Whatabout "Whataboutism"

In the past few weeks, three people, all in discussions about politics with me, have raised the issue of whataboutism – twice that I and once that “people” have raised subjects that are irrelevant. Since one of my favorite topics is how people are taught to argue, I thought I’d take a shot at it, because often, though it can be a valid criticism, crying whataboutism has become a tool that people use so the other side cannot speak.

I want to start off by saying that I have heard people on both the right and left use this accusation, often depending on which party is in power. Of the three people I mentioned above, one is a convinced liberal since the 1960s, who I know since I was a teenager; one claims to be and I believe is a moderate, but who hates Trump and the third one I had a discussion with in a bagel store, but don’t even know his name. But based on our conversation I know he hates Trump and I’m 99% percent sure is a liberal (he self-described as pro-choice, anti-gun, anti-border enforcement, etc.).

But that is just the last week. I have heard the term thrown around, not especially in reference to me, but to make the point that they did not think the response to their question or statement was to the point, and had drifted into another area. Not surprisingly, in the past few years the accusations I have heard have almost all have been made by either liberals or Trump-haters when you respond to something they say about Trump. But back in the 1990s I have often heard Republicans use it when criticizing Clinton – they wanted you to answer only yes and no to questions as if you were being cross-examined, or if it was an open question, they did not want you to mention anyone else other than Clinton. I don’t remember people calling it whataboutism back in the Clinton years – but they might have. I can’t really remember. It doesn’t matter. The accusation has been around for – ev – a.

And it is often nonsense. Yes, you heard me – nonsense. Apologies to all who use it. Please note that I said “often.” Sometimes I think it is fair and I have used it too.

Let me start with the technical definition which I found in an online dictionary: “[T]the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue. Also called whataboutery:”

Now, as far as that goes, it is not a bad definition, and it can be true. For example, if you say to me – “Moriarity masterminded the theft of a royal jewel,” then for me to say, “Well, Holmes often breaks the law in his cases,” sounds like a logical fallacy. The habits or unlawfulness of anyone else has nothing to do with whether Moriarity masterminded a theft.

But, I have given you only two sentences. What if the discussion was broader? You were arguing that Moriarity has a criminal record and therefore you believe that he masterminded a well-known jewel theft. Some might call it whataboutism, but it would be perfectly legitimate in that context to say that Holmes has often broken the law, the implication being that it doesn’t mean he committed the robbery.

Here’s several circumstances when making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue is often legitimate respond to an accusation with a counteraccusation:

 1. To show that the other person is engaging in a logical fallacy or at least that what he says might be logical, but untrue:

A: “I saw you at the scene of the crime yesterday. So, you are guilty.”

B: “But, I saw you there too. It doesn’t mean anything.”

*

2. To show hypocrisy:

A. "Rodney was saying how he made honor roll. What a braggart.”

B.  “Weren’t you just telling me that you scored a 1500 on your SATs?” 

*

      3. To show outrage is feigned:

      A. "I was outraged when Lincoln had the audacity to say that the election was fixed."

    B: "You loved it when Buchanan said it 4 years ago. You were excited when Taylor said it 8 years ago. You know you just don’t like Lincoln."

    *

     4. To point out that something or someone lacks credibility:

A: "Everyone thinks Bodinski is cheating on his wife."

B: "Please, the rumor was for years that he was always drunk and it turns out he doesn’t drink at all. Then they said he was stealing from the company and it turned out it was Smythe. You can only cry wolf so many times."

_____________________

One of the reasons people disagree about the responses given is that whenever anyone says anything, there is context, and implications, and suggestions, that go along with it. If I say, for example. . . .

“I love (Biden/Trump) because I saw a picture of him with a big smile. . .

Then all of the following is legitimate -

“I agree.”

“Do you know how many times he has lost his temper in other situations.”

“Everybody smiles. So what?”

“He should have answered the question instead.”

“He almost never answers important or hard questions.”

“Why shouldn’t he smile. He fooled everyone and got to be president.”

“Sure, he can smile, but he is responsible for so many deaths.”

Etc.

