of that is that we had talked, we had almost the same upbringing, Washington, D.C. private schools. Everyone who was my friend were the children of people who were either in the private sector or public sector working in these revered institutions. And I grew up, and until extremely recently, had nothing but the highest respect for our agencies and the media. I mean, as I said, if Walter Cronkite said it was true, if the State Department- What year in high school were you? I was class of 1984, so I'm a little older than you.

Three years. but same world. Same exact world. All of my friends and grew up having a dad who was from that world doing work that I really respected. That was what I believed. And 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. One of my jobs, as I said, I was the compliance person when I came in, and so we did all of the onboarding. I brought all of these folks in, and it was my job to do hear the rules of Washington briefing for all of the White House staff. Well, I was also the adjunct to the National Security Council.

So it's sort of like a intel arm advisors to the president, which are career staffers primarily. And I thought, well, we're all on the same team now. Trump, we've just come in. I had no idea that Comey was having interviews with Mike Flynn at the same time. I had no idea this was happening, but I thought, well, we're all on the same team.

Let me just invite all of the NSC folks in for the same briefing that I'm doing for the staff because we're all on the same team. And I just naively thought- It's only been eight years, but it seems crazy to even think something like that now. Naive. And so literally I do these briefings

and I get phone calls two days later from the Washington Post saying, we have three people who are in your briefing who all said you said X, and that this is this horrible thing for Trump. And I said, that's A, not true. Why would three people randomly select you, Washington Post reporter, to tell the exact same story to? This kind of sounds like an op against the Trump administration. It was going to highlight, it was something that was not going to paint Trump in a fair light that the ethics lawyer had said, whatever the rules were. And that's when I realized we're not all on the same team here, that there's this operation that's going on. And there's a real sort of psychic disconnect for me because I had tremendous respect for these. And I had tremendous respect for the FBI and the DOJ. And I have to say in all candor with respect to me, as far as I can

tell, they've been honorable in everything they've done with respect to me. But what you see on TV, 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- Did your children grow up in the area, DC? No, they were outside of the DC bubble. I left DC sometime after I graduated high school, but still sort of keep up. And I practice out of D.C. That's where I live. 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 if state department is doing something, if the intel agencies are doing something that they're doing in the interest of the public, we can't have the 51 intel officers suppressing. We can't have that happening anymore. I mean, that's one of the things that just, you know, for me, what's changed me is I'm a lawyer. The legal institution is of prime importance to me. We cannot be subjecting lawyers to attack because of who they represent. That's undemocratic. That's unconstitutional. We can't have a philosophy where you kill all of the lawyers for one side. This whole notion of legal warfare that we are going to intimidate people

against representing disfavored political parties under threat of disbarment, that has to change. And that's something that I'm pretty passionate about. And that's something that's sort of my life mission now to the extent I'm surviving all of this. We just have to fix these institutions. We have to return them to what they had. So, you've decided to fight back. I know a bunch of other lawyers who, I don't think I know anyone who's quite been subjected to what you went through, but I know a bunch of people have been hassled and most of them decided, I just want to get away from this. I don't want anything to do with this. It doesn't help me in any way. It doesn't help my kids. My wife doesn't care for it, you know, et cetera. You've decided to fight.

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 and I said, you don't have to believe a word I say. Just read the transcript. It's all sitting right there. Nobody wants to touch it. Nobody's ever wanted to report it.

Well, in the words of CNN, it's not newsworthy. It's not newsworthy. Exactly. And so getting the word out is important. But I've been really blessed to be working with the America First Legal, which they recognize we can't have a functioning democracy if lawyers are operating under this culture of fear. I think you're the ones who coined the phrase, it's a culture of fear that nobody wants to raise their head above the water line for fear that they're going to be the one who get popped off. And it's very disconcerting knowing that we have an election coming up where everyone is determined to have

rule of law enforced. And the only way rule of law is enforced and people have faith in democracy, faith in the integrity of our elections, is if they know that there's going to be true accountability on both sides of the aisle, that the rules are going to be followed and you cannot have rules in democracy being followed unless you have lawyers to help navigate. And today, as we speak, there's an active, ongoing effort to intimidate Republican lawyers from engaging in any of this conduct for fear of getting disbarred, for fear of getting kicked out of their law firms, for fear of being banished from polite society in the legal circles. I mean, I certainly received a bar complaint by 60-some prominent members of the bar and prominent members of legal academia. Have you ever seen any of them since? Oh, I've never met any of them ever. I mean, this was—no.

