Today’s testimony before the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol was explosive. It tied former president Donald Trump and his chief of staff Mark Meadows directly to a plot to overturn the U.S. government.
Quite an informative and eventful day. Thank you Cassidy for your integrity, and sad to say your bravery. No one should be threatened for telling the truth, but here we are. You stand way above the sniveling men with the brown noses. You give me hope for our democracy.
Wowzolla!! If the American judicial system can’t imprison the person who defiled the highest office in the land, was impeached twice, conned and grifted all through his tenure, lied and cheated the people, and - the cream on the cupcake - very seriously and obviously encouraged murder of Congress critters ( love that) and tried to upend a democratic ( sort of) election to reinstall his own losing hairy butt, if the DOJ cant throw him in irons, the system is useless.
While I do admire Hutchinson’s courage in testifying, I am so angry that not one of these people came forward at the time or in the immediate aftermath, especially during the second impeachment. These are not heroes. What other stories will trickle out about TFG’s instability while in office? The nuclear codes were in the hands of a childish psychopath, and that is terrifying.
A few hours after Hutchinson's testimony had ended, I realized I felt uneasy about it, but could not identify why. It occurred to me that we have a hard time accepting powerful testimony from women--Anita Hill comes to mind, along with others. When a man testifies, we accept at face value (or not) their stated reasons of patriotism, conscience, or even just seeing the handwriting on the wall. But when a woman testifies, we wonder about her relationship with her boss along with all the other questions Nathan noted about political ambition, book deals, etc.
In the end, I am left with two thoughts: First, her description of Trump's mental state confirms what we have known in abstract. The painful detail she provided makes facing our blindness inescapable. That part is truly terrifying on many levels. Yet, men do not seem to have thought to mention it; they didn't really mention Trump in descriptive terms--"agitated" doesn't begin to cover it. It confirms that they were willing to ignore the inhumanity of his actions for the hollow glory of his promises. Second, the only part of her testimony that was hearsay was the incident in the car. I wish she had not mentioned it, because it made her vulnerable to contradiction, and it is already being disputed.
As one of the network commentators mentioned, men are often more forthcoming with female subordinates because they unconsciously do not see them as an equal who might become a threat in the future. The commentator further said they often are not even aware of the women's presence. In my own career I saw that fact many times and on occasion had bosses savvy enough to take advantage of it by sending me to represent them...and to listen. Plus, a quick mind coupled with a pleasant demeanor and an assistant's role would likely have been viewed as a welcome audience in the tension and terror of the Trump White House. In short, I do not doubt her testimony.
I used to have a good reputation in Hollywood for being able to "make this shit up," but I couldn't make this shit up. If I did a script exactly as she described things, I'd have been laughed out of the room.
As bad, as awful, as you know he is and then this comes along and you know you haven't been able to image 1/1,000 of the reality.
Stay tuned … “ And yet no one in the White House either spoke up to warn us before January 6 or testified at Trump’s second impeachment trial, where he was charged with incitement of insurrection and, thanks to Republican senators, acquitted.”
In CASSIDY HUTCHINSON, 25, Mark Meadows and the DISHONEST Republican TRUMP male political establishment, top down and bottom up, are now learning what it means when an honest female underling has a conscience and the courage to act on it. They hired an honest well brought up refreshingly frank and respectful young woman schooled in the best of the Catholic Church tradition ... of let your conscience be your guide. She will not lie... she will not spin... she surely knows that lies are the currency of today’s GOP. As her face today reveals, she is sad, but she is loyal to the constitution, to her tradition, to herself - and she is an American with old fashioned values. CASSIDY HUTCHINSON was inside the Trump administration in the White House... and she experienced Mark Meadows and the White House Counsel... daily. She came to understand them - on a first name basis... and it is clear that none of them messed with her, personally.
She presented as a well balanced 25 year old with a sharp wit, clear eye, a smile and an honest heart. She may be unique in the Trump White House and in Washington, DC these days .. and her behaviour may inspire an avalanche of similar testimony before this is over.
HONESTY CAN BE CONTAGIOUS... CASSIDY HUTCHINSON will be tested.. but she just may be the fulcrum upon which the rest of her party forms up.