Just because the responder doesn’t stick to the first person’s statement about the photograph doesn’t mean that he is raising a new issue because there is context involved, which may be absolutely unspoken – For example, if he says he thinks Biden or Trump is a nice guy. You know from other discussions he likes Dems or Reps and hates the other. You know he is a sucker for a smile. He frequently makes up any reason to think well of those people with whom his political positions agree.

You might disagree with me. But, then what if I said “I love Hitler because I saw a picture of him with a big smile.” Would you accept the idea that in responding you can only say that it is or isn’t a big smile? Because context matters. And raising Hitler or Trump or Biden or any politician or controversial subject, even with specificity, also raises a host of other matters that are related and we can respond to them. We are not robots.

So, I can guess what you (generic) are thinking, if you are even a casual declarer of whataboutism – that I’ve just given examples of when there is a good reason to bring up a counter-accusation or change the issue. My answer to that is – Exactly. There are many times it is appropriate to deviate from exactly the last point or question raised by someone, just as there are times it is not. And we (generic) will always disagree about which is which. It is the nature of argument.

But, what happens is that very often people listening are impressed more with the person who has made a good point and not impressed when they think he/she is too far off the mark. That again, is human nature. And it is part of discussion, debate, argument.

I will add, I have no special insight that led me to understand this – we all understand it and, whether the foes of whataboutism think so or not, they do the same thing in their lives and all the time. In fact, I will add, we all know how to do it from when we are infants.

That’s because, (often) all we are doing when we counter-accuse or raise a new issue, is making an analogy or argument similar to one put to us. Sometimes I find in a discussion that my best response is something that happened to me - a personal story, or a quotation from someone else, which I think is analogous. Now, here’s something I noticed about myself and analogies. I did pretty well on at least one standardized test on analogies, if I recall correctly. People who agree with me have often told me they like an analogy I made. Yet, somehow, virtually no one who disagrees with my overall point ever thinks my analogy is close enough factually to have value. Probably never. But, they usually do not point out why it isn’t close enough. They just dismiss it. It’s how people argue.

Why, because when we are arguing, we are not subject to the rules of the person who makes the first question. He might think it telling you don’t answer the question, and it might be so if it was a direct and fair question. I for one have, until this past weekend, never had anyone answer my question whether if they were with their spouse or loved one and someone broke in with a gun to kill them, they would rather have a gun so that they didn't least have a chance, or whether they would in their or their spouse’s last moments think- I feel so good about not owning a gun?*

*One friend recently did answer, after a few minutes of pressing that he hadn’t answered the question, which is a mind experiment. He acknowledged he’d rather have the gun in that case, but argued we can’t presume he’d be successful – and that’s true. All I was pointing out is that he’d have had a chance, and would want that chance.

Few people, in a debate, ever argue in a geometrical manner, and when they try, they usually fail, even famous philosophers. But people very much do want to control the discussion, because if you write the rules, so to speak, you usually win.

I have one friend who, years ago at least, used to ask a question and then demand you answer only the specific way he requested. He’d literally say – “you’re not allowed to say that” if he didn’t like your response. Even in a casual conversation if he said, “You coming over to bbq tomorrow?” he could not read between the lines if you answered “That should be really nice.” You had to say – for him to be satisfied only “Yes” or “No.” Once I recall him being fearful that I wouldn’t do something for him and I responded something like, “An asteroid would have to hit for me not to do it,” thinking it was reassuring. He took that as a "no," and became upset. Literally.

He was extreme with this style, and I think he would acknowledge now that OCD and stress had a lot to do with it, but people try to dominate arguments in many ways, by getting more time to talk, by priming others ahead of time, etc, or by rejecting the other persons’ response as unacceptable. In my time as an attorney I’ve noticed that a good deal of battle in court was had over attorneys trying to keep the other side from talking. And, judges being human and often biased, it can work.

