insurrection, privy to nearly every major decision leading up to and during that day. according to the testimony of cassidy hutchinson, his top aide, meadows appears to have been at the center of the scheme to overturn the election. the 26-year-old, cassidy hutchinson, was brave enough, patriotic enough, to come forward. 62-year-old mark meadows is not. just a refresher, here s some of what we learned from ms. hutchinson about mr. meadows, something the committee would want to ask him about if he had the courage or decency to talk. i remember leaning against the hallway and said, i had an interesting conversation. it sounds like we re going to the capitol. he said something to the effect of, there s a lot going on, guys. but i don t know, things might get real, real bad on january 6th. do you know if mr. meadows ever intended to go to the willard hotel on the night of the 5th? i had made it clear to mr. meadows that i didn t believe it was a smart idea for him to go to
so, of course, has former white house chief of staff mark meadows despite having already been subpoenaed and cited for contempt of congress for refusing to appear. he was one of the former president s closest advisor in the runoff to the january 6th insurrection, privy to every major decision before and leading up to that day. according to the testimony of cassidy hutchinson, his top aide, meadows appears to have been at the center of the scheme to overturn the election. the 26-year-old, cassidy hutchinson, was brave enough, patriotic enough, to come forward. 62-year-old mark meadows is not. just a refresher, here s some of what we learned from ms. hutchinson about mr. meadows, some of what the committee presumably would want to ask him if he had the courage or decency to talk. i remember leaning against the doorway and saying i had an interesting conversation with rudy, mark. sounds like we re going to the capitol. he didn t look up from his phone and said something to the
just found this out. are you surprised? i m not surprised, anderson. i think it s you know, with yesterday s testimony, the expectation on cipollone, the pressure to step forward and say what he knows is absolutely intense right now. and, look, he can still come in and negotiate the most favorable terms, as carrie has laid out, that he possibly can, to avoid being captured on video, to avoid his testimony being used in a very visceral and clear way in a later hearing. i m sure those are all things he would like to avoid. he can still come in and any individual question claim presidential privilege and refuse to answer those questions. and those issues can be litigated later. but really he has no ground to stand on legitimately to say, no, i won t come in and answer any questions whatsoever about matters that i discuss with people who are not the president of the united states. it just would be an untenable position for him.
life that involves legal practice. and so every aspect of this, if he is going to comply in some way and provide testimony under oath, is going to try to manage every aspect of that to preserve his professional reputation and integrity. and as i said, we literally just found this out. are you surprised? i m not surprised, anderson. i think it s you know, with yesterday s testimony, the expectation on cipollone, the pressure to step forward and say what he knows is absolutely intense right now. and, look, he can still come in and negotiate the most favorable terms, as carrie has laid out, that he possibly can, to avoid being captured on video, to avoid his testimony being used in a very visceral and clear way in a later hearing. i m sure those are all things he would like to avoid. he can still come in and any individual question claim
they can testify or provide information in a way that makes it appear that they are being compelled to do so and they are responding to lawful process. it seems more likely i think i agree with andy that in this case it s more likely that he will try to protect the prerogatives of that position and litigate it, in which case i don t understand why the committee waited this long to issue the subpoena. yeah, andrew, why do you think they did? is it just a coincidence they did it the day after cassidy hutchinson s testimony? you know, i think cassidy hutchinson s testimony made it perfectly obvious how relevant and important cipollone s testimony would be. so, you know, subpoenaing the fact they haven t subpoenaed him before this, i think you know, i totally agree with carrie is an oversight on their part. but it was unavoidable now, unavoidable today in the wake of yesterday s testimony.