Cassidy Hutchinson and questions on her testimony

Politics & Elections
1

It has been suggested that a new thread be started to discuss apparent discrepancies in the testimony from Cassidy Hutchinson that was part of the June 28th meeting of the House Jan 6 Committee hearings. I don’t know why there is hesitation, but here goes. I started this this morning, so there is some time lag.

These are the main issues I have seen mentioned about her testimony

  • use of “something to the effect of” over and over
    This was mentioned in the “Jan 6 Hearings Follow-Along & Commentary Thread” (J6HFA&CT) as sounding odd and somewhat off-putting. It certainly makes the point that those parts were hearsay evidence, which I think is exactly what the intent was. This is not a trial, but hearsay is hearsay, so if direct testimony can be obtained, it should be obtained. This was to put pressure on others to testify.
  • Referring to the Presidential SUV as “the Beast.”
    Of course, we know now that Trump was not in the limo known as “the Beast” for this incident. I didn’t know that at the time I saw the hearing, nor did I even know what the Beast was. I believe Hutchinson referral to the SUV as the Beast was intentional, to lay a trap for those wanting to discredit her. As a lure, it was nibbled on by the RW pundits, but it was quickly spat out.
  • Description of what happened in the SUV ride as related by Ornato
    This was taken, hook, line, and sinker. Certainly as hearsay, its evidentiary value is low, so why introduce it? Obviously, the intent was to get on the record that Trump was very noticeably irate about not being driven to the Capitol, which was obviously what he wanted. That, IMO, is a crucial piece of evidence, as it shows Trump’s intent immediately after his speech was to take this mob, who he knew was armed, to attack the Capitol. Notice that the rapid response from the Secret Service (within hours of the testimony) admitted that Trump was very irate, but denied that he ever grabbed the steering wheel or Engel’s throat. Interestingly, Hutchinson’s testimony did not say that she was ever told that Trump had grabbed either the wheel or Engel’s throat, but they were certainly ready to have these guys testify under oath that he didn’t. An amazing bit of work the Committee did to get the Secret Service to admit how irate Trump was that afternoon on nothing but hearsay evidence. They would make Columbo proud.
  • The note written by Hutchinson, as dictated by Meadows and revised by Herschmann
    As I posted in J6HFA&CT, this confused me. To me, there is no (or, at least, not very much) discrepancy between the testimony and Herschmann’s response. Herschmann seems to respond (through a spokesman) that he authored the note. Perhaps intentional misunderstanding of what “wrote” means, either between Herschmann and his spokesman or between his spokesman and the media. I very much doubt Hutchinson would have testified that the note was in her handwriting if it was not. That is too easy to determine. Ms. Cheney seemed to be deliberate in getting Hutchinson to confirm that it was her handwriting, which seems to suggest that she expected it might come into question.

Knowing that individually, these committee members are likely much more astute in lawyerly ways than I, and as a group, more astute than most, I doubt there was anything in the testimony that was not planned. I expect it was all very carefully planned.

If the DOJ is going to be successful in prosecuting Trump on any criminal charges, they will have to break the hold he has on a large part of the population. If they can be convinced that what Trump was attempting was not just not in accordance with the Constitution, but met the definition of treason, I think they may have a chance. It’s going to be a tough sell, as the facts of the matter are the same as they were for Impeachment II, which makes half the Senate complicit as well, but, well, the public turned on Nixon, so there’s hope.

The facts that Trump knew the mob he has assembled had weapons (which before June 28th he could deny, if it ever came up) and that his intent was obviously to have them attack the Capitol (which he has denied, countless times) might help.

Getting Meadows and Giuliani to flip would help a lot more, and a lot of the direct evidence given by Hutchinson’s testimony might help that. I suspect there will be more testimony to add to what Hutchinson provided, to add to this.

2

I anxiously await the footage of trump watching the riot on the dining room tv.

3

This is bonkers.

4

Exactly.

How would that work, anyway? "I deliberately used an inaccurate term, so that when somebody accuses me of getting the facts wrong, I can say, ‘Behold my cunning plan!’ "

5

The note is the weird one…

Oh, wait, it isn’t. She’s a 22yo aide writing down something someone told her to write down.

And Trump is definitely reaching into the driver’s space. The video clearly shows this:

Imgur

6

Am I the only one who can’t tell what is in those stills? I think maybe I see a shirt cuff?

7

Hate that I looked into this thread because this is exactly the kind of obsessive shit that hurls me down pedantic rabbit holes to the point that even I no longer understand what I am trying to say.

I believe you are misinterpreting the phrase. She used it when she spoke about hearsay, but far more often when she was not speaking about hearsay-- when she was relating something she witnessed first person. The most likely reason that she used the turn of phrase so frequently is because she was advised to do so by her attorney (and probably also her former attorney). I will try to give three examples why that might be a good idea:
The most lame is one is an example I will make up to demonstrate what I mean. If she testifies: “The music was tense.” without any qualifier like ‘kind of’ or ‘something to the effect of’ and later a music expert is put on the stand and proves up and down beyond any reasonable doubt that the technical name for that particular music is ‘suspenseful’, then she could be accused of lying, of speaking to things she does not fully understand, of a biased mind frame that proves that she is exercising a personal vendetta against the former president. I call this the Bill Murray example: “Dogs and cats living together - total mayhem!” A lawyer trying to rattle her confidence and the jury’s faith in her.

If she testified under oath that: “Shakespeare said all roses smell good no matter what you call them.” Any English scholar could demonstrate that the witness is spreading falsehoods and literally lying from the stand. Unqualified, speaking about things she does not understand-- "very clearly Mr. Shakespeare said: "By any other name . . . " Even though she got the entire essence correct- she is technically lying, Shakespeare never said what she claimed he said.

I had an even better example in mind but I forgot what I was going to say while I typed all that. But for example if she says: "Mr. Meadows (or Mr. Ornato, the President, even ‘a staff member’) said: “this” [“I like meatloaf with ketchup on it”] and later a tape is produced that reveal the person actually said: “When I do have meatloaf, I prefer if it is served with ketchup”, then it can be claimed that she gave misleading testimony. She claimed “HE LIKED” meatloaf!! For the record, my client doesn’t even like meatloaf! Here are twenty White House chefs and stewards who will testify to the fact that my client prefers to NOT have meatloaf (but when he does eat meatloaf, it better have some ketchup on it)!!!

The reason she continually said: “…something to the effect of . . .” is to indicate that she was not claiming to give a quote. If they try some slimy lawyer trick like the ketchup one above, or if an audio clip or video clip with sound materializes later - - her and her legal representation can point out that she was not giving an exact quote – rather that she was capturing the essence of the statement or conversation. It is both to protect her from accusations of bad intent, and also to keep the other side from having a whole statement stricken because it was not perfectly word for word accurate.

The remaining bullet points are easily remedied with a little leg work and I think they will be clarified sooner or later, but I believe that she was asked about these matters because she did demonstrate some quite valuable credibility and it filled in some details of Trump’s actions at times when he was being a particularly glaring brand of asshole. The Committee used Hutchinson’s good reputation and clean cut, honest citizen demeanor to paint Donald J. Trump in his native garments (clown clothes with a big red nose and a flower that squirts water up your nose). She painted quite a picture and no one doubts she is telling the truth, even FOX News. The right is just trying to defend their corrupt narrative by blaming a young woman for Donald Trump’s bad behavior.

I do suspect that Meadows will eventually flip and testify, but not in the Committee Hearings. He will wait until there are criminal indictments for serious crimes and offer to collaborate the shit out of everything they want him to collaborate and fill in a bunch of detail too. By that time, he is probably hoping the Republican Party will hail him as a hero for doing it-- but even if Trump still has a strong base by then he will do it to save his own hide. Giuliani on the other hand is such a buffoon he would be useless. When was the last time anyone at all- Republican, Democrat, or otherwise took him seriously?? His future is selling personalized birthday greetings over the internet. And paying Dominion and Smartmatic every penny he takes in for the rest of his life.

Yes, agreed. I can see the cuff because of high contrast, but every thing else is blurred and vague. One would need much younger eyes than mine to use that clip to prove anything.

8

The attempts by Fox News and other assorted Trumpsters to discredit Hutchinson’s testimony are pathetic in the extreme.

