Patterico's Pontifications

7/6/2022

Rep. Cheney: Women Who Have Testified Knew That What Happened on Jan.6 Must Never Happen Again (Update Added)

Filed under: General — Dana @ 8:20 am



[guest post by Dana]

As Patterico posted last week, the day after Cassidy Hutchinson testified before the Jan. 6 Committee last week, we went to see Rep. Liz Cheney speak at the Reagan Library. Toward the end of her talk, Cheney made the following observations:

I will tell you, it is especially the young women, young women who seem instinctively to understand the peril of this moment for our democracy, and young women who know that it will be up to them to save it. And I have been incredibly moved by the young women that I have met and that have come forward to testify in the January 6th Committee. Some of these are young women who worked on the Trump campaign, some worked in the Trump White House, some who worked in offices on Capitol Hill, all who knew immediately that what happened that day must never happen again.

America had the chance to meet one of these young women yesterday, Miss Cassidy Hutchinson. Her superiors, men many years older, a number of them are hiding behind executive privilege, anonymity, and intimidation, but her bravery and her patriotism yesterday were awesome to behold. Little girls all across this great nation are seeing what it really means to love this country and what it really means to be a patriot. And I want to speak to every young girl watching tonight. The power is yours and so is the responsibility. In our great nation, one individual can make all the difference and each individual must try. There are no bystanders in a constitutional republic. And let me also say this to the little girls and to the young women who are watching tonight, these days for the most part, men are running the world and it is really not going that well.

Boy, ain’t that the truth!

With that, it was announced yesterday that yet another young woman and former Trump staffer has agreed to testify before the Jan. 6 Committee:

Sarah Matthews, who served as deputy press secretary in the Trump White House until resigning shortly after the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol, has been subpoenaed by the House select committee investigating the insurrection and has agreed to testify at an upcoming hearing, according to two sources with knowledge of the investigation.

Matthews has been subpoenaed to testify at a public hearing as early as next week, sources tell CNN.
Matthews resigned the night of January 6, 2021, saying in a statement that she was honored to serve in then-President Donald Trump’s administration but “was deeply disturbed by what I saw.” She added: “Our nation needs a peaceful transfer of power.”

Matthews took to Twitter after Hutchinson’s testimony, and pointed out the obvious to critics:

Anyway, while there are any number of former Trump staffers whose testimony would be welcomed by the Committee, self-preservation compels them to do otherwise:

Most of those who might conceivably offer such testimony – everyone from Republican congressmen to former generals to Trump’s White House counsel to the spouse of a Supreme Court justice — are fighting subpoenas, taking the Fifth or simply refusing to testify. And if they don’t want to tell their story to the committee, under oath, every reporter and TV outlet in the world would love to give them an opportunity to do so without such an oath. Apparently, they’re afraid that revealing what they did, what they witnessed and what they heard wouldn’t be all that helpful to Trump or to their own situation.

I think they’re probably right.

In fact, the same instincts of self-preservation that drove these people to stay silent or play along while Trump tried to end American democracy are still telling them, even after all this, that cowardice remains the best course. They are victims of their character.

UPDATE: An announcement has just been made that Trump’s White House counsel Pat Cipollone will testify in a closed-door, videotaped interview with the Jan. 6 committee. Why his testimony is so important:

[Cassidy] Hutchinson revealed during the committee’s last hearing that Cipollone repeatedly tried to prevent Trump from encouraging his supporters to march to the Capitol on Jan. 6.

She testified that Cipollone had warned in the days leading up to the attack that the former president and his aides could be charged with “every crime imaginable” if Trump joined protesters at the Capitol.

While the attack was happening, Hutchinson testified that Cipollone demanded to see the president while rioters were chanting for former Vice President Mike Pence to be hanged, but then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows told him Trump “doesn’t want to do anything” and “thinks Mike deserves it.”

–Dana

34 Responses to “Rep. Cheney: Women Who Have Testified Knew That What Happened on Jan.6 Must Never Happen Again (Update Added)”

  1. Hello.

    Mark Meadows seems to be hiding these days. I don’t see any recent reports on him, or comments by him about, well, anything. I did see that he retweeted three Independence Day tweets on the 4th, but before that he no tweets since June 10.

    Dana (1225fc)

  2. Pat Cipollone has agreed to a transcribed interview with the Committee.

    Mr. Cipollone will sit for a videotaped, transcribed interview, according to a person familiar with the discussions. He is not expected to testify publicly.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  3. More:

    …….In April, Mr. Cipollone and (Patrick F. Philbin, deputy White House Counsel) both appeared for informal interviews with the panel on a limited set of topics, according to an agreement reached by their representatives and representatives for Mr. Trump.

    The agreement, according to an email reviewed by The New York Times, allowed discussions of a meeting with Jeffrey Clark, a Justice Department official who tried to help Mr. Trump cling to power; Mr. Trump’s interactions with John Eastman, the conservative lawyer who drafted a legal strategy for overturning the election; any interactions with members of Congress; and Mr. Cipollone’s recollections of the events of Jan. 6.

    The agreement said that the two men could not discuss conversations they or others had with Mr. Trump, other than one discussion in the Oval Office with Mr. Clark in a pivotal meeting on Jan. 3, 2021.

    However, both were permitted to discuss the timeline of where they were, with whom they met and conversations they had on Jan. 6. Assuming those conditions hold for Mr. Cipollone’s forthcoming testimony, they would presumably cover conversations such as ones he may have had with Ms. Hutchinson or other officials that day.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  4. these days for the most part, men are running the world and it is really not going that well.

    whether it’s liz or hillary or chelsea, it’s always the women who got where they are cuz of a man who think this is some kind of deep thought

    she’s been hanging around democrats too long

    JF (1d5586)

  5. The agreement said that the two men could not discuss conversations they or others had with Mr. Trump, other than one discussion in the Oval Office with Mr. Clark in a pivotal meeting on Jan. 3, 2021.

    Because it might be considered not confidential.

    I think that in the final analysis the law is like this: Executive privilege belongs to the president (there’s a question which president) but is for the protection of the other person(s) involved and they are not bound by it. It is also something with no solid grounding in or basis in law — but then neither are Congressional subpoenas!

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  6. “We’re going to get charged with every crime imaginable,”

    – Pat Cipollone

    I’ve been wondering on what legal theory he was basing that on. And how Trump going to the Capitol would trigger that.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  7. I think most of Cassidy Hutchison’s testimony was true, but it was used to argue for thins that were not.

    What’s notable about it was overlooked:

    For instance:

    1) Meadows was deeply worried.

    2) Meadows lied to Trump about him going to the Capitol

    3) Trump wanting to go the Capitol means he did not anticipate a disturbance.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  8. rump wanting to go the Capitol means he did not anticipate a disturbance.

    1) Meadows was deeply worried about himself and whether or not he would/could be implicated in any way for what was happening that day. And he didn’t have the fortitude to confront Trump and make a Big Scene in order to get him to stop the mob. He was weighing out his own political future rather than America’s.

    3) Given what we know about the kind of man Trump is, it most likely meant that while he did anticipate a disturbance, he knew that he would be free and clear from any violence or attacks. These were his people there on his behalf. He would not be the target, and he was okay with that because he wanted his people to go after the Democrats…or his vice-president, as it turned out.

    Dana (1225fc)

  9. whether it’s liz or hillary or chelsea, it’s always the women who got where they are cuz of a man who think this is some kind of deep thought

    First, I’m not even sure where Chelsea is

    Secondly, like her or not, Hillary Clinton is an intelligent woman. Cheney too. A man didn’t get them to where they are. While Hillary got into the WH because of Bill, after his scandal with the intern, he became a liability to her political future. Cheney had the name brand, but honestly, post-Iraq, what was it worth? The woman is intelligent and shrewd in her own right, and vastly far less corrupt than Hillary.

