Mediaboss Marketing

Summary

Confidence in the Supreme Court is at a new low with polling finding 57 percent of Americans believe the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade was mostly based on politics, not law. You have to travel far from Washington to find a Republican politician who is willing to admit what the Supreme Court has done to the victims of rape and incest and what is going to happen now to 12-year-old-girls who are forced to give birth. Vladimir Putin, the man Donald Trump called a genius for invading Ukraine, ordered the bombing of a crowded shopping mall in central Ukraine this week, killing at least 20 people. Cassidy Hutchinson`s testimony fully justified the subpoena to Trump White House counsel Pat Cipollone that the committee issued today. Interview with Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD).

LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: History made in more ways than one at 12:00 noon tomorrow.

ALI VELSHI, MSNBC HOST, "VELSHI": Yeah.

O`DONNELL: And another reminder, Ali, of why we vote for president. No matter what their issues are, no matter where your concerns are about specific legislative ambitions, most voters do have a preference for a Supreme Court justices being nominated by a Republican, or by a Democrat. And if you are prepared to live with Supreme Court justices from either party, then you are a very unusual voter.

So this is the product of all of those votes, all of those people who went out and voted for Joe Biden, that is how this has happened tomorrow.

VELSHI: A little piece of good news, I`m looking forward to your show tonight, Lawrence. Have a good one.

O`DONNELL: Thank you. Thank you, Ali. Thank you.

Well, tonight, we have a new reason -- I knew apparent reason -- why the January 6th committee rushed into that special session yesterday, to hear the public testimony of Cassidy Hutchinson. They want the White House counsel. They want him. And that`s why they had to have that hearing yesterday, because Cassidy Hutchinson`s testimony fully justified the subpoena to Trump White House counsel Pat Cipollone that the committee issued today.

The last time a president was destroyed by a congressional investigation, the White House counsel was a key witness. Richard Nixon`s White House counsel, John Dean, helped bring down the Nixon presidency, with his testimony in the Watergate hearings. And now it looks like Pat Cipollone could be the witness who locks in Donald Trump`s guilt for the January 6th committee.

When presidents break the law, the White House counsel knows. The White House counsel`s job is to prevent presidents from breaking the law, among other things. That is to say, prevent them from breaking the law intentionally or, as can happen, unintentionally.

When someone in the White House has a bright idea, like banning all Muslims from entering the country, it is the White House counsel`s job to say, we can`t do that, that`s unconstitutional. The White House counsel is not the president`s personal lawyer. The White House counsel does not represent the president as a lawyer. The White House counsel represents the Constitution.

The White House counsel is the defender of the Constitution, the principal defender of the Constitution, in the White House. The White House counsel is the Constitution cop in the White House.

The White House counsel also has other duties, like advising on judicial appointments. But there is nothing in the White House counsel`s work that is protected by the attorney-client privilege with the client being the president. Some of the communication between the president and the White House counsel could, arguably, the protected by executive privilege, as long as that president is still in office.

But that executive privilege does not outlive the presidents term in office. That does not mean that Pat Cipollone will not try to hide behind those privileges and response to the committee`s subpoena. He`s being ordered to testify exactly one week from now. And he has no legal right not to show up for that testimony.

In response to certain questions, he might try to claim attorney-client privilege or executive privilege. Those will be legally false claims. But the committee doesn`t really have the power to force him to answer those questions on the spot if he claims as false privileges.

The privilege that Pat Cipollone does have, and that he might need to invoke, is the Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself in a possible crimes that he may have committed. And here is one passage in Cassidy Hutchinson`s testimony yesterday that gives Pat Cipollone a fully valid claim of his Fifth Amendment right now to answer the question that I would ask him about this testimony.

[22:05:05]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON, FORMER WHITE HOUSE AIDE: On January 3rd, Mr. Cipollone had approached me knowing that Mark had raised the prospect of going up to the Capitol on January 6th. Mr. Cipollone and I had a brief private conversation where he said to me we need to make sure that this doesn`t happen. This would be a legally a terrible idea for us. We`re -- we have serious legal concerns if we go up to the Capitol that day.

And he then urged me to continue relaying that to Mr. Meadows, because it`s my understanding that Mr. Cipollone thought that Mr. Meadows was indeed pushing this, along with the president.

REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WY): And we understand, Ms. Hutchinson, that you also spoke to Mr. Cipollone on the morning of the 6th as you were about to go to the rally on the Ellipse, and Mr. Cipollone said something to you like make sure the movement to the Capitol does not happen. Is that correct?

