J6 Committee Says Cipollone “Did Not Contradict” Hutchinson but Sources Say He was Not Asked

There is a new controversy over the alleged bias of the J6 Committee and the extreme measures used to avoid alternative or conflicting accounts. On Friday, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), a member of the House select committee, declared that former Trump White House counsel Pat Cipollone” did not contradict” the testimony of previous witnesses like Cassidy Hutchinson. However, the New York Times is reporting that he was not asked about statements that the Committee knew he would contradict.  The controversy comes at a time when the head of the Oath Keepers has offered to testify, an extraordinary move since he is facing criminal charges. However, he has one big demand: it must be live and in public. In other words, it cannot be edited or tailored by the Committee.

Lofgren told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer “Mr. Cipollone did appear voluntarily and answer a whole variety of questions. He did not contradict the testimony of other witnesses. And I think we did learn a few things, which we will be rolling out in the hearings to come.”

The contradictions with Hutchinson are important after other witnesses contested her account on a key point of her testimony.

This brings us back to the offer of  Stewart Rhodes to testify live. That is an extraordinary offer for a criminal defendant. No defense lawyer (including this one) would support such an appearance before a criminal trial. If the Committee is truly interested in getting to the truth, why wouldn’t it hold an open hearing? It has suggested that Trump was in collusion or a conspiracy with this group. It also alleged that the Oath Keepers came to Washington to commit an armed insurrection. We could now, for the first time, hear from one of the leaders of the two groups on that very subject. It would ideally allow him to make an opening statement and offer a full account on whether he coordinated with anyone in the White House on January 6th.

If Rhodes is willing to take this risk, the Committee should be willing to give up control over what the public can see and hear in the J6 investigation.

206 thoughts on “J6 Committee Says Cipollone “Did Not Contradict” Hutchinson but Sources Say He was Not Asked”

  1. We are interviewing Pat C as a rebuttal witness against Hutchinson …

    Hey Pat… what’s your favorite flavor of ice cream?
    Did you have conversations w Trump or his staff?
    What do you think about the Cubs? Do they have a chance of a miracle comeback?

    Ok, I’m done asking Pat C questions in our closed door session.

    News leak… Pat C doesn’t refute Hutchinson… therefore her testimony stands.


    While those with an IQ over 110 can see through this carp. The Grubers eat it up and take it at face value.


  2. I just spoke w my elderly Mother in Law (MiL). I asked her what she was watching on TV this afternoon.
    She complained that she couldn’t watch anything because of the J6 show trial being shown on MSM instead of the normal afternoon talk show trash.

    Seems the idea is to create something for the Grubers and to get them to be anti-Trump.

    If my MiL is typical of the Gruber population… its working.

    Facts don’t matter. The Democrats know that if you repeat a lie long enough people are going to believe it.


    1. Treat her to a gift subscription to ‘Fox Nation’ and have her watch the expose on Hunter Biden. Be it truth or not, much like the committee, consider it counter-propaganda.

  3. Good grief. There is ONE defining debate on this topic. Will Trump be charged and if so by DOJ or Georgia or both. That’s what’s left. It is sophomoric to debate whether 1/6 was bad or if Trump played a key role. That is decided. It is moronic to debate whether the election was fixed. No serious journalist or member of the law community disputes that.

    1. It is moronic to debate whether the election was fixed.


      You don’t get out much do ya.

    2. Jeff2m, can you help me on this? Specifically what do you believe constitute legitimate charges against Trump. I keep looking, but I can’t find anything criminal.

      1. Who does the clean after all their Prev friends???

        There’s much more out, I just can’t garther it all & post it.

        Alex Jones Responds to Hunter Biden’s ‘Pedo Pete’ Phone Hack



        Jul 11, 2022
        The Alex Jones Show
        The Alex Jones Show

        Alex Jones breaks down why the Hunter Biden treasure trove of damning info on the Biden family is being revealed.

        Read more here:


      2. @S Meyer…

        Does it matter? The Democrats don’t want Trump to run.
        Their intention is to get him charged so that they can damage him in the MSM which will be complicit to this charade.

        They’ll set it up so that Trump will have limited options in attempting to sue them for their misconduct.

        If Trump were smart… he’d keep this up, and will do a hand off to DeSantis and then sue the carp out them.


        1. If Trump runs Democrats will go psycho and devote almost all their efforts against Trump helping non-Democrats win other elections.

          Jeff2 probably couldn’t think of significant charges against Trump so he said nothing. Will he repeat that claim? Maybe, maybe not, but if he does the same question will be asked.

  4. Jonathan: I think you need to write another column and remind some of your loyal followers that the J.6 Committee hearings are not a “show trial” –they’re not even a trial. The Committee is conducting an “investigation”. That is their only function under the Constitution. They can’t “prosecute” anyone. Only the DOJ can do that. So when some argue that Cassidy Hutchinson should be subject to “vigorous cross examination” that’s beside the point and completely irrelevant. What some fail to mention, even you, is that almost all the key testimony so far is coming from Republicans not Democratic witnesses. Both Bill Barr and Hutchinson are Republicans. If/when anyone is indicted by the DOJ there will be ample opportunity for cross examination and the presentation of evidence favorable to the defendants.

