“If You’re Not Outraged, You Should Be” ProPublica Faces Trump’s Legal Threats Over Bombshell Witness Tampering Report
JOSE LUIS MAGANA/ASSOCIATED PRESS
ProPublica, an award-winning nonprofit news outlet, recently found itself under legal fire from Donald Trump’s attorneys following its explosive report on potential witness tampering involving the convicted former president. The report details significant financial benefits received by witnesses in the criminal cases against Trump, which could potentially constitute criminal activity if intended to influence testimony.
According to ProPublica’s investigative piece, multiple witnesses connected to Trump’s legal battles received unusually large financial compensations. Examples highlighted include a campaign aide whose pay doubled from $26,000 to $53,500 per month, another employee who received a $2 million severance package conditional on non-cooperation with law enforcement, and a top campaign official who secured a lucrative position for her daughter within the campaign.
These financial arrangements, ProPublica suggests, often coincided with critical moments in the legal proceedings against Trump. For instance, one aide was appointed to the board of Trump’s social media company after receiving a subpoena but before his deposition, raising questions about the timing of these benefits.
The report also touches on Jennifer Little, Trump’s attorney, who transitioned from handling modest legal cases to earning over a million dollars after becoming involved in Trump’s Espionage Act case. Following her grand jury testimony in March 2023, Little received $218,000 from a Trump political action committee—reportedly the largest payment she had received from Trump’s team.
As ProPublica prepared to publish these findings, Trump’s attorney, David Warrington, sent a cease and desist letter to the outlet, warning of legal action against what he described as a “reckless campaign of defamation.” Despite these threats, ProPublica went ahead with the publication, which has since prompted public and media scrutiny over the legality of the financial dealings reported.
The implications of the ProPublica report are significant. Legal experts and media figures have weighed in, highlighting the potential for these actions to be interpreted as witness tampering. MSNBC host Katie Phang expressed outrage at the revelations, while Norman Ornstein of The Atlantic labeled it as “direct and overt witness tampering.” Mark Jacob, a media critic and former Chicago Tribune editor, commended ProPublica’s reporting and noted the historical pattern of similar tactics within Trump’s circle, including actions by his former campaign chief Paul Manafort.
These allegations add to a series of Trump-related investigations that have frequently involved claims of undue influence on witnesses. The article concludes by referencing the U.S. House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack’s hearings in 2022, where Vice Chair Liz Cheney raised concerns about possible witness tampering by members of Trump’s inner circle. The ongoing controversy underscores the gravity of the accusations and the potential legal and political repercussions for Trump and his associates.
