Former Trump White House Counsel Subpoenaed by J6 Committee

In what could become a major escalation over privilege, the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 riot has issued a subpoena to former White House Counsel Pat Cipollone.  Much of Cipollone’s positions and statements have already been made part of the record through documents and witnesses. However, the J6 Committee wants to force him to testify directly. That could trigger a major court right if Cipolone continues to resist testifying.

Cipollone has been rightfully praised for his efforts to oppose the challenge to certification of the 2020 election, his protection of the Justice Department from presidential pressure, and his effort to get former President Donald Trump to publicly call for the riot to end.

I am admittedly a Madisonian scholar who tends to favor Congress in such conflicts. I have testified for years in favor of congressional authority to demand testimony, including in the Trump impeachment. I previously said that privilege challenges to House investigations would and should fail. They did.

However, this is the farthest that Congress has pushed that inherent authority. Cipollone is at the very core of privileges protecting presidents in their communications with close aides. As I have previously discussed, there remains considerable ambiguity in this area.

The Supreme Court laid out the foundation for the privilege in United States v. Nixon and it has been used extensively to deny information to both Congress and the courts in prior controversies.  The Supreme Court treats the privilege as “qualified” and the strongest claim is made when a president can show that the disclosure would impair national security or the functioning of the Executive Branch.

In 1974, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Nixon and ordered the release of the Watergate tapes to special prosecutor Leon Jaworski – and ultimately to Congress. Nixon resigned roughly two weeks later. That case has spawned a variety of interpretations of its rejection of executive privilege, including one interpretation I call the “Nixon fallacy.” The fallacy goes something like this: Impeachment so exceeds in importance executive-privilege claims that the Supreme Court has already declared that criminal or impeachment investigations take precedence over privilege so any withholding of testimony or documents is per se obstruction.

In reality, the Supreme Court never said anything like that. Yes, the court rejected what it described as the claim of an “absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity” to withhold relevant evidence in a criminal investigation. But it did not say that a president could not invoke privilege over the testimony in an impeachment proceeding or that such privilege assertions could not ever prevail. Indeed, it did not even categorically reject such claims in a criminal investigation but simply said that “without more” of a justification from Nixon, the tapes would have to be turned over to the Watergate special prosecutor.

White House Counsel Don McGahn was previously ordered to testify, though that case was based on extreme arguments of immunity. The order was later reversed by the D.C. Circuit. In the messy litigation that followed, the demand was eventually dropped.

The Supreme Court this year denied a motion by Trump to block the National Archive from turning over White House material after a D.C. Circuit opinion rejected the claims. While the Court did not say that a former president cannot make such claims, that is one of the issues still looming in these conflicts. The Court stated:

“Because the Court of Appeals concluded that President Trump’s claims would have failed even if he were the incumbent, his status as a former President necessarily made no difference to the court’s decision. Any discussion of the Court of Appeals concerning President Trump’s status as a former President must therefore be regarded as nonbinding dicta.”

This potential conflict represents the very core of privilege in a close aide giving confidential legal advice to a sitting president.

The question is why fight this fight at this time. The Committee has already created an ample record of the position of Cipollone.  As someone who previously represented the House in litigation, I think that the Committee is risking the creation of potentially bad precedent for the House to get Cipollone to largely confirm what is in the record. In litigation, counsel for Congress tend to follow the Hippocratic Oath that “first do no harm.” That principle has led both houses historically to avoid litigation on these questions whenever possible.

We will now wait to see if Cipollone goes to Court to challenge this effort.

86 thoughts on “Former Trump White House Counsel Subpoenaed by J6 Committee”

  1. On the bright side this provides the precedent to call Biden admin WH staff to testify on “who is running the government?





      The Necessary and Proper Clause does not provide new, separate and various power.

      The Necessary and Proper Clause does not provide power that was not provided previously or subsequently in the Constitution.

      The Necessary and Proper Clause states that related parties make take the action previously provided to take the action previously provided, and not one iota more.

      The Necessary and Proper Clause is a statement which is a repetition of itself.

      The Necessary and Proper Clause is misconstrued and misdefined for constitutionally malicious purposes, and to effect the illicit acquisition of power not otherwise provided or delegated.

      Necessary and Proper Clause

      The Congress shall have Power:

      To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

  2. Big win today for US citizens against encroaching bureacracy in the WVA v. EPA case. SCOTUS ruled that the EPA had no power to regulate carbon gas emissions at coal-fired power plants. More later.

    1. Is there any enumerated power to regulate with regard to the “Environmental Protection Agency” in Article 1, Section 8, or elsewhere in fundamental law?

