volunteering information so we can understand what in the world happened down in that white house. so why do you think, nick, he s not? the idea he could have such access and give firsthand accounts of trump s efforts to seize the power of the doj as we heard from one hearing to corrupt it. the idea of the scheme to try to oust the acting attorney general but i suspect to the extent that cipollone is trying to carve out certain areas he doesn t have to talk about, i m assuming privilege will be a part of this and obviously, he can bend the ear of the president. will that be enough you think to overcome the obligation john is speaking about and is it valid? not at all. i mean, look, there is no attorney client privilege for starters. the white house counsel does not represent the president of the united states personally. he s not his personal lawyer. so there is no personal attorney client privilege. the only question is whether or not there is any valid executive privile
why do you think he is not? he could have such access and give first-hand accounts of the effort to seize power of the doj to try uncorrupted in the scheme to oust the acting attorney general. i suspect to the extent that pat cipollone is trying to carve out certain areas, i assume privileges part of this. will that be enough to overcome the obligation that he is speaking about? not at all. there is no attorney client privilege. the white house counsel does not represent the president of the united states personally. he is not the personal lawyer. there is no personal attorney client privilege. the only question is whether or not there is valued executive privilege. there may be some instances where donald trump came to him and discussed certain things in a normal fashion, asking whether or not honest certain activity was problematic. it doesn t sound that way, based on hutchinson s testimony. it seems to me what pat cipollone was doing was putting fires out all over the
credible and not telling the truth. then outcome the nixon tapes. he was right on the money and couldn t have been more accurate. what is significant, he can actually cooperate exactly what kassidy hutchinson said. who couldn t trust a face like yours? you do raise a good point about credibility. do you think the fact that pat cipollone , he was standing up there for the first impeachment trial. he has evaded the opportunity to have that obligation and obligatory notion to testify. you have any concerns that this is the person that is supposed to trust the credibility of other witnesses? i certainly do.
everybody in the republican side of the house was saying, oh, he s not credible, he s not telling the truth and then low and behold, outcome the nixon tapes and sure enough, john was right on the money and couldn t have been more accurate in his testimony. what is significant about pat cipollone is he can actually corroborate exactly what cassidy hutchinson said. well, john, who couldn t trust a face like yours? you kidding with that impeccable tie? of course, everyone trusts what john dean has to say on things but you raise a good point about credibility here, of course, and i wonder do you think the fact that pat cipollone, remember, he was up there for the first impeachment trial and has evaded the opportunity as you ve talked about to have a moral obligation to testify. do you have concerns this is the person that is supposed to trust the credibility of other