Stefan Passantino
speaker
273 appearances
1 recordings
1 series
first heard Nov 2024
last heard Nov 2024
Stefan Passantino’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.
Trend
recordings per month · last 12 monthsNo recordings in the last 12 months.Older appearances are listed below; set an alert to hear about the next one.
Appearances
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.
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 of 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. There was a... Was this girl at January 6th? This girl was a campaign worker. 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.
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.
Exactly. And that is that is, in fact, exactly what what ended up happening to me.
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... And 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 stuff.
Correct.
I was not at January 6th.
I did not plan any insurrections. Right.
Correct. Am I characterizing that correctly? You are, 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?
Well, some would say, but it's clearly a crime.
Okay. 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.
Showing 21–40 of 273 · page 2 of 14
← Previous
Next →