Cassidy Hutchinson is in trouble as many Americans are already questioning the mystery behind her “testifying” before the committee, which she had earlier termed as “BS”. Last-minute star witness Cassidy Hutchinson apparently did not think much of the January 6th committee when she was first called to testify, text messages reportedly revealed.
According to a report published Sunday by The Daily Caller — based on text messages sent by Hutchinson — the former aide to then White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows referred to the committee’s subpoena as “BS” and made it clear that she was unimpressed with the fact that US Marshals had come to her apartment to deliver it.
In the text messages, which were obtained by the Caller’s senior Congressional correspondent Henry Rodgers, Hutchinson appeared to be seeking assistance from the First Amendment Fund — which was started by the American Conservative Union (ACU) in order to assist private citizens “who have not been accused of any crimes and were simply engaging in free speech activities” with regard to January 6th.
Commenting on this mysterious testify opera, Matt Schlapp tweeted: “Ms. Hutchinson approached @CPAC for help through our First Amendment Fund which has helped J6 political victims defend themselves. I am pleased we did not assist her performance today. Relaying WH hallway gossip as fact does not qualify as first person testimony”.
Meanwhile, hundreds and thousands of Americans are expressing dismay, surprise and anger at the staged testimony of Cassidy Hutchinson, while some of them had demanded immediate investigation into the entire episode. Here are some of the reactions:
Incite Insight wrote:
This reminds me of a dirty trick used by some District Attorneys to introduce shady evidence into a criminal trial. This is how it works. In cases where there is a civil component and a weak criminal component, they’ll push the civil case and set the criminal case aside temporarily. They do this because of the lower evidentiary bar required in civil cases as well as the ability to compel the defendants testimony. (which they can’t do in a criminal trial) They use the “facts” gathered by the civil case at a lower standard to help support a later criminal case. Call me paranoid but I think this testimony has been added for nefarious purposes.
Mudo3861 wrote:
That was before she was presented with 30 mint silver coins.
Anderson8241 wrote:
This goes to my thoughts on her testimony: she was prepped and most likely promised something in return. Her speech was too specific in terms. Clavicle? Who uses clavicle instead of collar bone or neck? Just one example of many. Her “testimony” given to her and she memorized what she was told to say. Find out who did that and then we will have a real investigation.
Donttrustdems6220 wrote:
It was plural — no one says “clavicles”. And the Secret Service does not refer to the president’s limo as “the beast”. And Trump wasn’t even in the limo — he was in an SUV. And it’s doubtful Trump picked a fight with 3 Secret Service personnel between him and the steering wheel that he could not reach (even though Hutchinson ‘testified’ that she was told Trump was ordered to “take his hands off the wheel”; or in her words, “something to the effect of”)…
YY4U wrote:
Probably not even worth following up on. Even if everything she said was true, (unlikely) none of it was relevant to show that there was any sort of organized insurrection. Her testimony had nothing to do with anything and was completely irrelevant.
Donttrustdems6220 wrote:
I believe they’re trying to show that Trump lost his temper. And, you know, if he lost his temper he was a bad person. So for 5 years (and counting), they beat him up, demonize him, lie about him. conduct sham investigations and impeachments, and then tell him that although he may have received more votes than any incumbent president (including the highest percentage of minority group votes), that more people voted for Biden (who never really campaigned and proposed destructive policies). Most people would have been fed up a lot sooner (which they were hoping for) — but not Trump. And they hated that. Their plan was to get him to lose his temper, then run with it. Pathetic losers…
R Feng wrote:
I may be cynical but it wouldn’t surprise me if she finds her way into a Democrat’s campaign in the future. Compensation for services rendered.
26Nx82W wrote:
Several sources have since denied her claims, and ACU President Matt Schlapp responded to her testimony by saying he was glad the First Amendment Fund had not assisted her. Which explains the made-up story about Trump trying to overpower his limo driver.
5 Simple Words wrote:
Honestly, he’s fat and in his 70s. No disrespect to DJT [Donald J Trump], but he isn’t going to ‘overpower’ a trained, fit member of Secret Service.