Now, my friend just discussed above was a lawyer, and what he was trying to do is to cross-examine (which I had actually taught him how to do) rather than discuss. The point of cross-examination, which is necessary in law, is to allow the lawyer to dominate the conversation with the witness - because otherwise many adverse witnesses would make it impossible to get anywhere. The difference between that and a real discussion between friends or even conversation, is that in a lawsuit, there is a judge, both sides have lawyers, get to directly question their own witnesses, cross-examine their opponents witnesses and speak freely to the jury during arguments in summation. Someone might try to cross-examine during a discussion, but that is because they are trying to control the conversation. I'm not saying there is necessarily ill-will involved, because that person may legitimately think that only their path is the correct way, but what they are also doing is avoiding anyone bringing up things they do not want to consider.

But, it’s not just in law, it’s in all kinds of arguments. Personal, political, etc. I’ll give you one example. Lately it seems like a theme for some women is that men can’t have an opinion about abortion because they don't have babies. Some men agree, of course. I said to one woman who was adamant about it, that I hoped she didn’t have any opinions about rape, seeing as she couldn’t rape anyone or get prosecuted for it. She stared at me blankly, because there is no real response.

Discussions, debates, arguments, are usually free flowing, unlike say, a game or test, and though people do try and control them, it can be difficult because there is always at least another person involved.

Sometimes saying “that’s whataboutism” (or "that has nothing to do with it") is legitimate; it’s just overused. It just means it is not relevant - and calling it something "whataboutism," as if it is never allowed to bring up anything analogous or that is a developed argument starting anywhere but where the other arguer wants, is what is nonsense. Sometimes people’s responses have nothing to do with someone’s point or question. I remember making some point or another to a secretary many years ago, who was, let’s say a little rough around the edges, and who responded with “I hope your daughter dies of cancer.” Her answer seemed typical to me of people who were raised in her neighborhood. And, I have noticed that any discussion with my evalovin’ gf of almost 32 years (more than half my life now) usually involves me repeating - what does that have to do with anything we are discussing? It seems how messy she feels my desk is, is the answer to almost any question. Maybe one day she will persuade me that it really is the key to life.

It is true that there is no way to draw a black line or make an algorithm to determine when a response is close enough to be valid, or just a distraction. We all have our own judgments. And when we see others argue over it, we tend to agree more with those who we feel more generally agree with our viewpoint. Not always, but it is human nature. 

I have a very low success rate in debate or discussion in terms of persuading the other person. Everyone does. If the other person is emotionally attached to their own opinions, it is not impossible to change their mind, but close to it. People are often fixed in their views and would not change their minds regardless of evidence. But, not everyone. I am happy if once in a while I can persuade someone, and I know it does happen, usually over the course of time. And, I have had to change my mind over the course of years too, sometimes because of arguments I’ve heard against my own views. It actually hurts a bit to come to grips with the fact that you were wrong about something you felt deeply, and I know this from experience.

People naturally will want to convince each other that what they say is correct and some people they don’t like to be challenged or disagreed with at all. I have a few friends (I hate to say it - all women) who literally become angry if you disagree with them on the smallest thing - like the weather. But, it is hard to persuade anyone of something of which they have a strong or long held belief. I have persuaded people in conversations on occasion, and some have told me so, but really what happens is that, if they are logical and open, they are open to changing their minds. I feel I do better if I can argue in writing as I can develop my ideas and I am less likely to forget something - and sometimes I can go back and add it in if I do.  It’s often hard in a discussion where everyone wants to talk, especially if some people, get crotchety. That’s one reason I prefer one on one discussions without spectators. 

Or just me arguing alone with only commenting permitted, which is why I blog.

The January 6th Committe and the Hutchinson testimony

I frequently consider, and I believe I have stated here, that my big fear for our country is not the radical left, but the opinions of the smart, nice, moderate people, who have been, as all of us have, submerged with a media blackout of relevant news coupled with lies and misinformation about what is going on in the country and world. Often, of course, it is about Trump, who has been subject to the greatest opposition of any president in my lifetime (and that includes Nixon, who they were actually going to impeach for a good reason) and any other president since Lincoln, who was beset both by Democrats, who of course hated him, but also the radical Republicans who wanted to destroy the South. The anti-Trump drumbeat has resulted in a large percentage of people having the most adverse reaction to Trump possible, without being able to state anything he did that they don’t like until Jan. 6^th 2021 (where they simply take the typical media view – even some Republicans and conservatives).

