The news is that Trump’s last White House Counsel has agreed to give transcribed testimony. The New York Times article reporting this says that Cipollone’s testimony might be limited by claims of Executive Privilege and Attorney-Client Privilege.
Both of those claims are bogus, and I expect that Cipollone knows it. First, the White House Council has an allegiance to the Office of the President, and the President is not his client. Second, such privileges go out the window when the testimony has to do with crimes — “the crime/fraud exception” — and Cipollone has been quoted as warning that crimes were being committed.
At least, that’s my understanding of the legalities based on listening to the legal experts on MSNBC.
So if Cipollone wants to tell what he knows, he can simply not make any such privilege claims and tell the panel the truth.
But if Cipollone doesn’t want to tell the truth, he can just make those claims like all the other Trumpian stonewallers, and run out the clock. And by coming in to give worthless testimony, he can get the panel off his back.
I don’t know which to expect.
- On the one hand, Cipollone has some history that tars him with Trump’s lawlessness, like not complying with subpoena’s from the first Impeachment Committee, which was a perfectly legal body whose subpoenas were not optional but required by law;
- On the other hand, Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony pains Cipollone as being one of the voices for the rule of law, and of the voices speaking out against the reckless Trump coup.
So I place my hopes on that. And on the idea that if he wanted to stonewall he needn’t have agreed to testify, but could have raised bogus privilege claims as his one response to the subpoena. But will this guy go full Cassidy Hutchinson, and tell the nation in detail what all he knows of the extraordinary efforts Trump made to overthrow the constitutional order.