It’s no secret that Pat Cipollone is considered one of the key pieces to the gigantic picture puzzle which is the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6. His testimony is expected to illuminate many dark corners. In fact, Cipollone’s testimony is considered, importance wise, to be second only to that of Mark Meadows, who last we knew was missing in action, with his face appearing on milk cartons on social media. His silence in the face of Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony has spoken volumes.

News broke this morning that Pat Cipollone would sit for a private interview on Friday, July 8, with the next January 6 Committee hearing to be televised the morning of July 12 at 10:00 a.m. ET. Therefore, it’s not going to be much of a wait between Cipollone’s testimony and the revelation to the world of what that testimony was.

One person who’s getting very uptight about it is Donald Trump. Here is what he launched out into the ethernet.

Interesting how he puts “lawyer” in quotes. I wonder what that’s about? Cipollone was indeed a lawyer and his job as a lawyer was to protect the office of president, which the then-sitting president was doing everything in his power to trash.

Trump is setting Cipollone up to be a liar. That’s the meaning of why would he want to have candid and important conversations, etc. That he says “future President of the United States” when he was in fact then the sitting POTUS is intriguing.

I can’t wait to hear what Cipollone says about “being charged with everything in the book.”

It’s only Wednesday night. Look for this to heat up.

Cipollone may not only be the new John Dean. He might be John Dean, Alexander Haig and Henry Kissinger rolled into one. We shall see. The good news is that we don’t have long to wait.



Help keep the site running, consider supporting.


  1. I voted for Trump, TWICE; that was before the Jan 6 inserection and I share never again support that miserable loser! I held my nose because of his in office behavior stunk to high heaven, but his people’s work was good. Clearly Trump is a loser, wantabe dictator, and a sick narcissist! I’m 82 and not thin skinned the the Trumpers, give it best shot though!

    • Like most people here I disagree with you about Trump’s policies being good for most Americans. Hell, we could probably argue till the cows come home and no doubt it would get intense at times. Still, the fact you’re here indicates that like me and many others here you at least pay attention to what those of differing opinions and beliefs have to say and as far as I’m concerned that’s something good I can say about you. But more importantly I applaud your realization that for whatever Trump did that was enough for you to, as you put it hold your nose and vote for him that he proved himself unfit for Office and that you’re done. That the proverbial end no longer justified the means. It is far more difficult to build something than it is to destroy it. A building or a bridge that can take lots of months, if not years to build can be imploded into a pile of debris in a few seconds. Ok, so engineers have to spend two or three weeks analyzing and setting the explosives in the proper places but the point is that for all the work it took to erect that building or bridge someone can destroy it in a fraction of the time. And, as we see with large buildings in Ukraine these days it’s not always a controlled implosion but just a barrage of artillery or rockets that reduces a structure to rubble. And that’s what Trump and his conservative enablers have done to almost two-hundred fifty years of slow, sometimes halting progress towards the ideals expressed in our founding documents. To provide the full blessings of liberty to all people. To have a country with stable institutions that even if they didn’t always get things right at a given time could wind up correcting their course when needed. And Trump lobbed missile after missile into all that for his own PERSONAL gain. He never gave a fuck about you or me, and if it took his being the first President in our history to attempt to hold on to power, even going so far as to approve of and help incite an insurrection for people to see how dangerous and destructive he is (and always has been – look at his multiple bankruptcies and all the small business owners he’s fucked over in his life) then perhaps others will like you say enough! That this sorry as excuse for a man shouldn’t every hold power again. And that the people who propped him up shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the levers of power either.

      As I said, conservatives like you and liberals like me can and I guess should debate (even if it gets fierce at times) how to best make our country live up to those simple words in the Preamble of our Constitution. Different times call for different approaches to various issues/problems we face, and even (horrors!) some compromises must be made. But somehow we all (or at least the overwhelming majority of us) have to get back to the point where we can agree on some basic facts. And a goal of freedom and a legitimate opportunity for all regardless of how we start out in life.

  2. Did not have candid conversations with the W.H. counsel diaper don picked himself? There are two ways to look at this, A) he’s lying, B) he picks “F” listers and knows he picks them…Ok, three ways because A & B can be correct. My problem with that is I have my doubts diapers knows what day it is when he wakes in the A.M.

    Still, W.T.F.??? I suppose it’s pointless to ask if he knows just how stupid he looks after a tweet like that?

  3. Ursula, while it’s easy to find anything Trump says or writes to be concerning, I’d be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt here and say that he’s asking a fairly legitimate question. He may be bringing up a fairly legitimate concern here for ACTUAL presidents in the future.

