Latest News

July 12, 2022

Former White House counsel Pat Cipollone, who according to witness Cassidy Hutchinson spoke with her on the morning of January 6 about not letting President Trump go to the Capitol, testified before the committee for eight-plus hours on Friday. The way his testimony is being reported is a primer in how to create fake news.

If you’re senior editor in charge of propaganda, you first come up with a misleading headline to get your desired idea across. In this case, the headline is that Cipollone “did not contradict” Hutchinson’s testimony. That’s the story according to multiple establishment media outlets. Recall that Hutchinson testified Cipollone had told her that then-President Donald Trump would be charged with “every crime imaginable” if he went to the Capitol on January 6. That had the predators on the committee salivating.

The next step is to put the key information far down within the body of the piece. To VANITY FAIR’s credit (rarely warranted), writer Kelly Rissman waited only until the fourth paragraph to say, “However, sources familiar with Cipollone’s testimony told CNN that not only was the former White House lawyer NOT ASKED ABOUT HUTCHINSON’S QUOTE (emphasis ours), but if questioned about it, Cipollone would not have confirmed it.”

Perhaps if Rissman had written the headline --- editors usually determine those --- she’d have highlighted that. I don’t want to blame the writer if her editor had other ideas.

ABC News ran the headline “Trump White House counsel’s Jan. 6 interview didn’t contradict other witnesses: Kinzinger.” (Yes, the headline quotes foaming-at-the-mouth Trump-hater Adam Kinzinger, as interviewed by George Stefanopoulos. Talk about a set-up story.) Farther down, they dispense with the major inconvenient fact in this vague line: “Both CNN and THE NEW YORK TIMES reported that Cipollone was not asked about some specifics from Hutchinson during his own interview on Friday.” "Some specifics"?? Like, maybe, the most important question to ask him? Why was that?

By the way, something Kinzinger said in his ABC interview gives away the goal of this “fact-finding” (haha) committee: “...I can about 10 years, there’s not going to have been a single Trump supporter that exists anywhere in the country. It’s like [Richard] Nixon. There were a lot of people that supported Nixon until he was out of office, and then everybody was like, ‘No, nobody supported Nixon.’”

This committee is on a seek-and-destroy mission. They’re not trying to find out what happened; they intend to obliterate President Trump. It’s pure politics, at taxpayer expense.

Cipollone’s testimony is on video, but he’s not expected to testify publicly, according to THE NEW YORK TIMES. They obviously don’t want him on live TV. A source told POLITICO that his testimony is “still under lock and key.” That source said the committee did find his testimony “very helpful,” but you better believe that if they’d gotten what they wanted from him, the transcript would be everywhere. What they’ll do is go through the video and cherry-pick fragments of testimony that are “very helpful.” Anything else will remain under lock and key.

Byron York pointed out the problem with the committee’s questioning of Cipollone in a couple of tweets. “Hutchinson is J6 committee’s biggest star. Now members can point to her testimony and say: No other witnesses have contradicted her! How dare you question her account! 4/4 End.”

In his other tweet, he noted that according to the NY TIMES story, which cites “two people familiar with Cipollone’s actions that day,” the J6 was informed in advance that Cipollone “would not confirm” that conversation if he were asked about it. So he wasn’t asked.

THAT is the big take-away. Joel Pollak’s report in BREITBART NEWS got it right. The headline: “Report: January 6 committee avoids asking Cipollone questions that could implicate Hutchinson in perjury.”

In related news, if you missed the story about Steve Bannon agreeing to testify before the committee, here’s the magnificent letter Trump wrote to tell him he’d be waiving executive privilege and allowing Bannon to go ahead.

Peter Navarro still refuses to dignify the committee with his testimony, though he could face two years in prison. His legal bills have topped $400,000, though he wasn’t even at the Capitol on January 6. He says his resistance isn’t about himself or even President Trump, but about constitutional issues such as the separation of powers.