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON is unique today: she is an honest Republican in the White House of Trump - and her presence and performance challenge another Catholic, the conflicted presently troubled White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, who is behaving like a coward... destroying his reputation.
Let’a hope the party of Abraham Lincoln can find leadership in a 25 year old woman with courage... and class.
Mark Meadows was a 61 y.o. former congressman, married with 2 children who resigned his congressional seat to become chief of staff to tfPOTUS. Miss Hutchinson was a 23 y.o. highly attractive young woman who had already held positions in the offices of 3(?) congressmen of some power and importance on on Capital Hill. And, he insisted that she be present in every meeting...what kind of a relationship was this? Perhaps entirely platonic...or, charged with a certain kind of energy, made even more potent by the rarified atmosphere of the West Wing. She is someone who could certainly connect the dots, and if not completely aware, was very substantially aware of what was occurring, being able to hear conversations from just outside a door, half open, drafting memos, carrying/delivering documents, arranging meetings, being present in the room for highly confidential interchanges between White House officials, Justice Department officers and employees, "Outside Staff" such as Guliani, and campaign staff. Did she have means to contact congressional members and senators like Pelosi, Cheney, Schumer, Murkowsky? Could she have been a whistle-blower? Did she even covertly attempt to forestall or derail a plot to overthrow the legitimate vote? She certainly had heard and watched Mr. Barr disavow the big Lie and resign his position in December 2020. Is she brave? no doubt, given the testimony of others who have faced down the president, either directly or in public forums. She'll probably have to change her contact information, get a new apartment or leave Washington DC altogether, go underground while the MAGA fringe is still active. Is she a hero, or the example of a patriot? Hard to say, given the circumstance under which her knowledge has come to the public ear, 18 months and a subpoena later. Does she have a book deal? Has she been in contact with the DOJ and does she have an immunity from prosecution agreement with them in return for her testimony? Is she a victim of her motivation to climb rapidly to the pinnacle of Washington political staffers? Does/did she have her own political aspirations? What does that resume look like now? One is tempted to place white and black hats on these individuals according to their conduct vis-a-vis the committee, but my strong suspicion is that its far closer to shades of gray, the only question being how gray. Surely, every single individual somehow connected to tfg's administration, campaign or party was subject to some degree of intimidation by their leader, since that is his core administrative style. But; courage is doing the right thing in spite of your fear. Character is the willingness to call out illegal behavior even knowing what it might do to one's own career prospects. Perhaps it was unclear to WHOM one could report concerns, given that the DOJ's highest officials were engaged in the conversation about the conspiracy. However, even in the absence of law enforcement, there's always the press. I suspect she understood the fact that the VP had been carved out of the herd by late December, or he would have been a part of all of those conversations. Why not quietly keep him apprised of what he was missing? Not only was she in the room for many of those meetings, she knew who was, and who wasn't in the room for essentially all of them. While I appreciate that she was willing to testify in detail, I don't think she has much to be proud of under the circumstances.
Has even one sitting Republican member of congress condemned these actions as further detailed today? This must be the litmus test for continued tenure at the ballot box and in our regard for them as loyal or disloyal American citizens. Cowardice and self interest are the current GOP soul.
The important lesson today and from Watergate is that to charge a President for insurrection or treason, instead of the standard of probable cause for indictment as is for all citizens, the charge must first be proven by live witnesses during an official proceeding under-oath to in affect a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt BEFORE such indictment charges can be brought. The beyond a reasonable doubt standard in affect ensures that the guilt is proven to both political parties so that the charges are bipartisan. This was the case in Watergate where Barry Goldwater said there were just too many crimes proven during the Watergate hearings-Nixon had to resign. Throughout the course of history we are unique in not using charges of treason or insurrection against the vanquished political opponents! The impeachment proceedings had no live witnesses, were essentially a closing argument that revealed few details (compared to Watergate and the current January 6 committee) and didn’t rise to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This essentially now evolving Common law concept is good because treason and insurrection charges have been abused by political opponents for thousands of years, it was common in ancient Rome, the French Revolution, British revolution etc. In conclusion, the committee has yet to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements of specific crimes, but it’s getting closer and there’s a sense that in the end they will meet this heavy burden such that indictment of Trump and his minions will be bipartisan. That the committee is only putting on evidence by Republicans and those who were part of the administration which makes it so much stronger and the committee knows it! This is an incredibly important service and function of this congressional committee! I bet the committee members knew they had to convict Trump & minions beyond a reasonable doubt with testimony under oath before he would be indicted and convicted and that’s what they set out to do. I’ll bet you this was their plan from the beginning! Brilliant!
