tv Don Lemon Tonight CNN July 6, 2022 11:00pm-12:00am PDT
thank you all for watching with us tonight. i will be back tomorrow. "don lemon tonight" with lora coates starts right now. >> good evening. i'm laura coates in for don lemon. the witness the january 6th committee wanted to talk to few n mo months. i'm talking about pat cipollone. he is making a deal for a transcribed interview. it's behind closed doors, but it's happening this friday and it will be on video. the interview will be limited to specific topics to avoid privilege issues. he was the white house counsel.
the committee has called him, quote, uniquely positioned to testify. the understatement of the year. just think of what he knows. think of how many times you out there heard his name from other witnesses during the hearings. >> mr. cipollone said something to the effect of, please make sure we don't go up to the capitol. we're going to get charged with every crime imaginable if we make that movement happen. >> on his phone, i remember pat saying to him, something to the effect of, the riders got to the capitol mark, we need to see the president now. and mark looked up and said, he doesn't want to do anything, pat. and pat said something to the effect of, and very clearly, had said this to mark, something to the effect of, mark, something needs to be done or people is going to die and the blood is
going to be on your hands. this is out of control. i'm going down there. >> pat cipollone weighed in at one point. that letter that this guy wants to send, that's a murder/suicide pact. that's going to damage everyone who touches it. we should have nothing to do with that letter. >> pat cipollone told the select committee he intervened when he heard mr. clark was meeting with the president without his knowledge, which was against white house policy. mr. cipollone and mr. philbin, like mr. rosen, told mr. clark to stand down. and he didn't. >> that's really a sliver of what i recall even hearing. you heard that he said, we're going to get charged with every crime imaginable, if the then-president were to go to the capitol on january 6th. you heard he told mark meadows, people are going to die and the blood is going to be on your hands.
you heard the plot to change with a trump loyalist, a murder/suicide pact. you heard all that. you haven't heard it from pat cipollone himself. the question is, what will he tell the committee behind closed doors? we will hear the corroboration? and will it be a breakthrough in the overall investigation. i want to bring in ellie honig and alex burns. he's the co-author of "this will not pass: trump, biden and the battle for america's future." this is big. i told you it is big. i will begin with you. this is a person whose name we heard continuously. they are able to secure a taped interview, behind closed doors. it's a big deal. we've seen for the better part of the hearings, many of the people who testify behind closed doors, their testimony appears during the actual hearings. what do you see as the most important thing he can tell this
committee that might lead to either more information about former president trump or open the eyes of doj? >> you seized on the two most important words. uniquely positioned. uniquely, as in one of one, the only one. and this guy was everywhere, as white house counsel should be. the attempt to take over the justice department. the attempt to infiltrate the states. he was in the white house in the oval office, on january 6th. usually his position was, from all of the reporting and testimony, that of a cooler head. telling people, you can't do this. we coushouldn't do this. the doj incident, threatening to resign. it seems like he had clear eyes and a level head here. he's a person who can bring
valuable perspective. you heard people say, if he testifies, he will tell the truth. i think his testimony can be remarkable. and you're right. his testimony on friday will be videotaped. you can bet, we will see that videotape, snippets of it, on tuesday. >> we should. and we know, alex, that prosecutors, let alone members of congress, that are having a hearing about a matter of importance, they want to know before the red light is flashing to show it's live. and pat cipollone, and i think it will be in the room where it happens. this is someone that was in the room most of the time. i'm wondering, why are we just hearing from him now? i mean, we heard cassidy hutchinson, a lot of talk about her testimony -- i think she's 26 years old and was a star witness. do you think that her willingness to come forward and testify put the necessary pressure on cipollone to now
come, spoke to the committee? >> well, i certainly think that cassidy hutchinson's testimony had the effect of breaching the inner circle of the trump west wing in a way that makes it harder for other folks to shrug off the committee as a partisan investigation, they don't really need to feel much pressure to cooperate with. i think it's particularly significant. i think cassidy hutchinson repeatedly characterized that pat cipollone did and said to her, that puts the onus on him to confirm or deny that material. we'll see if he does on friday. as you said, this will be a limited interview. i think in his case, more than in the case of a lot of people who declined to testify so far, there are legitimate questions, about his position, and the roll of the president.
political aides and political appointees that don't want to testify because they don't want to testify or could find it uncomfortable. if pat cipollone is in a position to corroborate a fraction of what we heard from cassidy hutchinson last week. it's a political breakthrough to get this committee past the point that the palace guard can continue to call this a he said/she said situation. >> one thing is clear, it should be, it's not as if trump can say pat cipollone, don't know him. hmm. i don't remember this person. i think he applied for a job in mar-a-lago. never heard of him. we remember his appearance at impeachment hearing in trial number one. he had a pivotal role there. i'm going to talk about the privilege issues with the former watergate prosecutor and john dean in the next hour. stay tuned for that. you focus on the idea of the you
creak unique position. he's not the private attorney of donald trump. not the personal attorney of any member of the administration. he's the office of the white house counsel. and the job was to give counsel to the office, irrespective of who the office is. he has a lot to offer. but are there moments they can get to that won't include the privilege nature of conversations, as well? >> if the committee allows pat cipollone to carve out one-on-one conversations with cha donald trump, you wand to go to court and fight for those. you don't have the time to go through that litigation. there's plenty of important information that pat cipollone has. there's movements, actions, statements that he witnessed on january 6th he needs to testify about. he needs to testify about the
things that cassidy hutchinson told us about. does he agree? does he corroborate them? he needs to testify about his conversations with mark meadows, with other important players. there's so many things that pat cipollone can tell us. you're right. it will be hard to distance himself from pat cipollone, who was white house counsel for the second half of donald trump's term, from 2018, representing donald trump in the first impeachment. i don't know how they will call him a coffee boy. >> alex, listen to this from jared kushner's taped testimony about pat cipollone. listen to this. >> he and the team would say, we're going to resign. i took it up to be whining, to be honest, with you. >> alex, what's your thought behind that? you think we'll hear -- not just the thought of this being whining. i remember a colleague of ours,
he tweeted something, if jared kushner had been around during watergate, he may have sloughed off the notion of the saturday night massacre as not wanting to work on the weekends. i hear the whining comment he's made. hear how many times did he threaten to quit? did he try to put his foot down in a way that would say, this has serious ramifications. would that be important to give credence and buttress what we've learned? >> let's look at the implic implications of the statement from jared kushner. any normal administration, the white house counsel threatening to quit would be an earthquake of a political internal event in the white house. if that happened in the biden white house, our jaws would be on the floor. the fact that the president's son-in-law and adviser, in that office, we had whiners in the building, that tells you about the culture of the
administration, as it pertains to the legal limits of the presidency and the advice of the white house counsel's office. beyond that, it's something that we reported in our book that you mentioned in the intro. you have republican leaders on capitol hill, folks like mitch mcconnell, urging the white house counsel, to stay in his job, so that there were adults in the room when events like january 6th happened. and, boy, did that turn out to be important. that pat cipollone and people like him at quit the administration in the middle of november. and you would have the total, to borrow a term of any of the republicans in washington, a clown show of trump election lawyers involved. how much worse could it have been if there wasn't somebody in the room telling trump, you can't do that. you shouldn't go to capitol hill. we'll see if pat cipollone confirms on friday he was one of those people. >> we will see. and still, i wonder what he had to say to vice president mike pence who was no longer in the
room but at the capitol. and the one last standing. alex, elie, thank you so much. nice hearing from both of you. new tonight, the most intensive random audit the irs does. so, what are the odds that not one but two former president trump's perceived political enemies would be targeted? andrew mccabe is one of them. he is here, next.