    Dana (1225fc)

  10. pantsuited pantload
    Felonia von Pantsuit
    a pretty low bar

    Colonel Haiku (1b1b7a)

  11. One of the many things I admire about Liz Cheney is her personal life:

    Cheney is a United Methodist.[166] She is married to Philip Perry, a partner at Latham & Watkins. They were married in Wyoming in 1993. They have five children.

    And the way she has protected her family even while she is under brutal attacks from the left, and from Trumpistas.

    Jim Miller (406a93)

  12. Why January 6 doesn’t matter now:

    Joe Biden reportedly exports 5 million oil barrels despite US gas prices

    The Biden administration exported more than 5 million barrels of oil from its emergency reserves that were released in order to combat sky-high gas prices here at home, according to a report.

    The US sent the oil, which was taken from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) that the Biden administration tapped into in hopes of getting mounting energy prices under control, to Asia and Europe, Reuters is reporting. – https://nypost.com/2022/07/06/joe-biden-exports-oil-barrels-despite-us-gas-prices-report/

    Oil from U.S. reserves sent overseas as gasoline prices stay high

    HOUSTON, July 5 (Reuters) – More than 5 million barrels of oil that were part of a historic U.S. emergency reserves release to lower domestic fuel prices were exported to Europe and Asia last month, according to data and sources, even as U.S. gasoline and diesel prices hit record highs.

    The export of crude and fuel is blunting the impact of the moves by U.S. President Joe Biden to lower record pump prices. Biden on Saturday renewed a call for gasoline suppliers to cut their prices, drawing criticism from Amazon founder Jeff Bezos.

    https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/oil-us-reserves-head-overseas-gasoline-prices-stay-high-2022-07-05/

    DCSCA (6862ec)

  13. Sure hope this story about Biden providing our Strategic Reserves oil to our enemy China isn’t true.

    In the middle of a fuel crisis, in the middle of a war.

    Colonel Haiku (1b1b7a)

  14. A very bad man with extremely poor judgement.

    DCSCA (6862ec)

  15. @13. To plagiarize a phrase easily barked 20 times in Cleveland today from a world renown plagiarist:

    “No joke!”

    DCSCA (6862ec)

  16. “A very bad man with extremely poor judgement.”

    Don’t sign your posts.

    Davethulhu (0b1e86)

  17. It’ll be interesting to see what comes out of the testimony.

    Nic (896fdf)

  18. @9 Cheney had the name brand, but honestly, post-Iraq, what was it worth?

    nothing

    the people who pulled her chestnuts out of the fire were wyoming voters, the same ones who are being trashed today

    JF (b3c3ab)

  19. @16. Projecting again? “No joke!” 😉

    DCSCA (d9a335)

  20. And let me also say this to the little girls and to the young women who are watching tonight, these days for the most part, men are running the world and it is really not going that well.

    Speaking as a father of three daughters, this is a hilariously vacuous comment that’s usually spouted by gender studies majors who think they’re being clever, not supposedly serious politicians.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  21. @20 some sexism, and sexists, are more equal than others. It’s like racism that way. There’s a good kind and a bad kind and we all know which is which.

    frosty (6844fa)

  22. “men are running the world and it is really not going that well”

    It’s meant as humor…and encouragement to girls and young women to not be afraid to jump into the fray and make a difference. Certainly nothing to get insecure about….

    AJ_Liberty (c82e21)

  23. @22 You mad bro? Did you get a little triggered? Don’t worry, no one’s going to tell Liz to stop playing the woman card. No one seems to be able to say what a woman is though so maybe everyone gets to play it if they want to.

    frosty (feb24c)

  24. “I imagine the Jan. 6 committee would welcome any of those involved to deny these allegations under oath.”………….not believable while the committee continue to selectively edit quotes and video.

