Seth Abramson

All Photos
Rep Liz Cheney (R-WY), in speech tonight: “At this moment, we are confronting a domestic threat we have never faced before– a former President who is attempting to unravel the foundations of our Constitutional Republic.”
Retweeted by Seth Abramson
BREAKING NEWS (CNN, on-air): House January 6 Committee “Concerned” Trump May Be Using the Hundreds of Millions He Raised to Overturn the Election to Pay for Lawyers for Those He Doesn’t Want to Testify Before Congress, “Coercing” Them Not to Do So in What May Be Witness Tampering
Retweeted by Seth Abramson
CONCLUSION/ It’s for this reason I say that any vote for a Republican in this fall’s election is a vote for Donald Trump to be president beginning in January 2025. The GOP is universally backing him for another White House run, in so doing trying to insulate him from indictment.
25/ Having twice gotten away with a massive witness-tampering scheme because DOJ wouldn’t indict a sitting president, Trump is now gambling on DOJ cowardice a third time—he believes they won’t indict an announced 2024 GOP presidential contender who is the presumptive frontrunner.
24/ It’s against this backdrop, and this announcement by the Committee through its member Zoe Lofgren, that we hear rumors that Donald Trump will announce his 2024 presidential run as early as July 4—which (making a national holiday about himself) would certainly be true to form.
23/ As already noted, one of the reasons Trump got away with at least 12 documented federal felonies itemized in the Mueller Report is that he was president, and could only be indicted by Mueller—in Mueller’s mind—with AG say-so. Barr refused to agree to any prosecution of Trump.
22/ The question now is what a House select committee can possibly do in the face of a DOJ that resolutely refuses to apply the laws of the United States as they concern a single man—Donald Trump. And this question is about to get much, much more complicated in the next few days.
21/ I say “Trump gave” money to Meadows, but of course this isn’t accurate. Trump never spends his own money on his crimes. Rather, he’s spending money sent to him by poor grandmothers across the country whose finances have been ravaged by the pandemic. It’s money from the poor.
20/ Having said this, it’s public knowledge that Trump mysteriously gave a seven-figure donation to a foundation associated with Mark Meadows during the period of time he changed his mind about cooperating with the Committee. DOJ thereafter let Meadows off the hook for Contempt.
19/ Not only is Trump no longer POTUS and thus eligible for indictment, the witnesses he’s tampering with are also indictable. This makes it much harder for DOJ to ignore the campaign-finance, wire-fraud, witness-tampering, and obstruction crimes that the Committee is uncovering.
18/ The difference, of course, is that Trump’s 2017 witness-tampering scheme successfully kept Manafort off the table—so DOJ would’ve had to proceed only with Obstruction charges against Trump (who it couldn’t indict then, because he was president). But matters are different now.
17/ The concern is that DOJ will do with this evidence what it did with the evidence it received of a similar character during the Mueller investigation: nothing. The scope of Trump’s ex post facto crimes of Obstruction was so vast that the DOJ threw up its hands and walked away.
16/ What the Committee is saying is that Trump not only authored the largest seditious conspiracy in U.S. history but the largest campaign finance fraud in U.S. history, one of the largest wire fraud scams in U.S. history, and the largest witness tampering scheme in U.S. history.
15/ teasing a 2024 presidential run as an unannounced candidate, which itself was a campaign finance crime. Yet what the $250 million Trump raised through this criminal scheme allowed him to do was pay for the current massive cover-up of the January 6 attack on the Capitol.
14/ All of the money Trump raised after the 2020 presidential election was raised fraudulently from gullible schmucks who were, sadly, the victim of Wire Fraud. None of the money they sent him went to the purposes they were told it would go to, even as Trump got them to pay up...
13/ In fact, Trump is *still* paying off Paul Manafort today. Just a few days ago major media reported that $5 million from Trump’s post-election fund was given to “Event Strategies” to set up the January 6 White House Ellipse event. Paul Manafort is an executive at that company.
12/ The problem Trump had at that time—because his liquid assets are profoundly limited—is that he didn’t have the money to pay for witnesses’ lawyers or for their silence himself. This is why Manafort was given millions by Trump allies as soon as he left the 2016 Trump campaign.
11/ Indeed, the Mueller Report made clear that its outcome would have been dramatically different if investigators had had cooperation from Paul Manafort, who Trump repeatedly tampered with, both directly and indirectly, during the pendency of that federal criminal investigation.
10/ In writing the three books of the bestselling Proof trilogy, I encountered repeated instances of Trump directly speaking with people in his circle about their federal cases as he was sharing a lawyer (and JDA) with them. It was obvious witness tampering, and it always worked.
9/ If all of this sounds like mafia tactics to you, congratulations, you now understand how Donald Trump—who is a career criminal—operates. He has publicly said that his model for a lawyer is the late Roy Cohn, a disbarred criminal. Trump wants his attorneys to be criminals, too.
8/ Then add two more hypotheticals: ▪️ Per the JDA the witness’s lawyer is issuing regular reports to Trump or one of his agents on attorney-client privileged information the witness has given the lawyer ▪️ The lawyer is aware that if he stops doing this, he’ll stop getting paid
7/ Add to that unethical conduct these hypotheticals: ▪️ Trump is paying for the witness’s lawyer ▪️ Trump is paying illegally, from funds raised for a different purpose that can’t be used for this one ▪️ Trump tells the witness they lose the lawyer if they testify against him
6/ You are probably now wondering, or should be, whether it is unethical for an attorney to advise someone to enter into a joint defense agreement when it is not in their own legal interest to do so (while having a conflict of interest because of attachment to Trump). Yes—it is.