I know, if you are one of these moderate, smart, nice people, you say – poppycock, Trump is [fill in the blank with adjectives or substitutes for adjectives] and don’t believe you have not been given false information or misled, or that your sources are biased. I have spent the last few years blogging about this. Admittedly, my page hits every month are usually in the few hundred range. It once went up to 10,000 briefly when one ordinary person put me on her facebook page as being a reasonable voice. She faced such hatred from liberal friends and family (her best friend stopped talking to her) she took it off her page – but that is how the left works. But, my policy is to try to convince one person at a time, and I do so today.

Of course, I can’t answer every question in one blog. That’s the work of a lifetime it seems, and I will never get to even a fraction of the things I’d like to talk about, as I do not do this daily, but only occasionally. Sometimes I use this platform to respond to friends, usually moderates, because they are hardly the only ones to hold certain opinions. Today, I just want to respond to one friend who has debated these issues with me in a fairly brief conversation and in a text. He raised a few points and I will address those.

I’m going to answer the following questions today, and hopefully soon thereafter answer some others:

1.     Why I have not watched the January 6^th hearings.

2.     Was Cassidy Hutchinson just testifying to what she says she heard (hearsay)?

3.     Do Cassidy Hutchinson’s own texts discredit her testimony?

__  _______________________________________________

Why I have not watched the January 6^th hearings.

My first thought is – why would anyone? Don’t proponents of the hearings have to say why we should watch it, rather than I defend why I didn’t? But, I will be more specific and answer the question anyway.

Because first, the media and Democrats and even the NeverTrump Republicans have not only treated the 1/6 riot as an insurrection (if there was any, it was a handful of idiots – the FBI finally admitted that the supposed armed insurrectionists weren’t armed), as if, after a year and a half of radical riots in the country stemming from Floyd’s death  – somehow January 6^th was still the only riot that has ever occurred or at least is worthy of notice. Here are some reasons:

First, they lied about Brian Sicknick, pretending he was killed by the “maurauders” and quickly giving him a State funeral. I actually said to friends at the time I did not believe he was killed by protesters or they would have shown us video.  It turned out, of course, Brian’s own family said his death, which occurred after he had left the scene of the riot, was not related to the festivities. He was not assaulted with a fire extinguisher as the leftist media and others claimed. Per the medical examiner, he suffered strokes that were naturally occurring, not brought on by chemical irritants or trauma. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick died of natural causes after riot, medical examiner says (nbcnews.com).

Why would they do this? To pound their narrative about Trump. A party that has a large number of members that seek to destroy the police (so, I believe, no one can fight their gangs), and has been virtually silent in the fact that their rhetoric has resulted in numerous cops being killed and wounded, suddenly found a cop it cared about.  You will notice, the lies about him and attempt to use his death for the narrative was not and will not be a subject of the 1/6 hearing (which I could fairly call a star chamber or kangaroo court). Why? Because it was a lie. And they do not want to go there.

Second, they totally ignored initially, the outright murder of a young veteran at the riot, Ashli Babbitt who was trespassing that day. To me, it is the most important thing about the day. It is impossible to guess her thinking as it appears (the videos are hard to piece together) that she punched someone in the face who broke a window, but then climbed through it herself and got shot. Behind them were cops holding powerful weapons. An officer, Michael Byrd, on the other side of the door took careful aim and shot her, and she died soon afterwards. Basically, for trespassing. She was not carrying a weapon or assaulting any officers. We will never hear Ashli’s side, of course. I’m not applauding what she or any of them were doing there. I certainly would not have done that. I am not talking about her politics, which sound very extreme right wing to me. Her murder and its non-prosecution is one of many reasons I say with conviction, we have already entered fascist times.