More explosive, damning, credible testimony by another “staunch Republican” of a willful, concerted effort, led by a sitting president, to overthrow the legitimate government of the United States.
Has anyone heard or read any rebuttal to Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony, or anyone else’s for that matter? There seems to be a deafening silence from the people who acquitted the former president twice for committing “high crimes and misdemeanors”. We now have evidence that he committed the highest crimes an elected official, who swore an oath to “preserve and defend” the US Constitution, can commit. Included in the list is aiding and abetting the attempted assassination of the Vice President.
Remember when the Republican Party was the party of “personal responsibility”?
I hope Ms. Cassidy Hutchinson is protected 24/7! Witness Protection seems an option to consider!
I cannot get my head around these facts and the Republican members of Congress refusing twice to hold #45 accountable. What does it tell us about them? AND MAYBE MORE URGENTLY IMPORTANT IN THE LONG RUN, ABOUT THEIR VOTE FOR THE THREE SUPER QUESTIONABLE SCOTUS JUDGES APPOINTED BY #45 AND RAILROADED THROUGH THEIR HEARINGS BY THE REPUBLICANS?
I still cannot understand that when a president of the uSA turns out to be not just incompetent but willing to embark on illegal activities that his appointments cannot be re-examined and possibly voided? The Roe v Wade should be a chilling example of how HIS SCOTUS judges together with the 3 other right wing judges have made the SCOTUS utterly and totally INVALID! If I had a case pending with this outfit, I’d be considering withdrawing it in protest!
Edit here from "election" to "insurrection" in the paragraph about pardons. Sorry... it's late!
Your move, Garland.
Quite an informative and eventful day. Thank you Cassidy for your integrity, and sad to say your bravery. No one should be threatened for telling the truth, but here we are. You stand way above the sniveling men with the brown noses. You give me hope for our democracy.
Wowzolla!! If the American judicial system can’t imprison the person who defiled the highest office in the land, was impeached twice, conned and grifted all through his tenure, lied and cheated the people, and - the cream on the cupcake - very seriously and obviously encouraged murder of Congress critters ( love that) and tried to upend a democratic ( sort of) election to reinstall his own losing hairy butt, if the DOJ cant throw him in irons, the system is useless.
While I do admire Hutchinson’s courage in testifying, I am so angry that not one of these people came forward at the time or in the immediate aftermath, especially during the second impeachment. These are not heroes. What other stories will trickle out about TFG’s instability while in office? The nuclear codes were in the hands of a childish psychopath, and that is terrifying.
A few hours after Hutchinson's testimony had ended, I realized I felt uneasy about it, but could not identify why. It occurred to me that we have a hard time accepting powerful testimony from women--Anita Hill comes to mind, along with others. When a man testifies, we accept at face value (or not) their stated reasons of patriotism, conscience, or even just seeing the handwriting on the wall. But when a woman testifies, we wonder about her relationship with her boss along with all the other questions Nathan noted about political ambition, book deals, etc.
In the end, I am left with two thoughts: First, her description of Trump's mental state confirms what we have known in abstract. The painful detail she provided makes facing our blindness inescapable. That part is truly terrifying on many levels. Yet, men do not seem to have thought to mention it; they didn't really mention Trump in descriptive terms--"agitated" doesn't begin to cover it. It confirms that they were willing to ignore the inhumanity of his actions for the hollow glory of his promises. Second, the only part of her testimony that was hearsay was the incident in the car. I wish she had not mentioned it, because it made her vulnerable to contradiction, and it is already being disputed.