listen to this. we're learning that two people, who were constantly targeted by former president trump, so happened to face the most intensive, random audits the irs does. one of them, former fbi deputy director, andrew mccabe, who is my guest tonight. the other, according to "the new york times," former fbi director james comey. that all went down in 2017. and "the times" reports this kind of audit, that year, were 1
in 30,000. andrew mccabe joins me now. when i hear the odds or think about this coincidence, it's like when you're at the airport and someone says to you, you've been randomly selected. really? every flight i've taken, i have been taken out of this line. am i flagged in some way. trump fired you and james comey. he accused both of you, i would add, of treason. what are the odds here, that the two of you, high-ranking fbi officials, considered by trump to be political enemies, would be so randomly selected here? did you know at the time there was a connection between you and james coney and the audits? >> i had no idea. i got noticed about mine in october of 2021. they were auditing me for the tax year of 2019. so, the letter comes and it just very simply says, you've been selected, totally at random, for this national program that we're doing, looking at people's
returns. and i just assumed -- i took the irs at their word. and i just assumed that was right. i will say that my wife was suspicious from the beginning, and had a few choice words for me about it. an i should have listened to her. looks like maybe there's something else going on here. >> i'm going to be on her side naturally, andrew. of course, you're thinking about your wife. you're thinking about the idea that you believed at first blush, you trusted the fact that if you got the audit, everything was on the up and up. i'm curious about this kind of ordeal. what was this audit like? and what was the outcome? you didn't know this was the correlation here. but what was the process like? >> yeah. i had no idea. i didn't know anything about jim comey's decisituation, until i contacted by a reporter. i got in touch with the person who they said i should call. and it began. it's pretty -- it's incredibly
rigorous process. i have to say that the woman that i dealt with, who had responsibility for my case, was very professional and very responsive. we ultimately worked through it. and i ended up having to pay a small amount for an oversight, unintentional oversight. there was no penalties or fines or anything like that. it was a minimal thing in the end. but it's nerve-racking. it's really -- it's really kind of -- it's scary, really, to be targeted like that. i don't know what happened here. and like i said, i think they handled the business okay. you know, the person i dealt with is fine. the question remains, how was i selected for this? how was it that jim comey and i were selected for the same program, as you mentioned, 1 in 30,000 for the year. he was selected 1 in something like 20,000 for the year.
it defies logic to think there wasn't some other factor involved here. that's a reasonable question. i think it should be investigated. people need to be able to trust the institutions of government. and so, that's why there should be some -- dig through it and find out what happened. >> i'm curious. as a member of the electorate, someone that is a curious person, a skeptic in many ways like yourself, the idea this could have been wielded, in some way, to and exploited the otherwise proper channels of auditing with the irs. it is concerning to think about. you never want any agency or entity of the government to be used against a perceived enemy of a politician or any way shape or form. we want the legitimacy. and you never talked to james comey about this entire situation, is that right? that's correct. >> and this gets right to the
heart of something you and i talk about all the time. it goes to the rule of law. this fundamental idea that we have, we should believe and investment, that everyone is treated the same over the law. i would have less reason than anyone to still believe in that because of the way i was treated by the former president and his minions. subjected to a biased, one-sided i.g. investigation that resulted in my wrongful determination, that the department of justice acknowledged by reinstated me last year. i was subjected to a completely baseless two-year criminal investigation, that, of course, resulted in no action taken because no action ever should have been taken. this irs audit, we can add to that pile now. there's the looming whatever of john durham, as he continues -- i'm not sure what he is doing. relooking at all of the work we
did in 2016. yeah. someone who has been basically hunted by the former administration for four years now, i guess i should have assumed that this might be the next step. but i don't want to prejudge it. i think it's responsible for the irs to go in and take a look at how the program is being administered and report back to the american public as to what they find. >> i'm eager to hear it. the irs has issued a statement of sorts, saying they can't comment on the situation specifically. but they did release the statement. i want to read it to you, saying in part, audits are handled by career civil servants and the irs has strong safeguards in place to protect the process and against politically motivated audits. it's ludicrous to suggest that senior officials targeted specific individuals for national research program audits. what is your response? you articulated that you have
reserved judgment. and this very much, a combination of other things that have happened. what do you say now that you have heard their statement? >> it's obviously not ludicrous, when you have a fact pattern like this, that defiyies the id of random selection. it's irresponsible and appropriate for the irs to look at what happened in these two cases. i'm not pointing a finger at any high-level, medium-level or low-level official at the irs. but the people who administer the service should be concerned about its reputation. and to uphold that, they should look at what happened here. the coincidence of the two former top officials in the fbi, both of whom were very clearly considered to be, you know, enemies by the former president and his supporters, being subjected to this incredibly invasive process that is
supposedly random, was it actually random? i would like to hear the answer to that question. >> well, i've got, as you know, two, small kids and a puppy. a lot of coincidences happen in my house that can otherwise be explained. i'm waiting to see what happened in your case, as well. thank you very much, andrew mccabe. you know what i'm talking about. appreciate seeing you tonight. >> good to see you. he's confessing. talking about the highland park parade shooter. he's confessing. he was in court today, admitting that he considered a second shooting rampage, we're hearing. inside the case of the former fbi profiler after this.