      Is the power to regulate comprehensively enumerated in Article 1, Section 8, or is the power and authority to regulate cited randomly and variously throughout the Constitution?

      Is the EPA constitutional or is it a legal phantom, entirely without basis?

      1. Does the Congress have the power to legislate regulation into existence, in the absence of any enumerated power to regulate, any particular endeavor, in Article 1, Section 8?

      1. mespo the hobo fails to understand that is a big loss for people, real people that suffer het stroke, not corporate ‘people’.

        Benson fails to understand this is a huge win for the people, real people suffering heat stroke walking to work because they could not afford the gas, let alone purchase an electric vehicle. Now, instead of unelected bureaucrats deciding the fate of our energy future, Congress will have to debate and pass more specific laws that are supported by the science. This has been a great week for federalism.

          1. David,

            If people wish to work for cleaner air Now the current best way, fastest to clean it up is for people to push China & India , almost half of the worlds Pop., for them just to at least meet the US’s Air Quality Standards.

            Just look at the difference between their nations & ours. A person would be blind if they can’t see we, the US, is get screwed on these deals.

            1. Ok1 — the problem is adding excess carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. The US needs to stop along with every other ountry.

              1. David,

                Not a problem, we need the carbon dioxide as Trees & Plants use it, so we get more Trees & Plants along high Oxygen Levels like we had in the past.

                1. Oky1,

                  We don’t need excess CO2. Every animal on the planet already produces CO2 for trees and plants to use. We don’t need more CO2 from burning fossil fuels. We are also cutting down forests, so you are only imagining that we’ll “get more Trees & Plants.”

                  The O2 – CO2 used to be in balance. Now we have too much CO2 and other greenhouse gases like methane.

      2. David B. Einstein,

        Does this description strike a chord?

        Narcissistic Personality Disorder

        Narcissistic personality disorder involves a pattern of self-centered, arrogant thinking and behavior, a lack of empathy and consideration for other people, and an excessive need for admiration. Others often describe people with NPD as cocky, manipulative, selfish, patronizing, and demanding.

        The concluding line of the following depiction indicates that you may require monitoring:

        Nine Signs and Symptoms of Narcissism

        Symptoms – called core features – of narcissistic personality disorder (narcissism) include:

        Exaggerated sense of self-importance
        Feeling superior to others and that one deserves special treatment
        Feelings are often accompanied by fantasies of unlimited success, brilliance, power, beauty, or love
        Excessive need for admiration
        Must be the center of attention
        Often monopolize conversations
        Patients feel slighted, mistreated, depleted, and enraged when ignored
        Superficial and exploitative relationships
        Relationships are based on surface attributes and not the unique qualities of others
        People are only valued only to the extent they are viewed as beneficial
        Lack of empathy
        Severely limited or totally lacking ability to care about the emotional needs or experiences of others, even loved ones
        Identity disturbance
        Sense of self is highly superficial, extremely rigid, and often fragile
        Self-stability depends on maintaining the view that one is exceptional
        Grandiose sense of self is easily threatened
        Patients retreat from or deny realities that challenge grandiosity
        Difficulty with attachment and dependency
        Relies on feedback from the environment
        Relationships only exist to shore up positive self-image
        Interactions are superficial
        Intimacy is avoided
        Chronic feelings of emptiness and boredom
        When attention and praise are not available, patients feel empty, bored, depressed, or restless
        Vulnerability to life transitions
        Difficulty maintaining reality-based personal and professional goals over time
        Compromises required by school, jobs, and relationships may feel unbearable
        Young adults may have a “failure to launch”
        Narcissistic personality disorder is also a significant risk factor for suicide and suicidal attempts.

      3. David Benson:

        People who own power plants are people, too. Productive people who provide jobs and wealth. EPA thinks they are a Congress unto themselves. This decisison, as a good commenter noted below, “clips their wings.” It also rolls back that other Liberal people crusher, the Bureacratic State. I think it’s the biggest decision of the term.

      4. David,

        Let me help you people understanding the way things are in our oil fields.

        Had the SCOTUS decision on the EPA case went the other way gas would be tonight heading like a rocket past $10 Bucks going to no limit higher.

        And all other energy with it.

        Do you like to eat Dogs & Cats Marxist, we’d be looking like Venezuela in 3 or 4 months!

        Let us 1st take the billionaire’s Jets & make them take a bus or train to clear the air, better yet I bet Olly will loan them his bicycle at interest. Right Olly?