As one of the network commentators mentioned, men are often more forthcoming with female subordinates because they unconsciously do not see them as an equal who might become a threat in the future. The commentator further said they often are not even aware of the women's presence. In my own career I saw that fact many times and on occasion had bosses savvy enough to take advantage of it by sending me to represent them...and to listen. Plus, a quick mind coupled with a pleasant demeanor and an assistant's role would likely have been viewed as a welcome audience in the tension and terror of the Trump White House. In short, I do not doubt her testimony.
I used to have a good reputation in Hollywood for being able to "make this shit up," but I couldn't make this shit up. If I did a script exactly as she described things, I'd have been laughed out of the room.
As bad, as awful, as you know he is and then this comes along and you know you haven't been able to image 1/1,000 of the reality.
Stay tuned … “ And yet no one in the White House either spoke up to warn us before January 6 or testified at Trump’s second impeachment trial, where he was charged with incitement of insurrection and, thanks to Republican senators, acquitted.”
In CASSIDY HUTCHINSON, 25, Mark Meadows and the DISHONEST Republican TRUMP male political establishment, top down and bottom up, are now learning what it means when an honest female underling has a conscience and the courage to act on it. They hired an honest well brought up refreshingly frank and respectful young woman schooled in the best of the Catholic Church tradition ... of let your conscience be your guide. She will not lie... she will not spin... she surely knows that lies are the currency of today’s GOP. As her face today reveals, she is sad, but she is loyal to the constitution, to her tradition, to herself - and she is an American with old fashioned values. CASSIDY HUTCHINSON was inside the Trump administration in the White House... and she experienced Mark Meadows and the White House Counsel... daily. She came to understand them - on a first name basis... and it is clear that none of them messed with her, personally.
She presented as a well balanced 25 year old with a sharp wit, clear eye, a smile and an honest heart. She may be unique in the Trump White House and in Washington, DC these days .. and her behaviour may inspire an avalanche of similar testimony before this is over.
HONESTY CAN BE CONTAGIOUS... CASSIDY HUTCHINSON will be tested.. but she just may be the fulcrum upon which the rest of her party forms up.
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON is unique today: she is an honest Republican in the White House of Trump - and her presence and performance challenge another Catholic, the conflicted presently troubled White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, who is behaving like a coward... destroying his reputation.
Let’a hope the party of Abraham Lincoln can find leadership in a 25 year old woman with courage... and class.
Mark Meadows was a 61 y.o. former congressman, married with 2 children who resigned his congressional seat to become chief of staff to tfPOTUS. Miss Hutchinson was a 23 y.o. highly attractive young woman who had already held positions in the offices of 3(?) congressmen of some power and importance on on Capital Hill. And, he insisted that she be present in every meeting...what kind of a relationship was this? Perhaps entirely platonic...or, charged with a certain kind of energy, made even more potent by the rarified atmosphere of the West Wing. She is someone who could certainly connect the dots, and if not completely aware, was very substantially aware of what was occurring, being able to hear conversations from just outside a door, half open, drafting memos, carrying/delivering documents, arranging meetings, being present in the room for highly confidential interchanges between White House officials, Justice Department officers and employees, "Outside Staff" such as Guliani, and campaign staff. Did she have means to contact congressional members and senators like Pelosi, Cheney, Schumer, Murkowsky? Could she have been a whistle-blower? Did she even covertly attempt to forestall or derail a plot to overthrow the legitimate vote? She certainly had heard and watched Mr. Barr disavow the big Lie and resign his position in December 2020. Is she brave? no doubt, given the testimony of others who have faced down the president, either directly or in public forums. She'll probably have to change her contact information, get a new apartment or leave Washington DC altogether, go underground while the MAGA fringe is still active. Is she a hero, or the example of a patriot? Hard to say, given the circumstance under which her knowledge has come to the public ear, 18 months and a subpoena later. Does she have a book deal? Has she been in contact with the DOJ and does she have an immunity from prosecution agreement with them in return for her testimony? Is she a victim of her motivation to climb rapidly to the pinnacle of Washington political staffers? Does/did she have her own political aspirations? What does that resume look like now? One is tempted to place white and black hats on these individuals according to their conduct vis-a-vis the committee, but my strong suspicion is that its far closer to shades of gray, the only question being how gray. Surely, every single individual somehow connected to tfg's administration, campaign or party was subject to some degree of intimidation by their leader, since that is his core administrative style. But; courage is doing the right thing in spite of your fear. Character is the willingness to call out illegal behavior even knowing what it might do to one's own career prospects. Perhaps it was unclear to WHOM one could report concerns, given that the DOJ's highest officials were engaged in the conversation about the conspiracy. However, even in the absence of law enforcement, there's always the press. I suspect she understood the fact that the VP had been carved out of the herd by late December, or he would have been a part of all of those conversations. Why not quietly keep him apprised of what he was missing? Not only was she in the room for many of those meetings, she knew who was, and who wasn't in the room for essentially all of them. While I appreciate that she was willing to testify in detail, I don't think she has much to be proud of under the circumstances.