HUTCHINSON: That`s correct. I saw Mr. Cipollone right before I walked out onto West Exec that morning, and Mr. Cipollone said something to the effect of please make sure we don`t go up to the Capitol, Cassidy. Keep in touch with me. We`re going to get charged with every crime imaginable if we make that movement happen.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O`DONNELL: What do you mean we? We? We are going to get charged with every crime imaginable if we make that movement happen? We are going to get charged.

Mr. Cipollone, what do you mean, we are going to get charged? What were you going to get charged with if Donald Trump went to the Capitol on January 6th?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON: In the days leading up to the sixth, we had conversations about potentially leading up to obstructing justice or defrauding the electoral count.

CHENEY: Let`s hear about some of those concerns that you mentioned earlier in one of your interviews with us.

HUTCHINSON: Having a private conversation with Pat late in the afternoon of the 3rd or 4th that Pat was concerned it would look like we were obstructing justice or obstructing the Electoral College count. And I apologize for probably not being so very clear with my legal terms here, but that it would look like we were obstructing what was happening on Capitol Hill.

And he was also worried that it would look like we were inciting a riot or encouraging a riot to erupt on the Capitol -- at the Capitol.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O`DONNELL: The committee wants to talk to Mr. Cipollone about more than that, much more than that. And their letter today to Pat Cipollone, the committee told him that they have questions about, quote, the submission of fake electoral ballots to Congress and the executive branch, the attempted appointment of Jeffrey Clark as acting attorney general, and efforts to interfere with the congressional certification of the Electoral College results on January 6th, 2021.

The committee also revealed that Cipollone, quote, previously set for an informal interview with the select committee on August 13th, 2022.

Cipollone`s father came to this country as an immigrant from Italy who Donald Trump was would have prevented from entering the United States, had Trump been in power at the time.

Pat Cipollone`s father worked at a factory. His mother was a homemaker. He lived in the Bronx as a child before his family moved to Kentucky, where he attended a Catholic high school and then Catholic college. He was a leader of the right-wing Federalist Society at the university of Chicago law school when he served as one of three clerks to a federal judge on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

He helped to create the least intellectual atmosphere I`ve ever heard of in a federal appeals court judges chambers. "The New York Times" reported in 2019, a fellow clerk, Jennifer Hall, we called sitting in Judge Boggs`s bookshelf lined chambers between Mr. Cipollone and another clerk, Steven Vaughn, now trade lawyer in Washington. They would yell at each other over me, she recalled, listening to Rush Limbaugh.

Pat Cipollone and his wife were close friends with Fox`s Laura Ingraham, have ten children. He was making a few million dollars as a lawyer a year before joining the Trump White House and he is surely making at least that much now.

The good news is, Pat Cipollone is a lawyer, which means he knows that fighting the subpoena in court is hopeless.

[22:10:05]

But the bad news is, he is a ditto head. Rush Limbaugh fondly called his devoted audience ditto, meaning they just said ditto to everything, every crazy thing Rush Limbaugh said. Pat Cipollone is as hard-core conservative as anyone who worked in the Trump White House. He was part of the defense team when Donald Trump`s first impeachment trial in the United States Senate. He saw nothing wrong with Donald Trump trying to extort Ukraine`s President Zelenskyy by asking President Zelenskyy to smear Joe Biden in exchange for Donald Trump sending military aid to Ukraine.

Pat Cipollone agreed with Donald Trump that his extortion phone call to President Zelenskyy was a perfect phone call. We learned today that Ali Alexander, who was involved in organizing the Trump rally on January 6th that occurred before the attack on the Capitol testify to a Washington D.C. grand jury on Friday, which is just about six months after he testified in an eight hour deposition to the January 6th Committee.

So, Pat Cipollone knows that the Washington, D.C. grand jury is operating about six months behind the January six committee`s investigation. So, if he tries to fight this subpoena, he might be facing another one. Six months from now, with no way out from that one.

Joining us now is Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland. He`s a member of the House Select Committee investigating the January 6th attack on the Capitol. He served as lead impeachment manager in the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump.

Thank you very much for joining us tonight.

It seemed to me the speed of the Cipollone subpoena, the day after that testimony yesterday -- seems to indicate that this was a plan, that you would get this testimony where Pat Cipollone`s in the thick of it, all the way through the testimony, which clearly justifies the subpoena sent today.

REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): Well, Pat Cipollone is a material witness. He has a huge volume of relevant evidence. And he was there at every level of each of these assaults on democracy and the rule of law. So, he would know a lot about the president`s attempt to stage a mini coup at the Department of Justice.

He may know something about the counterfeit elector plot. He may know something about the -- Trump`s attempts to shake down different election officials, like Secretary of State Raffensperger. He certainly knows about the effort to force Mike Pence to step outside of his constitutional role and reject Electoral College votes. And, as we heard just yesterday, from Cassidy Hutchinson, undoubtedly he knew a lot about what was going on with armed followers of the president in the crowd. And the formation of a mob that came to storm the Capitol, to try to interference excessively did interfere with the counting of Electoral College votes.

So as the White House counsel, he has a lot to tell us. And I`m hopeful that we will be able to hear from him soon.

O`DONNELL: Did he say anything in his discussion with the committee back in April that contradicts anything we heard from Cassidy Hutchinson yesterday?

RASKIN: I can`t reveal anything about anybody`s private conversations with the committee at this point. But when anything is ready to be revealed, you will know it, obviously. And anything that`s relevant and significant, I think we will make public.

But at this point, I`ve not seen anything that has contradicted, on the record, anything that Cassidy Hutchinson said. I know there are now anonymously sourced allegations about what someone is saying or what someone might say. That`s very different from someone going under oath and contradicting it.

I found her to be an entirely credible witness, who spoke with great candor and honesty to the committee. But if other people have other interpretations of particular incidents or events I would love to hear from them as well. But nobody has contradicted the central important evidence that came out yesterday.

Donald Trump knew that he had heavily armed followers in the crowd and in fact wanted to waive them in and take down the metal detector so they could blend in with the rest of the crowd, swelling the size of the crowd before the march on the Capitol.

[22:15:17]

Nobody has contradicted that. And that to me is the central and most important thing that we learned yesterday.

O`DONNELL: You showed additional witnesses on the video today saying that they knew that Donald Trump wanted to go to the Capitol on January 6. One witness knew it before January 6th. Another knew it on January 6th.

Have there been any witnesses testifying saying the opposite? Saying that, no, I know Donald Trump did not want to go to the Capitol on January 6?

RASKIN: No. I have seen multiple accounts that he wanted very much to go, and to be part of it. And, of course, he said he would be part of it. He said he was going to go with the rally. We are going to march to the Capitol, we will go to the Capitol, and I will be there with you.

In fact, there are a lot of rioters who later stated that they thought that Trump was somewhere in the crowd. You can see lots of visual evidence of people saying to the officers, Donald Trump invited us here. Your boss told us to come here, and they thought that they somehow how the participation on the sanction of Donald Trump in everything that they were doing, because he led them to believe that. Of course, both the House and Senate had majority votes finding that Trump had incited the insurrection, but now we have so much more evidence to show that he not just incited the insurrection, but he actually helped to form, it someone the mob, to create the event, and to stage the whole arrangement for the march.

O`DONNELL: Congressman Jimmy Raskin, thank you very much for leading off our discussion tonight.

RASKIN: You bet.

O`DONNELL: Thank you.

And joining us now is Edward Caspar. He was one of lawyers representing eight Capitol police officers who have filed a civil lawsuit against Donald Trump for the attack on the Capitol.

Thank you very much for joining us tonight.

It seemed to me as I was watching the hearing yesterday that this was the most important discovery session that you have had so far. You know have evidence that the president knew that the mob that he was encouraging to go to the Capitol was equipped with weapons, weapons to go into battle with Capitol police officers.

What did you learn from the hearing tomorrow that you think affects your case -- the hearing yesterday?

EDWARD CASPAR, LAWYER REPRESENTING CAPITOL POLICE SUING DONALD TRUMP: That`s right, Lawrence. What`s the hearing did yesterday was bringing into sharp focus would lot of the public evidence already was suggesting. But the hearing yesterday made that concrete.

There can be no doubt now that the president intended to unleash a violent mob on the Capitol to use force to stop Congress from doing its job to certify the election. We heard yesterday how the president knew that the crowd that he assembled at the very time thought Congress was gathering to certify the election, they knew that the mob, the crowd, was armed and dangerous. And he knew that he wanted the crowd to go to the Capitol.

You know, we cannot lose sight of the fact that there was not only the Capitol that he was sending the crowd to. He was sending the mob to the U.S. Capitol police officers who where they are doing their job to protect it. They were brutally attacked by this crowd that the former president sent, and he needs to be held accountable for it.