5/ Without fail, those in Trump’s sphere represented by attorneys who are part of his sphere—and who have entered into joint defense agreements with him at the urging of these attorneys—refuse to give testimony against Trump *even if it would be in their legal interest to do so*.
4/ Trump has a very long history of ensuring that all of the people who could testify to his criminal conduct are represented by lawyers who he not only has approved but who are actually connected to him—sometimes literally, in the sense that they are his legal counsel as well.
3/ Because Trump hires a lot of people who rely on him to be their patron not just politically but financially, and because federal litigation is expensive, there are many people Trump has brought into his sphere who cannot afford their own attorneys. He takes advantage of this.
2/ Normally a joint defense agreement only exists between individuals who share a common legal interest, and normally there is no particular association between the lawyers representing the two JDA’d individuals—only between the individuals themselves as to their legal interests.
1/ I think I know what the Committee is referring to—as Trump engaged in the same illegal witness-tampering scheme in the Russia investigation and the Ukraine investigation. What he does is create joint defense agreements with witnesses whose legal interests don’t align with his.
BREAKING NEWS (CNN, on-air): House January 6 Committee “Concerned” Trump May Be Using the Hundreds of Millions He Raised to Overturn the Election to Pay for Lawyers for Those He Doesn’t Want to Testify Before Congress, “Coercing” Them Not to Do So in What May Be Witness Tampering
No reason Cipollone shouldn't show up. He can always object to questions that would elicit legitimately privileged information. But at this point, who are you going to protect--the former president or the Republic?…
Retweeted by Seth Abramson
"The Select Committee’s investigation has revealed evidence that Mr. Cipollone repeatedly raised legal and other concerns about President Trump’s activities on January 6th and in the days that preceded," committee members said in a statement.
Retweeted by Seth Abramson
If you were wondering why the Manger Report appeared to be in the bag for Loudermilk from the moment it was launched, I know I am just totally spitballing in the dark here but have you considered the possibility that the tweet below could potentially be relevant to that situation…
Someone just called in to request "Killing In the Name." The host said they were only playing vinyls and that he'd have to dig into the crate for it — then immediately began playing the song.
Retweeted by Seth Abramson
omg the hosts have changed over. Someone called in asking for Slayer. the host: "Slayer? I hardly know her!" then "Killing In the Name" started again
Retweeted by Seth Abramson
Last person to make a request requested "Killing In the Name Of." The host replied, "stick around - i don't know when we'll be able to play it but we will play it" Then immediately launched into "Killing In the Name Of"
Retweeted by Seth Abramson
Vancouver’s KISS-FM radio station 102.9 has not stopped playing Rage Against the Machine’s “Killing in the Name” for the past 10 hours after two beloved morning show DJs were laid off.
Retweeted by Seth Abramson
On today’s Daily: an explosive Jan 6 hearing from a White House insider that could move Trump much closer to facing criminal charges. @lukebroadwater was in the room.…
Retweeted by Seth Abramson
As we heard yesterday, WH counsel Pat Cippollone had significant concerns re. Trump’s Jan 6 activities. It’s time for Mr. Cippollone to testify on the record. Any concerns he has about the institutional interests of his prior office are outweighed by the need for his testimony.
Retweeted by Seth Abramson
Probation! Thank God. I was worried there would be consequences.…
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Oklahoma can prosecute non-Native Americans for crimes committed on tribal land when the victim is Native American.
Retweeted by Seth Abramson
Candidly, 10% of those commenting on this thread need to take a breath, take a step back, and look in the mirror—as you apparently responded with such rage toward a Black rapist (R. Kelly) that you couldn’t see that this thread was about a white one. Which sort of makes my point.
Do people not know that prosecutors wanted 34 years? And that these prosecutors represent the very criminal justice system whose conduct as to Maxwell and Epstein I am—on the evidentiary record—calling lenient? So if *they* wanted 34 years and she got 20, what does that tell you?
Ghislaine Maxwell deserved charges years before she got them. An investigation years before there was one. More charges than she got once she got them. More of a push to get cooperation from her than was ever made. More of a punishment for her lack of remorse than she received.
R. Kelly got what he deserved, full stop. This thread is about Maxwell deserving *more* than what she got and the others I mentioned in my first tweet needing at least a more robust DOJ *investigation* (not serving warrants 18 months after the offense, as with Eastman and Clark).
Apparently more explication is needed. Studies show that race comes into play at every stage of a criminal case: search, seizure, arrest, followup investigation, indictment, jury selection, trial, conviction, appeal, and sentencing. So if you are only looking at sentencing, stop.
I am also surprised that more people do not realize that Maxwell participated in some of the illicit sex she orchestrated. She was not merely a passive observer.
So no, as a former public defender who represented over two thousand white and Black defendants in three jurisdictions I am *not* making some knee-jerk click-bait observation about race in our justice system. My anger comes from years of firsthand experience witnessing injustice.
Had she cooperated; had she shown remorse; had there been any indication whatsoever that she tried to exit the ring she was atop or any evidence she was coerced into her conduct, *maybe* twenty years would be enough while Kelly got thirty. But those are simply not the facts here.
Twiends™ uses the Twitter™ API, displays it's logo & trademarks, and is not endorsed or certified by them. These items remain the property of Twitter. We do not sell followers, we only provide display advertising. Bots & fake accounts are not permitted on twiends. © 2009
Grow Your Twitter Free
Want To Grow Your Twitter?
We help other people find and follow you on Twitter.
Key Info:
Started in 2009
Over 6 million signups
Country targeting provided
We never auto tweet to your timeline
We never auto follow others
We actively moderate our community
Please Share
Please upgrade your browser  chrome