B O N U S C H A P T E R
DANIEL R. STREET
© 2022 by Daniel R. Street
PRESIDENT TRUMP ATTACKED A SECRET SERVICE AGENT
AND TRIED TO GRAB THE STEERING WHEEL WHEN HE LEARNED
HE WASN’T BEING TAKEN TO THE CAPITOL PROTESTS?
Additional Background: This Chapter deals with what is commonly referred to as “The January 6 Committee” or “J6 Committee.” These monikers are short for the “Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol” established by the Democrat majority in the United States House of Representatives. See here. The Republican Party members in the United States House are not formally participating in the J6 Committee, after the Democrat Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, refused to allow the House GOP Leader, Kevin McCarthy, to select all of the Republican representatives to serve on the panel. See here. The J6 Committee consists of all Democrats and two Never Trump Republicans (who are participating without the approval of the Republican House Leader), Liz Cheney from Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger from Illinois. The willingness of Reps. Cheney and Kinzinger to serve on the J6 Committee, and their willingness to support what many observers view as an illegitimate committee, running roughshod over the rights of Americans, and their willingness to attack fellow Republicans, earned them a rare censure resolution from the Republican National Committee. See here.
The J6 Committee is supposed to be conducting an investigation into the January 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riot. The J6 Committee came about after the effort to establish a formal commission was blocked in the United States Senate by Republicans. See here.
The J6 Committee and its members engaged in some questionable conduct in their effort to build a narrative against President Trump surrounding the events of January 6, 2021. (The story covered in this Free Chapter is an example, while some other equally dubious J6 Committee activities are covered in the Fake News Exposed about Trump series.) The misconduct and abuse of power by the J6 Committee are bad enough, but the hiring of a TV Executive to produce the hearings lead many to conclude the entire production is propaganda.
Further exposing the J6 Committee as a pure propaganda ploy is the person the Democrats selected to chair it, namely, Mississippi Democrat Congressman Bennie Thompson. Congressman Thompson is a long-time sympathizer of the Republic of New Afrika and some of its membership. For the uninitiated, the Republic of New Afrika (RNA) is a revolutionary, militant black organization formed in 1968. One of the goals of this revolutionary organization is the establishment of an independent “New Afrika” nation consisting of the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina. Various leaders and members of the organization were involved in shootouts with police and the FBI over the years. Some of these episodes are outlined in the article by John Solomon cited above.
Rep. Thompson’s affiliations with RNA began when he was an Alderman in Bolton, Mississippi back in 1971 when he publicly attacked police after some RNA members were arrested. As recently as 2013, when the former Vice President of the Republic of New Afrika, Chokwe Lumumba, ran for Mayor of the City of Jackson, Mississippi, Congressman Thompson supported him. In fact, Rep. Thompson participated in campaign ads for Lumumba. When the revolutionary black militant won the Jackson Mayor’s race, Rep. Thompson officiated at his induction ceremony. See Just the News.
This is the guy the Democrats put in charge of investigating an alleged “insurrection?” A man linked to a radical, revolutionary, black militant group which aims to declare a new homeland in five U.S. states? A group with a history of violent shootouts with law enforcement? A group, three members of which, shot and killed a police officer in New Mexico in 1971 (while in route from California to the South in a vehicle loaded with guns, ammunition and bomb making materials according to police), then carjacked a wrecker truck, followed by hijacking a plane and escaped to communist Cuba where they were granted asylum by Cuba’s communist dictator Fidel Castro. See Albuquerque Journal and CNN. Those three violent revolutionaries were never brought to justice. The fact the Democrats put this guy in charge of the J6 Committee tells the world just how serious the Democrats are about the so-called “insurrection” on January 6, 2021.
THE FAKE NEWS
During testimony before the J6 Committee on June 28, 2022, former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson made several claims about President Trump’s conduct on January 6, 2021, including claiming President Trump attacked the driver of his limousine (the limo is known as “the beast”) and lunged at the wheel when he learned his Secret Service detail was not taking him to the U.S. Capitol after his speech.
