Instead of him, right-wing activist Roger Stone has asked the House Select Committee to examine former Donald Trump adviser Katrina Pierson.
“Given what I know,” Stone posted on his Telegram account, “I am perplexed as to why the January 6 committee has not issued a subpoena to Katrina Pierson, in other words someone deeply involved in the violent and unlawful acts of January 6, rather than me, given that I was not there and have no advance knowledge or involvement whatsoever in the events at the Capitol that day.”
He provided a snapshot of Pierson’s mug image from her 1997 arrest for stealing.
Roger Stone throws Katrina Pierson under the bus. pic.twitter.com/viB6PdD1AH
— HG Tomato 🍅 Wash Your Hands (@HGTomato) November 25, 2021
Stone is the latest Trump ally to face subpoenas from the House committee probing the Jan. 6 insurgency, along with conspiracy theorist webcaster Alex Jones.
Previous reports have indicated that Pierson served as a “liaison” between the White House and major organizers of the “Stop the Steal” event, which led demonstrators into the violent Capitol assault. Experts believe Stone was also engaged in the plot, with a photograph of Stone accompanied by Oath Keepers on the morning of the assault circulating immediately after the incident, and one captured Capitol rioter reportedly claiming investigators he offered Stone a lift to Washington.
Stone isn’t the only one pointing fingers at Pierson.
Former Trump White House adviser Omarosa Manigault-Newman said on MSNBC on Saturday that the House select committee investigating the Jan 6th Capitol riot is on the right track by focusing on Trump aide Katrina Pierson if they want to get to the bottom of White House involvement in the insurgency.
Manigault-Newman told presenter Alex Witt that investigators must “follow the money” and that Pierson, who has been subpoenaed, may reveal a treasure mine of damning evidence.
“What about the House select committee that’s investigating the January 6th attack on the Capitol, issuing 11 more subpoenas, all for people who helped organize the rally right before the mob went on the attack?” host Witt began. “Among them, 2016 Trump campaign spokesperson Katrina Pierson. I’ve interviewed her. I know that you know her. Are you surprised by this?”
“I’m not really surprised because not only was Katrina one of the organizers, but she was behind the money, you know, and every scandal, it’s ‘always follow the money,’” Manigault-Newman replied. “And because she was so involved with raising money and organizing the events, I believe the committee is right in subpoenaing her. She’s going to have a lot of information, and she had a lot of insight on what they knew and when, and I truly believe because of Donald Trump’s violent instincts that he knew that things would probably get out of hand.”
“So yes, Katrina should be very concerned, and we’ll see what happens, but the committee is on the right track,” she added.
Omarosa who served once as President Donald Trump’s aide, was sued by him for breaking her NDA she signed while working in the White House.
However, the judge in the case, after a three year battle, ruled that the NDA was not enforceable, and her lawyer warns that it may leash a new wave of humiliating revelations from her as a result.
The comments were said after Trump sued Omarosa, among the first of many former staffers to denigrate him in a tell-all book.
Her book, “Unhinged: An Insider’s Account of the Trump White House,” was a deeply defamatory account of the year Omorosa spent working for Trump between 2017 and 2018.
Her attorney, John Phillips, said that the ruling outcome would be an encouragement for other Trump staffers who had been hesitant to speak because of NDAs.
“People who signed these NDAs should sleep better and speak more freely,” Phillips told the legal publication Law & Crime. “Kudos to Omarosa Manigault Newman for coming forward and taking this on.”
Trump’s legal team argued that Omarosa broke a clause of the NDA requiring her not to discuss any of her time working for Trump.
As well as lambasting Trump in her book, she also made multiple television and print appearances in which she disparaged him, Trump’s legal team said.
However, a judge decided on September 24 in a summary judgment that the NDA was not legally enforceable under New York law. He said that it was too ambiguously written and vast in reach to be implemented.
“The agreement effectively imposes on Respondent an obligation to never say anything remotely critical of Mr. Trump, or his or his family members’ interests, for the rest of her life. Such a burden is certainly unreasonable,” T. Andrew Brown, the arbitrator, wrote in the judgment.
Source by [author_name]