Ethics Villain: Surprise! (Not Really…) It’s Cassidy Hutchinson!

Even for the rarefied, rank air of Ethics Villains, Cassidy Hutchinson, the January 6 Witch Hunt “star witness,” reeks.

Hutchinson became a goddess of the Trump Deranged when  she testified in Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s prime time TV show-trial in June. The former White House aide to Chief of Staff Mark Meadows dramatically claimed that she “still struggle[s] to work through the emotions” of that admittedly ugly day. “As an American, I was disgusted. It was unpatriotic,” Hutchinson said. “We were watching the Capitol building get defaced over a lie, and it was something that was really hard in that moment to digest.”

Sure, Cassidy.

You’re busted.

The Federalist obtained text messages that Hutchinson sent from December 2020 through May 2021 in which she commiserated with other targets of the partisan probe, noted how little information she had about any of the events that day,pronounced Pelosi’s Star Chamber as corrupt, and ridiculed Liz Cheney, whom she hugged after her testimony. She also repeatedly spoke favorably about President Trump,

“I would rather shoot myself dead into the Potomac than see marine one flying around this city without 45 again,” Hutchinson wrote in one message nearly three months after the Capitol riot.

In November 2021, Hutchinson was among the first former White House staffers to be subpoenaed by the Select Committee. In the weeks and months following, Hutchinson continued to disparage the politicized committee in private, and repeatedly joked about the same riot she now says leaves her with emotional scars today. Six days after she was issued a subpoena, Hutchinson called the Jan. 6 panel a “phony committee.” Around the same time, she told a former colleague her testimony would have nothing to offer.

“Other than a handful of irrelevant texts, I have literally no documents or anything they’re asking about,” one ex-White House staffer texted her.

“Same,” she wrote back.

Of being subpoenaed in November, Hutchinson wrote, “we were [f—–] by Bennie Thompson,” the titular chair of the committee. She joked that he would be sending her to jail, and hoped that another friend would come visit her. In a text published by the Daily Caller earlier this month, Hutchinson called the panel’s probe “bs.”
The Federalist has much more, including this from the witness in May of 2021, when Hutchinson outlined a conversation she had with a stranger in D.C.:

A real conversation that just took place:

Person on sidewalk: your sweatshirt says 45.

Me: yes

Person: like, Trump?

Me: yes

Person: stares

Me: I’m an insurrectionist.

And then I put my headphones in. The end.

If the “commission,” or lynch mob, or whatever you want to call it other than a fair and legitimate Congressional inquiry, which it is surely not, had any integrity, was seeking the truth, and was not solely dedicated to the purpose of vilifying Donald Trump, Hutchinson’s self-rebutting statements would be introduced on the record by a committee member. If this were a real trial, she would be subjected to a withering cross-examination by a lawyer who had those text messages in hand. “Are these your words?” she would be asked. If she denied it, then the recipients of those messages would be called to testify. But Pelosi’s commission does not have integrity, however, or legitimacy. We knew that, but The Federalist’s excellent investigative journalism (Why didn’t the Washington Post seek the text messages? Why didn’t the Times, or CNN? Rhetorical question…) provides a smoking cannon.

I’m struggling to think of a comparable ethics villain in recent history.

Mark Fuhrman comes closest, I think.

Now we get to find out if any non-Fox News mainstream media sources have the decency and integrity to give this scandal the publicity it deserves.


20 thoughts on “Ethics Villain: Surprise! (Not Really…) It’s Cassidy Hutchinson!

  1. We were watching the Capitol building get defaced over a lie, and it was something that was really hard in that moment to digest

    Over a lie?

    By this rationale, buildings in Minneapolis, Portland, and Kenosha were burned over the Hands Up Don’t Shoot lie.

    And let us not forget the lies that Kevin Clinesmith made on that warrant application to the FISA court.

