on an agreement to limit the questioning of a similar agreement. this might apply to cipollone s under oath videotape testimony last friday. the new york times describes that previous agreement this way. the agreement, according to an email reviewed by the new york times, allowed discussions of a meeting with jeffrey clark, a justice department official who tried to help mr. trump cling to power. mr. trump s interactions with john eastman, the conservative lawyer who drafted a legal strategy for overturning the election. any interactions with members of congress, and mr. cipollone s recollections of the events of january 6th. the agreement said that cipollone could not discuss conversations with mr. trump, other than one discussion in the oval office with mr. clark in a pivotal meeting on january 3rd, 2021. that would allow questions about what path cipollone said
of january 6th. the agreement said that cipollone could not discuss conversations with mr. trump, other than one discussion in the oval office with mr. clark in a pivotal meeting on january 3rd, 2021. that would allow questions about what path cipollone said to cassidy hutchinson. i saw mr. cipollone right before i walked out that morning. mr. cipollone said something to the effect of, please make sure that we don t go to the capitol, cassidy, keep in touch with me. we are going to get charged with every crime imaginable if we make that movement happen. joining us now is daniel goldman, the former house majority counsel for the first impeachment trial of donald trump, he is a former assistant journey and he is now running as a democrat for new york s tenth congressional district. also joining our discussion is democratic georgia state senator jim jordan.
working in the civil division of the justice department, on environmental issues. he decided to try and install him as acting attorney general on january 3rd, 2021. before being tucked out of that, in an oval office meeting. all anybody is going to think about when they see this, nobody is going to read this letter. all anyone s going to think is that you went through to attorney generals in two weeks, until you found the environmental guy to sign the thing. the story is not going to be that the department of justice has found massive corruption that would ve changed results of the election, it s going to be the disaster of jeff clark, and i think at that point, pat cipollone said this is a murder suicide pact. jeffrey clark s testimony to the january 6th committee, he took the fifth amendment over 100 times. did you discuss this draft letter with the president of
the committee has sketched out some of what it wants to cover in its future hearings, and we do know already, too, that tomorrow will be about donald trump s attempts to use the justice department to give cover for his voting fraud disinformation. the witnesses are richard donahue, jeffrey rosen, steve engle, all leading the justice department and pushing back when donald trump told them on january 3rd, 2021, he wanted a new attorney general. so we are going to be hearing that story again from them. then after that, the committee has said they want to present more about what they ve found related to extremist groups involved in january 6th, and also about what happened inside the white house as the capitol fell under attack. so we know that the focus is going to remain on donald trump, but it s still a question whether others will come forward. at this time we don t expect someone like pat sipalone to testify, he s resisted, but there could be more coming in july. okay. interesting.
brand republican member of congress from georgia who is facing the real prospect of being removed from the ballot for the upcoming election that s taking place in georgia. her primary scheduled for may 24th. this is a group of liberal activists who challenged her ability to be on the ballot saying that she constitutionally shouldn t be able to participate because she participated in an insurrection. it lent to a lengthy court battle, a federal judge allowed the process to go through, but it was a state court judge who listened to a marathon of testimony from both sides on this issue, including three hours of testimony from green herself, and ultimately decided to side with green, citing in a 19-page statement that rendered his decision that, quote, challengers have produced insufficient evidence to show that representative green engaged in that insurrection after she took the oath of office on january 3rd, 2021. this is just a recommendation by this state court judge.