The Washington Post Runs Cover for Cassidy Hutchinson’s Trainwreck of Testimony

The Washington Post Runs Cover for Cassidy Hutchinson’s Trainwreck of Testimony

The Washington Post Runs Cover for Cassidy Hutchinson’s Trainwreck of Testimony

The Washington Post is doing its best to provide cover for Cassidy Hutchinson’s trainwreck of testimony on Tuesday.  Late last night, they ran a piece titled, How Trump World pressures witnesses to deny his possible wrongdoing.  As usual, they have strung together several sentences using vague, unnamed “witnesses” that no one can corroborate.  Their aim is to suggest that the only reason all these Secret Service Agents and White House staff are rushing to discount Hutchinson’s account of January 6th is because Donald Trump is offering them a mafia-like compliment aimed to threaten them.  It would be laughable if it weren’t so disgusting and transparent.

“At Tuesday’s hearing, Cheney recounted that committee members have asked each witness connected to Trump’s administration or campaign whether they have been contacted by former colleagues or others who have “attempted to influence or impact their testimony.”

[SNIP]

Cheney described another call received by a witness. “[A person] let me know you have your deposition tomorrow. He wants me to let you know he’s thinking about you. He knows you’re loyal and you’re going to do the right thing when you go in for your deposition,” she said, quoting the witness.

 

Billy Baldwin is a typical Washington Post reader:

 But for everyone else with half a brain, we now know that Swiss Cheese has fewer holes in it than Cassidy Hutchinson’s tale of terror on the day of January 6th. As Nina Bookout reported yesterday, Cassidy’s testimony fell apart within hours.

So what does Pravda do when the house of cards falls apart?  They point their fingers to the Boogeyman, also known as Donald J. Trump and suggest that he’s lurking in the shadows and intimidating witnesses:

But [Cheney] said that she thought “most Americans know that attempting to influence witnesses to testify untruthfully presents very serious concerns” and the committee would be carefully considering how to respond.

But here’s the rub, THIS ISN’T A CRIMINAL TRIAL!  In fact, this star chamber show trial is completely illegal in and of itself.  Congress is only allowed to have trials for legislative purposes.  Thus far, no one can point to what legislative purpose this sham Impeachment 3.0 is for.  We all, and I do mean ALL, know this is about keeping Trump from running in 2024.  But because this is NOT a criminal trial, there can be no witness intimidation.  The Jan 6 committee has not allowed for rebuttal witnesses, there is no cross examination, nothing about this thing is a true “trial” per se.  It’s a witch hunt.  Pure and simple.

And to support this witch hunt, they have trotted out a very lame “witness” who seems butt hurt that she didn’t get the job she was promised at Mar a Lago.  According to the New York Post, Hutchinson and Mark Meadows had a rift in 2021:

“But there was a falling out between Hutchinson and Meadows in 2021, a former White House aide told CNN. She was supposed to become permanent staff at Mar-a-Lago, but those plans fell through, the outlet reported.

The New Jersey native has yet to hold a full-time job since leaving the White House, the Washington Post reported.”

Given she hasn’t had a job since she left the White House, maybe she’s hoping to cash in on her testimony a la Christine Blasey Ford?  What we do know is that her memory is just as bad as Ford’s.   In fact, Megyn Kelly from Fox points out that it’s curious how many times Cassidy uses the phrase “something to the effect of”.  Watch:

And now, there are rumors that ANOTHER piece of Cassidy’s testimony is falling apart:

But you go on WaPo.  Lick their boots.  You have no shred of credibility left, so we can’t be shocked that you try to show more shade on DJT.  This is what you have sunk to. Run with it. 

Welcome, Instapundit readers!

Feature Photo Credit: Original artwork by Victory Girls Darleen Click 

Written by

2 Comments
  • Ann in L.A. says:

    “Congress is only allowed to have trials for legislative purposes.”

    I would take this so much further. Congress should have no right to drag some pharmaceutical, cigarette, or oil executive, or any other Emmanuel Goldstein, in front of a hearing just so Congress critters can mug for the cameras, showboat, create a soundbite for the nightly news, or just for the fun of it.

    Congress has a right to be make informed decisions, but pretty much all legislative purposes could be done through Q&A’s in writing. Americans are supposed to be left alone by their government, unless they break the law. Congress shouldn’t be able to drag people across the country to face their two hours of hate.

  • Wfjag says:

    I thought that she was auditioning to be the “conservative voice” on The View.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead