Cipolonne will testify.

Cipollone Reaches Deal With Jan. 6 Panel To Testify In Transcribed Interview Friday

Former White House counsel Pat Cipollone, a key figure in then-President Trump’s inner circle who pushed back against some of his attempts to subvert the election results, has reportedly reached a deal to sit for a transcribed interview before the Jan. 6 Select Committee on Friday, according to multiple reports.

Cipollone is appearing after the panel subpoenaed him for testimony.

Cipollone will reportedly appear in private before the committee, the New York Times reported, citing a person briefed on the matter.

The deal for Cipollone to testify comes a week after the committee subpoenaed him, following shocking testimony from Cassidy Hutchinson, former aide to Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/cipollone-january-6-committee-transcribed-interview

Is this the Cassidy effect?

We know from her testimony Pat went to speak with Trump while Don was admiring the riot on TV. This is after it became known the mob was chanting "hang Mike Pence," which Don thought he deserved. Cuz, you know, Pat felt something needed to be done. Clearly Meadows didn't. He said Trump didn't want to be disturbed when Pat arrived at Mark's office to see what the effing heck was going on. Mark must have thought, hang Mike, isn't that a good thing?

My question is.........how much of this can the committee get answers about? Is any conversation on the topic that took place covered by attorney client privilege? Does the crime/fraud exception apply? IOW, how valuable will his testimony be?

 

Yeah, but, behind closed doors. That's the ****ed up part. It's just wrong.

 

The thing is no one cares and it won’t save democrats in November. The left is campaigning against a guy who isn’t running for office and his endorsement record is 145 wins and 11 loses.

 

At least he'll be under oath.

Mr. Cipollone was a witness to pivotal moments in Mr. Trump’s push to invalidate the election results, including discussions about seizing voting machines and sending false letters to state officials about election fraud. He was also in the West Wing on Jan. 6, 2021, as Mr. Trump reacted to the violence at the Capitol, when his supporters attacked the building in his name.

People close to Mr. Cipollone have repeatedly cautioned that concerns about executive privilege and attorney-client privilege could limit his cooperation.

But committee negotiators have pressed to hear from Mr. Cipollone and Patrick F. Philbin, who was his deputy in the White House.
Mr. Cipollone will sit for a videotaped, transcribed interview, according to a person familiar with the discussions. He is not expected to testify publicly.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/06/us/politics/pat-cipollone-jan-6-testimony.html

So.......can the committee release the transcript?

 

next public hearing is tuesday, 12 july. it should be a good one featuring trump's "tough guy" militias and their seditious conspiracy.

 

Best he allows it to be recorded.

 

I have the urge to hum "bad boy, bad boy, whatcha gonna do when they come for you?" right now.





And, commence Orange Stain (and whatever you want to call them) meltdown temper tantrums, 3....2....1.

 

Mr. Cipollone will sit for a videotaped, transcribed interview, according to a person familiar with the discussions. He is not expected to testify publicly.

 

Well, that's great news!!

 

Which I assume means his testimony can be shown during the hearings as has been done with other witnesses who didn't appear in public. Or at the least referred to.

 

I think it is the "Cassidy effect". However, I think his testimony will be limited by what he perceives as "attorney-client" privilege. Which shouldn't apply in this case, since Cipollone was not Trump's attorney, but the attorney of the Presidency. But, this being a Congressional hearing (likely it will be different in the DoJ investigation), it's unlikely he'll budge on that in respect to the LEGAL advice he gave Trump. Even so, there is still some interesting information he can give which is not related to legal advice.

I don't think (I hope I'm wrong) he's going to say, for example, that he told Trump that what he wanted to do to overturn the results of the elections was illegal. Because he might consider that legal advice. But he can describe Trump's demeanor, and other acts not related to his own advice. Like his reaction to Bill Barr telling him that the election was not stolen.

 

And three days later they will slap a gag order on him and then lie about what he said.