O`DONNELL: It seems to me that a Washington, D.C. jury hearing this case, and seeing this evidence, they don`t need the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a criminal standard. In a civil standard, it is a more reasonable belief.

Do you believe that this is the way it was. It seems easy to see them returning $100 million dollar verdict for each one of these plaintiffs, $700 million, $800 million verdict against Donald Trump. This is the kind of case that could absolutely bankrupt him.

CASPAR: Well, one reason the Capitol police officers whom I represent are bringing this case is to see that this kind of thing doesn`t happen again. And for that to happen, the president has to be held accountable, because accountability is the deterrence that is going to pull this country back from the brink of authoritarianism. Once people see that he can be held accountable for engaging in this kind of political violence, we hope that this kind of violence will not be likely to happen again.

O`DONNELL: What more evidence do you need in terms of what you would need to present to a jury?

[22:20:04]

You have Cassidy Hutchinson`s testimony that will be available to you by the time you get to a jury. You would presumably have the full report of this committee.

CASPAR: Lawrence, yes, I think that is right. I think the committee report is going to be incredibly important to aligning the kinds of evidence thought it is going to prove our claims. I think it is undeniable now, though, that the president intended to use force to stop Congress from doing its job. That alone is enough for us to hold the president accountable.

O`DONNELL: Edward Caspar, thank you very much for joining us tonight, really appreciate it.

CASPAR: Thank you, Lawrence.

O`DONNELL: And coming up, Congressman Jamie Raskin`s law professor was also Attorney General Merrick Garland`s constitutional law professor, and he was also Barack Obama`s constitutional law professor, and he is our next guest. Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe joins us next, and when he speaks, I take notes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:25:43]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHENEY: It`s undeniable. It`s also painful for Republicans to accept. And I think we all have to recognize and understand what it means to say those words and what it means that those things happened.

But the reality that we face today as Republicans, as we think about the choice in front of us, we have to choose, because Republicans cannot both be loyal to Donald Trump and loyal to the Constitution. At this moment --

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O`DONNELL: That is a largely Republican audience at the Reagan Library tonight, in California, where Liz Cheney was speaking. Here is more of what she had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHENEY: At this moment, we are confronting a domestic threat that we have never faced before. And that is a former president who is attempting to unravel the foundations of our constitutional republic. And he is aided by Republican leaders and elected officials who made themselves willing hostages to this dangerous and irrational man.

Now, some in my party are embracing former President Trump. And even after all we have seen, they are enabling his lies.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O`DONNELL: Joining us now is Laurence Tribe, constitutional law scholar and university professor of constitutional law emeritus at Harvard Law School.

Thank you very much for joining us tonight.

I want to get an answer, if you have one, to what you think Pat Cipollone was worried about if Donald Trump went to the Capitol. He seems to think that that would have gotten, we -- he said we -- we will be charged with everything, if that happens. But it`s not clear to me what is added to the criminality, by Donald Trump actually going up to the Capitol.

LAURENCE TRIBE, HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR: Well, that puts him in the middle of the action. He`s not just inciting. But he is aiding and abetting and participating in a violent insurrection, one whose violence he knows about.

When Pat Cipollone uses the word we, like you, I wondered whether that was the royal we. Whether he thought perhaps he should have acted sooner, perhaps he was involved with Donald Trump and his planning of these events. It was obvious that it was no surprise to Trump. It was a happy (ph) thing but no surprise, that the people who came to be with him were armed and dangerous.

In fact, he specifically said, take down the magnetometers so that these guys can come in with their ar-15s. I know they are not going for me. That was the most stunning and astonishing thing. Who would they be going for? Might it be Mike Pence, the very guy that Trump tried to get into trouble by saying that he was a coward after it looked like this mob had gone after pence, perhaps around the same time they had erected a gallows?

So, I don`t blame Mr. Cipollone. He may have some Fifth Amendment privileges to assert when he sits down. There`s no Fifth Amendment privilege to just stay home. And the idea that he has executive privileges triply defeated -- you know, it`s defeated by the fact that the current president holds the privilege. It`s the defeated by the fact that there`s crime fraud exception. It`s defeated by the large swaths of waiver that already seem to have occurred.

I could throw in another one. A lot of the conversations were not with the president. So, he has no legitimate basis for staying away and he surely doesn`t want to be a coward when he`s -- you know, somebody like this young woman, who was a real patriot, had the spine to show up and answer questions even though she was a loyal Trumper.

Visit link:
Transcript: The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, 6/29/22 - MSNBC