Has even one sitting Republican member of congress condemned these actions as further detailed today? This must be the litmus test for continued tenure at the ballot box and in our regard for them as loyal or disloyal American citizens. Cowardice and self interest are the current GOP soul.
Pardon my candor, but it may be a “pussy” to bring The Don down, namely Cassidy. I have a pussy hat and I have decided to name it “Catsidy”.
The important lesson today and from Watergate is that to charge a President for insurrection or treason, instead of the standard of probable cause for indictment as is for all citizens, the charge must first be proven by live witnesses during an official proceeding under-oath to in affect a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt BEFORE such indictment charges can be brought. The beyond a reasonable doubt standard in affect ensures that the guilt is proven to both political parties so that the charges are bipartisan. This was the case in Watergate where Barry Goldwater said there were just too many crimes proven during the Watergate hearings-Nixon had to resign. Throughout the course of history we are unique in not using charges of treason or insurrection against the vanquished political opponents! The impeachment proceedings had no live witnesses, were essentially a closing argument that revealed few details (compared to Watergate and the current January 6 committee) and didn’t rise to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This essentially now evolving Common law concept is good because treason and insurrection charges have been abused by political opponents for thousands of years, it was common in ancient Rome, the French Revolution, British revolution etc. In conclusion, the committee has yet to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements of specific crimes, but it’s getting closer and there’s a sense that in the end they will meet this heavy burden such that indictment of Trump and his minions will be bipartisan. That the committee is only putting on evidence by Republicans and those who were part of the administration which makes it so much stronger and the committee knows it! This is an incredibly important service and function of this congressional committee! I bet the committee members knew they had to convict Trump & minions beyond a reasonable doubt with testimony under oath before he would be indicted and convicted and that’s what they set out to do. I’ll bet you this was their plan from the beginning! Brilliant!
More explosive, damning, credible testimony by another “staunch Republican” of a willful, concerted effort, led by a sitting president, to overthrow the legitimate government of the United States.
Has anyone heard or read any rebuttal to Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony, or anyone else’s for that matter? There seems to be a deafening silence from the people who acquitted the former president twice for committing “high crimes and misdemeanors”. We now have evidence that he committed the highest crimes an elected official, who swore an oath to “preserve and defend” the US Constitution, can commit. Included in the list is aiding and abetting the attempted assassination of the Vice President.
Remember when the Republican Party was the party of “personal responsibility”?
Jail for life or a noose. Nothing less. Sorry, but it's that damned simple. Furious.
And I want Flynn brought back on active duty, court martialed and broken. Or shot for treason--I'm available, 24/7.
I hope Ms. Cassidy Hutchinson is protected 24/7! Witness Protection seems an option to consider!
I cannot get my head around these facts and the Republican members of Congress refusing twice to hold #45 accountable. What does it tell us about them? AND MAYBE MORE URGENTLY IMPORTANT IN THE LONG RUN, ABOUT THEIR VOTE FOR THE THREE SUPER QUESTIONABLE SCOTUS JUDGES APPOINTED BY #45 AND RAILROADED THROUGH THEIR HEARINGS BY THE REPUBLICANS?
I still cannot understand that when a president of the uSA turns out to be not just incompetent but willing to embark on illegal activities that his appointments cannot be re-examined and possibly voided? The Roe v Wade should be a chilling example of how HIS SCOTUS judges together with the 3 other right wing judges have made the SCOTUS utterly and totally INVALID! If I had a case pending with this outfit, I’d be considering withdrawing it in protest!