My apologies if this was answered before/somewhere….. so I remember hearing that they don’t like calling secret service to testify but they can….so are they using the “tradition” excuse again and not going to make these guys testify?
Personally I think this particular issue is a distraction and just sensationalism. Unless you're going to charge the president with assault against the agent, it doesn't matter. Trump's words where he said he didn't care that people had weapons and to get rid of the "mags" is much more important and radical.
Except it adds to her credibility which makes everything she said even more credible
My apologies if this was answered before/somewhere….. so I remember hearing that they don’t like calling secret service to testify but they can….so are they using the “tradition” excuse again and not going to make these guys testify?
Personally I think this particular issue is a distraction and just sensationalism. Unless you're going to charge the president with assault against the agent, it doesn't matter. Trump's words where he said he didn't care that people had weapons and to get rid of the "mags" is much more important and radical.
Except it adds to her credibility which makes everything she said even more credible
Looks like that same story was floating around the secret service too. So to some extent it was widely known
Tony Ornato I wouldn’t trust what he says anyway though. A secret service agent who gets a waver to become deputy chief of staff. That means he’s a political true believer and a guy who for his entire career had to be willing to take a literal bullet for his boss. Lying for him is that bullet, just less painful
that also leads me to believe all those agents that close to trump were probably MAGA guys to begin with. I would trust the other agents saying they told them it happened Vs them directly saying it didn’t
Newsmax has had to bring in a “body language expert” to try to refute her testimony.
so that’s a good indication of what they have got on her to this point. Nothing
"She how she sneezed? Nobody that sneezes has gone their entire lives without telling a lie."
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Good article on the legal breakdown after Hutchinson's testimony about how the writers think there's enough evidence now to indict Trump on incitement to riot, obstruction of Congress, and maybe insurrection and seditious conspiracy depending on the contact between the white house and proud boys, etc.
Until someone who actually heard trump comment about the mags, it’s hearsay and not evidence to indict. So far, no one has come forward to corroborate.
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,689
Until someone who actually heard trump comment about the mags, it’s hearsay and not evidence to indict. So far, no one has come forward to corroborate.
From the Lawfare article above.
In particular, Hutchinson testified to hearing Trump order that the magnetometers (metal detectors) used to keep armed people away from the president be removed: “I don’t fucking care that they have weapons, they’re not here to hurt me. They’re not here to hurt me. Take the fucking mags [magnetometers] away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here; let the people in and take the mags away.”
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Until someone who actually heard trump comment about the mags, it’s hearsay and not evidence to indict. So far, no one has come forward to corroborate.
The
House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection
could make multiple criminal referrals of former president Donald Trump
over his role in the U.S. Capitol attack, Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), the
committee’s vice chair, said in an interview that aired Sunday.
“The
Justice Department doesn’t have to wait for the committee to make a
criminal referral,” Cheney said on ABC’s “This Week.” “And there could
be more than one criminal referral.”
Cheney
emphasized that the committee’s aims were not political, but also that
the Justice Department should not refrain from prosecuting Trump out of
concerns about political optics if the evidence warrants criminal
prosecution.
“I
think it’s a much graver constitutional threat if a president can
engage in these kinds of activities, and the majority of the president’s
party looks away, or we as a country decide we’re not actually going to
take our constitutional obligations seriously,” Cheney said.
Cheney went on to express grave concerns about the idea of Trump running as the GOP presidential nominee for a third time.
“I
think there’s no question, I mean, a man as dangerous as Donald Trump
can absolutely never be anywhere near the Oval Office ever again,”
Cheney said.
The Republican Party, she said, could not survive if Trump were its 2024 presidential nominee.
“Millions
of people, millions of Republicans have been betrayed by Donald Trump.
And that is a really painful thing for people to recognize and to admit,
but it’s absolutely the case,” Cheney said. “And they’ve been betrayed
by him, by ‘the big lie,’ and by what he continues to do and say to tear
apart our country and tear apart our party.”
The
interview was Cheney’s first since the Jan. 6 committee began holding
public hearings, and it was taped days after Cassidy Hutchinson, a
former aide to Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows, gave bombshell testimony about Trump’s actions — and inaction — on the day of the Capitol attack.
