fbpx

Now We See Why Kyle Rittenhouse’s Former Attorney Refused To Answer Financial Questions

BY June 29, 2021

John Pierce, who was briefly attorney to Kyle Rittenhouse, is pretty vocal on social media, and he recently published a list of questions that the New Yorker hoped he’d answer before they went to press with their story, representing the Rittenhouse’s side of things. Despite being given an opportunity to respond to allegations and stories about him, Pierce instead tweeted the series mockingly, refusing to respond to 79 out of 80. (The one question he semi-answered was whether he had used a sexist and objectifying phrase to refer to Tulsi Gabbard; he answered by affirming that she’s attractive without addressing his own words.)

John Pierce, Former Rittenhouse attorney
[Photo of John Pierce With Rittenhouse Family via John Pierce/Twitter]

Now the New Yorker has published their piece, and it quickly becomes clear where the questions are coming from that Pierce found himself unwilling or unable to answer before press time.

Pierce tweeted out his list of questions one by one, but we’ll sidestep, for now, the ones about using cocaine while on a trip with the Rittenhouse family, connections to the Proud Boys and specifically Enrique Tarrio, verbal attacks on a Rittenhouse family member, and consuming alcohol in front of the family to a degree that made them upset, other than to reiterate that he would neither confirm nor deny any allegations.

Instead, let’s focus on the financial questions that Pierce tweeted out to his fan base for support, but didn’t choose to answer. There are a lot, so let’s focus on a few particularly interesting ones.

The New Yorker apparently wanted to know why Pierce’s rates were so high, whether any of the corporation’s millions of dollars in debt has been caught up since the Rittenhouse association, whether it’s true that he discussed schemes from book deals to documentaries to profit from being adjacent to the family, if it’s accurate that he’s refused to return money to the family and claims they owe him millions, whether he opposed the family setting up their own bank account, and why he seemed to withhold funds and put off using them to bail Kyle out.

Again, let’s reiterate that Pierce tweeted these out on the 20th of June, over a week before the New Yorker published their story, but chose not to answer any of them, instead boasting that he expected to be the subject of a 50k-word story from the magazine, and that “the questions are hilarious.”

The story didn’t center on him, but on Kyle Rittenhouse, described in the title as “American Vigilante.”

However, it seems that Rittenhouse’s family wanted to talk about their problems with the attorney, and perhaps felt they’d found a sympathetic ear, because the story makes it clear that he played a significant role. The portion of the article that does center on Pierce may give a peek into exactly why he refused to address financial questions.

It affirms that Pierce set up an agreement to take a hefty fee, and take it through the #FightBack platform that so quickly became controversial. It describes two defense attorneys for Rittenhouse contacting Pierce and insisting on the donated funds being put in a trust controlled by Wendy Rittenhouse — and when that didn’t happen, those two lawyers left the case.

That’s a fraction of the financial allegations the Rittenhouse family levels through the reporter. Kyle’s mother believed that the delay in bailing him out was a fundraising ploy. They complain that he billed them for time he spent shopping, because he was purchasing a shirt to wear on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show.

And then there’s this:

Wendy said of the Rittenhouses’ decision to break with Pierce, “Kyle was John’s ticket out of debt.” She was pressing Pierce to return forty thousand dollars in donated living expenses that she believed belonged to the family, and told me that Pierce had refused: “He said we owed him millions—he ‘freed Kyle.’ ”

Finances aside, Pierce has stayed in the center of controversy throughout — he’s currently trying to scoop up clients from the January 6th attempted insurrection, and actually claims that there is a government conspiracy to keep him from defending them, although he is the attorney of record for at least three.

In fact, as Sunlight Reports shows, he’s been named as the attorney representing the largest number of Proud Boys members in the Capitol cases.

That’s without touching his opining on the 2020 election, a call for a sitting member of Congress to be locked up for being the subject of a conspiracy theory, and his general inflammatory rhetoric.

Pierce has built up a social media following, and has a lot of fans who agree with him on political and social matters, but it seems that the problems, particularly the financial ones, were too much even for the family of Kyle Rittenhouse to bear — and if he’s not interested in telling his side of the story, they’re sure willing to tell theirs.

Once more, the full New Yorker piece is here.



Follow Us On: Facebook and Twitter