 

There seems to be some ambiguity on that topic. I kept hearing references to Pat serving the office of the president but not the individual. So he may not have as much of a claim to a-c privilege as one would think.

In any event, I hope we learn about some of what he testified to next week during those hearings.

Now that Pat Cipollone, Donald Trump’s last White House Counsel, has received a subpoena for testimony from the January 6 Select Committee, he faces two key decisions. He must first decide whether to appear at all. If he does appear, he must then decide whether he should refuse to answer certain questions by asserting legal privileges. In my view, Cipollone has no valid legal basis to refuse to appear—and once in the witness chair, there are no valid claims of privilege that would permit him to refuse to answer questions relating to matters the committee is investigating.
https://www.justsecurity.org/82201/...one-to-answer-the-jan-6-committees-questions/

 

Second, whereas the White House Counsel represents the President in his official capacity, much (or all) of Trump’s conduct relating to the January 6 Committee was undertaken in his personal or campaign capacity. This conclusion is supported by a decision recently issued by Judge Amit Mehta (including relying on the Justice Department’s brief in that case); as well as by the reasoning set forth in a recent Brookings report concerning Trump’s conduct targeting the election in Georgia. Stated simply, the President has no legitimate role in the Joint Session of Congress held pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment. Trump’s efforts to corrupt and obstruct the Joint Session—including his incitement of an armed, violent mob to attack the Capitol—reflected his private pursuit of power, not any presidential function.

 

"'Transcribed"" = potentially altered with no oversight...
""according to a person briefed on the matter."" along with "appear in private before the committee" means we are already leaking information about a private meeting that the public is not to be hearing about... So trust us to keep it "private" and we'll tell you what he said.

Is this the Cassidy effect? Yep...That is when yet another secret surprise "whistleblower" witness (like past impeachments) can opening makes up story's about what people said or did, with no repercussions, does not get cross-examined, does not have to present the "burden of proof" which then makes the court of public opinion call for those people to come in to defend themselves, which then we spend the next year debating whether his word is more credible the the lowly aid who made up a story... and remember this is about a conversation... between two people in the halls of the WH. Just hearsay, no burden of proof from Hutchinson.

What we are seeing here is typical liberal MO of making someone prove something that didn't happen.. The rest of our year here will be how Pat did not prove he did not have the conversation, that never happened. The silly games we play.

But you know what would clear thing up... Security camera footage... yea... the 14,000 hours that Pelosi refuses to release... or how bout "Surveillance Logs" Like Banks has called for. It seems there are some questions that Pat Cipollone was not at the White House on the morning of January 6.
https://thefederalist.com/2022/07/0...veillance-logs-to-vet-contested-j6-testimony/

Words matter folks.... notice how Cassidy Hutchinson continually uses the phrase "said something to the effect of" in her testimonies... she will not be held accountable for trying to paraphrase a conversation that did not happen and that phrase means something...

 

From what I've heard (and there have been conflicting reports), there will be a video recording. Cipollone will probably be far more forthcoming in that situation than he would be in a live hearing. But, yeah, it probably means that we'll only get snippets.

 

WOO HOO!
BIG DEAL NOW!
UNDERLINGS WILL SING LIKE BIRDS!
WALLS ARE CLOSING IN!
TICK TOCK!

 

So not able to deflect or label a RINO yet?

 

It will be epic, and explosive! Unverified transcripts reading "Trump did something to the effect of, attacking and choking Secret Service Agents and something to the effect of, lunging for the steering wheel. And even though he was willing to something to the effect of, all this, he didn't simply WALK down to the Capitol which is right across the mall from the WH, or, something to that effect."

Riveting!

 

Rinos, Dinos, Indictments! Big Big Day!

 

No talking points yet?

 

It's BIG!

 

Unverified? Video recording is a pretty good way of verifying. And did the limo story even have anything to do with Cipollone? What are you going on about?

 

They haven't gotten their marching orders yet, so they are flailing a bit for now.

 

No deflection links with flailing text?