An anonymous guy claims that some other guys have said that Trump didn’t grab the steering wheel of a car? Who gives a shit? Hutchinson never claimed she saw that. Her testimony is that someone TOLD her this. And that Trump pitched a fit in the car and later at the White house when he could not get his way and go to the insurrection that he had encouraged.

But no. Let’s focus on the anonymous dude (probably Rudy G.) who claims a bunch of bullshit.

It’s obvious chaff, thrown in the air to distract from Trump’s criminal behavior.

9

I want to be the first to coin this term here!
I was reading some of the linked articles from related threads while cable news was playing in the background and there was other stimuli in the room. The combination of inputs led to thinking of this phrase:
“Lunging with intent to steer”
I think it is an original thought but I might have overheard it in all honesty… It struck me as very funny though because we are forbidden to mention the event in the other thread, and I think I combined some inputs to create the phrase. Be nice to coin it.

He was booked into the federal facility on charges of ‘Lunging with intent to steer’. Now trying to raise bail (from Russian banks). It is not Treason, but it is something! Kind of illustrates how silly the criticisms of Hutchinson’s testimony are.

10

It would be essentially analogous to that video of bin Laden watching with glee as the planes fly into the towers. Except bin Laden wasn’t an American or the president or trying to overthrow our democracy.

This thread seems premature, since no named source has claimed anything. The press will repeat bullshit from people who they want to keep access to.

11

The slimy ketchup defense…classic.

I’m curious what the actual intent was. I mean, I assume he didn’t think far enough into the future to have any kind of plan about what to do after he grabbed the wheel, much like a dog chasing a bird isn’t going to know what to do with it if they catch it. I think most reasonable people know that if you reach from the back seat of a car to the steering wheel (with an awake and alert (and trained) driver) you’re not going to be able to drive from back there. At best, you’ll make the car swerve a few times before the driver puts their food on the brake.

OTOH, it really does help paint the picture of him acting like a child.

Honest question since I’ve only been partially paying attention to all this, but why didn’t they put the people she was ‘quoting’ on the stand instead of her? Why mess around with second hand information when they could go directly to the source?
This is all well beyond my understanding of the legal system (and even further outside my understanding of legal strategies), but the only thing I can come up with is that those people didn’t want to testify under oath, so they put her up there to testify about what she knows. I presume, what she said on the stand will be considered an accurate representation of what happened unless or until one of those people decides to give an actual first hand account of the events.
Maybe that has the effect of both shielding those people from Trump’s wrath while also allowing them to essentially corroborate her story by remaining silent.

The entire thing is just a blurry mess.

Is there an actual video of this? Even having some clue about the context, at best I see someone closing a passenger side car door with their right hand.

Why she would name the wrong vehicle, I have no idea, but FWIW, “the beast” isn’t some secret term for it. Just about any documentary or youtube video you can watch about the Secret Service or the presidential motorcade or how world leaders travel will refer to the limo as ‘the beast’. It might not be as well known as the concept of Air Force One, but it’s still pretty well known. Just for reference, here’s a random youtube video from 6 years ago called “President Obama’s one-of-a-kind limo is named ‘The Beast’ for a good reason”

12

I think this is something of a ‘don’t quote me on that’ phrase, meaning: I may have gotten the exact phrasing wrong, but the my recollection of the event/statement is substantively accurate.

It can often keep from happening … er … exactly what is happening:

  • “YOU SAID HE WAS IN ‘THE BEAST.’ HE WAS NOT. HE WAS IN A SUBURBAN ! YOU’RE A MISERABLE LIAR !!”
  • “YOU SAID HE LUNGED FOR THE STEERING WHEEL. BUT ‘LUNGE’ MEANS ‘a sudden forward thrust of the body, typically with an arm outstretched to attack someone or seize something.’ DEAR LEADER WAS CLEARLY RELAXED AND COMPOSED, BUT THEN – OVER MILLISECONDS, REALIZED THAT THE ENTIRE VEHICLE WAS IN JEOPARDY AND THAT ONLY HETM COULD SAVE THEM !”
  • “Besides, the anonymous people who aren’t under oath deny what the person who was under oath said, and nobody – not Giuliani, not Sydney Powell, not Tucker Carlson, and CERTAINLY not Dear Leader – has given us any reason to be skeptical about their veracity.”

Yes: details can matter. Yes: credibility should be coolly evaluated. But we have nothing that should call into question – for a reasonable observer – Ms. Hutchinson’s credibility, at least not yet. She was poised, composed, and – for my money – conveyed just the right amount of gravitas for the role she was playing in US history.

What’s amazing to me is not that the MAGA-types are swayed by this, but – as @Si_Amigo has so dutifully reminded us – that they get us talking so earnestly about it.

We’re arguing about whether (to capitalize on @RitterSport ) the 9/11 hijackers were wearing polo shirts or T-shirts when they took abbreviated flying lessons, despite every single additional element of their sinister plot being amply and inarguably established.

Fauci said early in the pandemic that we didn’t need to wear masks. The MAGA-types took that as enough reason to question Science and the Scientific Method for ever and everything. Fauci lied; ergo, Bill Gates is injecting us with microchips.

That was lunacy.

“If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep it.” Ditto (Obama).

That (and the tan suit) were enough to hate this man with the passion that burned with the heat of a thousand supernovas (I know: they already did feel that way, even before he took office).

That was lunacy.

But 10,000 - 13,000 prevarications, falsehoods, and fabrications from Dear Leader ? Not covered on Fox, OANN, or Newsmax, I suppose. But this lady may have used a comma instead of a semicolon ? LIAR !

That, too, is lunacy.

Notice what really happened to Nixon’s (essentially) approvals over the course of Watergate unfolding. The goal isn’t to sway everybody. It’s to sway those who can be swayed and do our damnedest to work around the rest:

13

Yes, I’ve seen a lot of “look at these four frames - they conclusively prove her right!” stuff. Best I can say is that it is sufficiently consistent with her description of events that it doesn’t disprove what she said. Other than that, anything could be going on there.

14

I feel like the four still images do tell us that he was wearing a French cuff dress shirt, but there are still missing links.

sorry

15

Using “something to the effect of” is perfectly normal to let people know you don’t recall a conversation verbatim. It indicates that the witness is truthful.

What is wrong with calling the SUV “The Beast”?

The story related by Ornato about the SUV ride has not been contradicted by any credible source. Ornato himself is a known liar and seems likely to have committed perjury already in addition to his participation in an insurrection conspiracy.

The nonsense about how she didn’t write the note she wrote is absolute nonsense. Just another baseless accusation.

16

Few people (I dare say no people) can remember conversations verbatim a year and a half later. Saying “to the effect of” is just common sense, especially since one of Trump’s most common “defenses” is to claim, “I didn’t say those exact words, so it’s a lie! Fake news!”

17

Has Donald ever driven himself anywhere? I’d be honestly surprised.

18

I know this is a bit nitpicky, but this entire thread invites nitpickery, so I’m going to pick it.

What’s wrong with calling the SUV “The Beast” is that it’s not factually accurate. The Beast is a nickname for the Presidential State Car, built on a GMC TopKick platform and badged as a Cadillac. The up-armored Suburbans are not referred to as “The Beast” because they are up-armored Suburbans and not the presidential state car. It is not accurate, as some said in the other thread, that any car the president is riding in is called “The Beast.” “The Beast” is a nickname for a specific vehicle model, and nothing more.

Note: I don’t think this is germane to Hutchinson’s testimony – The Beast is a badass vehicle that has taken on almost mythical importance, and I think most people (myself included) just assume that POTUS always rides in it. But it’s cramped inside and probably overkill for most trips, and based on reporting around this event it seems like Trump preferred the Suburbans. It’s entirely excusable, IMO, for someone to assume that he was in The Beast when hearing this story. This is a game of telephone, after all.

19

I agree that it is A) a mistake and B) an understandable mistake and C) does not cast doubt on her veracity in general.

What it does call into question, I think, is the value of her testimony about the events in the vehicle. If the Secret Service denies specifics, and she names the wrong vehicle, how can we trust her account of what happened in it?

20

The purpose of her testimony was not to accurately describe what Trump did that day, it was to show the complete indifference of Mark Meadows. She’s saying, “We heard this absolutely alarming story and he did nothing about it.”