          1. Yeah, just like Biden’s Delaware Rates. LOL:)

            Everybody knows that the reason the Mob got out of Loan Sharking moved into our Govt, it’s the same biz but claim it’s legal.

      5. There are about 1/3 as many deaths globally from extreme heat as from extreme Cold.

      6. “I hate those stinking, free enterprise, wealth-creating Americans who fleece the people!”

        – Davidbraham Lincoln, 2022

        “These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people.”

        – Abraham Lincoln, from his first speech as an Illinois state legislator, 1837

      1. EPA doesn’t have any constitutional authority or basis in fundamental law.

        The Constitution does not enumerate any power which allows the EPA to regulate anything.

        The Constitution enumerates the power:

        1. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

        2. …to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof

        3. [for] Regulation of the land and naval Forces

        It would appear that the Constitution establishes a judicial branch, and a system of justice, to prosecute and litigate “environmental” issues.

        1. I remember the choking air in LA in the ’60s. Let’s roll back the clock 60 years in Environmental Law.. Why?…because the Founders couldn’t anticipate chem pollution, but only speak in general terms such as:

          “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…”

          Hmmm…those last 5 words have an element of prescience to them.

    2. No, that’s not what the court said. The epa still has power to regulate emissions from power plants. The court said the EPA had no authority to regulate emissions by making a blanket rule that covers all power plants. The epa can regulate individual power plants emissions. It means the epa has to issue multiple emissions restrictions after determining individual power plants emissions data.

  3. I ignore
    all the nonny mice.

    The nonny mice ought to each select and stick with some handle. Lots are available. Eevn Mouse1, Mouse2, … would do.

    There is no hope for the first two mentioned.

    1. Thank you so much, Mr. David B. Einstein.

      Please do continue to spell the name correctly.

      1. Oh, and if the desire of the audience is true, profound intellect, its members may take a run down to the Theoretical Physics Department for the genuine article, and, perhaps, serendipitously obtain a panoramic analysis of the strings in the DNA of your psyche, or whatever delusional hallucinosis serves as the locum tenens of such, from their neighbors in the Psych Building.

    2. And yet you do not.

      You can not help your self but engaging in ad hominem against those you ignore.

      You do not appear to be capable of being honest with yourself.

  4. I am neither a Trumpist nor a never-Trumper — and yet it would seem from much of the dialog at this blog-site, it’s a binary choice — It isn’t.
    I believe having a Chief Executive in the White House how understands the highs and lows of running a business is very important in today’s global economy.
    I believe that the Obama Administration’s failures lay largely in the fact that Obama had no one in his key Administration positions who understood business with hands-on experience – Obama scrupulously avoided it.
    I believe the Biden Administration and its failures lay largely in the fact that Biden has no one advising him, not one of his ‘handlers’, nor Biden himself, who has business experience —
    And so to that extent, I believe electing Donald Trump put a team of experienced business persons in charge of getting the US economy on track, and Trump’s people largely succeeded in doing so. I have no delusions about Trump’s narcissistic ego-driven personality traits —-

    1. Excellent.

      I have frequently stated – I think Trump was about a C+ president.
      And that he remains the best president of the 21st century

      1. A c+ President? More like a D-. He’s already been impeached twice and is facing a possible criminal indictment and possible prison time along with many of his former staff members.

        Weren’t you the one who kept sayin that no weapons were present at the riot? It seems that there were plenty and Trump himself knew it. That alone changes the whole picture about being “peaceful”. Trump and those republicans who support him were all enabling the goal of subverting the election illegally. Sending armed militias to the capitol to pressure Pence on top of lawyers and Meadows himself calling on pence to cooperate with the scheme. Then there’s the fake electors problem which is also an illegal act. The national archives has proof that state legislators were creating fake electors so that when Pence did what Trump wanted him to do they could have had these fake electors choose trump over Biden and hand over the election to Trump.

        This is not going to end well for Trump and his enablers and it’s looking more and more likely that many people will be charged with crimes and be sent to jail. It’s all just a matter of time.

        1. Grade Trump however you wish – Bush, Obama and Biden are OBVIOUSLY worse.

          Trump has been facing possible criminal indictment according to left wing nuts since before he took office.
          He is probably the most investigated person in US history.

          Short of making up law that does not exist or stretching existing law such that every democrat int he country would be criminal, you are not getting anywhere.

          While Merrit Garland has been one of the worst AG’s in history, I doubt even he wants to open the can of worms that indicting Trump would.

          You really do not understand how badly you, democrats, the left, the media have BURNED your own credibility.

