Five questions Trump’s ex-lawyer Cipollone could answer for the Jan. 6 committee

After weeks of resistance, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone is set to appear Friday for closed door testimony before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

Cipollone was subpoenaed by the committee last week after he met with the panel’s investigators in April but pushed back against sitting for formal testimony.

His second meeting with the committee comes after numerous public pleas for his cooperation, with the panel’s members saying his actions to intervene on Jan. 6 could help supply crucial testimony for its investigation.

Here are five questions he may be able to answer for the committee. 

What advice did he give Trump on Jan. 6?

Ex-White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, a special assistant to Meadows, testified last month that Cipollone, frustrated by inaction with White House efforts to stop a mob from attacking the Capitol, went with then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows to speak to the president.

Meadows turned over a trove of his text messages to the Jan. 6 panel but then abruptly refused to meet with the panel. But Cipollone could provide some insights.

The conversation mentioned by Hutchinson took place after Cipollone had issued a number of warnings surrounding Trump’s plans for that day and their risk for criminal charges, according to her testimony.

The committee has already cast Cipollone as one of the voices in the West Wing pushing Trump to do more to quell the violence unfolding at the Capitol.

“Our evidence shows that Pat Cipollone and his office tried to do what was right. They tried to stop a number of President Trump’s plans for Jan. 6,” Vice Chair Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) said at an earlier hearing.

Hutchinson fleshed out that picture.

“Mark, something needs to be done or people are going to die and the blood is going to be on your effing hands,” Cipollone told Meadows.

How did Trump respond to that counsel?

Cipollone could expand the committee’s view into Trump’s inaction on Jan. 6 – a future hearing topic for the panel as it looks to review what happened in the White House that day.

Testimony from Hutchinson indicates that Trump had little appetite for action that day.

“He doesn’t want to do anything, Pat,” Meadows told Cipollone.

Cipollone could also expand on testimony that Trump was unmoved by hearing that Vice President Mike Pence was in danger as rioters chanted for him to be hanged.

“You heard him, Pat. He thinks Mike deserves it. He doesn’t think they’re doing anything wrong,” Meadows said, according to Hutchinson.

It’s not clear how Trump responded to specific pleas from Cipollone, while the former White House counsel could also provide more details about his sentiment with regards to Pence that was one of the very first revelations teased by the committee.

Why did White House counsel advise against language in Trump’s speech at the rally, and who rejected their changes?

Hutchinson testified last week that White House lawyers expressed concern over a speech that repeatedly encouraged Trump’s supporters to “fight” for the president as well as to march to the Capitol. She said the speech even had “things about the Vice President at the time too.”

“In my conversations with Mr. [Eric] Herschmann, he had relayed that we would be foolish to include language that had been included at the President’s request,” she said.

“Both Mr. Herschmann and White House counsel’s office were urging the speechwriters to not include that language for legal concerns, and also for the optics of what it could portray the president wanting to do that day.”

But Trump ultimately included that language in his speech, telling his supporters to “fight like hell” and noting they would soon be marching over to the Capitol.

It’s not clear what additional conversation Cipollone’s office had with the speechwriters or who made the decision about what would make the final cut.

What conversations did Cipollone have with Trump about his plans to march to the Capitol?

Cipollone warned of being charged with “every crime imaginable” if Trump followed through on his desire to march to the Capitol alongside his supporters.

Cipollone also told Hutchinson a few days before the attack he was worried if Trump marched to the Capitol it could appear he was helping to incite a riot or abet other crimes.

“Pat was concerned it would look like we were obstructing justice or obstructing the Electoral College count … that it would look like we were obstructing what was happening on Capitol Hill,” she said.

It’s not clear however to what extent that was communicated to Trump or how he may have responded.

But Cipollone seemed to have realized it was a possibility Trump would try and make the trip.

“Please make sure we don’t go up to the Capitol, Cassidy,” Hutchinson told the select committee Cipollone said. “Keep in touch with me.”

Did Trump ever acknowledge there was no voter fraud?

Cipollone was also a front row witness to many of Trump’s numerous plots to stay in power based on his purported claims of election fraud.

The committee has thus far shown those around Trump had rejected the idea of widespread voter fraud and had even cautioned him against claiming victory but it’s not clear Trump accepted that – a factor needed for convictions that rely on proving he acted with corrupt intent.

“Not sure what Dems accomplished today. Some interesting sidelights (on, say, fundraising) but they had nothing to show Trump believed he lost,” Mick Mulvaney, who once served as Trump’s chief of staff, tweeted after one of the committee’s earlier hearings.

“In fact, they showed the exact opposite. They made the case that he probably should have known…but that is different.”

Cipollone or his office rejected a number of Trump’s proposals. Hutchinson said his office dismissed the fake elector scheme as not legally sound. And when Trump weighed dismissing his attorney general in favor of someone who would forward investigations into election fraud, Cipollone dismissed the idea as a murder-suicide pact.

Cipollone has otherwise publicly dismissed the idea of rejecting the outcome of a democratic election – an argument he made in Trump’s first impeachment trial.

“Put simply, you seek to overturn the results of the 2016 election and deprive the American people of the president they have freely chosen,” he said at the time.

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill.