EXCLUSIVE: Text Messages Show Cassidy Hutchinson Referring To January 6 Committee As ‘BS’
The January 6 committee's key witness, Cassidy Hutchinson, called the committee
dailycaller.com
Those texts will come back to haunt you, Cass
- Thread starter DANC
- Start date
dailycaller.com
DBM posted this exact same claim along with the Daily Caller article you linked in the Committee thread. And for some reason you felt it deserved a thread of it's own?EXCLUSIVE: Text Messages Show Cassidy Hutchinson Referring To January 6 Committee As ‘BS’
The January 6 committee's key witness, Cassidy Hutchinson, called the committee
First off I read the article and unless I just missed it, they never identified exactly when those tweets were from. I can find plenty of former Trump people who derided the Hearings role at some point in the year since it was created, and have subsequently testified and now have a different opinion of the proceedings. There were many people who felt the Committee wouldn't turn up anything new, who have reprised that opinion since the televised episodes began...
Beyond that, when Hutchinson was initially subpoenaed she was represented by the same lawyer that Trump world has engaged to represent many of the former Trump people- Stefan Passantino. That was an informal setting with him present and the Committee just engaging in a question and answer session where she was not under oath. The Committee interviewed Oranato and (I believe) Engel the same way, and Hutchinson's version of events differed from theirs. The Committee felt she was a more credible witness...
So after speaking with the Committee informally, Hutchinson sought out a friend Alyssa Griffin the former WH Chief of strategic Communications who had resigned in Dec 2020 because of Trump's promotion of the Big Lie. Hutchinson told Griffin that there was more to her story and she wanted to discuss issues the Committee had not raised and wanted to do it in SWORN testimony. Griffin advised her to get her own lawyer, and she did. That led to Hutchinson contacting the Committee and telling them she wanted to testify under oath...
So what is the basis for you to believe that Hutchinson would deliberately place herself in perjury peril and decide to lie under oath? She was basically in the clear and the new info she had for the Committee wasn't something they had even questioned her about previously.
So this is my question to you. Team Trump is spending a lot of time and energy to discredit Hutchinson and somehow paint the picture that she lied. I believe this is because they know what she has testified to is very troublesome for Trump, and he knows it...
Now I assume you are on board with the smear campaign because you believe she is lying and making things up. I think it's pretty clear she isn't, but I realize we disagree.
But what happens when we find out that she was telling the truth, and the entire spectrum is worse than what we even imagine at this point? I realize you disagree, but I'm fairly certain that is what is going to happen. So if I'm right, do you re-evaluate and become one of the people Trump is so afraid of losing? Or do you just shrug your shoulders and come up with another reason not to care?
I didn't see his, but it deserves its own thread.DBM posted this exact same claim along with the Daily Caller article you linked in the Committee thread. And for some reason you felt it deserved a thread of it's own?
First off I read the article and unless I just missed it, they never identified exactly when those tweets were from. I can find plenty of former Trump people who derided the Hearings role at some point in the year since it was created, and have subsequently testified and now have a different opinion of the proceedings. There were many people who felt the Committee wouldn't turn up anything new, who have reprised that opinion since the televised episodes began...
Beyond that, when Hutchinson was initially subpoenaed she was represented by the same lawyer that Trump world has engaged to represent many of the former Trump people- Stefan Passantino. That was an informal setting with him present and the Committee just engaging in a question and answer session where she was not under oath. The Committee interviewed Oranato and (I believe) Engel the same way, and Hutchinson's version of events differed from theirs. The Committee felt she was a more credible witness...
So after speaking with the Committee informally, Hutchinson sought out a friend Alyssa Griffin the former WH Chief of strategic Communications who had resigned in Dec 2020 because of Trump's promotion of the Big Lie. Hutchinson told Griffin that there was more to her story and she wanted to discuss issues the Committee had not raised and wanted to do it in SWORN testimony. Griffin advised her to get her own lawyer, and she did. That led to Hutchinson contacting the Committee and telling them she wanted to testify under oath...