          You are not honest,
          You are not trusted.
          You are not credible
          You are lawless,
          You engage in fraud, hoaxes, and lies.

          You wonder why so many people think Trump won the 2020 election ?
          Because with excellent reason they do not Trust YOU, Democrats, the Media, the left or the courts.
          It is easy to beleive that people who have done the many immoral things YOU have would also cheat to win an election.

          You keep citing Trump’s impeachments as something you are proud of – you should be ashamed.

          You impeached Trump for seeking an investigation of an obviously corrupt politician.
          You did so to try to win an election – not because Trump did anything wrong.
          And you actually succeeded.

          Have you no shame ?

          You impeached Trump for doing absolutely everything he possibly could to legally and constitutionally overturn a lawless and fraudulent election.

          Your proud of that ?

          If you did not want Trump or anyone else to claim a lawless election – you could have followed the law.

          38 US states including 5 of the key states have state constitutions that REQUIRE secret ballot elections – mailin voting can not ever under any circumstances meet the requirements of a secret ballot. There is not a single western nation that does not require secret ballots.
          But in 2020 magically – without amending their constitutions, myriads of states conducted lawless elections.

          And you want people to trust you ?

          Rahm Emanuel said “do not let a crisis go to waste” – that is PRECISELY what is wrong with the left.
          You create crises for the purpose of leveraging them to accomplish your political agenda.

          You do not work within the law or the constitution

          YOU are lawless.

          Nor do you underestand how dangerous this is.

          Read the declaration of independence.

          That is our founders LEGAL justification to the entire world for using VIOLENCE to resist lawless and tyranical government.

          While the J6 committee has been a flop – much more so than expected. What should terrify you greatly is you are actively heading towards the day in which 100,000 people will march on the capital – with AR-15’s and demand the lawlessness end.

          The Trump impeachments you are so proud of opened Pandora’s box.

          Derschowitz and Turley are correct – that our founders never wanted these types of political impeachments.
          But they are wrong that Trump’s impeachments were unconstitutional.

          While the constitution states the grounds for impeachment, there is no enforcement mechanism.
          Ultimately the house can impeach for whatever reason it wants.

          It is my hope that Republicans in 2023 do not behave in he same idiotic fashion as Pelosi and democrats have.
          And I suspect that I will be proven correct – though more because RINO’s will get in the way, rather that because Republicans seek to return the country to lawful governance.

          But there will be efforts – because large portions of the GOP electorate demand them, to behave exactly as democrats have.
          To impeach Biden for corruption, for failing to uphold the law, for political differences, for maladministration – for hundreds of reasons far better than your impeachments of Trump.

          Personally I am not sure what should happen.

          I want a return to the rule of law. But I do not think we can have that until Democrats understand the their lawlessness is a two way street.

          Though I do not think the Senate would convict Biden – I would be happy to See Biden impeached for myriads of reasons – even if that resulted in President Harris.

          Harris would be worse – but does that even matter ? Democratic conduct has been so egregious and so damaging to the country that things getting worse would be good – if it sped the return to the rule of law.

        2. I have been careful about what I have said – because accurate facts MATTER.
          A handful of Guns in DC hotel rooms, or a half a dozen undercover federal agents with handguns are not within 100000 miles of an insurrection.

          April 15th 1775 was an insurrection – approximately 70 minutemen and an equal number of British solders were KILLED.

          YOU are trying to make innocuous facts bear far more weigh than they are able.
          Further YOU are being DELIBERATELY sloppy – prettending that people who CHOSE not to use weapons are violent criminals and insurrectionists.

          I do not think we will have an insurrection in this country – but YOUR actions make that much more likely. YOUR lawlessness.

          Whether we have an insurection depends on what it will take to FORCE you to abandon YOUR lawlessness.

          If you continue to throw roadblocks in the way of legitimate peaceful protestors petitiioning government – such as locking down the capital in an effort to trigger violence – you will eventually get violence.

          The Capital Police have said and the FBI has said – repeatedly under oath is that they have no evidence of protesters bringing firearms into the capital, and no evidence of protestors using firearms.

          There has been from the start incontrovertable evidence that Firearms were present at the protest outside the capital and that a SMALL number of protestors brought firearms with them to DC.

          There remains an open debate as to whether the small number of firearms present at the protest outside the capital were in the hands of protestors or federal agents. None of the people photographed with Handguns have been arrested.

          The tiny number of firearms charges are against people who brought Firearms to DC with them.

          This is not illegal.

          Given that hundreds of thousands of J6 protestors were current or former law enforcement or military and that about 40% of americans legally own guns. What is surprising is that there were not thousands of guns at J6.