You will notice, Ashli will not be a subject of the hearing. The hearing is only to “get” Trump, like with the impeachments, anyway they can, and focusing on her murder at the very hearing they are discussing will detract from that drumbeat.  I heard Biden say something to the effect of – imagine if the rioters were black. Yes, I can imagine. Officer Byrd would be in jail like Derek Chauvin if he had shot a black man, even one with a long violent history, rather than a white 12-year Air Force veteran. It has been reported that Byrd was upset after he shot Babbitt. So was Officer Kim Potter when she accidentally shot a young man refusing to cooperate and struggling with her and two other officers. The difference, Byrd’s act was deliberate. You can see him in videos slowly take aim at her and kill her though there were plenty of armed officers present and no armed rioters. Potter is in jail, her life and career and her family’s cohesion and life, destroyed in the mania to convict cops, though the video evidence is overwhelming that she made a mistake. Byrd was not even charged. Even before the announcement, anyone who has been watching politics the last few years knew he would likely not be.

National security counsel chat log “1:06 about to use non-lethal force at the capital.” Non-lethal. The Capitol Police time-line also indicates that they turned down the Department of Defenses inquiry into whether they would request National Guard troops and that officers were not allowed to independently use force unless there were exigent circumstances. You can find both online. I do not understand how a rather small, unarmed woman trespassing put him or anyone else in imminent threat of death. That he was scared, as he later said, is not an excuse. Of course he was scared. That’s why we have trained police and they are expected to refrain from killing people.

If you could simply shoot them, you could do it at every riot by BLM or Antifa at government buildings – but it never has been done. In fact, a Portland SWAT officer was suspended over hitting a protestor with a baton (or the like) after about a year of riots including attempts to burn police to death and burn their way into a federal courthouse, leading the whole team to quit. If the Democrats and other Trump-haters want it to be okay, then let every police department know in Seattle, Portland, NYC, Chicago, etc., it is open season if you are scared. But, they all know they would not get the same standard, unless they were also killing a Trump supporter, even an unarmed woman.

For goodness sakes, two days ago, the crime-loving DA of New York found a crime he could prosecute – when a 61-year old bodega clerk with no criminal history defended himself from an assault from a much younger man with a history of violence by stabbing him to death was charged with premeditated murder. If you think the fact that the deceased was black didn’t figure into the DA’s decision – okay, you can believe that. But, if you think that if the assailant was a white man with a MAGA Alba would be in jail, you are willfully ignorant.

Third. This is not a hearing where they are deciding anything. Just like when the NYTimes claimed they had a story about a woman who Trump supposedly was aggressive with (she immediately called out their lie); just like the Russia Hoax that we now know was perpetrated by the Clinton campaign and FBI agents who hate Trump; just like the phony impeachment hearings - the “Committee” has already decided what happened and found Trump guilty. It was known before the hearing that they considered him guilty of a crime though many admit he had nothing to do with the riot.  Just listen to any of them talk. It is like the Doonesbury comic panel where the radical radio host screams (about Nixon’s attorney general) “Guilty! Guilty, Guilty, Guilty!!!”

Fourth, I ask people who are arguing that Trump behavior was deplorable on 1/6 whether it would have made a difference if Trump had said in his short speech – to march “peacefully.” They invariably answer, probably or maybe or yes. No one says “no.” That’s because they were never told he did.  When I say he did, they have trouble believing it.  The Committee isn’t going to play the part where he says “peacefully.” Cheney left it out. She also read from a Trump 1/6 tweet and left out the end – “"Go home with love & in peace." She’s not a fact-finder. The Committee is not about that.

How is it possible that this is on Youtube since probably January 7th and so many people don’t know what he actually said? I’ll tell you why. The media has kept it from them. The Committee won’t go near it. Go look up the speech on Youtube and ask yourself, why didn’t the committee tell us? I’ll tell you why? It is the last thing they want you to know. Because like the impeachments, it has nothing to do with truth, fairness or anything but – get Trump. If I was on a jury, and something like that was kept from us, I would petition the court to have my vote back if I convicted. Ask yourself, why don’t you care you didn’t know? I’ll tell you why? You have surrendered fact finding to the media and a committee which could care about presenting all the facts. Everyone should have known that from the first day they said no to Jim Jordan and Representative Banks. Which I’ll get to now.