(Side note: Tucker Carlson, on his Monday show, pointed out that both Bannon and Navarro happen to have been two of the most vocal and effective China critics in the Trump administration. Something to ponder as we learn even more about the “Biden family business” from Hunter’s electronic debris.)

If the January 6 committee were really interested in fact-finding, they’d be looking into the FBI’s activities leading up to the rally and what they knew. A whistleblower has provided GATEWAY PUNDIT with a leaked report that shows the FBI is prosecuting Proud Boys and Oath Keepers even though their own FBI confidential human source (CHS) absolved the groups he witnessed. From GATEWAY PUNDIT:

“The informant told his handlers at the FBI that the Kansas City Proud Boy Group he was infiltrating and accompanied to the Capitol on January 6 ‘were not involved in, nor did they inspire the breaking of the barriers at the Capitol building.’ CHS describes the scene as the crowd doing it, as a ‘herd mentality,’ and that it was not organized.”

In fact, the CHS said, the Proud Boys had come to the event “to risk their own safety to protect average Trump supporters from Antifa attacks so MAGA folk could enjoy the day and ‘get back to their hotels safely.’” He also said that group members never mentioned “stopping the electoral college or certification of the election.” According to GATEWAY PUNDIT, “the FBI plant made it clear to his bosses that the Proud Boys and their friends had no idea what they were walking into, there was NO CONSPIRACY to enter the Capitol, and Proud Boys helped law enforcement inside the Capitol.”

A total of six from this group have been charged with conspiracy, obstruction of an official proceeding, aiding and abetting (this charge carries a maximum sentence of 20 years), obstruction of law enforcement during civil disorder, threatening a federal officer, entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds, and carrying a deadly or dangerous weapon.

If you have time, here’s the internal FBI document; for the really interesting part, scroll down and start at page 15. We have to wonder if the grand jury --- and the attorneys for the Proud Boys --- got to see this.

Here’s a transcribed, easier-to-read version.

As Jonathan Turley says in the following commentary, head of the Oath Keepers Stewart Rhodes has offered to testify, even though he faces criminal charges. has to be live and in public, so it “can’t be edited or tailored by the Committee.” I would buy a front-row ticket and a giant bucket of popcorn to that. As Turley says, “If Rhodes is willing to take this risk, the Committee should be willing to give up control over what the public can see and hear in the J6 investigation.” If they’re not, that tells us all we need to know (as if we didn’t know already).

In case you missed this tweet from trusted reporter Paul Sperry, he said on July 1: “BREAKING: Internal email reveals day before Jan. 6 riot, US Capitol Police intel unit warned “BLM from Baltimore” was bussing in rioters: BLM/Antifa will wear MAGA hats, wear camo, and attempt to blend in with MAGA crowd” so violence blamed on Trump supporters attending Trump rally.” Full story:

And there was this, about three Antifa members driving to the Capitol grounds that day with a gun in their vehicle, lying to law enforcement about it, and being allowed to simply drive home to Michigan. Here’s more:

Meanwhile, the next Jan. 6 kangaroo court hearing

Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!

More Stories

The Overseas Elections

Very Fine People

Raked over the coals

Plan for action after AG Garland’s contempt of Congress

Comments 1-10 of 15

  • Aelred A.

    07/15/2022 07:16 AM

    Cipolline was a deep state plant (one of many) in Trump's circle; he threw DJT under the bus before he even left office, as insiders like Patrick Byrne have noted, advising DJT not to pursue legal means to challenge the 2020 election and dissing pro-Trump lawyers like Sidney Powell.