replacing thought with worry. but one thing can calm uncertainty. an answer. uncovered through exploration, teamwork, and innovation. an answer that leads to even more answers. mayo clinic. you know where to go. as a business owner, your bottom line is always top of mind. so start saving by switching to the mobile service designed for
small business: comcast business mobile. flexible data plans mean you can get unlimited data or pay by the gig. all on the most reliable 5g network with no line activation fees or term contracts... saving you up to $500 a year. and it's only available to comcast business internet customers. so boost your bottom line by switching today. comcast business. powering possibilities. there's a reason comcast business powers more businesses than any other provider. actually, there's a few... comcast business offers the fastest, reliable network... the protection of securityedge™ and the most reliable 5g network. want me to keep going? i can... whether your small business is starting or growing, you need comcast business. technology solutions that put you ahead. get a great offer on internet and security, now with more speed and more bandwidth. plus find out how to get up to a $650 prepaid card with a qualifying bundle.
we're learning new harrowing details about the shooting in the highland park mass shooting. admitting to opening fire on paradegoers, authorities say he, quote, seriously contemplated, unquote, carrying out a second attack in madison, wisconsin. he planned to use a firearm and exactly 60 rounds of ammunition. but he didn't go through with it because authorities say, he hadn't put enough thought into that. he appeared in court today via zoom for his baond hearing. seven charges of first-degree murder. a preliminary hearing is set for july 28th. i want to bring in contributor and profiler candice delong. i'm happy you're here to look at
and unpack this issue under the microscope it deserves. you heard the shooter being described as unfazed during his band hearing. they show a screen shot there. what does this say about his state of mind, the being unphased in this courtroom, after hearing the judge, the prosecutors, what went through your head? >> knowing what we know about what's going on in the minds of people that do this kind of thing, and it's almost always men, males, boys, almost always. don't expect to see tears, pleas of regret, shame. there will be none of that. that might explain why he was unfazed. >> why is that? why is that, candice? just the demographic you're talking about, not that i think, you know, you expect somebody to -- who would engage in this
behavior, would have the remorse during the act. i think most human beings would assume, you know you know this differently, would be some regret. that's not going to be there, based on the profiles of those that commit these acts? >> that's correct. one of the things that psychologists and fbi research and a study they did on mass shooters, in the vast majority of cases, especially if it's a younger adult, they are motivated by anger. they are angry at the world. they can't -- they don't have the insight to look at this anger and say, maybe it's this. maybe it's me. maybe i can change my life. no. they are motivated by anger. and that anger makes them want to seek revenge on those that they believe deserve it. i can understand why his first target was where he grew up.
if he was, like so many other shooters, motivated to exact revenge because he was angry, what better place to do it than in his own hometown? >> what about the idea of even thinking about another attack on the area of madison? does that follow suit, as well? >> yes. >> interesting. tell me why. what i've been thinking is, it's understandable why the blitz, the first attack, was highland park and it's understandable that it was a family day. he probably went to those parades as a kid. the thing of madison, wisconsin, the most important thing of madison is the university of wisconsin. there's some connection there. it was not random. there could be someone going to school there. maybe a girl he was interested in that spurned him.
but there has to be a reason why he drove all that way and why madison -- why the university -- why that was his target. we will find out. right now, the fbi and investigators are going through his phone, his computer, everything. we're going to know everything soon. >> so important to think about the psychological profile that you have expertise in. and thinking about the whys. you and i both know that for those families that are grieving, those that are continuing to grapple with the tragedy in their personal lives, the whys will never be sufficient. we, as a society, maybe if we know the whys, it can lead to dete deterrence, and prevention, as well. can candice delong, thank you for your expertise. one case could have the supreme court radically reshaping elections. what it could mean for your voting rights next.
this is john. he never gives up—no matter what life throws his way. high cholesterol. heart disease. 17 fad diets... 5 kids... 3 grandkids... 1 heart attack. and 18 passwords that seem to change daily. with leqvio, john can lower his cholesterol— and so can you. when taken with a statin, leqvio is proven to lower bad cholesterol by over 50% and keep it low with two doses a year. common side effects of leqvio were injection site reaction, joint pain, urinary tract infection, diarrhea, chest cold, pain in legs or arms, and shortness of breath.
so start saving by switching to the mobile service designed for small business: comcast business mobile. flexible data plans mean you can get unlimited data or pay by the gig. all on the most reliable 5g network with no line activation fees or term contracts... saving you up to $500 a year. and it's only available to comcast business internet customers. so boost your bottom line by switching today. comcast business. powering possibilities.
in a series of key decisions last month, the supreme court cutting back on the ability of states to restrict guns in public places. then, overturning a half-century of abortion rights protection. then, slashing away at the power of the epa to regulate polluters. now, voting rights is back in the mix. the court agreeing to hear a case out of north carolina. this time, yet again, about north carolina's redistricting efforts. first, if you remember, they tried to redraw their maps using racially gerrymandered lines. then, partisan gerrymandered lines. the court arguing that the state shouldn't have a say in how to draw the jegerrymandered maps.
