The House Jan. 6 inquiry has spent per week sitting on probably necessary proof about President Trump’s conduct amid the 2021 Capitol riot. For eight hours final Friday, the committee interviewed
Pat Cipollone,
Mr. Trump’s high White House lawyer throughout his last weeks as President. What did Mr. Cipollone say, in full? Inquiring minds wish to know.
At its listening to Tuesday, the committee performed just a few clips of Mr. Cipollone’s testimony. He discounted claims that President Biden stole the 2020 election, saying that the Rasputins surrounding Mr. Trump by no means gave onerous proof, and “at some point you have to put up or shut up.” Mr. Cipollone praised Vice President
Mike Pence
for refusing to reject legitimate electors, and he recalled suggesting Mr. Pence “be given the Presidential Medal of Freedom.”
Near the tip of the listening to, Rep.
Liz Cheney
supplied a tease about “the many things you will hear next week from Mr. Cipollone.” Yes, the Jan. 6 inquiry is doing cliffhangers, like an episode of “Better Call Saul.”
Remember the stakes: The Jan. 6 committee is all however insisting that Mr. Trump be the primary President in American historical past to face legal prices, probably for obstructing Congress or conspiracy to defraud the United States. Such a case would set a far-reaching and probably harmful precedent.
Mr. Cipollone’s testimony may weigh closely in a prosecution. Yet the committee is leaving the general public to take a position. Some information experiences say committee interrogators didn’t press Mr. Cipollone on sure subjects. Rep.
Zoe Lofgren
advised CNN that he “did not contradict the testimony of other witnesses,” however “not contradicting is not the same as confirming.” Come once more?
Ms. Lofgren tried to make clear: “He could say ‘so and so was wrong,’ which he did not say. There were things that he might not be present for or in some cases couldn’t recall with precision.”
This dancing round isn’t useful. Two weeks in the past the committee referred to as Cassidy Hutchinson, a White House aide. She testified beneath oath that, because the riot raged on Capitol Hill, she overheard Mr. Cipollone talking with Chief of Staff
Mark Meadows
: “I remember Pat saying something to the effect of, ‘Mark, we need to do something more. They’re literally calling for the Vice President to be f— hung.’ And Mark had responded something to the effect of, ‘You heard him, Pat, he thinks Mike deserves it.’”
Was Mr. Cipollone requested about this? Did he “not contradict” it, in Ms. Lofgren’s phrase? The committee’s reluctance to be clear is harming its case. The Jan. 6 inquiry has produced helpful data, however its tightly choreographed narrative has despatched partisans to their corners. People who lust to see Mr. Trump in an orange jumpsuit are extra satisfied on a regular basis that it’s an hermetic case, since there’s no cross-examination of the proof. Mr. Trump’s defenders say the whole lot is cherry-picked.
The level of the Jan. 6 inquiry ought to be to get to the reality. The American folks should know. The committee is free to spend nevertheless lengthy it needs making its finest argument about how the dots join. But partial disclosure of witness and different testimony is a disservice to the nation. Give us the details, and which means entry to transcripts of the entire testimony, together with Mr. Cipollone’s.
Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
Appeared within the July 15, 2022, print version.
Source: www.wsj.com”