    The same people pushing the “insurrection” narrative are the same people who pushed, and continue to push, the “Russians stole the 2016 election” narrative.

    • I’ve noticed they started laying off on the term “insurrection” in the news, instead calling it a riot or mob; of course if so, it is only because it stopped
      polling well.

  2. I saw this this afternoon. What’s up with this chick? Also, who wrote her “testimony” before the show trial jury? She couldn’t have just made that up. Was there some sort of quid pro quo involved? She evidently started singing like a bird when she got a new lawyer to represent her pro bono. This whole caper is well beyond weird. She expected to get away with this? Her “testimony” is so contrived, it makes the Steele dossier look almost believable.

    • “Let’s watch how this is swept under the rug.”

      While juuuuuuuuust enough rope is being paid out…

      Think someone should let Blaska know he may want to consider removing the talented (and arguably fetching!) Ms. Hutchinson from his It Takes Courage lineup?

      • The FBI and John Brennan and James Clapper will say all these alleged texts have all the earmarks of a Russian intelligence operation. Nothing to see here. It’s the patented, famous Hunter Biden Laptop move.

  3. I would bet she was told that if she didn’t play ball she would be economically ruined or worse. She is a twenty something that has not the experience that will allow her to call their bluff. Nonetheless, these revelations should be hammered on over and over again. She should be hounded with the question why did she lie to the Panel and what did they promise her.

      • OB
        It is not hard to believe that members of the panel got to her and convinced her it would be in her best interest to make statements that could be damning but not technically perjury. She was the one that kept using the phrase “something to the effect of”. The panel had to know what she was going to testify to in advance which is why she was put on TV and not Kash Patel whose closed-door testimony would have undermined the narrative. Patel has been demanding his testimony be released.

        Liz Cheney stated that Trump lied about the 20,000 National Guard he claimed to have offered by saying that testimony revealed that Trump never ordered those troops to the Capitol. Trump cannot order the guard he can only offer it. He did offer it and Bowser turned the offer down. Had he actually ordered troops to the Capitol, according to Kash Patel, who was in the administration (defense dept.), he would have been violating the law and the act could be seen as fomenting a coup-de-tat.

        These people are snakes who lust for power. They rely on the civic ignorance of the populace and the confirmation biases they hold. They will destroy anything or anyone that gets in their way.

        • Contrasting her texts to her testimony, her testimony strikes me a perjurious, Chris. But I’m not a perjury expert. Her testimony simply seems to me to be made up of whole cloth. Pure fantasy.

          • Not sure why anyone would trust a habitual liar like Hemmingway, but the texts if true still do not change her testimony.

            • Hemingway has a point of view and expresses it: that’s not “lying” whether you see things differently or not.

              “the texts if true still do not change her testimony.”

              What are you talking about? If the texts exist—and it would be insane for the Federalist to say they do without having them—then that’s all that matters. Of course it doesn’t “change what she said,’ they only reduce the credibility of her testimony, and her personally, to zero. A second year law student could rip her to shreds :”Are you lying now, are were you lying in those texts?”

              This comment is redolent of “my minds made up, don’t confuse me with facts.”

              • UPDATE: I just read “Cam’s” subsequent comments in moderation, and spammed them. They attacked the messengers, insulted commenters, and were pure deny-deny-deny partisan combat.

                Cam’s comments are no longer welcome here.

                If he tries another, don’t respond. It will be spammed as soon as I see it.

  4. Thomas More famously said “ For Wales, you would sell your soul for Wales!” To Ms. Hutchinson, “ For a hug from Liz, you would sell your soul for a hug from Liz(or weekend at Pelosi’s vineyard).

  5. Trump must’ve hired all his people out of Appalachian bowling alleys. This episode says almost as much about his judgment as it does her ethics villainy.

    Just so it doesn’t have to live in infamy, Mark’s last name is Fuhrman, assuming you mean Mark Fuhrman of O.J. Simpson train-wreck fame.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.