          But keep pushing and the next time you WILL get protestors with 100,000 AR-15’s.

        3. In Late May in Michigan Thousands of ARMED protestors marched throught he Michigan capital protesting Whitmer’s Covid lockdowns.

          There is no contradiction between ARMED and PEACEFUL.

          The Claim that no protestors had firearms in the capital and no firearms were used by protestors on J6 – was made under oath by the FBI and Capital police.

          I personally would have ZERO problem if election protestors had come to the capital with 100,000 AR-15’s
          That would not have changed whether the protests were “peaceful”.

          In FACT it would likely have resulted in MORE PEACEFUL protests.

          I doubt the capital police at the West Tunnel would have waged war against protestors with AR-15’s.

          I doubt the Capital Police would have tried to delay protestors marching through the capital with AR-15’s.
          I doubt that Officer Byrd would have murdered Alishi Babbet if there were a dozen protestors on the other side of the door with AR-15’s.

          I suspect the house and Senate would have aggreed to delay certification and actually audit the election if there were 100,000 AR15’s at the capital.

          The whole event would likely have been FAR more PEACEFUL.

          Like all leftists you confuse weapons with violence.

        4. The goal of Trump and the protestors was to delay certification and get a real audit.

          That is a legal and constitutional objective.

          Overturning the results of the election – is both legal and constitutional if done within themeans allowed by the law and constitution.

          Your argument is garbage. Democrats have objected and sought to overturn every election they have ever lost.

          As is typical you PRETEND that “overtuning an election” is automatically criminal – except when you seek to do it.

          Spin is not FACT.

          There was no “armed millitia” at J6. There could have been. Maybe there should have been.
          There is nothing illegal about putting politivcal preasure on Pence to get him to do something that has already been done in a past election.
          There is nothing illegal about lawyers preasuring Pence to get him to do something that is obviously constitutional and has been done before.

          There is no such thing as “fake electors” – the consitution assigns the choice of electors to the state legislature.
          State legislators can not create Fake electors. Following the constitution only legislators appointed by the state are REAL.
          And AGAIN this has happened before – as recently as 2016 Hillary, the press, the left, and democrats tried to coerce electors to change their votes.

        5. The gist of your argument is that by hook or crook I won the 2020 election and no one is free to challenge that or to change that outcome regardless of how fraudlent or lawless it might be.

          Much of the country beleives that the 2020 election was a sham.

          That lack of trust is due to YOUR conduct.

          The attempts to change the outcome are due to YOUR conduct.

          Trump would be considered by all to be nothing more than a sore loser,
          If you had followed the law in 2020,
          If you had not done everything in your power to thwart inquiry afterwords.

          I want random audits after EVERY election – and I want those audits to have consequences when they uncover problems.

          There must be consequences – even when Clear Fraud is not found.
          Error and lawlessness that are well beyond debate that were found in 2020 should NEVER happen.

          In GA there are 300K ballots with no chain of custody.
          In PA there are almost 300K more ballots than voters.
          In AZ there are almost 50K ballots from people who already voted.

          These may be indicators of Fraud. Whether thy are or not – they should not happen.
          Chain of custody is a fraud prevention mechanism.
          Matching the number of ballots to the number of voters down to the precinct level is a fraud prevention mechanism.
          Duplicate ballots should never happen.

          In AZ it was found that the Voting machines could have been hacked by a script kiddie in a few minutes.
          That should never happen.

          In the GA signature verification audit – 6% of ballots were counted that should not have been and 0.6% were found to be actually fraudulent.

          Throughout all the key cities – election observers were sent home and then counting resumed – that never should have happened.

          Observers were kept far enough away to be unable to verify counting or object – that NEVER should have happened.

          We have video of suitcases of ballots being pulled from under tables. That looks like Fraud. Maybe it was not, but it never should have happened.

          In AZ we precincts ran out of blank ballots and photocopied them – that destroys an important frraud prevention measure.

          In NH we found out that DVS equiment will record an overvote when a ballot is folded – and DVS has known this for over a decade.
          Again never should have happened.

          This is a tginy portion of the VERIFIED errors that occured in 2020.
          None of which should have happened.

          If you want people to trust elections – you follow the rules – ALL of them – from start to finish.

          If you want mailin voting change the law – and if necescary the state constitution – though count me opposed no matter what, Because mailin voting can not be secured.

          Private money was used to finance elections in key cities, andthat money was provided in a blatantly politically biased fasshion and used again to circumvent laws and election security.

