we should point out nbc news has not yet verified that reporting half what we do have this afternoon is new reaction from a spokesperson for mark meadows. joining me now, luke broad january broadwater, matt miller, and joyce vance. luke, who exactly could be picking up these legal fees for at least it seems a dozen witnesses testifying before the january 6th committee? well, there are two funds that are funding witnesses lawyers. one is the save america pac which is run directly connected to donald trump. the other is the cpac first amendment fund which its director says consults with donald trump and donald trump s allies directly to decide which witnesses it will cover. so these are they offer both free legal advice to the witnesses and then also will pay for their attorneys fees if needed. this came to a head this week when cassidy hutchinson said she had to switch attorneys because she felt only with a new attorney could she be more forthright and testify publicly a
as a huge surprise given the well-established history inside trump world of pressuring potential witnesses in key investigations. washington post lays it out like this, quote. evidence across multiple state, federal and congressional investigations points to a similar pattern. trump and his close allies privately shower potential witnesses with flattery and attention extending vague assurances that staying loyal to trump would be better than crossing him. meanwhile, trump publicly blasts those who offer testimony against him in bluntly personal terms offering a clear example to others of the consequences of stepping out of line. the new york times offers another view of this type of carrot and stick witness pressure campaign reporting this, quote, former president trump s political organization and his allies have paid for or promised to finance the legal fees of more than a dozen witnesses called in the congressional investigation into the january 6th attack, raising legal
is not a direct threat, right? it s not like witness intimidation is, if you don t say this, we will do this. but even just sending a text message like that one, saying he knows you re loyal and you re going to do the right thing when you go in for your deposition, that in and of itself, and correct me if i m wrong, is seen as intimidation. yeah, absolutely. it could be intimidation, it could also be seen as an inducement which is the other way to tamper with a witness, to offer them something in exchange for giving untruthful testimony. we ve talked a lot about referrals from the committee to the justice department. i don t think it really makes much difference whether they refer donald trump for the underlying crimes of january 6th. but this is a clear example of someone actually tampering with the committee s inquiry, where the committee itself is the entity officially being obstructed. and so i would be very surprised if the committee doesn t make a referral here. the justice dep
he s gone and talked to the committee already, just not in a transcribed interview. when he went previously he made clear the one thing he wasn t willing to talk about was any conversations he had directly with the president. of course his communications with the president is what s most relevant to the committee s inquiry. we heard cassidy hutchinson testify that pat cipollone told her that if the president went down and made some of the remarks that he planned to make, that he would put himself in potential legal jeopardy. well, it s very important to know, did he say that to the president as well? did he say that to other people around the president? i agree with joyce, the committee will take whatever they can get from them, because there s no time to take him to court and defeat the executive privilege claims. but we know it would take months and by the time they resolved it, the committee probably wouldn t be in existence anymore. so unfortunately he holds leverage and can resist
specifically quote a person let you know that you have your deposition tomorrow. we want to let you know that he is thinking about you. he knows you are loyal and you are going to do the right thing when you go in for your deposition. a source familiar with the deposition on tuesday is telling us that the person referenced as the person is indeed hutchinson s former boss, mark meadows. mark meadows is denying that in a statement to nbc news, saying, quote, no one, himself, or otherwise has attempted to intimidate or shape miss hutchinson s testimony to the committee. we know committee members are taking this as extremely serious. they said that before. they latched on recently after tuesday s hearing. they re looking into whether there are more messages that could possibly be conversing. whether that could be the reason why some witnesses who don t want to talk and possibly be hesitant to do so.