i don t know what he said today, but pat cipollone, you know, is no hero. the leadership at the department of justice, jeffrey rosen and rich donoghue, are no heroes. yes, you know, in the moment, they did what they could to stop trump from destroying american institutions, but they kept quiet about it. i m sure they told themselves all kinds of stories about how executive privilege and attorney-client privilege and other things precluded them from coming forward, but unless they ran to the biden administration on january 21st and told doj exactly what happened, then i do not consider them to be great patriots. that s a great point. ben, i want to show you the list of crimes committed by donald trump in the view of donald trump s first criminal attorney who represented him in the mueller probe, ty cobb. in a word, does the president deserve blame? yes. if it s as simple as, just do it, which i believe mr. bowers was told in arizona, that s highly problematic.
her or other witnesses how trump knew that there was no chance they would hurt him? i can t answer that. but he knew they were his supporters. and not mike pence s? well, he said, let me people in. right? that was part of her testimony. my people. and so, his ownership of the armed mob was out of his own mouth. when we look back at cassidy hutchinson s testimony, she really brought pat cipollone to life almost as much as she brought mark meadows to life. did that, in your view, change his decision to testify today, and was there a lot of invoking executive privilege, or did the committee tailor the questions for the kinds of things that clearly there s no privilege to invoke?
trump know he was committing crimes? and the committee in my view has proven that he has committed a whole bunch of crimes. it is relevant and interesting information as to whether or not he knew and even cared about whether he was breaking the law, and that s where that comment about, you know, we d be committing every crime imaginable is relevant. and as someone who s worked in the white house, i think a relevant role of the white house counsel, among many, is that s the person who is keeping an eye out to make sure that you re on the right side of the law on everything. you know, in normal administrations, it s not overturning the government, but it s things like, you know, the hatch act, are you violating prohibitions on political speech out of the white house? that s my interaction with the white house was always getting briefings from them, here s what you can and can t do. so, he would have known, in realtime, in realtime, this is on the wrong side of the law. this is on the wro
raskin, i think, with stephanie murphy has been working on this one since before the public hearings began. if you go back to the kinds of things that stewart rhodes wife said when he was charged, i mean, she talked a whole lot about what rhodes thought trump s role was vis-a-vis her husband. he was waiting for him to invoke the insurrection act. do you think they re going to show evidence or the smoking gun evidence of connectivity between the insurrectionists and donald trump? you know, that s a very good question, and i think that s a tempting thought particularly in light of the proud boys leadership and the gentleman currently incarcerated say, i ll come talk and i want live coverage and i want these things. right. we ll see. we ll see exactly how the hammer is being wielded between the committee and the doj with respect to some of these players to get them to to make that
like a standard bearer. i think there was a view for a while, i think, like what s the committee doing and what value is this going to provide? is this going to serve as a deterrent and what more will we learn and we ve had revelation after revelation and he could not narrow the terms to the degree that he thought he once could. such a good point, luke. we don t talk about this enough, but there was a sense that the committee would be close to finishing and that s when they d go public and that isn t the case at all. they are very much still in an investigative phase with their investigators still combing through interviews and conducting new depositions. talk about the decision to possibly extend the public phase of the hearings? yeah. so one of the things we thought would happen early on was that the committee would have two investigative phases that they would present the original findings and then build on that, and they got ready for the