Who Pushed the Fake News?
Virtually every Fake News Media outlet in existence pushed this particular story. I will highlight a few illustrative Fake News takes on this story.
Time Magazine, in article published the same day Hutchison testified, proclaimed:
CNBC published its own version of the story on June, 28, 2022, with this headline:
The Los Angeles Times ran its version on the same day as well:
As happened repeatedly in the Fake News Media attacks on President Trump throughout the “Russia Collusion” hoax, media comparisons of Hutchinson to the Watergate scandal, claims Hutchinson’s testimony is a “game-changer” and how the “walls are closing in” on President Trump followed in short order.
The New York Times published an op-ed on June 29, 2022, claiming:
The Washington Post, in an article published on June 28, 2022, claimed:
The Boston Globe published an opinion piece on July 5, 2022, calling Hutchinson the “new John Dean” (referring to the White House counsel who testified during the Watergate hearings) and labeled her testimony “courageous” and “more impressive” than Dean’s testimony who saw “truth-telling as her duty.”
National Public Radio characterized Hutchinson’s testimony as “explosive” and a “bombshell:”
Hutchinson made other claims, including a claim that President Trump supposedly threw his lunch against the wall purportedly after hearing former Attorney General William Barr disclaim any knowledge of widespread voting fraud in the 2020 election (though she did not witness this herself). See ABC News.
She claimed her boss, White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, and President Trump’s attorney, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, sought presidential pardons. See CBS News.
She claimed President Trump was told there may be people at the Capitol with weapons and he supposedly said he “didn’t care” because the people would not be there to “hurt” him. See CBS News. (If you read Volume One of this book series, you already know this claim is untrue.)
She claimed she was “disgusted” by President Trump’s “un-American” conduct on January 6, claiming the entire affair happened “over a lie” (referring to the claims of a stolen election). See CNN.
She made some additional claims, some of which will be covered in the next section, but this sums up her testimony.
For those with some real time to kill, here is a transcript of the entire hearing proceedings on June 28, 2022, published by National Public Radio.
THE TRUTH
The nonsense spewed by Cassidy Hutchinson is either completely wrong, disputed by other evidence or so utterly lacking credibility and competence that her “testimony” is worthless. Her testimony is meaningless, other than to demonstrate the J6 Committee is a Soviet-style propaganda campaign. More importantly, if these “hearings” (which are actually one sided, dramatic productions rather than hearings) were legitimate, she would not have appeared at all. Let’s look at what happened.
Hutchinson’s fourth interview
First, the televised production on June 28, 2022, in which Cassidy Hutchinson “testified” (this was not real testimony, but an odd cumulation of stream-of-consciousness rambling, inartful statements posing as questions, interspersed with recorded video of Hutchinson’s previous interviews by the Committee) was not her first time to speak to the committee. This was her fifth appearance. See The New York Times and The Washington Examiner:
(Readers will note, The New York Times, in the article linked above, calls Hutchinson’s appearances before the Committee or its lawyer’s “depositions.” That is not correct. These were sworn statements. The reason is the only individuals asking the questions were the J6 Committee lawyers. No lawyers for any opposing interests – such as Republican House members, their attorneys or attorneys for any of the individuals implicated by her claims – were able to participate.)
Cassidy Hutchinson only offered her story about President Trump supposedly attacking the Secret Service in the limo and trying to grab the wheel in her fourth interview. This is covered extensively in The Washington Examiner article. If she really heard this conversation, why didn’t she mention it before? These most “explosive” and “bombshell” claims were not made the first three times she was interviewed by the Committee. These facts are devastating to her credibility. For obvious reasons, the American people were not made aware of these facts. If the J6 Committee members had any credibility or integrity, they would not have presented this balderdash.
Hutchinson’s claims are virtually all hearsay
Cassidy Hutchinson did not see or hear any events even remotely relating to President Trump’s ride back from giving his speech on January 6, 2021 (this is when President Trump supposedly “attacked” the Secret Service agent driving the vehicle and then allegedly “lunged” at the steering wheel). She was supposedly told about it by someone else who did not see it happen either. Most of her “testimony” consisted of similar “he-said, she-said” type nonsense.
Rule 801 of The Federal Rules of Evidence defines “hearsay.” For simplicity’s sake, I will put the various provisions together to make the definition easier to read and understand:
A “statement” (which may be oral, verbal or nonverbal) made by a “declarant” (this is the person who made the statement) that is not made by the “declarant” while testifying at a trial or hearing and which is offered to “prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.”
Basically, hearsay is a statement offered about what someone else supposedly said provided that statement is offered to prove the matter asserted in the statement is true. Hearsay is generally not admissible in court. Bear with me a moment while I explain why. These concepts are important in developing an understanding of why Hutchinson’s statements are meaningless and why the J6 Committee and media beclown themselves by promoting it. An explanation of hearsay and its implications in Louisiana Civil Law Treatise, Evidence and Proof by Prof. Frank L. Maraist (1999) states the issue clearly:
Evidence is relevant if it moves the trier-of-fact’s mind off “dead center” on the existence or non-existence of a fact in issue. A witness is not competent to testify about a fact unless he had the opportunity to observe the fact. When a competent witness testifies about a relevant fact, the witness’ credibility is determined by the trier-of-fact, primarily by observing the witness’ demeanor under oath and subject to cross examination. Thus, when a witness testifies about something he saw, his competency can be established and his credibility can be determined from his testimony.
When the witness testifies about something he heard, the relevancy-competency-credibility requirements may present problems…
…if the witness does not have first hand knowledge of the truth of the words spoken . . . he is not competent to testify as to those facts, and his testimony is, at best, inadequate opinion.
Maraist, §10.1, pg. 156.
In summary, the rules of evidence are designed to ensure that witnesses who testify are (1) competent to testify to the matters they address (meaning, they actually have knowledge of the matters by observation, experience, senses, etc…), (2) the evidence is “relevant” meaning it tends to establish some issue to be decided and (3) the evidence is credible (believable, reliable). Cassidy Hutchinson’s statements to the J6 Committee utterly fail to satisfy competency, relevancy or credibility requirements.
Some will observe the J6 Committee hearings are not “court,” so the rules of evidence do not apply. That is true. The J6 Committee hearings are political propaganda or political theater (at best). But, watch and listen to the sanctimonious committee members and you will see they pretend the witness statements they present are profoundly credible. See NBC News for a good illustration. Yet, they do this knowing Hutchinson’s statements are utterly incompetent as evidence and would not see the light of day in court.
Hearsay within hearsay within hearsay
To make matters worse, with regard to the limousine-Trump-supposedly-attacked-the-driver nonsense Hutchinson does not present hearsay testimony, it is actually “hearsay, within hearsay, within hearsay.” Let me explain.
Hutchinson claims when she returned the White House after President Trump’s speech the story about what happened “in the beast” (the Presidential limousine) was related to her by Tony Ornato, who was at the time President Trump’s deputy chief of staff for operations. The problem is Tony Ornato was not in the vehicle either, he was in his office at the time. See Hot Air and The Hill. The three people in the vehicle were President Trump, Secret Service Agent Bobby Engel and the Secret Service agent who drove the vehicle.
So, this “bombshell” statement is what someone, supposedly one of the people in the vehicle, President Trump or one of the two Secret Service agents, told Tony Ornato (hearsay) that Tony Ornato then tells Cassidy Hutchinson (making it hearsay within hearsay) which Cassidy Hutchinson then tells the J6 Committee (constituting hearsay within hearsay within hearsay).
Furthermore, we now know both Tony Ornato (who supposedly told the story to Hutchinson) and Bobby Engel (one of the Secret Service agents who was in the vehicle) were both interviewed by the J6 Committee. See The Washington Examiner. Neither of them were called to testify at the hearing and none of their videotaped interviews were played.
