Forget it, Jake. It’s Congress.
It reminds me of what dad would say. ‘If we had any ham, we could have ham and eggs. If we had any eggs.’
I’d interpret the comment as they had predetermined areas of questioning Cipollone was willing to answer on, and they got all their questions in those areas answered.
Or US Rep. Fucking Yogi Berra, eh?
(Props to your dad, I like that!)
As I understand it, client privilege doesn’t apply to Cipollone because his client was the office of the president, not the person in the office. Is that correct?
From the careful phrasing I imagine he was mildly cooperative, but didn’t lay out all the machinations in detail.
Correct. He was not paid by the president, he was paid by the tax payers to give the best legal advise to the office of the president.
For 8 hours!
This could be interesting. If it happens. (Gift link)
Lol, Bannon has no claim nor does Trump have the powers to waive anything.
I doubt they got much from Cipollone except corroboration of other testimony. And that in itself can be very valuable in building a case. In this case times and dates are going to be very important in establishing the chain of information passed from person to person that shows active participation in a conspiracy. I’m sure they got plenty of valuable information today without ever asking Cipollone about any details that would come near and kind of privilege claim.
Zoe Lofgren leaks (perhaps teases is the better word) some hints about what went down today in Committee with Cipollone.
Except Cipollone is the White House counsel, not T****'s. The man is not his client, the office is.
Although the White House counsel offers legal advice to the president and vice president, the counsel does so in the president’s and vice president’s official capacity, and does not serve as the president’s personal attorney. Therefore, controversy has emerged over the scope of the attorney–client privilege between the counsel and the president and vice president, namely with John Dean of Watergate notoriety.
Someone on TV is saying that Cipollone has provided new information, so maybe they got more than I surmised out of him.
The big deal about Patsy Baloney is that he was publicly called out and complied.
It may not be a big news day for the J6C. May not bring much to you and I. Perhaps all he did was not deny a single thing already testified to.
But to those involved, seeing this happen is incredibly demoralizing and confusing: “what is my exposure now? I never saw that Cassidy woman but barely, but I talked to Cip every damned day! Shit. I really need to call Jim, see if he can handle this and if not, I’ll find the best attorney in DC who can…”
Would that just be a criminal defense lawyer, or a specific branch of law?
At least it’ll be direct rather than all those “hear-say” objections the right is spinning now.
Aw, who am I trying to kid. CFSG could testify himself saying, “Yes! I unleashed the Bully Boys and Oathbreakers on the Capitol to break up the EC count and keep me as President! And I would have gotten away with it too if it wasn’t for that meddling Vice-President!”
They’d just say the Deep State drugged him or bribed him or beamed 5G into his head to make him say those things.
No, I think they’d be fine with what he said. No need to make excuses for it. “Damn right, and I did it all to protect our nation and make it great again!”
It would be ‘not one paid by Trump’. That ship has sailed.
Going back to the question of whether Trump believes what he is saying on the Big Lie, I was curious if Trump ever admitted to not believing in the Deep State? We can demonstrate that he increased funding to the Deep State FBI, signed laws that maintained the domestic spying powers of the FBI, gave both the CIA and FBI greater autonomy than Obama had, and that he let someone else choose Wray and didn’t seem to care too much about cleaning up the intelligence community.
From his actions, I can’t think of a single item of evidence to support the idea that Trump believes in the Deep State. Has he ever said, though, that it’s just a bunch of nonsense? Or has he been very consistent in both public and private about espousing a belief while making policy choices that belie those statements?