"a dangerous theory" will have its day in the u.s. supreme court. the decision by the supreme court to hear this case, you call it shocking. but what makes this north carolina dispute so dangerous in the first instance? >> thank you for having me on. the republican leadership have gone to the supreme court and said, this was a big misunderstanding. the state courts can't review our maps at all, because the constitution says that the legislature sets the maps and sets the time, place and manner of elections. and it doesn't mention the courts. so, the state courts play no role. >> you and i know, the idea of the courts are to be a check on the power that could be abused, on the whole checks and balance
system we have in our democracy. a court would not be able to have some say or the final say, what the legislative body is doing. isn't that counter to what we think about checks and balances? our system? >> yeah. that's why this has been, frankly, a radical, fringe theory. it's been kicking around in the outer edges of the republican legal community. john eastman, for example, was a proponent of the what's called the independent state legislature theory. that would allow the legislatures to choose the electors, notwithstanding how people voted. this has not had an air of respectability, until a couple weeks ago when the supreme court said they would hear this case and consider whether or not to rem remove the checks and balances that are so important to our system. >> what's the end game? if the supreme court is going to empower state lawmakers, give them control over elections, the
idea of not being able to have a state court review what's happening, which is a possible consequence, how do you have guardrails in mrasz for place for voters. there's a long history of voter protections falling to the wayside. you have section five gone. section two of the voting rights act has been diluted. it looks unrecognizable. what would you do if the supreme court hears this case and decides, that theory works for us? >> that's why this is a dangerous theory. the supreme court had cut back on the federal remedies. it gutted section five of the voting rights act. it has weakened the interpretation of section two as you point out. it's weakened the constitutional arguments made to protect voters. if now it guts entirely the ability of the state courts to
hold state legislatures accountable to their own constituents' constitutions, frankly, there's little standing between democracy and tyranny. >> why would a court want to weaken the power of the judiciary? it doesn't make sense. the idea of cutting off your nose despite your face, it's handing over the cease to the castle, if the judiciary, the highest court in the land saying, you have no role here, why would they weaken that power for a different lower court? >> it's a really good question. as you know, the foundation of american law is a case called pasch marbar versus madison, saying the supreme court is the authority to rule on acts by states, under the principle that the federal courts are supreme. there's numbers in the
constitution that gives congress the authority to do something, just like the election clause gives it to state legislatures. and i don't see the security relinquishing its power in that arena. it makes no sense. but it's really, really problematic and dangerous. >> well, i mean, it would be the very first time, read my sarcasm, that the court would undermine its own power or legitimacy or value in 2022. marc, thank you so much. glad to have you here and learn from your insight. i appreciate it. >> thank you. britney griner. she is terrifying she would be in a russian prison forever. i will speak to her olympic coach, one of the many people fight ing to get brittney grine released. next. >> i can't rest, as her humanity has been stripped from her. i can't rest as her safety is in
question. i can't rest until she's home. [ kimberly ] before clearchoice, my dental health was so bad i would be in a lot of pain. i was unable to eat. it was very hard. kimberly came to clearchoice with a bunch of missing teeth, struggling with pain, with dental disease. clearchoice dental implants solved her dental issues. [ kimberly ] i feel so much better. i feel energized to go outside and play with my daughter. i can ate anything. like, i don't have to worry. clearchoice changed my life.
so what's going on? i'm a talking dog. the other issue. oh... i'm scratching like crazy. you've got some allergic itch with skin inflammation. apoquel can work on that itch in as little as 4 hours, whether it's a new or chronic problem. and apoquel's treated over 11 million dogs. nice. and...the talking dog thing? is it bothering you? no... itching like a dog is bothering me. until dogs can speak for themselves, you have to. when allergic itch is a problem, ask for apoquel. apoquel is for the control of itch associated with allergic dermatitis and the control of atopic dermatitis in dogs. do not use apoquel in dogs less than 12 months old or those with serious infections. apoquel may increase the chances of developing serious infections and may cause existing parasitic skin infestations or pre-existing cancers to worsen. new neoplasias were observed in clinical studies and post-approval. most common side effects are vomiting and diarrhea. feeling better? i'm speechless. thanks for the apoquel. ahh, that's what friends are for. ask your veterinarian for apoquel. next to you, apoquel is a dog's best friend.