Secret Service disputes Hutchinson’s Account
Shortly after Cassidy Hutchinson’s appearance on the prime time TV soap opera masquerading as Congressional business (the J6 Committee) the United States Secret Service informed various different media outlets, through back channels, that Tony Ornato, Bobby Engel and the unnamed vehicle driver are ready and willing to testify under oath and flatly deny Hutchinson’s nonsense about President Trump attacking the driver and lunging for the wheel. See The Hill, Hot Air and The Daily Mail. (I don’t usually rely on anonymous reports such as these, but we have no choice since the J6 Committee refuses to produce the tapes or transcripts of the interviews with Tony Ornato or Bobby Engel.) Nevertheless, these anonymously sourced denials are every bit as credible as Hutchinson’s hearsay/hearsay/hearsay garbage statement. Based on these reports, and on the fact these witnesses were interviewed by the J6 Committee, the people who actually were able to hear and see what did or did not happen in the presidential vehicle, as well as the person who supposedly told Hutchinson about it, all dispute her story.
Bigger Problems with Hutchinson’s credibility
I noted above how Fake News outlets tried to desperately bolster Cassidy Hutchinson’s credibility by claiming she was “courageous” and following through on a duty to “tell the truth,” with nothing to gain. See The Boston Globe for a good illustration.
Remember also, how Hutchinson claimed she was “disgusted” by President Trump’s “un-American conduct” all stemming from his “lies” about the stolen election? See transcript.
Well, the truth is a little different.
In a real bombshell, The Federalist obtained access to text messages various different conservative activists exchanged with Cassidy Hutchinson over after January 6, 2021, and before her televised appearance before the J6 Committee on June 28, 2022. The article, published on July 26, 2022 bears this caption:
In one text sent three months after January 6, 2021, Hutchinson wrote, “I would rather shoot myself dead into the Potomac than see marine one flying around without 45 again.” See The Federalist.
After being subpoenaed to appear before the J6 Committee in November 2021, she referred to the committee as a “phony committee” in a text. See The Federalist.
In private communications after the election, Hutchinson used the phrase “STOP THE STEAL.” She even went so far as to claim she called herself “an insurrectionist” when someone asked her about her 45 t-shirt. See The Federalist and Townhall (President Trump is the 45th President of the United States.):
Hutchinson also referred to Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger (the Republican House members who agreed to serve on the J6 Committee without the consent of House Republican Leadership) as a “crop of losers.” See The Federalist.
Along these same lines, Daily Caller published additional text messages between Cassidy Hutchinson and conservative activist at the American Conservative Union she referred to the committee’s subpoena on her and the process generally as “bs:”
Making matters worse, the J6 Committee undoubtedly had Cassidy Hutchinson’s text messages. Return to the transcript of her scripted, TV appearance before the J6 Committee on June 28, 2022 and you will note repeated references by Rep. Liz Cheney to different text messages to and from Hutchinson. Furthermore, the J6 Committee has consistently run rough shod over the rights of literally dozens and dozens of people by compelling the production of phone records. See CNN. This Soviet style political abuse led to numerous lawsuits by various people trying to protect their privacy. See AZMirror (AZ GOP chair sues to block J6 phone records subpoena), KESQ News (Professor John Eastmans sues to block J6 phone records subpoena), NBC News (Sebastian Gorka sues to block J6 phone records subpoena) and The Hill (Stephen Miller sues to block J6 phone records subpoena), to name a few. You can bet your bile duct they had Hutchinson’s text messages.
Furthermore, the J6 Committee did not even reach out the Secret Service for corroboration or comment on Hutchinson’s claims before presenting her at the June 28, 2022 committee hearing. See Politico:
Another problem – President Trump did not leave in the limo (“the beast”)
Additionally, readers will recall Hutchinson’s statement has the supposed “altercation” between President Trump and his Secret Service detail occurring in the presidential limousine known as “the beast.” She specifically referenced “the beast” in her statement. See transcript.
