General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLemme see if I've got this straight: Cippolone, Trump's former White House Counsel and
an EXTREMELY committed RWNJ Rush Limbaugh "dittohead", now MAY "consent" to be "interviewed"---which normally means not under oath---and tell the J6 Committee a few things he wants them to hear---and this is being ballyhooed as "highly significant"?
What it "signifies" is not good, IMHO.
"Thank you sir. May we have another?"
I am sure some disagree. I welcome views which may change my opinion.
Beachnutt
(7,358 posts)they all lie like hell.
Emile
(23,145 posts)now, then maybe he'll find the courage to testify under oath!
viva la
(3,360 posts)Another WH counsel who initially thought his position would protect him.
Dean figured out quick truth was the only option.
woodsprite
(11,940 posts)Novara
(5,870 posts)Look, it behooves him to testify. According to Hutchinson, he was the one telling them not to do certain things because it would open them all up to criminal prosecution. If he advised them not to have the rally and mob deployment to the Capitol, and he was ignored, it behooves him to testify.
Atticus
(15,124 posts)"interviewed" not "testify".
Novara
(5,870 posts)machoneman
(4,016 posts)Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)Per NYT
Mr. Cipollone, who was aligned with Mr. Barr and a lawyer working in the White House named Eric Herschmann, also tried to persuade Mr. Trump to stop pursuing baseless claims of fraud. He balked at acting on a plan proposed by Jeffrey Clark, a Justice Department lawyer who had wanted to distribute official letters to state legislatures falsely alerting them that the election might have been stolen and urging them to reconsider certified results.
That letter that this guy wants to send that letter is a murder-suicide pact, Mr. Cipollone told Mr. Trump, according to testimony the panel has received. Its going to damage everyone who touches it. And we should have nothing to do with that letter. I dont ever want to see that letter again.
brooklynite
(94,950 posts)and he's not resisting an official appearance.
He's apparently asking for a formal subpoena for legal clearance.
Atticus
(15,124 posts)just "casual" reporting.
Ohio Joe
(21,776 posts)You can still be charged with lying to congress even if not 'under oath'.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/24/politics/penalty-for-lying-to-congress/index.html