My new essay is up on The Hill, explaining how Cassidy Hutchinsons first lawyer paid by the MAGA affiliated First America PAC attempted to influence her testimony for the benefit of Trump world. Here is the gist:
12/28/2022
Cassidy Hutchinson transcript reveals new low for Trump world
As a low-level aide to Mark Meadows, then-President Trumps chief of staff, Cassidy Hutchinson had been a witness to key events surrounding the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, so it was only a matter of time until she received a subpoena from the House Select Committee investigating the attack. Hutchinson was eventually contacted by Stefan Passantino, who agreed to represent her and promised that she was "never going to get a bill."
But there was a catch. Passantino was above all a creature of Trump world. According to Hutchinson's later description of their relationship, he consistently put Trumps (and Meadows's) interests ahead of Hutchinson's, violating multiple rules of legal ethics and possibly committing a federal crime.
Passantino repeatedly urged Hutchinson to feign ignorance and memory loss. "The less you remember, the better," he instructed her. When she told him what she'd heard about Trump's attempt to join the crowd at the Capitol, Passantino admonished her to keep it to herself. "No, no, no, no, no. We don't want to go there. We don't want to talk about that." Because the Committee had no way of knowing about it, there was no need to share it with them.
The crunch for Hutchinson came when she realized that Passantino's counsel had led her to falsely claim lack of memory in a deposition. "I am fucked," she told him during a break. "I just lied." Rather than help Hutchinson correct her testimony, as required by the ethics rules, Passantino instructed her to keep it up. "They don't know that you can recall some of these things. So you saying l don't recall is an entirely acceptable response," he said. "You're doing exactly what you should be doing."
Passantino has denied wrongdoing, telling CNN that he "represented Ms. Hutchinson honorably, ethically and fully consistent with her sole interests as she communicated them to me."
Unlike judges and juries in criminal cases, a disciplinary panel may draw an "adverse inference" from a lawyers assertion of the Fifth Amendment, concluding that a truthful answer would be incriminating. In the words of Passantinos expressive young client, he is "fucked."
You can read the entire essay at The Hill.
Comments