American for life wrote:
Wonder what kind of pressure they put on her? This sounds a lot like the McCarthy hearings on communists, where if you did not agree to make false allegations against others, it was guaranteed they would come after you and destroy you. The idea that the jan 6th hearings admitted here say as evidence says a lot about the committee and its purpose. The fact that we have not heard from the driver, the secret service agent(s) in the car or other passengers speaks a lot towards the veracity of the statements and the honor and purpose of the committee.
Kteas14264 wrote:
Any investigation involves investigating the evidence. So why didn’t they have the driver of the limo testify? why don’t you get the story firsthand from those that gave it to her? She would not be allowed to give this testimony in a criminal court. This is nothing more than making a fiction movie for TV.
VWGHIA3569761 wrote:
Can’t wait for her book to come out. About what other people told her and she knows is true. Baron Munchuasan might have a legal claim though.
TheGipper wrote:
Anything short of a Trump conviction, or whatever the goal is, will be a complete repudiation of this sham trial. Even Franz Kafka wouldn’t believe this level of corruption: one side gets to run the trial, decide who sits on the committee, call only anti-Trump “witnesses”, disallow cross examination, admit hearsay, withhold exculpatory evidence, and have a friendly media “report” what they’re told to report. I hope these partisans will be held accountable for their treachery.
ROCKNCOAL3763 wrote:
I agree with her assessment of the biased partisan 1/6 committee. My question is why, in view of her low opinion of the committee, she did not truthfully tell them she was not present and had no direct knowledge of any events? Cassidy is an REO Speedwagon fan – she “Heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend who heard it from another…”
Walkawayjoe2 wrote:
This begs the question: how much was she paid or what was she promised?
Guysautoworks1927 wrote:
Testifying as witness…… oh wait, She didn’t witness anything. When she wins her award for best actress hopefully Will Smith could intervene.
Calleyomalley wrote:
So much has been exposed about her testimony but yet the media is still big o’ing as this being their big gotcha Trump moment. *sigh.
Ace.boogie wrote:
So I guess the question now is who did finance her “testimony”?
AGuyInLA wrote:
Was she coerced? Was she told to say what she said by Adam Schiff under threat? it sounds like something he would say and do.
Schnefferpepper wrote:
Wait I thought the Jan 6th committee was supposed to be exposing Trump’s and the “insurrectionists” corruption not their own? I’m confused…
Pepe Le Pew wrote:
She should start a talk show with Blasey-Ford and Amber Heard. Call it “The Skew”.
Wifaroni wrote:
Money talks. This is obviously before she got the money.
SteveC wrote:
They most likely useD Stalin-ist tactics and gave her a script or said produce something useful for us “OR ELSE”. Sending US Marshall’s after her was the first threat. The people on this committee need federal charges against them for corruption, fraud, waste, abuse, blackmail.
Afoley1237875 wrote:
Honestly, sounds like she didn’t have anything to say that would help the dems. So she just conveyed hearsay which isn’t going to hold up anyway.
Jhorekamp3005 wrote:
The J6 committee isn’t looking for evidence that can “hold up”…. they are happy with whatever they can smear Trump with in prime time. The general public is their audience, not a judge or jury. Her second hand testimony would not have even been admissible in a real hearing.
Ali S wrote:
Either they bribed her or they threatened her.
WittyFool wrote:
Witness now the price of 15 minutes of fame–when you can’t lean on the Democrat machine like Anita Hill, Christine Ford…
Mark A Thompson 4588 wrote:
So she went from ‘bs’ to ‘let me supply the bs for you’. Maybe it was money…or maybe she was threatened with the same treatment the J6 political prisoners are getting.
KJ Blacksheep wrote:
The Left has set federal buildings on fire, toppled historic statues, taken over cities as “Chop Zones”, threatened Supreme Court Justices, protested illegally at Judge’s homes, violently protested Trump’s inauguration, burned and looted hundreds of businesses, attacked police, and vandalized the Arizona Supreme Court. This has gone on throughout the last few years. One afternoon at the Capitol Building a protest got out of hand, where no one had a gun, no one was killed(except a protester), and damage was minimal. Where is the Committee for these Left wing acts of violence? Why aren’t those people sitting in jail? And more importantly where is our garbage media reporting on these acts? Democrats need to AT LEAST admit their party has been given a free pass to commit whatever illegal attacks on our country they want without any pushback or accountability.