Hutchinson testified last week
that Trump knew that some of his supporters were armed but urged them
to march on the Capitol anyway, and that he was reportedly indifferent
to the mob’s threats to hang Vice President Mike Pence.
“What
kind of man knows that a mob is armed and sends the mob to attack the
Capitol and further incites that mob when his own vice president is
under threat? When the Congress is under threat?” Cheney said. “It’s
very chilling.”
Trump and his allies have since sought to discredit Hutchinson,
but Cheney said she was “absolutely confident” in the former White
House aide’s testimony. Hutchinson also testified last week that Trump
was “irate” when he was told he would not be able to travel to the
Capitol with his supporters after his speech on the Ellipse, and that
she was told Trump lunged at his security detail in anger while inside
the presidential limousine.
When
asked if the committee had additional evidence to corroborate
Hutchinson’s testimony, Cheney said the committee had “significant
evidence about a whole range of issues, including the president’s
intense anger” inside the presidential limo. Cheney pointedly suggested
that anyone who was denying Hutchinson’s version of events testify
before the committee under oath as well.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Until someone who actually heard trump comment about the mags, it’s hearsay and not evidence to indict. So far, no one has come forward to corroborate.
From the Lawfare article above.
In particular, Hutchinson testified to hearing Trump order that the magnetometers (metal detectors) used to keep armed people away from the president be removed: “I don’t fucking care that they have weapons, they’re not here to hurt me. They’re not here to hurt me. Take the fucking mags [magnetometers] away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here; let the people in and take the mags away.”
Thanks, for some reason I thought she was relaying Meadows comments
Until someone who actually heard trump comment about the mags, it’s hearsay and not evidence to indict. So far, no one has come forward to corroborate.
From the Lawfare article above.
In particular, Hutchinson testified to hearing Trump order that the magnetometers (metal detectors) used to keep armed people away from the president be removed: “I don’t fucking care that they have weapons, they’re not here to hurt me. They’re not here to hurt me. Take the fucking mags [magnetometers] away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here; let the people in and take the mags away.”
Thanks, for some reason I thought she was relaying Meadows comments
Since you brought him up... do we know if Meadows refuted any of Hutchinson's testimony?
Until someone who actually heard trump comment about the mags, it’s hearsay and not evidence to indict. So far, no one has come forward to corroborate.
From the Lawfare article above.
In particular, Hutchinson testified to hearing Trump order that the magnetometers (metal detectors) used to keep armed people away from the president be removed: “I don’t fucking care that they have weapons, they’re not here to hurt me. They’re not here to hurt me. Take the fucking mags [magnetometers] away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here; let the people in and take the mags away.”
Thanks, for some reason I thought she was relaying Meadows comments
Since you brought him up... do we know if Meadows refuted any of Hutchinson's testimony?
As far as I know, he has not.
He didn’t get a pardon so I would suspect he is negotiating an immunity deal with the DOJ.
I don’t think he has said anything on the record. If he doesn’t cooperate he’s one I think who could go to jail.
I would also guess he is the one who witness tampered Hutchinson. She was his responsibility
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,248
First time seeing the video of this. What a piece of poop.
Only the best people, folks. Only the best.
that right there should forego any and all retirement benefits he will receive and I'd push for repayment going back to when he pled guilty for lying to fbi, pardon or not.
that man raised his hand every 4 years swearing to support and defend the constitution of the united states.
everything from obamas term when he fired him for basically insubordination to now is counter to that oath.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
First time seeing the video of this. What a piece of poop.
Only the best people, folks. Only the best.
that right there should forego any and all retirement benefits he will receive and I'd push for repayment going back to when he pled guilty for lying to fbi, pardon or not.
that man raised his hand every 4 years swearing to support and defend the constitution of the united states.
everything from obamas term when he fired him for basically insubordination to now is counter to that oath.
Guy is a total loser.
however I would do the same thing as him in his shoes. If someone else can incriminate him great, pretty much anything he says will incriminate himself. He is neck deep in the lawlessness
First time seeing the video of this. What a piece of poop.