Fifth: What kind of hearing is this where everyone is on one side? The Republicans put up Jim Jordan to be on the committee, an extremely accomplished Republican congressman at cutting through the outright lies of the Democrats seeking to overthrow a presidency (which they started doing even before he was even in office). Not that the Democrats running the committee cared (Adam Schiff – also on this committee), but Jordan repeatedly showed with his questions how all but one of the Democrat’s witnesses were testifying by hearsay/rumors as to what Trump said, that there was no quid pro quo or threat (Ukraine did not even know there was a hold up), that Trump actually did far more for Ukraine than Obama and that the only witness who actually talked to Trump said that he told him he didn’t want anything from Ukraine. Pelosi refused to allow Jordan or other pro-Trump Republicans on the committee. She put Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger on it, both Trump haters. They are – just listen to their statements over time.

After their choices were rejected, the Republicans refused to participate and withdrew all 5 of their selections. Of course. Why would they go along? And though Trump now says he thinks they should have, I disagree. You can’t give credence to a kangaroo court. Democrats or Trump haters should ask themselves, what would they think if a committee investigating Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi was only made up of Republicans and Democrats who hated her?

Nancy Pelosi has admitted it was “unprecedented.” That sure sounds wrong. She said that it was because January 6^th was unprecedented, which is another lie. I’m sure the longest serving speaker knows the history. She knows the history. In 1954, 5 members of congress were actually SHOT in the House by Puerto Rican terrorists. In 1915, a former Harvard Professor actually set off dynamite in the Senate Building. In 1932, 15,000 veterans, some starving, set up camp near the Capitol and were attacked violently by the police, but also by the army, including with tanks. It is not unprecedent at all. I’m not even going into the 19^th century but congress had several riots among its members and even one Democrat representative nearly caning another to death.

Sixth, although really a continuation of the last point, why should a hearing with only one side, where witnesses are not challenged or cross-examined, where rank hearsay is taken seriously, as if it is proof (again, like the Ukraine hearing, where Democrats actually made speeches on the floor saying that hearsay was fine and even admissible, because they had nothing but rumors).

Seventh, after two years of nationwide riots by BLM and peers, to all the fires, all the murdered cops and young black children (thanks to Democrats Defund the Police movement), despite the violent protests and attacks on Trump’s campaign in 2016, the repeated organized attacks on Republicans in public (not to mention, now the Supreme Court), the DOJ looking to treat dissenting parents of school kids as terrorists and so many other important things, this is what they have a hearing on. There is only one reason – they fear Trump will run again and need to defeat it in advance. And, likely they will. Almost every conservative I personally know would prefer the younger and smarter DeSantis, but Trump would crush him in the primaries and he knows it.

I do intend to watch the hearing someday. But, no media outlet, almost all vehemently anti-Trump, has shown that there was any testimony about Trump that indicates any criminal behavior at all. I will deal with Ms. Hutchinson below. She did not either. I watch a lot of stuff, hearings, trials, read cases, etc. It is a lot of work. This is not very deserving of effort.

That’s why I didn’t watch.

Was Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony about Trump hearsay?

My friend asked me if I could point to him how Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony was hearsay, as I had said to him. She has been called by the media - the star witness, that her testimony was “stunning” and “shocking” or “a smoking gun.” I listened to her testimony. (3) Jan. 6 hearing with testimony from ex-White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson on June 28, 2022 (Part 1) - YouTube. You get to hear Liz Cheney cut off a recording of his speech just before he says to march “peacefully.” What everyone is focusing on is Hutchinson’s testimony about Trump being in a limo, demanding to go to the capitol and attacking the driver. You can listen to her testimony yourself. (starting 50:53-53:27). She was not in the limo. She relays what supposedly happened as told to her by Secret Service Assistant Director Anthony Ornato (he wasn’t there either) in front and former Secret Service Special Agent in Charge Robert Engel. She never says that she was there – the opposite. She describes the president lunging for the steering will (which sounds almost impossible in a limo) and then lunging for Engel’s throat when he restrained his arm.  

