Jan 6 Committee Public Hearings

[Macky-Mac]

it's a shame there isn't any video of the food being thrown

 

[GermanSuplex]

"Sorry, that information is classified."

Can something that is supposedly a work of fiction - which is what Trump claims - be classified? If Trump is alleged to have made a pit stop on the way back to the White House and shit in public on the roadway, would that be classified, or would they be free to debunk the story under oath?

Anything other than a firm denial of Hurchinson’s testimony under oath is a confirmation, as far as I’m concerned.

In other news, Kinzinger stated on CNN more witnesses have come forward since Hutchinson.

 

[Runs For Fun]

Get your popcorn ready

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1544428991272161280/

I have a feeling this one gonna be good

 

[Citysnaps]

In other news, Kinzinger stated on CNN more witnesses have come forward since Hutchinson.

I wonder how many are repeat witnesses who all of a sudden remember more information and need to revise or amend their previous testimony?

 

[Cmaier]

Uh oh, Cipollone agreed to talk…

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/06/...e-jan-6-testimony.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/06/...6-testimony.html?referringSource=articleShare

 

[Eric]

Uh oh, Cipollone agreed to talk…

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/06/...e-jan-6-testimony.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/06/...6-testimony.html?referringSource=articleShare

Interesting...

Here is some more info from Axios (no paywall)

Former President Trump's White House counsel Pat Cipollone will testify Friday in a closed-door, videotaped interview with the Jan. 6 committee, a source familiar with his plans told Axios.

Why it matters: Cipollone — a crucial witness to what unfolded inside the West Wing on Jan. 6 — was subpoenaed by the committee following former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson's blockbuster testimony late last month.

• Hutchinson revealed during the committee's last hearing that Cipollone repeatedly tried to prevent Trump from encouraging his supporters to march to the Capitol on Jan. 6.
• She testified that Cipollone had warned in the days leading up to the attack that the former president and his aides could be charged with "every crime imaginable" if Trump joined protesters at the Capitol.
• While the attack was happening, Hutchinson testified that Cipollone demanded to see the president while rioters were chanting for former Vice President Mike Pence to be hanged, but then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows told him Trump "doesn't want to do anything" and "thinks Mike deserves it."

Driving the news: Cipollone's subpoena has been extended to Friday, the source briefed on the deal told Axios, so he is still in compliance with it.

• Cipollone has spoken to the committee on an informal basis, but his interview was not transcribed or recorded. His Friday interview will be.
• The Jan. 6 committee did not immediately respond to Axios' request for comment.

 

[SuperMatt]

Interesting...

Here is some more info from Axios (no paywall)

The dominos are beginning to fall.

I think Mark Meadows would be the ultimate witness, but based on what Hutchinson said about him, I think he’d want an immunity deal before agreeing to talk.

He’d need to admit to lying in his book too…

 

[GermanSuplex]

Here's what Trump had to whine about on "Truth" social when he heard Cipollone would be testifying:

"Why would a future President of the United States want to have candid and important conversations with his White House Counsel if he thought there was even a small chance that this person, essentially acting as a 'lawyer' for the Country, may some day be brought before a partisan and openly hostile Committee in Congress, or even a fair and reasonable Committee, to reveal the inner secrets of foreign policy or other important matters," Trump wrote. "So bad for the USA!"

Now, that's a pretty tame statement from Trump. As someone on the news said yesterday; that's a far cry from "Phony Cipollone" or some other juvenile name Trump likes to call people. Sounds to me like he's praying nothing is said, and is saving his vitriol for later, after its too late. Then he'll start blasting him.

I do wonder why he didn't speak up sooner. Trump is correct about one thing; Cipollone was not Trump's personal lawyer, he was the WH counsel. The fact all of this stuff happened behind closed doors and virtually nobody spoke up about anything makes you wonder just how bad things have to get in the White House before somebody speaks up. I'd hate to think any of this crap could happen again.

 

[Edd]

Here's what Trump had to whine about on "Truth" social when he heard Cipollone would be testifying:

"Why would a future President of the United States want to have candid and important conversations with his White House Counsel if he thought there was even a small chance that this person, essentially acting as a 'lawyer' for the Country, may some day be brought before a partisan and openly hostile Committee in Congress, or even a fair and reasonable Committee, to reveal the inner secrets of foreign policy or other important matters," Trump wrote. "So bad for the USA!"

Now, that's a pretty tame statement from Trump. As someone on the news said yesterday; that's a far cry from "Phony Cipollone" or some other juvenile name Trump likes to call people. Sounds to me like he's praying nothing is said, and is saving his vitriol for later, after its too late. Then he'll start blasting him.

I do wonder why he didn't speak up sooner. Trump is correct about one thing; Cipollone was not Trump's personal lawyer, he was the WH counsel. The fact all of this stuff happened behind closed doors and virtually nobody spoke up about anything makes you wonder just how bad things have to get in the White House before somebody speaks up. I'd hate to think any of this crap could happen again.

Trump obviously didn’t write that.

 

[Yoused]

Trump obviously didn’t write that.

It looks like he is using an aide to costruct his ravings into coherent text, in an apparent effort to get non-morons less disgusted by his crumbling cranium.

 

[GermanSuplex]

Hard to tell if he'll be truthful or just BS around, but this guy clearly has some info on some of the Trump lackeys, probably folks like Flynn, Stone and Rudy Colludy...

