We are quickly reaching the point where it’s more apt to ask exactly what was true about Cassidy Hutchinson’s “bombshell” testimony before the January 6th committee on Wednesday.
As RedState has chronicled, multiple claims made by the former White House aide have been challenged by eye-witnesses. That includes two Secret Service agents who are offering to testify that Donald Trump did not, in fact, karate chop them in the throat and attempt to grab the wheel of a presidential vehicle. A White House lawyer also disputed Hutchinson’s claim that she wrote a note regarding Donald Trump’s response to January 6th, noting that his and others’ prior testimony confirms he wrote it.
Now Hutchinson’s story is crumbling further.
During her testimony, Hutchinson claimed that Cipollone told her to tell her boss, Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, that former President Donald Trump should not go to the Capitol on January 6.
Hutchinson testified that Cipollone said, “We’re going to get charged with every crime imaginable,” if Trump went to the Capitol…
…“Multiple sources including one who was at the WH on Jan 6 tell me Cipollone was not there in the am when Hutchinson testified she spoke with him,” Posobiec tweeted on Wednesday evening.
The January 6 Committee “is aware of this discrepancy,” according to Posobiec, and “are ignoring media inquiries about it.”
To be fair, this is an anonymously sourced rebuttal, so it’s possible Hutchinson is telling the truth and the sources are lying, but why would anyone assume that given how much her prior allegations have fallen apart?
While the House of Representatives is not a court of law, the same principles still apply when judging the credibility of a supposed witness, and to be sure, Hutchinson didn’t even “witness” most of what she claimed. That two of her revelations, including the one that led the news cycle, have already been contradicted on the record is relevant, and I see no reason to doubt that she also lied about talking to Cipollone.
Here’s what I think happened here, and I think you have to start with the fact that Hutchinson didn’t share any of this for a year-and-a-half. Ask yourself why should choose to speak up now? If she truly felt crimes were committed, why not go public immediately? She would have been painted as an absolute hero had she done so.
That Hutchinson waited this long and that her claims have been contradicted so quickly points to a woman who is looking to rehabilitate herself. There’s already a list of January 6th committee witnesses who have gone on to get cable news gigs and book deals. Without her testimony, Hutchinson would have remained a pariah in DC, having worked for the bad orange man. This was her chance to “fix” things, setting herself up as a “good” one so she could continue to advance in the swamp.
And to be sure, that’s exactly what will happen. She will be elevated, given cable news hits, and likely hired to some lucrative contract by some network or liberal lobbying outfit. Democrats take care of those who help their narrative, and Hutchinson is no different. She knows exactly what she stands to gain, even if it means massaging the truth a bit along the way.