    Now, I don’t believe the subjects he’s describing in his little message merit the concern. I’m not a lawyer–much less a Presidential Counsel–but I can’t really imagine the type of “foreign policy” matters that the President’s lawyer (especially his “official” lawyer–the one who advises the President on legal matters as opposed to a lawyer who would advise the Person who happens to be President on legal matters*) would be in a position to discuss, or NEED to discuss.

    And, of course, there’s the fact that IF the President’s Counsel is TRULY acting as a lawyer for the country, then said Counsel should have no problem appearing before a “partisan and openly hostile Committee” or “even a fair and reasonable Committee” and speaking the truth as best he can. Obviously, no lawyer (representing the President on an official basis or representing some little peon) is going to discuss truly sensitive matters–that’s what “I’m afraid I’m not at liberty to discuss such matters at this time” and “that subject matter is not suitable for an open hearing” are for–in front of anyone. Generally speaking, a committee will begin with very broad questions and as the subject matter becomes more specific and could put matters of national security into question, members of the committee will be more willing to accept “I can’t discuss that” answers (a question like “Did the President discuss the results of the election with” would be fair game while something like “Did the President ask your legal advice on how to overturn the election results” might be a little iffy and something like “Did the President ever discuss Pakistani intelligence regarding Taliban movements” would probably be a national security matter).

    *I don’t know if that made sense but I would think the President’s lawyer would advise the President on whether he has the right to destroy a letter from a Senator regarding a judicial appointment while the other lawyer would be the one who would handle purely personal matters, like updating a will (because he’s got a new kid or grandkid) or considering the purchase or sale of a house.

    • If there’s one thing I know for an absolute fact, it’s that Trump isn’t thinking about any “future presidents.” He’s thinking about Trump.

    • I’ve addressed this before and will do so again. Yes, the WH Counsel’s Office represents the Office of the Presidency and by extension the Executive Branch. It follows that damned near everything a President does or instructs Cabinet agencies to do will involve input from the WH Counsel as to the scope of a President’s authority and power. That includes the Dept. of State and even Defense as there are international laws and treaties that must be followed. That means as you suggest there can (and have been) legitimate national security concerns that must be dealt with should a WH Counsel need to report or testify to Congress. Prior to the Clinton Presidency and sometimes since if Congress had a legitimate investigative purpose some quiet arrangement was worked out.

      Then came Inspector Javert aka Ken Starr. HE went to court to force not just testimony on all manner of things (basically, everthing including whether Clinton ever scratched his balls and did the Counsel think it might be because Clinton had contracted the Clap!) and in public. And won. Prior to that for the most part it (talking, if only informally) to a WH Counsel was something that Congress was understandably reluctant to do. As I’ve said, if not the actual Counsel then someone from the Office has to at least be in the room for damned near everything if only because some actual law or whether a proposed policy was legal might come up. I imagine if things turn to more personal shit they have tended to tune out and do some organizing of their notes for a formal write-up later on.

      But Starr is the one who set the precedent and it’s where we are. It’s also worth noting that if a President is making a good faith effort to as the oath puts it faithfully execute the laws then they should have nothing to fear about anyone from the Counsel’s Office talking to Congress – except for the time away from their actual job because there has to be time taken to collect notes and reports and prep. That’s why Congress shouldn’t abuse the privilege. And there IS a difference between asking if this or that action or policy is within the scope of laws or Presidential powers and discussion about how to get around those things. If a President is engaged in the latter then all bets are off. There is a grey area of course, and a wise Congress will grant some latitude for most Presidents. Trump? No fucking way. He made a point of braggin on being able to do whatever the fuck he wanted, that laws were whatever he decided they were and that he had unlimited power.

      Congress had plenty of examples of his actions speaking as loudly as his words but geez – we/they have BOTH! So I for one don’t worry about troubling precedent. Will some future President try to dance along the edge of the razor blade? Sure. And that will pose some difficult questions for a Congress that might feel it necessary to have a chat with a WH Counsel as it should. But if a President is, unlike Trump wise enough to realize they are playing with fire and therefore wary of getting burned (at their own hand no less!) I for one think that cooler heads will tend to prevail and if it’s really warranted something informal can and will be worked out. Records provided. Written questions submitted and answered or not if Executive Privilege is legitimately raised.

      Hopefully this country will never see another Trump like figure in the Oval Office, nor a Congress with a Gym Jordan as Speaker of the House.

  4. The people on the J6 committee are all intelligent people, and I’m sure that they know what kinds of questions and how to ask them that will cause the least “I’m sorry, I’m not at liberty to answer that question” kinds of questions. I think that Cipalone if he’s honest can and WILL split this thing wide open. He doesn’t have to even speak about his conversations with Trump, just what he heard and saw and tried to stop will be enough. I for one am anxiously waiting to see what testimony he gives


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

The maximum upload file size: 128 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop files here