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. 6th 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 6th 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 6th
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 6th 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 6th 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 19th 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.
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 6th 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).
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your comments are welcome.