The Secret Service this week dug in on its denial of Jan. 6 events provided by hearsay testimony to the Jan. 6 House Select Committee. Democratic apologists, however, then simply shifted the narrative, claiming that the disputed allegation is merely a “distraction” or “diversion.”
In a dramatically promoted “unscheduled” hearing by the Committee last week, Cassidy Hutchinson, former aide to then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows gave testimony on events of that day.
The leftist media trumpeted her account as clear evidence of former President Donald Trump’s “criminal” behavior.
Only, it’s not going by the media’s script.
Hutchinson informed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) hand-selected committee that the president became angry and violent on Jan. 6. Told by the Secret Service after his speech that he would not be driven to the Capitol for safety reasons, Trump became angry.
This much is agreed upon by the Secret Service and agents actually present. If she had stopped there, critics would have little to chew on. But she didn’t.
Citing hearsay accounts accepted as though they were etched on stone tablets, Hutchinson accused Trump of angrily grabbing the steering wheel of the presidential vehicle. He even, she said, violently lunged at a member of his security team.
That, the Secret Service says, never happened. Agents of the security detail are charged with protecting the office, and liking or even respecting the officeholder has zero bearing on performing their duties.
Interestingly, the agency itself was not approached by the Committee before the former aide’s testimony aired.
But, since the agency directly counters Hutchinson’s testimony under oath, now its integrity must be called into question.
The Washington Post amazingly called the apolitical detail “Trump yes-men.” The Hill reports that Catherine Ross, a law professor at George Washington University Law School, downplays the significance of the stark discrepancy.
Ross said the public must not be “distracted by the drama of stories” given — under oath — to the Committee. No, perjury pales in comparison to the designated outcome.
The former Soviet Union had a thing for broadcasting “show trials.” Explosive witnesses with no cross-examination, no meaningful defense, and a predetermined outcome. No intelligent observers were duped by those either.