So what is the basis for you to believe that Hutchinson would deliberately place herself in perjury peril and decide to lie under oath? She was basically in the clear and the new info she had for the Committee wasn't something they had even questioned her about previously.
So this is my question to you. Team Trump is spending a lot of time and energy to discredit Hutchinson and somehow paint the picture that she lied. I believe this is because they know what she has testified to is very troublesome for Trump, and he knows it...
Now I assume you are on board with the smear campaign because you believe she is lying and making things up. I think it's pretty clear she isn't, but I realize we disagree.
But what happens when we find out that she was telling the truth, and the entire spectrum is worse than what we even imagine at this point? I realize you disagree, but I'm fairly certain that is what is going to happen. So if I'm right, do you re-evaluate and become one of the people Trump is so afraid of losing? Or do you just shrug your shoulders and come up with another reason not to care?
She called the committee BS and, when she realized she had to appear, she went into CYA mode, repeating shit others said. Because she didn't know anything herself.
And you morons think this kind of shit will get Trump indicted? lmao! Good fvcking luck!
It’s too long bro. I’m not gonna read it.DBM posted this exact same claim along with the Daily Caller article you linked in the Committee thread. And for some reason you felt it deserved a thread of it's own?
First off I read the article and unless I just missed it, they never identified exactly when those tweets were from. I can find plenty of former Trump people who derided the Hearings role at some point in the year since it was created, and have subsequently testified and now have a different opinion of the proceedings. There were many people who felt the Committee wouldn't turn up anything new, who have reprised that opinion since the televised episodes began...
Beyond that, when Hutchinson was initially subpoenaed she was represented by the same lawyer that Trump world has engaged to represent many of the former Trump people- Stefan Passantino. That was an informal setting with him present and the Committee just engaging in a question and answer session where she was not under oath. The Committee interviewed Oranato and (I believe) Engel the same way, and Hutchinson's version of events differed from theirs. The Committee felt she was a more credible witness...
So after speaking with the Committee informally, Hutchinson sought out a friend Alyssa Griffin the former WH Chief of strategic Communications who had resigned in Dec 2020 because of Trump's promotion of the Big Lie. Hutchinson told Griffin that there was more to her story and she wanted to discuss issues the Committee had not raised and wanted to do it in SWORN testimony. Griffin advised her to get her own lawyer, and she did. That led to Hutchinson contacting the Committee and telling them she wanted to testify under oath...
So what is the basis for you to believe that Hutchinson would deliberately place herself in perjury peril and decide to lie under oath? She was basically in the clear and the new info she had for the Committee wasn't something they had even questioned her about previously.
So this is my question to you. Team Trump is spending a lot of time and energy to discredit Hutchinson and somehow paint the picture that she lied. I believe this is because they know what she has testified to is very troublesome for Trump, and he knows it...
Now I assume you are on board with the smear campaign because you believe she is lying and making things up. I think it's pretty clear she isn't, but I realize we disagree.
But what happens when we find out that she was telling the truth, and the entire spectrum is worse than what we even imagine at this point? I realize you disagree, but I'm fairly certain that is what is going to happen. So if I'm right, do you re-evaluate and become one of the people Trump is so afraid of losing? Or do you just shrug your shoulders and come up with another reason not to care?
So I located the Daily Caller story, and as I suspected it was a text she sent requesting assistance from their Jan 6 Defense Fund in February. Basically roughly 4 mos before any televised hearings...
EXCLUSIVE: Text Messages Show Cassidy Hutchinson Referring To January 6 Committee As ‘BS’
The January 6 committee's key witness, Cassidy Hutchinson, called the committee
dailycaller.com
Now logic would say that if she testified under oath behind closed doors when she had Stefan Passantio (Trump's guy) as her lawyer and present, and then wanted to change her story afterwards that maybe the idea that she was lying might make sense...But in reality the exact opposite happened...