          All key states had voted ID laws. In all cases those were ignored for Mailin voting.
          80% of americans want Voter ID – they are entitled to have it.
          That YOU think that is unnecescary is irrelevant.
          If you want people to trust elections you will follow the law and not piss over the requirements of the people.

          Trump did not undermine this election – You did.

          If you want elections to be trusted – conduct them in a trustworthy fashion.

          Ultimately all laws are enforced by the barrrel of a gun.
          If you continue the lawlessness – either the Barrel of the government gun will enforce them,
          “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

          Those militias you are terrified of will do so.


    “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

    – Real President Donald J. Trump


    “May 12 (Reuters) – President Donald Trump wanted National Guard troops in Washington to protect his supporters at a Jan. 6 rally that ended with them attacking the U.S. Capitol, leaving five dead, Trump’s former Pentagon chief testified on Wednesday.”

    “Former Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller told a House of Representatives panel that he spoke with Trump on Jan. 3, three days before the now-former president’s fiery speech that preceded the violence and led to his second impeachment.

    “According to Miller’s testimony, Trump asked during that meeting whether the District of Columbia’s mayor had requested National Guard troops for Jan. 6, the day Congress was to ratify Joe Biden’s presidential election victory.

    “Trump told Miller to ‘fill’ the request, the former defense secretary testified. Miller said Trump told him: ‘Do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights.’”

    – Reuters

  6. Isn’t it interesting that the Jan 6 committee has not accused President Trump of an actual crime. They have only said that he said bad things. So much for the first amendment. Now their star witnesses testimony has been contradicted by the Secret Service agents who were actually in the car with the President. Watching her testimony reminds me of Blasey Fords testimony at the Kavanaugh hearing. In both instances there is no one who will back up their stories. If Trump doesn’t survive the dunking it must mean that he wasn’t a witch after all. There was no apology by witch hunters of the past and no such apology will be coming from the witch hunters of the present. What can you expect from those who have no conscience? Present company included.

    1. “Isn’t it interesting that the Jan 6 committee has not accused President Trump of an actual crime.”

      Hutchinson testified that Cipollone identified an actual crime: obstructing the vote count. Judge Carter identified another: conspiracy to defraud the US.

      “their star witnesses testimony has been contradicted by the Secret Service agents”

      On the contrary, various people have already confirmed most of what she said under oath, and most of what she testified to was first person testimony, unlike the story she claims Ornato told her (which as Turley noted is a true claim on her end if that’s what Ornato told her, even if Ornato lied in what he told her).

    2. Are abuse of power, usurpation and malicious prosecution actual crimes of high office?

  7. Testimony:

    Cheney: We understand, Ms. Hutchinson, that you also spoke to Mr. Cipollone on the morning of the Sixth, as you were about to go to the rally on the Ellipse. And Mr. Cipollone said something to you like, “make sure the movement to the Capitol does not happen.” Is that correct?

    Hutchinson: That’s correct. I saw Mr. Cipollone right before I walked out onto West Exec that morning and Mr. Cipollone said something to the effect of, “Please make sure we don’t go up to the Capitol, Cassidy. Keep in touch with me. We’re going to get charged with every crime imaginable if we make that movement happen.”

    Cheney: And do you remember which crimes Mr. Cipollone was concerned with?

    Hutchinson: In the days leading up to the sixth, we had conversations about obstructing justice of defrauding the electoral count.

    Cheney: Let’s hear about some of those concerns that you mentioned earlier in one of your interviews with us.

    {video clip}

    Hutchinson: … having a private conversation with Pat on the after noon of third or fourth, um, that Pat was concerned it would look like we were obstructing justice, or obstructing the electoral college count. I apologize for probably not being very firm with my legal terms here.

    Cipollone should stand on the right side of history and choose to testify.

    Marcy Wheeler: “[Tuesday’s] testimony from Cassidy Hutchinson revealed one reason why his testimony would be so important. He predicted — on January 3 or 4th — that Trump might be prosecuted under the very same crimes DOJ has been charging for well over a year: conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruction of the vote certification. … Cipollone’s recognition of this legal exposure is important for a number of reasons. First, it validates DOJ’s approach — and does so in advance of the DC Circuit’s consideration of DOJ’s appeal of Carl Nichols’ outlier opinion rejecting such an application. Those are also the crimes named in the warrant served on Jeffrey Clark last week. But Cipollone’s awareness of this exposure also may explain why Cipollone has been reluctant to testify (though it’s possible he has testified with DOJ and simply doesn’t want that to be public). … Cipollone might have exposure for obstruction for actions already taken by January 3 or 4 when he explained this legal exposure to Hutchinson.”


