Let’s see...where were we?
Megyn Kelly, in a video I hope you watched, had explained what’s wrong with the January 6 show trial: “This is not justice, it is not fair, and it is not to be trusted,” she said.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE: Megyn Kelly: "I know a sham trial when I see one."
We’d also discussed Trump Derangement Syndrome as a voracious brain-eating disease and examined what happens to the prefrontal cortex during “long TDS.” By coincidence, John Daniel Davidson has an article at THE FEDERALIST titled “The Jan. 6 Committee is Causing Never-Trumpers to Lose Their Minds.” By “never-Trumpers,” he’s talking not about mainstream media but the more right-of-center outlets.
We expect CNN, NEWSWEEK, THE NEW YORK TIMES, the WASHINGTON POST and many others on the left to run attacks on President Trump at every opportunity, but, sadly, Davidson is talking about NATIONAL REVIEW and WASHINGTON EXAMINER running what he rightly calls “delusional op-eds” about the hearings this week. The EXAMINER said Trump had been “proven unfit for power again,” because of the testimony given by (yes) Cassidy Hutchinson. They apparently took her unverified testimony at face value --- never mind that it has been contradicted by multiple firsthand witnesses and was never subject to any challenge whatsoever
These editorial writers were completely suckered. “Former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson’s Tuesday testimony ought to ring the death knell for former President Donald Trump’s political career,” they intoned. “Trump is unfit to be anywhere near power ever again.”
You and I know that Hutchinson was put on the stand precisely to “ring the death knell” for Trump, and even though her testimony has been discredited, it apparently worked on these useful media idiots. To quote Davidson: “You have to wonder what’s wrong with these editors that they would publish such garbage. Do they not realize that one of the propaganda goals of the Jan. 6 committee is to elicit [this] kind of editorial? Mission accomplished, Liz Cheney!”
Read the whole EXAMINER editorial, look at the reasons they give for believing Hutchinson, and you’ll likely agree these board members are the ones who are unfit, to be anywhere near journalism. They went right along with the rest of corporate media. If they can’t be more discerning than this, with even a little ability to sniff out fake news, maybe they should move to MSNBC or CNN.
It seems Trump Derangement Syndrome has infected even them. Their brains have certainly been stripped of any analytical skills they might have had earlier in their careers. They appear to have gone right out of their heads.
They believe Hutchinson in part because she used to be a “conservative true believer” in Trump. At 25, she'd “already worked at the highest level of conservative Republican politics,” they say. And they speak of how precise she was with her choice of words, though I took that as a sign she’d been carefully coached. (Of course, viewers didn’t get to hear about that, because there was no cross-examination.)
These board members even took Hutchinson at her word about Trump attacking the Secret Service agents and grabbing the steering wheel to try to get to the Capitol, despite the fact that it has been strongly refuted by the people named in her stories.
It must not have occurred to them that there might be more backstory to Hutchinson’s apparent change of heart about Trump. We wanted to wait before speculating personally about someone we don’t know, but former Florida attorney general and very credible source Pam Bondi, in an interview with Sean Hannity on Wednesday, offered some insight.
Bondi said she’d had two conversations with Hutchinson, who (in the first conversation) “loved President Trump” but (in the later conversation) was “very upset” she’d been turned down for a job with him in Florida.
She’d apparently been turned down because some of her colleagues had told Trump she couldn’t be trusted. “She was a leaker when she was in the White House,” they said to him, according to Bondi.
“The woman I saw yesterday on the stand was not the same woman,” Bondi said. “Now I understand. She was well-rehearsed. And in a court of law she would have been cross-examined –- were you promised something for your testimony? Money? Did you receive immunity for getting on the witness stand?”
Bondi’s revelation that Trump had been told Hutchinson was a leaker is consistent with the statement he released after her testimony. His full statement is at the link above. He also did an exclusive interview for NEWSMAX that aired Thursday morning. “The woman is living in fantasy land,” he said. “She’s a total disaster, she’s a train wreck, but think of it. Nobody to cross-examine.”
Indeed, Hutchinson’s backstory with Trump and the Florida job would surely have been elicited during cross-examination in a REAL hearing. But outside the hearing, Hutchinson has been discredited as a witness and her testimony is essentially worthless. The Secret Service agents who were actually there will correct her lies for the record. But in the meantime, the January 6 committee can chalk up plenty of scathing anti-Trump editorials based on their deception.
Also, Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert is asking the committee to release the full transcript of Hutchinson’s testimony. He flatly denies he asked Trump for a presidential pardon for himself, saying that he only made pardon requests for several U.S. service members whom he said had been wrongly convicted of crimes while deployed in war zones. He says either Hutchinson was mistaken, or else the committee had deceptively edited the video they played of her testimony.
“Not only have I never asked for a pardon for myself,” he said, I have not done anything for which I need a pardon.”
Finally, yet another piece of Hutchinson’s testimony has fallen apart. She claimed that on the morning of January 6, White House counsel Pat Cipollone had told her to tell her boss, Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, that Trump should not go to the Capitol. She testified he’d told her, “We’re going to be charged with every crime imaginable” if he did that.
Cipollone has not agreed to testify before this committee, but according to HUMAN EVENTS Senior Editor Jack Posobiec, he was not even at the White House the morning of the 6th. Posobiec has heard this from “multiple sources,” he said. The January 6 committee is “aware of this discrepancy,” he tweeted, and “are ignoring media inquiries about it.”
Now that, I can believe.
Leave a Comment
Note: Fields marked with an * are required.
Comments 1-4 of 4
07/03/2022 03:46 PM
I read and trust what you write as a fellow committed Christian. My brain is having trouble absorbing all the communications over the past months. What I would like you to write is a list of 25-40 "bullet statements that would highlight the whole Jan 6 on, the most meaningful FACTS. I agree, the proceedings was a JOKE full of lies. As Hitler said: "IF YOU SAY SOMETHING LOUD AND LONG ENOUGH, PEOPLE WILL BELIEVE IT.
07/03/2022 03:24 PM
Donald Trump has been audited many times because he owns big businesses. Every aspect of his life has been investigated. His employees have been quizzed. There has not been one accusations by women who worked for him of discrimination or harassment. To the best of my knowledge he has never has minority employees file a complaint regarding discrimination. It is common knowledge he has been a womanizer. He is a loud mouthed boor. He has an ego as big as Mt. Rushmore and then some. If we never allowed egotistical womanizers to be President there would have been a number of vacancies. Please show me the evidence, not edited video, not second hand rumor, that he is a racist misogynistic warmonger. You can not like him as a person but still look at how most people, including minorities, were faring under his administration as compared to the Obama and Biden years. In my lifetime Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton, Trump have been notable womanizers.
07/03/2022 01:25 PM
I am amazed at what people will "swallow" in the name of evidence and truth; we are a sick society and I pray everyday that the light will shine through.
07/01/2022 01:43 PM
I’ve heard it said that “it’s a mighty thin board that only has one side”. So it would appear that Hutchinson’s testimony - since it only has one side - would be so thin as to be transparent but those running the donkey-and-pony show are apparently only interested in one side. It’s particularly frustrating/disappointing that there are so few actual journalists anymore who are legitimately interested in the truth of the story rather than advancing their preferred narrative!