The problem is President Trump did not leave the speech on January 6, 2021, in the presidential limousine, he was in an SUV. See Politifact (though this Politifact fact-check was aimed at refuting claims President Trump was in the back seat of the limo as he left on Jan. 6, which were based on photos posted on Facebook). Don’t you find it interesting how the J6 Committee just glosses right over that without so much as a reference to it?
More problem with Hutchinson: the note, Giuliani and WH Counsel
During her prime-time TV performance, Cassidy Hutchinson claimed she wrote a note which was displayed by Republican turncoat Liz Cheney. Hutchinson claimed the note was written down by her at the request of White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows as he dictated it to her. The problem is former Trump White House attorney Eric Herschmann already stated to the J6 Committee that he wrote the note. See ABC News. The ABC News article quotes a spokesperson for the J6 Committee who acknowledged the two witnesses have “different recollections” about who wrote the note. If the J6 Committee had any credibility at all, this issue would have been addressed by the witness during her appearance on its TV program or not presented at all.
Additionally, Hutchinson claimed in her TV presentation that former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani strategized with Trump Justice Department official Jeff Clark, but that is disputed as well. See American Greatness.
Hutchinson also claimed she was told by WH Counsel Pat Cippollone on the morning of January 6, 2021 and he told her to tell her boss, Mark Meadows to tell President Trump not to go the Capitol after his speech. (I am a lawyer and I find it unfathomable I had to type that last sentence. What a disgraceful bunch of garbage to be paraded before the Country as though it were credible evidence.) That claim is disputed as well, as some WH staffers state Pat Cippollone was not at the White House that morning. See Breitbart.
Plus, if President Trump was so bad, why did Cassidy Hutchinson continue to work for him for nine weeks after he left the White House? See Business Insider.
There are more disputes and discrepancies, but the point is made. This person’s non-testimony, “testimony” was no bombshell. It is bunk and hogwash and should never have seen the light of day.
Commentary: Cassidy Hutchinson probably would not get to take the stand in Court. If she did, she surely would not be permitted to bloviate about all of the nonsense she did on TV for the J6 propaganda campaign. The fact this person was allowed to appear in a nationally televised, makeshift Congressional “hearing” (which was really more of a TV drama, without any actual drama) to blather for two hours primarily about things she heard people say, or that she heard people say that other people said, is unbelievable. In a real courtroom, had Cassidy Hutchinson taken the stand, her credibility would have literally been torn to shreds. Her texts and tweets are a treasure trove of impeachment material. She would have been beat over the head with her own words, and the actual facts, and would have limped away without any credibility.
The Fake News Media enables these idiotic efforts. In fact, after the Republicans take over and investigate the January 6 Committee, we will probably learn the Democrats and media connived and plotted over the J6 Committee and its “evidence.” The fact the Fake News Media touted this inane interview as “bombshell” and “damning” instead of exercising even a modest amount of skepticism tells the tale. The Fake News Media eats it up and shouts it from the rooftops. The truth of it, or lack thereof, is of no moment. If the media did its job and approached this nonsense with even a dose of critical thought, the Democrat charade that is the J6 Committee would crumble. In fact, if America had a decent, half way even-handed legacy media, propaganda campaigns like the January 6 Committee would not be undertaken at all. Instead, the Democrat Party knows the Fake News Media will carry the water for them.
The January 6 Committee is a farce. It is a Soviet-style persecution of political opponents. The Committee is using and abusing the subpoena power of Congress to harass, persecute and try to embarrass President Trump, members of his Administration, political opponents and some in the general public as well. It will not end until the Democrats are no longer in power. Once that happens, the Republicans better turn the tables on the J6 Committee participants and leave no stone unturned uncovering their every dirty trick and those who assisted them. Then, each and every person involved in perpetrating this despicable, colossal abuse of process needs to be brought to justice. Finally, Congress had best put in place rigorous processes to ensure no political party in America can abuse the power of Congress in any such fashion in the future.
Daniel R. Street Monroe, Louisiana
