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.
We’re well past the point where the tfg’s political adventure should have been interred.
Corroborating Hutchinson’s testimony should go a long way towards nailing that coffin shut.
“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.”
Does this mean Cipollone’s “transcribed interview” will or will not be videotaped?
Also, on what subjects did Cipollone agree to testify and what subjects has he refused to testify?
In Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony-- the impression I got anyway-- was that Pat Cipollone was at the least trying to mitigate damage-- when he realized the extent of the coup events-- as they became known to him.
Cipollone doesn’t want to go to jail for TMF.
Can’t imagine the phone calls he’s been on lately.
Why should any of these self-aggrandizing narcissists get to pick and choose the subjects they will testify about, and the ones they won’t? It’s all shmegegge. (Yiddish for baloney, not the kind you eat…)
Well, at the minimum, we know he’ll talk about the DOJ shenanigans, and he probably knows more than either Rosen or Donaghue since he spent a lot more time discussing this with Trump. And I’m sure there will be more. Plus, we learn of an additional WH staffer who’ll testify publicly.
As it is easy to make sweeping predictions when you have nothing to lose, I will make one: Donald Trump will not be the Republican nominee for POTUS in 2024! liz Cheney’s political career may be going down in flames, but she will probably take Mr. Trump down with her. As I don’t think she is ‘hurting for bucks’*, she would probably be happy with that result.
She will be on dozens of boards of directors of major corporations
I’m guessing “transcribed interview” is a deliberate substitute for the video. Politically, that prevents the committee from airing it during the hearings. (Of course, the committee can show quotes, but that’s not the same). But I’m curious if there’s any significant legal difference between a transcribed interview and one that’s video-taped. I get that both are under oath but wonder if there’s anything more to it. Legal experts?
I get the impression that he was always willing to testify a second time, he just wanted the cover of a subpoena. I think he wanted the ability to say, “Welp, I was subpoenaed. It’s terrible, but I don’t have a choice.”