Before I get to the evidence below that she was not telling the truth, even if she just misremembers, my question is, why didn’t my friend know it was hearsay? He’s hardly alone. Unlike most Trump-haters, at least he likes to discuss things and actually asks for information, so you have a chance. But, why doesn’t the general public know it? I will tell you the answer. It’s the same answer as before. When the mainstream or legacy media, the networks, the NYTs, WAPO, CNN, MSNBC, etc. say things over and over, people believe them. I have pre-judged issues myself on occasion because of the media onslaught and had to find out it wasn’t so (e.g., Duke rape case/Zimmerman-Martin). I have written on this issue before so I won’t go into great detail here, but they are not journalists anymore. They are partisans. Seriously, they lie and mislead you every day. Stories are around for sometimes a year before they will come out. Remember, the Hunter Biden laptop story reported in the post before the election was denied by almost the entire left media and the so-call 51 intelligence agents who said it was Russian propaganda. Only recently, the New York Times and WAPO admitted it was genuine. Have the “51” apologized. No, they say nothing. Has the rest of the media mea culpa’d? Of course not. It is a blessing when media on the left admits something, because people can’t say – it’s Fox, it’s the Post, etc., and disregard it.  But it is usually buried.

Hearsay can be correct? Was her testimony, albeit testimony, correct? Maybe not. Probably not.

Almost immediately after she testified, the truth of her hearsay story about the limo was apparently contradicted. Yes, to my shock, even some in the mainstream media reported it. CNN reported: “After the hearing, a Secret Service official familiar with the matter told CNN that Ornato denies telling Hutchinson that the former President grabbed the steering wheel or an agent on his detail.” Cassidy Hutchinson stands by her testimony amid pushback - CNNPolitics. Peter Alexander, NBC’s White House correspondent tweeted: “A source close to the Secret Service tells me both Bobby Engel, the lead agent, and the presidential limousine/SUV driver are prepared to testify under oath that neither man was assaulted and that Mr. Trump never lunged for the steering wheel.”

The Hill, which is an independent and possibly the most respected political journal wrote: “Both Ornato and Engel, who remain active Secret Service agents, have said they are willing to testify under oath to dispute Hutchinson’s narrative, even as they have refused to speak publicly about it. The unnamed driver, the agency has signaled, is also denying her account.” Secret Service denial of Hutchinson story fuels attacks from both sides | The Hill

You should not be surprised that Engel, who supposedly had the limo altercation with Trump, actually testified before Hutchinson, and though the Committee already knew from Hutchinson what she would say (they took her deposition), somehow no one asked him about it. Hmmm. Remember, it is a one-sided horse and pony show, more like a grand jury than an actual trial or a normal congressional hearing. Maybe Engel will testify again and maybe Ornato will. I can’t say. And it is possible they will back her up. But, as best as we can tell right now, it sure sounds like they are contesting her testimony (they certainly haven’t come out and said it’s true).

And, she may have testified falsely about something else to, or merely forgotten.  (I know, she seems nice – that never matters). She claims that she penned a note dictated to her by Trump’s Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows. Cheney asked if it was her handwriting and she said it was.

 https://staticg.sportskeeda.com/editor/2022/07/20d53-16566319459127-1920.jpg

But, soon after her testimony, a spokesperson for Eric Herschmann, a Trump advisor, who also testified at the hearing, and not favorably to Trump, advised ABC that it was not true, that he wrote the note, and had so testified. Shouldn’t they both know their own handwriting. Of course, you can say, who cares who wrote it? That was the Committee’s response. But, what is the point of having a hearing if you don’t care if witnesses are lying or confused? Well, for the committee, it really doesn’t matter to them, so long as it assails Trump and they can prevent him from running or winning again. And that, other than revenge for some for hurt feelings or the like, is the whole point.

By the way, when you listen to Cheney question Hutchinson, ask yourself – why can’t Trump get furious when he feels the election was stolen? Why can’t he want to go to the capitol and be upset that the agents are dictating to him where he has to go, if that is what happened?

In any event, why isn’t this news all over the media? Why didn’t my friend hear about it? No one has to believe anything they don’t want to, and most Trump-haters I know won’t believe anything is true if it might exonerate Trump from the relentless attacks – but shouldn’t they get to hear the other side. I have admitted many times, I was raised a liberal and until I was a grown man in law school I barely realized there was another side and studied a lot to learn other perspectives.  

