Comment Former White House counsel Pat Cipollone was the missing person in hearings for the House Select Committee investigating the January 6 riot. Although present at the most critical moments of the coup attempt, he has so far refused to testify officially. That will now change with his consent to give a videotaped, transcribed interview. Even though he’s not under oath, lying to Congress is still a crime, so he has every reason to stick to the truth. This is even more bad news for defeated former President Donald Trump. Cipollone appeared for an informal panel interview but declined to speak beyond a limited set of topics under claims of executive privilege. The January 6 committee finally abandoned friendly negotiations and issued a subpoena last week. Faced with the prospect of criminal contempt and possible sanctions from the bar, Cipollone, a practicing attorney, agreed to at least appear. It seems that his initial claims of privilege have fallen by the wayside. President Biden has waived executive privilege and others have already testified about communications with Trump, including former White House counsel Eric Hersman, former Justice Department officials and Cassidy Hutchinson, a top aide to the former White House chief of staff. Mark Meadows. Additionally, Cipollone has no attorney client privilege with Trump since his client was the US government (a concept Trump could never grasp). Follow Jennifer Rubin’s viewsFollow Add As for Cipollone’s possibility of taking the Fifth, constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe tells me, “Cipollone may try to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against incriminated self-incrimination, but it doesn’t appear that he was personally involved in anything criminal, so that the privilege will not apply.” Cipollone doesn’t seem to have the nerve of the 25-year-old Hutchinson, given that he will avoid the exposure that comes with public testimony. But his interview will be videotaped and therefore used in future hearings. His testimony can also be used by the commission and by prosecutors to, among other things, cross-examine him if he later testifies before the commission or before a grand jury. His testimony may also be referred to in the committee’s final report. Cipollone can answer a series of questions either to corroborate other accounts or to provide new evidence only he may have seen. For example:
How did John Eastman, the main architect of the coup, end up providing legal advice to Trump? Did Eastman or Meadows ever admit there was no voter fraud? Did Trump do it? Others testified that you described the letter written by Jeffrey Clark, the Justice Department official whom Trump wanted to nominate as deputy attorney general, calling the election rigged a “murder-suicide pact”? What do you mean with that? Did Trump show he understood it was illegal? Why did Trump want to replace acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen? Why did Rosen refuse to sign Clark’s letter? What do you know about Trump’s calls to election officials in Georgia and other states? Did Trump understand that this behavior was illegal? Did you advise Trump to concede the election? What conversations did he have with Vice President Mike Pence and Pence’s lawyers? What did you try to take away from Trump’s January 6 speech? Why; Were these changes rejected, and if so, who rejected them? Others have testified that regarding Trump’s proposal to march on Capitol Hill on January 6, you said “We will be charged with every crime imaginable.” What do you mean with that? Did you explain to Trump the potential charges he could face? Do you know why Trump wanted to go to Capitol Hill? What did you say to Trump after you dragged Meadows to talk to Trump on the afternoon of January 6th? Did Trump ever suggest the mob attack or kill the vice president?
There is no guarantee that it will answer all of these questions. As Norman Eisen, who served as co-counsel on the House Judiciary Committee during Trump’s first impeachment, tells me, Cipollone “may still try to raise privilege, of course, on a question-by-question basis and that would have to be negotiated. But this deal shows he’s willing to negotiate, and I think that will be resolved with the White House.” If Cipollone refuses to answer critical questions, he will again be at risk of contempt charges. As Tribe explains, executive privilege would not apply at all to Cipollone’s remarks and conversations with others. Moreover, Tribe says, “the criminal fraud exception would likely override any privilege it would otherwise have.” If Hutchinson’s testimony shamed Cipollone into cooperating, the country has additional reasons to praise her. The committee with Cipollone’s help should now be able to reach Trump’s inner circle. Trump has every reason to panic. The walls are closing.
