Committee leadership scrambles to discredit potentially explosive contradictory testimony
Not too long ago, the House Select Committee for the January 6th investigation rushed to put the former White House Aide for Mark Meadows, Cassidy Hutchinson, in the national headlines by having her publicly drop a series of earthshattering, last-minute, ‘bombshell-type’ revelations regarding behind-the-scenes insights from inside the Trump White House on January 6, 2021.
However, ever since that testimony aired via an impromptu, previously unscheduled, nationally televised hearing, amidst no small whirlwind of dramatic and suspenseful promises of ‘bombshell’ testimony that “just came to light,” many people, from media to social media, have questioned whether the sensationally damning nature of Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony, might just be too pointed and too perfectly damning to be authentic.
That was also before US secret service agents Bobby Engel, Tony Ornato, and the unnamed driver of President Trump’s January 6th Suburban came forward and publicly cried foul.
Media outlets are heralding the injustice of rebutting Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony. Like this piece that appeared in the Los Angeles Times: The Campaign To Discredit Cassidy Hutchinson Has Begun. While we at The Veracity Report don’t believe in writing these kinds of one-sided pieces, we do understand why many broadcast platforms are taking up the cause.
If, when all the smoke clears and all is said and done, Cassidy Hutchinson is proven to be ‘somewhat less than honest’ in her very public portrayal of the events which transpired around her on January 6, 2021, then immediately more urgent questions rise into the realm of perception.
What it means if Cassidy Hutchinson is found to have given misleading testimony:
1. While committee members are quick to repeatedly remind everyone that those being deposed are ‘under oath’, the fact remains that so was Hutchinson. If it is found out that she lied in her testimony, the committee and the DOJ will be under intense pressure to prosecute her for perjury. Short of the committee prosecuting her, you can be sure the Republicans will if they take control of either or both chambers of Congress come November.
2. Because these are Congressional hearings, the public at large has a naturally preconceived understanding that witnesses being called have previously been deposed and the information they are to present has been thoroughly verified and vetted before determining if that witness is credible and should therefore be used in the direct proceedings. If it is later discovered that Ms. Hutchinson lied under oath then clearly the public perception is wrong and the committee, all its representatives, and more importantly, all of the testimony presented, becomes inherently tainted. This “fruit of the poisonous tree” analogy is beaten to death in television police procedurals but it’s quite real and as constitutionally devastating as DNA evidence in any type of hearing or court proceeding.
3. As you can imagine, if the committee’s vetting process and witness screenings come under fire for not even trying to corroborate vital testimony being offered live on national television, the entire bailiwick, the committee, the witnesses, their testimony, everything becomes tainted. And while this doesn’t disprove anything else that was presented, it demonstrates that there was no effort made to independently verify any of the testimony. That fact, in and of itself, makes all of the testimony evidentiarily worthless.
This seems to be the track where this story was headed before the long 4th of July holiday weekend came into play. Indeed, several stories began circulating from various reputable sources – not pertaining to Hutchinson’s testimony, or even whether it was true or not.
Instead, stories like this one in The Washington Examiner: Secret Service Wasn’t Contacted by Jan. 6 Committee Before Hutchinson Testimony are focusing on the tactics of the committee as a whole and summarily calling into question the ethics and neutrality of a congressional committee that claims to be searching for the truth, yet doesn’t seem interested in finding any evidence which might contradict its preconceived narrative – that Donald Trump was both an instigator, and an active participant in the events of January 6th.
If this is true, and we, as an unbiased and neutral media outlet cannot make that determination for you, it seriously diminishes the credibility of the committee to present evidence with the aplomb of being a neutral arbiter of facts. This is what has the House Select Committee in full-scale panic mode after the spontaneous declarations of numerous secret service agents, refuting Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony as “never having happened.”
Combined with their added insistence that they will testify ‘under oath’ to further validate those claims, these developments have the committee, and all those who support it, reeling. Many Democratic legislators and even a couple of Republicans have staked their political futures on the ability of this committee to achieve its goal of effectively and convincingly linking Donald Trump in some significantly meaningful, and hopefully indictable way.
From the slant and angle of this article by The Los Angeles Times: The Campaign to Discredit Cassidy Hutchinson has Begun, and this one by Fox News: January 6 committee's Kinzinger: Secret Service agent who may dispute Hutchinson claim 'likes to lie', it appears that those invested in the success of the committee are adopting a commonly employed narrative.
This is the same narrative often used by prosecuting attorneys in rape cases where the defense attorney calls into question the moral character of the ‘victim’ and suggests that the victim might not be a ‘victim’ at all.
In this analogous situation, one side is assuming the role of the prosecutors and ‘victim’s advocates.’ In this example featured in The National Review: Cheney ‘Absolutely Confident’ in Hutchinson’s Testimony after Anonymous Sources Question Her Credibility, Committee Vice-Chairperson Liz Cheney (R-WY), declares “…It took a lot of courage for Ms. Hutchinson to come forward and tell the truth.”
Whether or not Cassidy Hutchinson told the truth or not remains to be seen, but that statement, as well as other statements from other former White House Aides insisting Hutchinson is an ‘honest person,“ and fervently declaring that she would “never lie about something like this,” bear a striking resemblance to emanations often issued by rape victim advocates.
Several now are even attempting to suggest that Secret Service Agent Tony Ornato “has a history of lying,” like the previously cited Fox News article and the statement made by committee member Kitzinger.
Logic, however, requires a pause in accepting the implications which we are required to embrace if the narrative of the committee and its supporters is true. Several of them have come out and made statements to the effect that Ms. Hutchinson has no reason to lie.
What sort of incentives might a young, up-and-coming go-getter, hot for the political scene and career notoriety be tempted by? We can think of no less than a million. How much would she really have to lose if she got caught? In reality, not that much. Nowhere near as much as the 4 Secret Service agents would, and therein lies our deepest dilemma in believing the narrative of the committee and its supporters.
As always, here at The Veracity Report, we will not try to connect the dots for you, draw any definitive conclusions, or suggest to you what you should and should not believe. We are here for one reason and that is to make sure our readers understand both sides of an issue and all of the facts that are involved. We do this so that you can make informed and educated decisions about topics, and not base your opinions on emotional outcries, sensationalism, rumors, hyperbole, or political propaganda.
Author’s Note
This non-satirical, un-opinionated, fully attributed, and completely unbiased article was written by the accredited and degreed veteran investigative reporter Kurt Dillon and is comprised of information compiled from the following sources: The Washington Examiner, Fox News, The New York Post, The Los Angeles Times, and The National Review
Brought to you by Investigative Reporter Kurt Dillon – Because the Truth Matters!
Comments / 1964