    But you are responsible for all the misinformation in this chatroom about what the J.6 Committee is doing. You argue they have presented evidence and testimony “with no dissenting or Republican-appointed members”. You know the truth–about how House “Special” committees are established and how members are selected. It is the right, under long-standing House rules, of the House majority leader to select members of any “Special” committee in consultation with the minority leader–in this case Kevin McCarthy. He refused to participate after Nancy Pelosi nixed Jim Jordan. That was her right under House rules. McCarthy could have appointed at least two other GOP members but he refused and decided to boycott the J. 6 investigation. Even Trump has criticized McCarthy for that fateful decision that McCarthy thought could erroneously be used later to claim the Committee is “biased”. So if there is any complaint it should be directed at McCarthy–not Pelosi.

    I think you need to correct the record so some of your loyal followers don’t continue to respond with erroneous and unfounded claims. However, I’m not holding my breath for you to do that. Can’t wait for the next J.6 hearing tomorrow where the role of right-wing groups, like the Oath Keepers and their leader Stewart Rhodes, will be fully exposed.. And I can’t wait to read your next attempt at dissembling!

    1. I think you miss the point. If, in fact, it turns out that the committee did not ask any questions of Mr. Cipollone concerning his conversations with Ms. Hutchinson, then they are not doing their due diligence. That would create the perception that they are not interested in getting to the truth of the matter if it could possibly damage her testimony.

    2. It is a Stalinist show trial dum dum. It’s sole purpose is to stop Trump from running again in 2024.

  5. Turley claims “witnesses contested a key part” of Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony, based on the following from the link: “However, Fox News is reporting that Ornato was “shocked” by the testimony. He and Bobby Engel, the top agent on Trump’s Secret Service detail, both testified previously and this is a hardly a detail that they would omit from their accounts.” BUT did they actually DENY her testimony? Ms Hutchinson made clear that she did not personally witness what did or didn’t happen in the “Beast”. Even if they speficially denied that it happened or that they told her it happened, this is a “he said…she said” situation, which doesn’t prove she lied. Whether Trump tried to grab the wheel is a relatively unimportant detail overall, but Turley is being paid to throw shade on ALL of Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony by highlighting one small element that those loyal to Trump might refute, to make it sound like ALL of her testimony should be disregarded, which is Fox’s tactic in handling the devastating evidence that is being uncovered. Turley also relays a hearsay statement that Cipollone did not remember something Ms Hutchinson testified about. Turley then tries to elevate this hearsay(at this point) lack of recollection as a “contradiction”. Again, even if Cipollone denies what Ms. Hutchinson testifed about, which he has not, that does not prove she lied. It is a fact that Trump told the faithful he’d join them at the Capitol. If I were on a jury, this fact alone would cause me to believe her testimony over that of someone loyal to Trump. But wheel-grabbing is the least-significant aspect of Ms. Hutchinson’s story.

    Turley also claims: “One of the most persistent problems has been the failure of any member to raise opposing views or contradicting points.” Turley knows this isn’t a criminal trial: it is an investigation into how our Capitol was invaded and desecrated based on a lie by Donald Trump that he KNEW was a lie. At the Benghazi hearing in which Hillary Clinton testified for 11 hours, she was not granted the right for anyone to “raise opposing views of contradicting points” because Congressional select committees are NOT criminal trials, something Turley also knows. He is being disingenuous when he argues that a moron like Jim Jordan should be on the Committee to undermine the fact-finding process. These ReTrumplicans continue to support the Big Lie. But, the entirety of today’s post proves that Trump and his pro-Trump media know that the Committee is scoring points with the public.

    Lastly, Turley argues that Stuart Rhodes from the Oath Keepers, who is under pending criminal charges, should be allowed to testify live without editing. If he admitted the planning meetings at the Willard Hotel with Trump insiders, the cache of weapons across the Potomac at a motel, the surveillance before Jan 6th on where the most-vulnerable points of entries were (which the embedded reporter testified to) and tactical formation used to attack the Capitol Police (proving this was a planned attack, not a protest out of control), he would be admitting to multiple felonies. His testimony would seal his fate in his pending criminal trial. Who in their right mind would believe that Rhodes would tell the truth about the collusion between the Oath Keepers and Trump and/or his campaign? Well, maybe the disciples might. It is literally a sure bet that Rhodes will lie. He has to–he’s under indictment, and anything other than a flat-out denial would result in decades in federal prison. ReTrumplicans are advancing this argument to try to make it sound like the J6 Committee is trying to hide evidence, and Turley is going along with it. The upshot of all of this demonstrates just how desperate ReTrumplicans are to change the narrative or at least try to create doubt. This is a perfect example of why non-Trump media do not call on Turley any more. He has lost his credibility. He is on the wrong side of history.

    1. They are not “trying” to hide evidence; they ARE hiding evidence.

    1. Yes, it’s a dog and pony show performed in the *style* of a Stalinist show trial.

      1. ‘Holy ‘show me the man and I’ll show you the crime, Batman!!” Pree-cise=leee!!

Comments are closed.