Part of the reason is that this is not often reported or if at all, usually in the right-wing press or tv so many will not access, or if in the mainstream media, almost always buried, or quickly forgotten. If you want to know the truth, You have to look on sites like RealClearPolitics.com, Allsides.com, both of which cover both sides, The Epoch Times, a conservative paper published by Chinese-Americans that I find almost always has the story the mainstream media is ignoring, and but for once, every fact-check I made supported their story. It is the only media I pay for. But, I might start paying for Common Sense (published on Substack) by Bari Weiss, she who had to flee the NYTimes and did so with a fantastic open letter. I spend ridiculous amounts of time fact checking the media and politicians including those I think are in the right. You can’t read and watch everything, but it is the only way to hope to find out what is happening.

What texts by Hutchinson have discredited her own testimony?

I mentioned in passing to my friend that her own texts discredit her. He is cynical about that and asked me to provide information. So, here’s the information which she has not denied happened. This story broke in the Daily Caller (EXCLUSIVE: Text Messages Show Cassidy Hutchinson Referring To January 6 Committee As ‘BS’ | The Daily Caller). Matt Schlapp is a conservative activist with connections to Trump, who apparently advised the Daily Caller about these texts. Hutchinson (who despite the love fest with Cheney, has conservative connections too) wrote to someone she knew at CPAC and asked if they could help her when she had been served. Here are some of the texts:

She wrote to an unnamed person at CPAC.  “Hey (redacted)! This is Cassidy Hutchinson. Kind of a random question, but do you still work for the Schlapp’s at the ACU?”

The recipient responded: “Hi, Yes!”

She responded “Do you happen to know a First Amendment fund POC I could reach out to? I was subpoenaed in early Nov., but the committee waited to serve me until last week (after Ben’s deposition).”

She went on: “I had to accept service because the U.S. Marshalls came to my apartment last Wednesday, but I haven’t made contact with the Committee. I’m just on a tight timeline and just trying to figure out what my options are to deal with this bs.”

BS? Did she say January 6^th was BS? Apparently, unless these texts are false and she hasn’t said so. The Committee hasn’t denied it (they probably had them if she complied with the subpoenas). They simply says they stand by her testimony. This does not seem like the same person, demure, wanting to help the anti-Trump Committee. This is a person who did not want to participate because she believed it was BS. What changed so that she gave such helpful and Trump-blackening testimony, even if hearsay, such that she got a hug from Liz Cheney after she testified (which, if that doesn’t give you pause – there is probably nothing that can happen that will, so long as Trump is assailed).

As I’ve pointed out before, this is what happens when no one, like a Jim Jordan, can cross-examine. It’s why it is very hard to take it seriously.

Liz Cheney says they will make a criminal referral, probably including Trump. That should be interesting. According to their star witness, via hearsay that is contradicted, Trump did not know about an uprising (everyone knew it could be a violent day since December and Trump’s acting Defense Sec’y said Trump wanted the National Guard there to protect protesters – I don’t blame him one bit).

 My friend also asked me questions about my views on whataboutism (he is critical of it; I am not) and also the Biden family issues. I'd be crazy to try to write those today, but they are interesting to me and I will get to them shortly (I hope).

Feel free to comment (you can do so anonymously, I believe).

POST-SCRIPT 7/24/22

I decided to add a couple of things. First, my friend, who I refer to above, has fervently called me out for misrepresenting him and even being dishonest. It's a little insulting, but my evalovin' gf insults me every day. Perhaps I'm too used to it. In any event, he denies saying that he did not know that Hutch's testimony was hearsay. As I explained to him (doesn't seem like successfully) perhaps I did misunderstand him but that is what I heard him say or read (I honestly no longer remember). In the end, I don't think it matters. Let's say - people don't know - because many don't. Especially as time elapses people will forget even more. Probably not in here, but I think in other conversations he seems to think I misrepresented him that he said her testimony was irrelevant, but he was only referring to what happened in the limo. Same comment. My point is not what we said, but that her testimony has apparently been challenged. Will the Committee call the other witnesses. I doubt if they are going to contradict her. They are putting on a show, not trying to do history.

Typical discussion, people immediately have different opinions on what was said. But, I felt like I should put it in words here.