Stefan Passantino

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.

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.

Correct.

Correct.

I was not at January 6th.

I was not at January 6th.

I was not at January 6th.

I did not plan any insurrections. Right.

I did not plan any insurrections. Right.

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?

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?

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.

Well, some would say, but it's clearly a crime.

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.

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.

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.