Bertwalker1349 wrote:
We can all thank the DNC’s United States Socialist Republic (USSR) and Chairman, Party Secretary Pelosi for making it blatantly obvious she reigns over a political kangaroo court. No one, except those with drug addled minds, believes her.
LordOfTheRings wrote:
Hutchinson seems like a woman who wasn’t qualified for the job she had. I think she got her job as aide because of her looks. She basically lied under oath.
MBB6180 wrote:
I think I can’t believe our military hasn’t stepped in and started hauling these traitors in. How can they just sit by idol amd watch our country implode from the actions of these Klaus Schwab flunkies. What is really happening and who does something about it.
NightEdge10360 wrote:
If you watch her testimony her body language speaks volumes. But that aside why is this even important? She wasn’t there, no one has corroborated her testimony. It’s completely hearsay and it’s not the gotcha everyone thinks it is.
Scgrl625 wrote:
Exactly!!!! I totally agree. Nothing she said was fact, nor did she produce facts. Even the note she said she wrote was written by someone else. She would be laughed out of a court of law, but this committee keeps claiming that they’re not a court – yet they keep acting like one. Cheney came out today and said the whole purpose is to prosecute President Trump. Well, when you have nothing, you get nothing. If you’re not going to be fair like a court, then whatever you have will also be laughed out of a REAL court. These people are crazy.
JeremyF06266764 wrote:
What a total crock of shit. I can’t believe the January 6th hearings were allowed to even happen. What a gigantic waste of time and taxpayer dollars. Why aren’t more of our elected officials publicly standing against these cooked up hearings?? Especially Republicans because it doesn’t seem like we are hearing much from most of them?? How have these same people allowed January 6th protesters to be locked up without charges and some even in solitary confinement??? That has to be the saddest part of January 6th and absolutely inexcusable. This is ruining peoples lives and for what?!?!?! Democrats and most republicans should be ashamed of themselves and removed from their positions. In my opinion, mainstream media has blood on their hands from all the reckless & dishonest reporting that is dividing and tearing our country apart. Mainstream media needs to be completely dismantled. Might as well throw in “The View” while we’re at it. The American people need to see some accountability from our elected government. That’s my comment. Edit my curse word if needed. To everyone at the DW, you are all Patriots.
Iwasinverted79 wrote:
So what story are we supposed to believe Cassidy? It would seem to me if you had any integrity left inside you, you could have claimed ignorance to all of the second hand crap you chose to throw out on the table… I understand telling the truth under oath but second levelling second hand accusations that were immediately torn apart undermines the entire charade.
Twoeye2020 wrote:
“Hey (redacted)! This is Cassidy Hutchinson. Kind of a random question, but do you still work for the Schlapps at the ACU?” Hutchinson texted. Sounds like a high schooler . Her use of words does not convey a high level of though, in my opinion, and I’m referring to several quotes in the article, and that’s before we get into her testimony. The more the January 6th Committee shows us, the more they reveal their backstage bulling of witnesses. In this case, the blackmail is almost palatable. The staging of derision, in the case of 2000 mules. The lack of counter inquiry by Republicans. The fact that Pelosi hand picked all of the Republicans. The whole thing stinks. If we regain the House and the Senate, there must be no forgiveness for any of the leaders of this administration who have taken us to the verge of economic collapse, and deep into a fascist state, from which we can only hope to extract ourselves. You’ll need to get rid of the voting machines and the drop boxes, if you want the level of win you need. With those elements in place, you will just fall short of a majority in both houses, thanks to the CCP hackers. Just wait and see (I hope you don’t).
Never Forget wrote:
I read that the Republican governor of Arkansas found Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony “compelling”. The name of the governor of Arkansas? Asa Hutchinson. Is it just me, or does that seem like too much of a coincidence?
Gregory.Alben5892 wrote:
She’s a “taker”. Between watching her trying to be careful with what she said – she failed- and this, one can only conclude that she’d open any door, climb through any window, do whatever from the shadows, even commit to “political suicide to get the “15 minutes of fame”(?). There’s an old saying here: “Aunt Brenda’s has a room waiting for you!”
And there are hundreds and thousands of comments from people of various walks of lives. BLiTZ invites its readers to leave their comments at the bottom of this report.