      “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

      – Real President Donald J. Trump


      “May 12 (Reuters) – President Donald Trump wanted National Guard troops in Washington to protect his supporters at a Jan. 6 rally that ended with them attacking the U.S. Capitol, leaving five dead, Trump’s former Pentagon chief testified on Wednesday.”

      “Former Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller told a House of Representatives panel that he spoke with Trump on Jan. 3, three days before the now-former president’s fiery speech that preceded the violence and led to his second impeachment.

      “According to Miller’s testimony, Trump asked during that meeting whether the District of Columbia’s mayor had requested National Guard troops for Jan. 6, the day Congress was to ratify Joe Biden’s presidential election victory.

      “Trump told Miller to ‘fill’ the request, the former defense secretary testified. Miller said Trump told him: ‘Do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights.’”

      – Reuters

    2. “um, that Pat was concerned it would look like we were obstructing justice, or obstructing the electoral college count.”
      According to your star witness. Cipollone was concerned about perceptions, not crimes.

      99% of counsel to the President centers on political outcomes. It is idiocy to place any value on conversations. Nothing matters until policy actions start.

  8. WH counsel is not a personal attorney for the POTUS. It also does not apply to legislative proceedings by the US Congress against the POTUS due to allegations of misconduct while in office.

  9. I do believe in privileges. Neither Turley nor I believe in “witch-hunts” unlike Trumpists.

    1. Liar. You believe whatever the Progressives in Congress tell you to. We read your comments.

      1. Liar. YOU believe whatever Trumpists tell you to. We read your comments.

    2. Good grief. I hope your blatant self-unawareness doesn’t extend so hopelessly to your ability to feed and clothe yourself properly.

    3. JeffSilberman please inform us of the an instance in which Trumpist committed a witch hunt. Please provide not the ones that have happened only in your head. Here is your opportunity to present evidence to confirm your statement. Please educate us if you have the facts. Why is your knee jerking?

      1. TiT,

        You got it all wrong. I don’t believe Trumpists engage in witch-hunts. My complaint is Trumpists calling every investigation by Democrats “witch-hunts.” Turley respects the Congressional branch. He has never dismissed any investigation as a witch-hunt because he is not a Trumpist.

        1. And yet the salem with trials continue.

          If you have not – read the Crucible.

          If you have – read it again.

          It is remarkable how similar what is going on is.

          There is a reason that the left is being accused of witch hunts and now witch trials.

          Because that is what they are doing.

            1. No you are not, You are sticking with the Turley puppet that you have created.

        2. Turley has repeatedly criticized Democratic hearings.

          The fundimental difference between Turley and many of the rest of us, is that Turley still beleives that if Democrats conducted proper hearings with real due process that they MIGHT actually uncover something of substance – aside from their own malfeasance.

          The rest of us long ago grasped that is not going to happen.
          I will join Turley in saying “your free to try”.

          But when you go lawless, when you follow the rule of ma rather than the rule of law,
          you are more dangerous than whatever you are investigating.

          Bad conduct even crime can be remedied.
          Lawlessness is far harder to correct.

      2. “…please inform us of the [sic] an instance in which Trumpist committed a witch hunt…”

        You’ve stumbled onto the core problem; conservatives fail to oppose, never mind defeat the enemy, with finality, conclusively and with extreme prejudice.

        On the rare occasion when conservatives actually do acquire a modicum of office and power, they do absolutely nothing with it.

        By contrast, when the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) obtain even a scintilla of power, they do every crazy — thing the worst among them might dream up to annihilate and exterminate conservatives, legally and illegally (they have a Hollywood director managing the stage production: “January 6, Committee: The Mueller Sequel” in technicolor).

        The Founders didn’t intend for most of them to vote, or for a large percentage of them to even be here – the vote being essentially moot, in any case, considering the fact that the Constitution comprehensively holds full and immutable dominion, and is a document designed to severely limit and restrict government (i.e. the welfare state) and to provide maximal freedom to individuals.

        “It’s the [Constitution], stupid!”

        – James Carville

        “the people are nothing but a great beast…

        I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”

        – Alexander Hamilton

        “The true reason (says Blackstone) of requiring any qualification, with regard to property in voters, is to exclude such persons, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own.”

        “If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.”

        – Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775

        “[We gave you] a [restricted-vote] republic, if you can keep it.”

        – Ben Franklin

        Turnout was 11.6% in 1788.

        Vote criteria were male, European,21 , 50 lbs. Sterling/50 acres.