Also Friday, the lawyer for Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes told NBC News that his client wants to testify before the committee a second time, but only if certain conditions are met.

Ex-Trump White House counsel Cipollone is being 'cooperative' with Jan. 6 committee

The panel has called Pat Cipollone a critical witness who repeatedly raised legal concerns about Trump’s activities on Jan. 6 and in the days preceding it.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Edd]

It looks like he is using an aide to costruct his ravings into coherent text, in an apparent effort to get non-morons less disgusted by his crumbling cranium.

Yeah, the stupidity is there, but the grammar, while not great, is still above his level.

 

[JayMysteri0]

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1545533160259104769/

 

[Cmaier]

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1545533160259104769/

Nah. Rumor is trump is going to waive executive privilege in writing to him. This is so he can go before the committee and just sing trump’s praises.

 

[GermanSuplex]

Rats jumping ship. With both Rhodes and Bannon, it’s hard to say if it will be a stunt or if they’re really going to spill the beans to protect themselves,

Bannon’s lawyer also asked to remove himself from the case, citing he may be called as a witness in Bannon’s trial scheduled for this month.

Two hearings next week alone. Can’t wait!

 

[Cmaier]

Rats jumping ship. With both Rhodes and Bannon, it’s hard to say if it will be a stunt or if they’re really going to spill the beans to protect themselves,

Bannon’s lawyer also asked to remove himself from the case, citing he may be called as a witness in Bannon’s trial scheduled for this month.

Two hearings next week alone. Can’t wait!

I just don’t see any way Bannon isn’t a stunt; Trump is about to send him the letter revoking his assertion of privilege. There is no way that Trump would revoke privilege unless he expected Brannon to go in there and spout conspiracy theories and tell everyone how big Donald’s hands are.

As for Rhodes, there have been MANY witnesses so far who have said “I’ll testify, but only live and in person,” and that’s never happened. (Though some have ended up being deposited on tape). But we know Rhodes is going to be a clown.

 

[GermanSuplex]

Lofgren hinted that Cipollone corroborated witness statements. So no longer second-hand accounts.

Which was already a swerve by the cons anyway, because not all of Huchinson’s testimony was second-hand… she was part of many of the convos she cited.

 

[Cmaier]

Lofgren hinted that Cipollone corroborated witness statements. So no longer second-hand accounts.

Which was already a swerve by the cons anyway, because not all of Huchinson’s testimony was second-hand… she was part of many of the convos she cited.

None of it was hearsay anyway even if she was NOT part of the conversations. the statements were not offered for truth, but for knowledge.

In other words, if they tried to use her testimony to prove that the statement Cippolene made “we’ll be charged with every crime” is true, then it would be hearsay. But if they are using it to prove that Trump was told it was illegal, then it is NOT hearsay (assuming she heard the statements, of course - you can have multiple levels of transmission and you need a way around hearsay for each).

That said, it’s good to have the actual speaker confirm, though I bet Trump and his MAGA troll army aren’t going to say “oh, yeah, now you’re good.”

 

[JayMysteri0]

Nah. Rumor is trump is going to waive executive privilege in writing to him. This is so he can go before the committee and just sing trump’s praises.

The impression I got from watching last night and reading a few other things, is that it has more to do with Bannon's upcoming trial.



Seems steve o's legal issues are a bit more of a shitshow than previously known.

Bannon’s Lawyer Seeks to Exit Jan. 6 Contempt Case Before Trial

(Bloomberg) -- The lawyer defending Steve Bannon against contempt charges over his refusal to cooperate with the Congressional Jan. 6 committee asked to withdraw from the case because he may be called as a trial witness.Most Read from BloombergWho Shot Shinzo Abe and Why? Everything We Know So...

finance.yahoo.com

(Bloomberg) -- The lawyer defending Steve Bannon against contempt charges over his refusal to cooperate with the Congressional Jan. 6 committee asked to withdraw from the case because he may be called as a trial witness.

Robert Costello made his request to US District Judge Carl Nichols in a motion filed Friday in federal court in Washington. The lawyer’s move comes just before Bannon’s trial is set to begin on July 18, but Costello noted that Nichols had yet to rule on an earlier request that he be allowed to testify for the defense about his interactions with the Jan. 6 panel and prosecutors.

“If the Court decides to prevent me from testifying, there will be no pathway to inform the Jury about the communications with the Select Committee or the three prosecutors in this case,” Costello said. He accused them of interfering with his attorney-client relationship with Bannon by attempting to access his phone records.

Bannon, a longtime Donald Trump adviser, was indicted in November on two counts of contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with subpoenas from the House Jan. 6 committee seeking his testimony and production of documents.

He has previously argued that he relied in good faith on Costello’s advice concerning the subpoenas, but Nichols ruled in April that he could not make that case to the jury. Bannon has more recently sought to delay his trial, arguing that the ongoing televised Jan. 6 committee hearings could prevent him from getting a fair trial.

With that last part seeming to be the more important reason for wanting to NOW go before the committee.

Bannon has more recently sought to delay his trial, arguing that the ongoing televised Jan. 6 committee hearings could prevent him from getting a fair trial.

 

[Alli]

Whether it’s Mo Brooks or Steve Bannon, no one has the right to dictate how they will be deposed. And nobody demanding a live public hearing should get one.