the wnba's phoenix mercury is hosting a valley in support of their teammate, brittney griner tonight. the basketball star has been detained for more than 100 days. this rally follows president biden and vice president harris speaking with griner's wife by phone earlier today. as you know, griner wrote a letter to president biden earlier this week, expressing her fears about being held in russia indefinitely. her wife, cherelle, putting out a statement saying she is grateful for biden and harris to speak with her and her express commitment to getting britney home. joining me now is her former olympic coach, dawn staley. it's good to see you here. there's been, as you know, the conversation between president
biden and vice president harris, with britney's wife, trying to tell her they are going to work to secure her release. and i'm wondering what you make of this. is it a sign of progress here? does it give you some hope that maybe they will do all they can and have the rhetoric match the action? >> yeah. i think it's a god's wink, you know? when god winks at you, i think it's an incredible thing. so, i think everybody in britney's camp has been wanting this. if not, an in-person meeting, some type of communication, with the president of the united states, you know, to add some graciousness to it. vice president harris was on the line, as well. so, it, you know, we got two bangs for our buck. and hoping this expedites britney's process to get her
home a little quicker than we thought yesterday. >> now, dawn, you know her quite well. i mean, her cause has really been heard about. people are really trying to be her champion at this point in time. i want to know from the personal. in the letter that she wrote to th e straka talk about how you think she is feeling k >> she had a bad day. that happens in that situation. for the most part, is she terrified? yes. is she afraid? yes. issue strong, yes. has she tapped into that mental
strength that requires an elite player to have? yes. you go on an emotional roller coaster when you were in that position. i'm hoping that she is hearing that she talked to the president or vice president. i hope for her sake, a little bit easier. not any other night. until she is home will she get that sleep. sleep that we all want her to have. >> it was a powerful letter signed. because even beyond as you well know. part because of pay inequity
here that brought her to play for the russian team. i want you to hear what the head coach had to say this week about her being detained. >> is a statement about the value of women. all of those things. we know it. that is what hurts more. >> what is your reaction? >> a lot of things were said and that answer to the question, most importantly, we have an american citizen wrongfully detained in a russian prison. i don't want to add layers to what it is.
when we keep it simple, it is an american citizen. she is not the only one. in her letter, she said bring us all home. in her moment of reaching out, she didn't separate herself. she said bring us home. i am sure everybody that is wrongfully detained in a russian prison or a broad is feeling helpless. we need to keep our focus on getting her home. giving every other american home in a place where families can rest easier. we have to be all hands on deck.
the white house and reverend sharpton. to everyone else and had been screaming to get her home. that is what will keep the synergy going. it is moving in the right direction. hopefully it will expedite that. >> thank you about reminding people about that selflessness and reminding people not to forget about her or the others to be wrongfully detained. thanks for giving insight into what she is like.
dad, when is the future? um, oh wow. um, the future is, uh, what's ahead of us. i don't get it. yeah. maybe this will help. so now we're in the present. and now... we're in the future. the all-electric chevy bolt euv with available super cruise™ for hands-free driving. - dad. - yeah? do fish get thirsty? eh. find new answers. find new roads. chevrolet.
closed captioning brought to you by -- there is a major breakthrough tonight for the january 6 committee. the white house counsel will testify before the committee on friday. it will be transcribed and videotaped. we want to bring in the nixon white house counsel john dean and watergate prosecutor nick ackerman. it is good to see about. jon kyl -- john you have been saying every time the name is been mentioned, there is a
moral obligation to appear before the committee. now he will. tell me why it is important to hear from pat? >> the democracy is at stake. it is not a game. it is a terrifying situation. rather than honor the oath of office that he took, he has been trying to resist testimony and appearing before the committee. he had an informal session in april off the record. i don't even think it was sworn. he has now been negotiating as the terms under which you will testify. i don't get it. here is a guy that had the benefit of our democracy, he should be volunteering information so we can understand wha
Uploaded by TV Archive on