Speaker 1: All right. Major steps being taken now. The January six committee has subpoenaed
Trump's former White House lawyer, Patrick Maloney. Patrick Maloney is a name that made
headlines on Tuesday, in part because the closed captioning could not handle the name Patrick
Maloney. At one point it closed captioning during Tuesday's hearing said patsy baloney or patsy
bologna in other cases. So everybody knows the name Patrick Maloney now. Patrick Maloney has
been subpoenaed to testify. The Guardian reports January six committee subpoenas. Former White
House counsel Patrick Maloney. Donald Trump's former counsel, was a key witness to some of the
ex-president's most brazen schemes to overturn the 2020 election. Why do we care about this?
We care about this because many of the claims being made by others who have testified in
front of the January six committee are claims about what Patrick Maloney said
and what Patrick Maloney told others. For example, they're going to charge us with every crime in the
book or something like that. If we do this, if we make this attempt to steal the election, well,
it would be really great to get him under oath. Did he say that? Did he believe that? What was his
assessment of what Donald Trump was trying to do? The House Select Committee has issued a subpoena
compelling him to testify about at least three parts of Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020
election results. The subpoena marked a dramatic escalation for the panel and showed its resolve
in seeking to obtain inside information about how Trump sought to return himself to office.
Mr. Chip Maloney repeatedly raised legal and other concerns about Trump's activities on January 6th
and the days that preceded. The committee needs to hear from him on the record, as other former White
House counsels have done in other congressional investigations. Chip Maloney was a key witness
to some of Trump's most brazen schemes, which the select committee said in its hearings was part of
a sprawling and potentially unlawful multipronged strategy, culminating in the Capitol attack.
Chip Maloney has information about Trump's push to send fake slates of electors to Congress,
the subpoena letter said. So is he going to testify? We don't know. Every indication so far
has been that folks like Chip Maloney have no interest in being put under oath and answering
direct questions about what took place on January six, January 5th, and the days approaching it.
He should testify. I hope he cooperates. I hope he doesn't take the Steve Bannon route. And if we
are able to. You know, the problem we're having right now is you get someone at every instance.
The sequence is like this. There's the initial sort of framework for the January six committee.
Republicans say we don't like it, we're not participating. Okay. So then it forces Democrats
to say, are there any Republicans willing to be on this committee? And Adam Kinzinger says,
I'll do it. And Liz Cheney says, I'll do it. And then Republicans say, well, look, they
they barely have Republicans on the committee. Well, but that's by your choice. Then they get
witnesses to testify. Cassidy, Hutchinson and others testify. And they make claims under oath,
under tremendous legal pressure, under tremendous societal pressure. She now needs security on and
on and on, getting threats and then in the media. Oh well we're willing to have a different to put
put forth her our perspective which contradicts Kassidy Hutchinson's. Okay well show up and do
it under oath. Well, they're not willing to have us. Yes, they are. They said at the end of the
hearing, anyone else who has light to shed on these incidents, please come forward. We would
like you to testify. Well, where are they? It's now been 48 hours. Nobody has been scheduled to
testify as of yet. Bring them in. And so there's this constant attempt to say, well, here's the
claim made under oath. Here's something someone said to someone on Twitter. They they cancel out.
So we don't know what the truth is. Well, no, hold on a second. The statements made under oath
attributed to individuals should carry more weight than the random musings of someone saying,
I would show up and say something different, show up, take the oath and say something different,
and then we will evaluate it. Let me know on Twitter where you can find me at D
Pacman. Do you think any of these supposed contradictions are actually going to show up and
make contradictory statements under oath? Let me know. We'll take a quick break and be right back.