Jan. 6 Member: Ex-Trump WH Counsel Pat Cipollone ‘Did Not Contradict’ Bombshell Witnesses – In 8 HOURS of Testimony

Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a key member of the January 6 committee, said that ex-Trump White House Counsel Pat Cipollone “did not contradict” witnesses like Cassidy Hutchinson during his nearly 8 hours of interviews with the committee.

Cipollone was subpoenaed by the committee following the bombshell testimony of former top White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, who related some stunning conversations with Cipollone from Jan. 6.

On Friday night’s edition of CNN’s The Situation Room, anchor Wolf Blitzer interviewed Lofgren about Cipollone’s testimony, which lasted nearly 8 hours.

Lofgren was constrained by committee rules, but when asked specifically about Hutchinson’s testimony, she told Blitzer that Cipollone “did not contradict the testimony of other witnesses”:

BLITZER: I know there are restrictions on what you can and cannot say based on what you heard during all this testimony today, but what did the committee learn from Cipollone’s testimony today? Can you share in general terms what you learned?

REP. ZOE LOFGREN (D-CA): Well, the committee rules don’t allow us to disclose testimony without a vote of the committee and we have not had that vote. But I will say Mr. Cipollone did appear voluntarily and answer a whole 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.

So, I think it was a — you know, a grueling day for all involved, Mr. Cipollone and the staff and the members, but it was well worth it.

BLITZER: So, can we assume that he confirmed what we heard in that really powerful, explosive testimony from Cassidy Hutchinson?

LOFGREN: Not contradicting is not the same as confirming.

BLITZER: Explain the difference.

LOFGREN: Well, 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 say, he does appear voluntarily. I think he was candid with the committee. He was careful in his answers, and I believe that he was honest in his answers.

BLITZER: I know you can’t get into specifics, but can you say if you learned any significant new information from him?

LOFGREN: I think a few things, yes. And — when we put this all together, I mean, obviously, Tuesday will be an important day for the committee and I think the country, connecting various dots and the hearings after. We gained some additional insight into the actual day, January 6th. So, yes, I think this was worthwhile.

BLITZER: So, you say he was cooperative during the course of his questioning today. Did he ever invoke executive privilege or try to avoid answering specific questions?

LOFGREN: Well, let me just say that executive privilege — the holder of that privilege is the current president. President Biden has not invoked it. Then there’s a second privilege, which is attorney/client privilege. The holder of that privilege is the former president. And so I can’t go into it more than that but there were complications in that regard.

BLITZER: Yes, whereas I could assume he didn’t invoke at least. You don’t have to give us details but at least in part he did cite that privilege?

LOFGREN: Let me just say he takes his ethical obligation very seriously, obviously, and sees this is really an institutional issue for him, as he described it, and which I do understand. But I really — you know, because of the committee rules, I can’t go into the details of the testimony, except to say that it was transcribed, it was videotaped, and I’m sure that the public will gain insight into this testimony in the coming days and weeks.

BLITZER: So, can we assume, Congresswoman, that portions of his answers will, in fact, be played publicly at upcoming hearings, including this coming week?

LOFGREN: Well, I can’t say that, but my guess would be that the new information generally makes it into the public arena. So, I’ll just leave it at that.

BLITZER: So, can we assume you’re making progress, from your perspective?

LOFGREN: Oh, yes, we are progress. I mean, obviously, he was an important witness but he’s not the only witness that we have interviewed this week. There have been other important witnesses that we have learned information from.

And so, you know, what is interesting is you have a hearing, someone like Ms. Hutchinson, who was so brave to step forward and say what she saw and what she heard, and then other people come forward and tell us what they saw and heard. So, there’s new information coming in constantly.

Watch above via CNN.