But here's the problem with whatever convoluted point (first DBM and now DANC) is trying to make. She was initially subpoenaed (read the tweets) and served by the US Marshalls. That led to an informal session with Passantino present where she answered questions but wasn't under oath.
After her initial session where she told a different version of events in the limo than either Engle or Oranato the Committee found her more credible than either of them. She only responded to questions they asked, and she wasn't under oath.
But after thinking things over and possibly weighing her own personal liability for with holding info Hutchinson went to her friend and fellow Trumper Alyssa Griffin. Griffin who had resigned as WH Strategic Communications Director in Dec 2020 over the Big Lie, says Hutchinson came to her and told her (Griffin) that she had more to tell that the Committee didn't ask about. She told Griffin she wanted to meet with the Committee again, and asked her advice.
Griffin told her to ditch Passantino (the MAGA spy) and get her own lawyer. After doing so, she contacted the Committee (likely thru her lawyer) and informed them she wanted to give more details, and this time UNDER OATH.
She had already revealed to the Committee the story that she said Oranato told her about what happened inside the limo. That was a huge deal to the public, but the key element of her testimony was that Trump had been informed people (that he urged to go to the Capitol) were armed. And he knew it when he said it. What she called the proceedings in Feb is totally irrelevant, since she is the one who specifically contacted them again and asked to provide SWORN testimony...
The pro-Trump media, and in this case people like DANC and DBM are focusing on insignificant minutia such as whether Trump grabbed at the wheel. The issue no one is coming forward to dispute is that Trump wanted to join armed people heading to the Capitol and was angry the SS prevented him from doing so.
Last edited:
So you agree with me she was in CYA mode. You use a lot of words to convey a simple concept.So I located the Daily Caller story, and as I suspected it was a text she sent requesting assistance from their Jan 6 Defense Fund in February. Basically roughly 4 mos before any televised hearings...
EXCLUSIVE: Text Messages Show Cassidy Hutchinson Referring To January 6 Committee As ‘BS’
The January 6 committee's key witness, Cassidy Hutchinson, called the committee
Now logic would say that if she testified under oath behind closed doors when she had Stefan Passantio (Trump's guy) as her lawyer and present, and then wanted to change her story afterwards that maybe the idea that she was lying might make sense...But in reality the exact opposite happened...
But here's the problem with whatever convoluted point (first DBM and now DANC) is trying to make. She was initially subpoenaed (read the tweets) and served by the US Marshalls. That led to an informal session with Passantino present where she answered questions but wasn't under oath.
After her initial session where she told a different version of events in the limo than either Engle or Oranato the Committee found her more credible than either of them. She only responded to questions they asked, and she wasn't under oath.
But after thinking things over and possibly weighing her own personal liability for with holding info Hutchinson went to her friend and fellow Trumper Alyssa Griffin. Griffin who had resigned as WH Strategic Communications Director in Dec 2020 over the Big Lie, says Hutchinson came to her and told her (Griffin) that she had more to tell that the Committee didn't ask about. She told Griffin she wanted to meet with the Committee again, and asked her advice.
Griffin told her to ditch Passantino (the MAGA spy) and get her own lawyer. After doing so, she contacted the Committee (likely thru her lawyer) and informed them she wanted to give more details, and this time UNDER OATH.
She had already revealed to the Committee the story that she said Oranato told her about what happened inside the limo. That was a huge deal to the public, but the key element of her testimony was that Trump had been informed people (that he urged to go to the Capitol) were armed. And he knew it when he said it. What she called the proceedings in Feb is totally irrelevant, since she is the one who specifically contacted them again and asked to provide SWORN testimony...
The pro-Trump media, and in this case people like DANC and DBM are focusing on insignificant minutia such as whether Trump grabbed at the wheel. The issue no one is coming forward to dispute is that Trump wanted to join armed people heading to the Capitol and was angry the SS prevented him from doing so.
