It is astounding not just how poorly the latest day of testimony from the January 6 Commission turned out but how quickly things unraveled. Previously, the minds of the panel had suspended things until some nebulous date next month, but then – suddenly – they announced a hastily-called "Emergency" hearing for Tuesday. They had the goods, you see, and this needed to be displayed to the public!
For all the same reasons that you should wait a day before firing off that enflamed email or step back before you tweet-angry and hit SEND, the J-6 Committee would have benefitted before rushing forward in an emotional fervor. Instead, they presented Cassidy Hutchinson before the cameras with all the pride of parents at a country club coming-out cotillion, and it has become a laughable mess for all involved.
To lay out the aftermath, we will first look at the media reactions to the Hutchinson testimony. I can't overstate how deeply important her words delivered had been. That is because the journalists have already overstated things.
>> @JakeTapper: We all just heard "one of the most stunning offerings of testimony in American history."
— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) June 28, 2022
>> @JakeTapper: We all just heard "one of the most stunning offerings of testimony in American history."
— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) June 28, 2022
CBS News’ political team breaks down the impact of today’s testimony from Cassidy Hutchinson, including what made it different and what’s to come next. pic.twitter.com/EGqgGdH171
— CBS Evening News (@CBSEveningNews) June 28, 2022
What a remarkable TV moment, watching and hearing Cassidy Hutchinson's brave and electrifying testimony about what was happening backstage at the White House Jan. 6. I have not felt this way since watching the Watergate hearings in real time.
— David Zurawik (@davidzurawik) June 28, 2022
This is only a sampling of the perspiring hyperbole we were delivered following Cassy's appearance. There were a couple of problems seen initially in all of this effusive coverage. First, did any of her claims make sense to these journalists? Do they really believe Trump had access to the driver's cabin in the presidential limousine and that he tried to choke out a Secret Service agent? Did anyone question the story of guns being visible in the mall where Trump spoke, and no one took action to prevent him from speaking? The lack of pragmatic analysis is stark here.
Recommended
Secondly, what do any of the Hutchinson stories have to do with the thrust and intent of this hearing? Supposing everything she said was accurate, these anecdotes in no way illustrate intent of fostering the riot or overturning the election. Trump grabbing the wheel of the limo does not prove an insurrection was in play. Our democracy is not threatened by an angered president staining a wall with ketchup after tossing some china in frustration.
The J-6 Commission has also exposed itself as inept as a result of yesterday's testimony. The presence of guns as described is said to be a bombshell revelation, but how are Hutchinson's words of hearsay regarded as so trenchant and important today? It means that after a full year of investigation – with copious hours of video footage from security cameras, cell phones, and police body cams – no one had previously picked up on all these guns at the scene before yesterday.
Instead of delivering hard proof, as claimed, this leads only to more questions. Why was no one with visible weapons arrested, as they were violating the open-carry law in D.C.? How would the president have been permitted to give his speech with guns present in the area? And how is any of this fresh news coming out from an assistant inside the White House when no one else actually on scene gave no such report?
As for Hutchinson's account of the limousine ride, this is deeply flawed testimony as well. Again, she was not in attendance, so already, there are issues with her tale. Then you have her mislabeling the vehicle in question; she declared repeatedly Trump was riding in The Beast when that day he was in the Presidential Limo. Say this is nitpicking if you like, but this is a woman giving a third-hand account from over a year prior and getting a significant detail wrong.
That her account has been boldly disputed across the news spectrum, including by our own Julio Rosas last night, is just the start of the problems. Why is it that this supposedly serious committee rushed Hutchinson out before the cameras in this fashion? When the agents and the Secret Service are willing to go public with a disputed version of events, it exposes the show trial dramatics at play with this outfit.
As of Sunday, there was no hearing firmly scheduled since days earlier, the committee stalled further events until sometime in July. Then suddenly, they announced new evidence and called for Tuesday's emergency hearing. They did so without first bringing in the Secret Service, nor the agents involved, for questioning. This shows everything wrong with this J-6 committee. They are not conducting a serious investigation to get the facts straight. Instead, as a new storyline is brought up, they call an emergency hearing and rush out the individual making a third-person account claim and have her incendiary words blasted across the compliant news industry.
Now, the press is raising a woman to mythic status who has no firsthand knowledge of the details and is being disputed by the agents involved. Another issue is that this new evidence that Hutchinson brought to light exposes ineptitude on the part of the committee. After a year of supposedly serious and intense investigating, they completely missed these supposedly important details delivered by this supposedly vital witness – so important that there was no need to seek out corroboration from those directly involved or witnessing the events.
In a way, it might be said this does end up becoming a bombshell testimony. It is looking more like something that blows up in the face of those on the committee and members of the press.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member