      3. “ JeffSilberman please inform us of the an instance in which Trumpist committed a witch hunt.”

        Hillary Clinton.

    4. Neither Turley nor I believe in “witch-hunts” unlike Trumpists.

      🙄 Hey remora, no matter how hard you try, no one is ever going to mistake you for the constitutional shark that JT is.

      1. Olly,

        True, but I will continue to tag along with him in digesting the damning information about Trump to see where it ultimately ends up. Turley criticizes the balance of this committee, but he supports its work nonetheless. You don’t.

        1. There is far more than a balance problem with the J6 committee.

          But even more damning is despite conducting a show trail – they have failed miserably.

          There is nothing of consequence new we have learned.

          While we have witness after witness that has spun their testimony – which is what happens when there is not even the expectation of meaningful cross examination, in the end all that has been established is that without criminalizing political differences no crime occurred.

          You do not like the fact that Trump and many others – both his followers and many of us who did not vote for trump, are very unhappy with the lawless and fraudulent way the 2020 election was conducted.

          Even if we were all wrong – as Clinton was in 2016 – we are still FREE to beleive as we do and to take every legal and constitutional step to “overturn” the 2020 election.

          There are several WRONGS that occured on J6.

          The capital was locked down to bar protesters from excerpting SEVERAL of their first amendment rights.
          Alishi Babbit was murdered,
          and Rose Boylan was likely murdered.

          No substantive inquiry into ANY of those has occured.

          Those of you an the left freaked out because the proud boys planned to occupy the capital – as if the left has never occupied anything ?
          Mario Savio is rolling over in his grave.

          You can not make up your mind whether Trump beleived the election was stolen or whether he did not – as if it actually matters.

          When you spend your time trying to get inside someone elses head, when your argument hinges on your guesses about other peoples motives you are nearly always wrong.

          You freaked out because a credulous witness claims Trump wanted to go to the capitol – So what ? If true – nothing, if false – nothing.

  10. So you don’t believe in lawyer-client privilege? I know there are some limits on the exercise of that privilege, so why do you think that the privilege does not apply here> Or are you just replying based on your emotions and passions?

  11. The committee is desperate. Its mandate is to drag this circus out until November and discredit Trump so badly that he won’t run in 2024. But even Independents (hardly “Trumpists”) are disgusted by the lack of ethics and fairness in what is fast being exposed as a witch hunt. If the power were reversed, a partisan committee could as easily prosecute Schumer for his threats against Kavanaugh that, one might argue, led to an assassination attempt. It could also go after any number of high-ranking Democrats for incitement of violence against citizens and government officials. This is a game they play, and the winners aren’t those with truth on their side, but those who hold the power. The Dems have 6 more months to make fools of themselves. And hopefully we’ll also see the last of Cheney and the other goofball.

    1. Giocon1 says:

      “But even Independents (hardly “Trumpists”) are disgusted by the lack of ethics and fairness in what is fast being exposed as a witch hunt.”

      This is what Turley believes:

      “Many of us support the effort to bring greater transparency to what occurred on Jan. 6th and these hearings have offered a great deal of important new information. Indeed, it has proven gut-wrenching in the accounts of lawyers and staff trying to combat baseless theories and to protect the constitutional process.”

      That Turley does NOT regard this investigation as a “witch-hunt” exposes the unmistakable difference between a Trumpist and a NeverTrumper.

  12. Turley says:

    “Cipollone has been rightfully praised for his efforts to oppose the challenge to certification of the 2020 election, his protection of the Justice Department from presidential pressure, and his effort to get former President Donald Trump to publicly call for the riot to end.”

    Just like Turley did not vilify Bill Barr for his damning testimony against Trump, he is praising the efforts of Cipollone to check the criminal impulses of Trump.

    Trumpists are going to attack Turley. Watch.

  13. I would hope that lawyer-client privilege would apply. That privilege does not seem to apply to the efforts of the J6 Committee, which is not interested in truth finding, only in smears. If they have uncovered evidence of wrong doing on the part of Mr. Trump, they must turn it over to the DOJ and let them (the DOJ) proceed in the judicial system. No more show trials.

    1. There is a crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege. Cipollone should seek a cooperation agreement from the DOJ and then testify about the crimes he witnessed.

      1. There is a crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege.
        Congress has no power to conduct a criminal investigation. The crime fraud exception could not be triggered.

        1. Work on your reading skills retard (a word I use only to underscore your own use). My comment was about the DOJ, which absolutely has the power to conduct federal criminal investigations.

Comments are closed.