played itself out. regardless, he was in there for a long time, congressman lofgren said what they learned from him was very productive and it s going to help the investigation. we will have to see in the coming days whether any of this appears in their hearing scheduled for next week. was a new development about steve bannon? reporter: steve bannon, as you know is under indictment by the department of justice because of his lack of cooperation with the january 6th committee. he s been found in criminal contempt by the committee and is facing a trial coming up later this summer. what we are learning now is formal president trump is considering sending a letter to steve bannon, waving any privilege barriers that would prevent him from testifying in front of the committee. that could theoretically set up a situation where bannon could come in and answer questions from the committee and that would put him in a situation where he would not necessarily be facing a criminal charge.
i will say mr. sid pallone did appear voluntarily and answer a variety of questions. he did not contradict the testimony of other witnesses and i think we did learn a few things, which we will be rolling out in the hearings to come. there is that, and also reporting on what could be a big step in the chain of testimony from another figure, steve bannon. ryan nobles joins us now but the latest. what can you tell us about what he told the committee, do we know anything? the first thing is he was behind closed doors for a significant amount of time. the committee heard testimony from cipollone for more than seven hours and as you heard from congresswoman zoe lofgren, what he had to say was productive. the got information from him that they were looking for. the question is just how much of what they have heard from prior witnesses was cipollone
could come in and answer questions from the committee and that would then put him in a situation where he wouldn t necessarily be facing a criminal charge. now, how this all plays out, is this just a tactic to try to prevent steve bannon from facing criminal charges in that trial? that is still something that is up in the air. trump would actually have to do this and then the committee would have to decide if steve bannon coming in and if his testimony would be valuable. we are a long way from any of that happening but the fact that the former president is even considering this is significant. we will have to see how this whole process plays itself out. i appreciate it. thank you. more on this and the hearings ahead we are joined by andrew mccabe also cnn chief legal analyst and former federal prosecutor jeffrey . congressman lofgren talked about pat cipollone not trent contradicting any of the testimonies but also says not contradicting is not the same
his assertion of a reason why he couldn t testify for privilege or some reason like that. there is no time to go to court. they could fight it out in the seven hours and what we don t know is how much of the seven hours of testimony today was actually the lawyers are doing about what mr. cipollone could testify about. unfortunately, for the committee, mr. cipollone held the cards and he could testify and make the rules and presumably, it sounds like through congressman lofgren that they did get some productive stuff that they only got what mr. cipollone wanted to give them. do you think that has any kind of impact on a potential investigation by the justice department? well, you know, that would be that is kind of mr. cipollone testifying under a entirely different rubric, right? if the dust apartment is interested in talking to him in pursuit of criminal investigation that they might
what he had to say was productive. they got information from him that they were looking for. now, the question is how much of what they heard from prior witnesses was pat cipollone able to specifically can confirm and there was a little bit of a caveat that was provided today. take a listen. he could say so-and-so was wrong which he did not say. there were things that he might not be present for or in some cases couldn t recall with precision. my sense was that he, as i said, he did appear voluntarily and i think he was candid with the committee. he was careful in his answers. and i believe that he was honest in his answers. the way you could interpret what congressman zoe lofgren said there is did the committee hand him a statement that was