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
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 public 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 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
A Helena judge found Montana’s parental consent law for minors seeking abortions is unconstitutional, but said a trial was necessary for a notification law.
how confident are you that your lawsuit will take the abortion ban off the books for good? well, i m confident that we have the best side of the legal argument here. we ve argued a couple different things including that laws that were passed after the abortion ban, well after it implicitly repealed the ban because there are provisions in the newer laws that are inconsistent with the old laws. and certain types of procedures can t be both legal and illegal at the same time. so we re arguing that the old ban is invalid. but of course, you know, its litigation and you never know how it s going to play out, so it s critical our legislature also steps up and acts to repeal the abortion ban still in the books. prior to the ruling you said you didn t intend on enforcing the abortion ban statewide while the lawsuit is pending. is that still the case? if so, how do you plan on doing that? yeah, absolutely. we re not going to be using any resources at our state department of justice to i