Only the best people, folks. Only the best.
that right there should forego any and all retirement benefits he will receive and I'd push for repayment going back to when he pled guilty for lying to fbi, pardon or not.
that man raised his hand every 4 years swearing to support and defend the constitution of the united states.
everything from obamas term when he fired him for basically insubordination to now is counter to that oath.
He should be court martialed as I believe the pentagon could call him back to active duty and then court martial his ass. As well they should.
On the news this morning I heard an opinion that this could/will be very bad for tRump.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
"Pat A. Cipollone, the White House counsel to President Donald J. Trump who repeatedly fought Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, has reached a deal to be interviewed by Friday before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack, according to people familiar with the inquiry."
Pool time, how often will he say "attorney client privilege?"
"Pat A. Cipollone, the White House counsel to President Donald J. Trump who repeatedly fought Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, has reached a deal to be interviewed by Friday before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack, according to people familiar with the inquiry."
Pool time, how often will he say "attorney client privilege?"
I say 76 times
I think I heard or saw somewhere that attorney client privilege does not count for White House Counsel because he is not the personal lawyer of the President
"Pat A. Cipollone, the White House counsel to President Donald J. Trump who repeatedly fought Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, has reached a deal to be interviewed by Friday before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack, according to people familiar with the inquiry."
Pool time, how often will he say "attorney client privilege?"
I say 76 times
I think I heard or saw somewhere that attorney client privilege does not count for White House Counsel because he is not the personal lawyer of the President
Yes, I agree. Also, ACP does not stand when speaking about the intent to commit or the continuation of a crime. It's called the "crime-fraud" exception.
"Pat A. Cipollone, the White House counsel to President Donald J. Trump who repeatedly fought Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, has reached a deal to be interviewed by Friday before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack, according to people familiar with the inquiry."
Pool time, how often will he say "attorney client privilege?"
I say 76 times
I think I heard or saw somewhere that attorney client privilege does not count for White House Counsel because he is not the personal lawyer of the President
Yes, I agree. Also, ACP does not stand when speaking about the intent to commit or the continuation of a crime. It's called the "crime-fraud" exception.
Not sure it applies anyway as WHC is lawyer to the office of the president not the president personally,
protecting the office would be the priority I assume. In a perfect world when they aren’t trying to twist the issue into knots it seems simple
he can also probably run out the clock on this too in court if he wants so any cooperation is probably a win. I think ultimately he loses on both attorney client privilege and crime fraud but if it takes a year to sort out there will be no committee to hear the testimony
Post edited by Cropduster-80 on
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,248
"Pat A. Cipollone, the White House counsel to President Donald J. Trump who repeatedly fought Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, has reached a deal to be interviewed by Friday before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack, according to people familiar with the inquiry."
Pool time, how often will he say "attorney client privilege?"
I say 76 times
I think I heard or saw somewhere that attorney client privilege does not count for White House Counsel because he is not the personal lawyer of the President
Yes, I agree. Also, ACP does not stand when speaking about the intent to commit or the continuation of a crime. It's called the "crime-fraud" exception.
Not sure it applies anyway as WHC is lawyer to the office of the president not the president personally,
protecting the office would be the priority I assume. In a perfect world when they aren’t trying to twist the issue into knots it seems simple
he can also probably run out the clock on this too in court if he wants so any cooperation is probably a win. I think ultimately he loses on both attorney client privilege and crime fraud but if it takes a year to sort out there will be no committee to hear the testimony
...Justice Dept would take over in that case then?
"Pat A. Cipollone, the White House counsel to President Donald J. Trump who repeatedly fought Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, has reached a deal to be interviewed by Friday before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack, according to people familiar with the inquiry."
Pool time, how often will he say "attorney client privilege?"
I say 76 times
I think I heard or saw somewhere that attorney client privilege does not count for White House Counsel because he is not the personal lawyer of the President
Yes, I agree. Also, ACP does not stand when speaking about the intent to commit or the continuation of a crime. It's called the "crime-fraud" exception.
Not sure it applies anyway as WHC is lawyer to the office of the president not the president personally,
protecting the office would be the priority I assume. In a perfect world when they aren’t trying to twist the issue into knots it seems simple
he can also probably run out the clock on this too in court if he wants so any cooperation is probably a win. I think ultimately he loses on both attorney client privilege and crime fraud but if it takes a year to sort out there will be no committee to hear the testimony
...Justice Dept would take over in that case then?