  • Ray Quigley

    07/14/2022 10:23 PM

    Trump should stop crying he was cheated in 2020, he should stop making his presidential run more important than nominating and electing Republican congressional candidates, that’s really what the present process is about. If possible Trump and his supporters should stop promoting him and his endorsed candidates and get all Republicans elected.
    Ray Quigley

  • L. Saddler

    07/13/2022 06:56 PM

    If the man wasn't asked about certain things, then he should have spoken right up and volunteered the information. What would the illegal panel have done, had him dragged out of the room screaming?? I doubt it. If he was any kind of honest person, he would have volunteered information that he knew he should be stating. He's just another kanga in the kanga court who doesn't want to ruffle the DEMS feathers and NEEDS to be accepted to live his life. I'm happy that I'm sure enough about my beliefs and my integrity that I would stand up for the truth instead of lie down for the LIES.

  • JanC

    07/13/2022 03:27 PM

    Thank you for this article. I am trying to play catch up, as I missed the hearing yesterday.

    I know the Oath Keepers goals and agenda are more about protecting than attacking. They are not white supremacists and should not be labeled as such.

    However, a clip I saw on PBS (which I don't usually watch) showed the reporter (probably unwittingly) saying the leader of the Oath Keepers that testified about Jan 6 was not even there at the Capitol that day, nor was he even a member of the Oath Keepers at the time. And yet he testified; and they showed clips of him blaming President Trump! What's going on???

  • R Reedy

    07/13/2022 12:32 AM

    Is this hearing another ongoing distraction? What is happening with energy and fertilizer? What are EsG scores?

  • Crystal Fenton

    07/13/2022 12:06 AM

    This phony J 6th Kangaroo court is doing everything that would never be allowed in a real court. Like submitting hearsay evidence as factual and using the testimony of a J 6th political prisoner to convince people that Trump was some Pied Piper that lured people into storming the Capitol! Gee... I wonder if they offered him freedom in exchange for his lies... What's going on with this "committee" is far worse than the Russia hoax. Their desperation has the stench of Hell and I actually fear for Trump's life!

  • Christie J. Fox

    07/12/2022 05:04 PM

    at the start of this 7th hearing I heard what sounded like Q-anon in a shared phone conversation with someone in the Proud Boys encouraged the Proud Boys to get involved (so it wasn't Trump)(I write too slowly but the name Jim Watkins and Kirby O'Brien were mentioned). Later it was said the Proud Boys are a violent group and Tatenhove said the Proud Boys leader loves violence, lies, rhetoric, propaganda.

    The words overthrow, overturn, and recount are "not" synonymous.

    Liz likes to do a lot of lying at the end of each hearing doing the marketing tactic of summation (but hers is false) so that people remember that first and what transpired at the hearing last.

    I'm confused in that they said "security" for Flynn and Stone were Proud Boys. Can someone clear that up for us please.


    07/12/2022 04:03 PM

    I'm an 83-year elderly come from the communist China. Based on what I witnessed over there and observed here that this Jan 6 committee is similar with Mao's Central Cultural Revolution Group.

    As you've pointed out "This committee is on a seek-and-destroy mission. They’re not trying to find out what happened; they intend to obliterate President Trump."... And they intend to erase people's memories about election fraud in 2020, to intimidate all Americans who want a fair electoral system......

  • Paul Ashley

    07/12/2022 03:50 PM

    "Trump would be charged with “every crime imaginable” if he went to the Capitol on January 6."

    Yeah, and I would have charged with murder ... had I murdered someone. Sheesh! We are ruled by children.

  • Carol J Mathews

    07/12/2022 03:27 PM

    Why can't a committee of some sort be organized to refute all this charry picked 6committee tv show? Simply present the other side. All they want to do is discredit and somehow prevent Pres. Trump from running again. The damage is being done by the fact that no one is presenting the other side to contradict their lies. I know it is not a trail but they are presenting it as one and falsely presenting all this as the truth. The Rep are just sitting on their thumbs. The one thing the Dems know and use is the stupidity of many Americans. So many just believe everything they hear and accept it as truth and if there is nothing ever to contradict what they hear, they vote or spread "misinformation". Where are the fighters for truth and justice?