but at this point, don, it s a negotiation, and i think the committee will do whatever they can to get that testimony out of cipollone. john, you ve been saying on this program and to anyone who will listen that you think it s critical cipollone testifies publicly like you did. are there legitimate privilege issues that would justify him testifying in a transcribed interview limited to specific topics? or should he appear in a more public manner? i think he s got to appear in a more public manner, and i don t think there s any privileges in that area they re focusing on. we ve already had courts look at the issue. there s no attorney-client privilege for crime or fraud. cipollone i think has a larger problem. he advised the president against doing these things because there were conspiracies involved, several of them. what s to say that he s ever declared he s not part of that conspiracy? if he s remaining silent he is certainly encouraging and enabling that done conspira
certainly encouraging and enabling that done conspiracy, and he could get dragged in himself. i would think he d want to be up there, don, not only for the sake of democracy but for his own sake. so this is all a little bit mysterious, his behavior. i think i heard you loud and clear but just for clarification just to make sure, would there be any executive issues with conversations he had with mark meadows or cassidy hutchinson? the only privilege he has would go to the president him himself. broadly speaking if they were to take a message for him to the president you might consider that priv l builege but that s reach. and particularly there s no privilege of any kind if it involves crime or fraud. john, we ve been hearing a lot about pat cipollone in these hearings. take a listen to this. mr. cipollone said something to the effect of, please make sure we don t go up to the