That only works for two years for certain. At the end of the day that’s probably going to be the issue once we get to the criminal phase. That’s a ways off and the time it’s going to take doesn’t make me feel hopeful
"Pat A. Cipollone, the White House counsel to President Donald J. Trump who repeatedly fought Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, has reached a deal to be interviewed by Friday before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack, according to people familiar with the inquiry."
Pool time, how often will he say "attorney client privilege?"
I say 76 times
I think I heard or saw somewhere that attorney client privilege does not count for White House Counsel because he is not the personal lawyer of the President
Yes, I agree. Also, ACP does not stand when speaking about the intent to commit or the continuation of a crime. It's called the "crime-fraud" exception.
Not sure it applies anyway as WHC is lawyer to the office of the president not the president personally,
protecting the office would be the priority I assume. In a perfect world when they aren’t trying to twist the issue into knots it seems simple
he can also probably run out the clock on this too in court if he wants so any cooperation is probably a win. I think ultimately he loses on both attorney client privilege and crime fraud but if it takes a year to sort out there will be no committee to hear the testimony
I'm curious whether he will actually fight it. I never saw him as a Trump loyalist. Although I'm sure he is getting phone calls now reminding him how much Trump loves him. The difference is that he's not a politician so he doesn't need Trump. He's a partner in a white shoe firm and already wealthy.
"Pat A. Cipollone, the White House counsel to President Donald J. Trump who repeatedly fought Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, has reached a deal to be interviewed by Friday before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack, according to people familiar with the inquiry."
Pool time, how often will he say "attorney client privilege?"
I say 76 times
I think I heard or saw somewhere that attorney client privilege does not count for White House Counsel because he is not the personal lawyer of the President
Yes, I agree. Also, ACP does not stand when speaking about the intent to commit or the continuation of a crime. It's called the "crime-fraud" exception.
Not sure it applies anyway as WHC is lawyer to the office of the president not the president personally,
protecting the office would be the priority I assume. In a perfect world when they aren’t trying to twist the issue into knots it seems simple
he can also probably run out the clock on this too in court if he wants so any cooperation is probably a win. I think ultimately he loses on both attorney client privilege and crime fraud but if it takes a year to sort out there will be no committee to hear the testimony
I'm curious whether he will actually fight it. I never saw him as a Trump loyalist. Although I'm sure he is getting phone calls now reminding him how much Trump loves him. The difference is that he's not a politician so he doesn't need Trump. He's a partner in a white shoe firm and already wealthy.
My gut says he will play ball. I think Hutchinson made clear where he stood. He isn’t getting a job with anyone connected to trump ever again anyway and yeah, probably doesn’t need to anyway.
I think he just wanted to keep his head down and move on. Can’t really do that now
"Pat A. Cipollone, the White House counsel to President Donald J. Trump who repeatedly fought Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, has reached a deal to be interviewed by Friday before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack, according to people familiar with the inquiry."
Pool time, how often will he say "attorney client privilege?"
I say 76 times
I think I heard or saw somewhere that attorney client privilege does not count for White House Counsel because he is not the personal lawyer of the President
Yes, I agree. Also, ACP does not stand when speaking about the intent to commit or the continuation of a crime. It's called the "crime-fraud" exception.
Not sure it applies anyway as WHC is lawyer to the office of the president not the president personally,
protecting the office would be the priority I assume. In a perfect world when they aren’t trying to twist the issue into knots it seems simple
he can also probably run out the clock on this too in court if he wants so any cooperation is probably a win. I think ultimately he loses on both attorney client privilege and crime fraud but if it takes a year to sort out there will be no committee to hear the testimony
I'm curious whether he will actually fight it. I never saw him as a Trump loyalist. Although I'm sure he is getting phone calls now reminding him how much Trump loves him. The difference is that he's not a politician so he doesn't need Trump. He's a partner in a white shoe firm and already wealthy.
My gut says he will play ball. I think Hutchinson made clear where he stood. He isn’t getting a job with anyone connected to trump ever again anyway and yeah, probably doesn’t need to anyway.