But I am now filing bar complaints. I'm doing what little I can do to create some accountability and transparency. Clearly, if it's just me, I will be squished again as quickly and easily as I was squished the first time. But I have a little window to maybe try to create some awareness that we can't go on as a society where not everybody has the right to effective lawyers. And I have to say, one of the things that's been really gratifying of this whole experience, I mean, I have a lot of clients, and a lot of clients who I represent would have had every opportunity to distance themselves from me for their own personal gain. I mean, I've represented Newton, Callista, Gingrich since 1998. I've represented a number, Senator Kelly Loeffler, Herschel Walker, a lot of corporate groups,

I won't name because if I name them, that'll cause them harm, just the fact that they're associated with me. But they could have left me out of political expedience. 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 a risk to us in associating with you as our lawyer, we're going to stand by you. Now, there are a lot of people who didn't do that. A lot of people said, you're too hot. We're going to terminate our relationship with you. But the one gratifying thing out of all this,

you learn who your friends are. You learn who will stick with you through thick and thin. And like I said, you can't go through something like this without learning how strong your relationship is with your spouse, how strong your relationship is with your children, how strong your relationship is with your children, how strong your relationship is with your God. Like if we didn't have those pillars and if those pillars weren't tested every now and then, you never know how strong they are. So the one good thing that comes out of this is that those

pillars of faith and family and professional relationships have been stress tests for me to an extent that I wouldn't wish on anyone, but withstood that. Now, we'll see what the repercussions are of this, but that said, that's my mission now is if I can sort of contribute back to rebalancing our legal institution or having some small role in rebalancing our government institutions to the respect that they used to have, I think that's a pretty noble mission. At least it makes what I went through potentially worth it, if you can say that. Well, I do think, I mean, I can relate to a lot of what you're saying. I can empathize. And I do think learning who your friends are and finding out that your family

really does love you, no matter what. I mean, that is a massive upside. Like that's a beautiful thing. I personally feel privileged to have gone through events that have proved that everyone I love really loves me back. I know that for a fact. Right. I'm not guessing. Right. I'm not just hoping.

Because they had an opportunity. Yes. They had an opportunity to go the other way. No. And they chose not to take that path. I mean, I'll just speak for myself. I haven't gone through anything like you've gone through, but you know,

I'm knocked around a little bit. It's well worth it just to find out that your kids really do love you. You know, it's pretty great. Well, my mission in life is to make this worth it and I'm still figuring that path.

So last question, what do you think when, you know, you flip on the tube and you see Liz Cheney and Cassidy Hutchinson campaigning with Kamala Harris. Yeah, well, I mean, what's particularly painful for me is that the basis of that conversation is to highlight the importance of ethics and the importance of government norms.

Like, that's the message that's being conveyed. It's like, we're the party that reveres ethical behavior. And by us being here together, we show which side we're on. That's a very tough message for me to take. It's so nuts. I mean, I just think big picture, there's no place more unethical than Washington. I mean, they never apologized for the Iraq war. You know, it's like, that's not hard. You know, if you can't even apologize for the Iraq war, then, you know, you're truly rotten

and you know that you are. Does it drive you crazy when you see them? Well, sure, because this is all fairly post-traumatic stress disorder for me. I mean, everything is, I mean, obviously my life has changed. My psychology has changed. I am not the same person I was. I am more difficult to be around. I do not trust clients. I am not the same person I was. I am more difficult to be

around. I do not trust clients. I am a very hard person to talk to at times because of this. You seem pretty balanced to me. You're kind. It's being in your presence. I'm happy to do it. But it's very difficult. It's very, very difficult to trust clients. But it is one of those things where you have to make good come of bad things. You have to. And that's my mission. Don't you find that there, you know, there are a lot of people who will betray you and who are cruel and hollow and serving evil, but they're also just absolutely wonderful people. And don't you see them more clearly now than you did before? Yeah. Well, and you learn. And 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 did nothing more than walk through, escorted through the grounds of the Capitol. There are people who are subjected to much worse than what I've been subjected to. And so you have to have a perspective. In a lot of respects, I'm very fortunate. I have resources. I have means. I have contacts.

I have very good friends who have the ability to make things happen. I'm not helpless in all of this. And this all happened to me. It makes me much more concerned for people who don't have access to all of those resources. And it's my mission in life,

like it's a lot of people's mission in life, to take care of those people. They can't do this. I can have some small say in that, and that's what I'm going to do. Bless you. Thank you for telling your story. I really appreciate it.

Thank you for having me. I'm really grateful for that. Oh my gosh. I can't say it enough. It's a corrupt system that has no claim on our allegiance at all. That's my view. Thank you.

Thank you. Thanks for listening to Tucker Carlson Show. If you enjoyed it, you can go to TuckerCarlson.com to see everything that we have made, the complete library.