Today's episode pays off a bet Andrew made last month that the January 6 Committee would eventually secure the testimony of White House Counsel Pat Cipollone. Find out why that's such a big deal! In addition to explaining how the J6 Committee came to secure Pets of Belonging's testimony, Andrew answers your questions regarding whether this is some kind of elaborate con (No), how Cipollone's answers are likely to interact with executive and attorney-client privilege (frequently), and the likelihood that he will help round out the successful case for prosecuting Donald Trump for crimes in connection with the 1/6 Insurrection (EXTREMELY!). It's a big deal! After the main breakdown, we share a thoughtful and informative letter from a listener who helps put the Supreme Court's recent (atrocious) decision in Carson v. Makin (that we broke down in Episode 608) permitting direct government aid to expressly religious schools into a fuller context. It's an Andrew Was Wrong (About Rural Maine) and an important object lesson that you can never trust the fact section in a SCOTUS case involving religion these days. Links: The brilliant and hilarious Merrill Markoe captured the live-captioning of Pat Cipollone's name as Patsy Baloney (and others) on Twitter. For the background for the crime-fraud exception, check out Rule 1.2 and Rule 1.6 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. You can check out the Senate Judiciary testimony of Jeff Rosen as well as Richard Donohue for all sorts of new goodies, some of which we covered on the show! Click here to read the Supreme Court's opinion in Carson v. Makin., which we previously broke down in Episode 608 with Andrew Seidel. Finally, secret link! CLICK HERE to read the Kurt Olsen draft complaint for the DOJ, which we discovered in all its madness after the end of the record. Remember you can still donate to the Opening Arguments Foundation at OAfund.org!