I think he just wanted to keep his head down and move on. Can’t really do that now
Comments
Tony Ornato I wouldn’t trust what he says anyway though. A secret service agent who gets a waver to become deputy chief of staff. That means he’s a political true believer and a guy who for his entire career had to be willing to take a literal bullet for his boss. Lying for him is that bullet, just less painful
that also leads me to believe all those agents that close to trump were probably MAGA guys to begin with. I would trust the other agents saying they told them it happened Vs them directly saying it didn’t
so that’s a good indication of what they have got on her to this point. Nothing
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I can’t think of how many murder convictions have hinged on a random eye witness seeing something at 50 yards away. This is much better than that
Multiple criminal referrals of Trump possible, Cheney says
The Republican Party cannot survive with Trump as 2024 presidential nominee, she adds
The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection could make multiple criminal referrals of former president Donald Trump over his role in the U.S. Capitol attack, Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), the committee’s vice chair, said in an interview that aired Sunday.
“The Justice Department doesn’t have to wait for the committee to make a criminal referral,” Cheney said on ABC’s “This Week.” “And there could be more than one criminal referral.”
Cheney emphasized that the committee’s aims were not political, but also that the Justice Department should not refrain from prosecuting Trump out of concerns about political optics if the evidence warrants criminal prosecution.
“I think it’s a much graver constitutional threat if a president can engage in these kinds of activities, and the majority of the president’s party looks away, or we as a country decide we’re not actually going to take our constitutional obligations seriously,” Cheney said.
Cheney went on to express grave concerns about the idea of Trump running as the GOP presidential nominee for a third time.
“I think there’s no question, I mean, a man as dangerous as Donald Trump can absolutely never be anywhere near the Oval Office ever again,” Cheney said.
The Republican Party, she said, could not survive if Trump were its 2024 presidential nominee.
“Millions of people, millions of Republicans have been betrayed by Donald Trump. And that is a really painful thing for people to recognize and to admit, but it’s absolutely the case,” Cheney said. “And they’ve been betrayed by him, by ‘the big lie,’ and by what he continues to do and say to tear apart our country and tear apart our party.”
The interview was Cheney’s first since the Jan. 6 committee began holding public hearings, and it was taped days after Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide to Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows, gave bombshell testimony about Trump’s actions — and inaction — on the day of the Capitol attack.
Hutchinson testified last week that Trump knew that some of his supporters were armed but urged them to march on the Capitol anyway, and that he was reportedly indifferent to the mob’s threats to hang Vice President Mike Pence.
“What kind of man knows that a mob is armed and sends the mob to attack the Capitol and further incites that mob when his own vice president is under threat? When the Congress is under threat?” Cheney said. “It’s very chilling.”
Trump and his allies have since sought to discredit Hutchinson, but Cheney said she was “absolutely confident” in the former White House aide’s testimony. Hutchinson also testified last week that Trump was “irate” when he was told he would not be able to travel to the Capitol with his supporters after his speech on the Ellipse, and that she was told Trump lunged at his security detail in anger while inside the presidential limousine.
When asked if the committee had additional evidence to corroborate Hutchinson’s testimony, Cheney said the committee had “significant evidence about a whole range of issues, including the president’s intense anger” inside the presidential limo. Cheney pointedly suggested that anyone who was denying Hutchinson’s version of events testify before the committee under oath as well.
continues....
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Thanks, for some reason I thought she was relaying Meadows comments
Since you brought him up... do we know if Meadows refuted any of Hutchinson's testimony?
As far as I know, he has not.
I would also guess he is the one who witness tampered Hutchinson. She was his responsibility
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
however I would do the same thing as him in his shoes. If someone else can incriminate him great, pretty much anything he says will incriminate himself. He is neck deep in the lawlessness
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
On the news this morning I heard an opinion that this could/will be very bad for tRump.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
Pool time, how often will he say "attorney client privilege?"
I say 76 times
protecting the office would be the priority I assume. In a perfect world when they aren’t trying to twist the issue into knots it seems simple
he can also probably run out the clock on this too in court if he wants so any cooperation is probably a win. I think ultimately he loses on both attorney client privilege and crime fraud but if it takes a year to sort out there will be no committee to hear the testimony