    Richard Wetmore (995a5b)

  25. It’s meant as humor…

    If you’re explaining, you’re losing.

    DCSCA (d9a335)

  26. She’s following the path of her mentor, Nanzi Pelosi, well. Divide people based on their sex. Good job. Reminds me of how Emperor Palpatine turned Anakin.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  27. “I imagine the Jan. 6 committee would welcome any of those involved to deny these allegations under oath.”………….not believable while the committee continue to selectively edit quotes and video.

    Richard Wetmore (995a5b) — 7/6/2022 @ 9:59 pm

    Then the principals should deny the allegations on live TV.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  28. Cipollone’s closed door videotaped testimony will take place tomorrow, Friday.

    There will be another hearing on Tuesday, July 12 at 10 a.m. Eastern Time.

    This will involve the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys and others who plotted the assault on Congress, maybe including some person or persons who pleaded guilty.

    It will include financing and who assembled them hey weren;’t firstgathered at the Ellipse and then sent to the Capitol

    You can see some of it here:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20210106005050/https://wildprotest.com

    Three linked rallies.

    The Ellipse was a later edition.

    As late as 2:15 pm on Monday, Janaury 4, it was not on the menu.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20210104141515/https://wildprotest.com

    The rally at the Ellipse was possibly scheduled in an attempt to dissuade Donald Trump from going to the Capitol – or perhaps to overcome objections.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  29. Mike Pence wasn’t at all mentioned at first. Instead, the web site said the purpose was to let “Members of Congress” know that they stand with Representative Mo Brooks and his brave colleagues in the House of Representatives who will “bravely” object to the certification of the Electoral College and they need at least one Senator. (the text was not changed since at least December 23)

    Mike Pence did not give Donald Trump his final decision until I think the morning of January 6. Need to check that

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  30. Cassie Hutchison indicated that she herd from Giuliani on the evening of Saturday, January 2, 2021 that Donald Trump was going to be at the Capitol January 6 (Not necessarily to address the crowd)

    https://www.npr.org/2022/06/28/1108396692/jan-6-committee-hearing-transcript

    CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: As Mr. Giuliani and I were walking to his vehicles that evening, he looked at me and said something to the effect of, Cass, are you excited for the 6th? It’s going to be a great day. I remember looking at him saying, Rudy, could you explain what’s happening on the 6th? He had responded something to the effect of, we’re going to the Capitol.

    It’s going to be great. The President’s going to be there. He’s going to look powerful. He’s — he’s going to be with the members. He’s going to be with the Senators. Talk to the chief about it, talk to the chief about it. He knows about it.

    Here’s where we see Mark Meadows didn’t think that would have a good outcome:

    LIZ CHENEY: And did you go back then up to the West Wing and tell Mr. Meadows about your conversation with Mr. Giuliani?

    CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I did. After Mr. Giuliani had left the campus that evening, I went back up to our office and I found Mr. Meadows in his office on the couch. He was scrolling through his phone. I remember leaning against the doorway and saying, I just had an interesting conversation with Rudy, Mark. It sounds like we’re going to go to the Capitol.

    He didn’t look up from his phone and said something to the effect of, there’s a lot going on, Cass, but I don’t know. Things might get real, real bad on January 6th.

    At some point he let Kevin McCarthy know that Trump was NOT going to the Capitol (but he didn’t tell Trump)

    ….When Republican leader Kevin McCarthy heard the president say he was going to the Capitol, he called you, Ms. Hutchinson, isn’t that right?

    CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: That’s correct.

    LIZ CHENEY: And in this text message, you told Tony Ornato, “McCarthy just called me too. And do you guys think you’re coming to my office?” Tell us about the call that day with Leader McCarthy during the president’s speech on the Ellipse.

    CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I was still in the tent behind the stage. And when you’re behind the stage, you can’t really hear what’s going on in front of you. So, when Mr. McCarthy called me with this information, I answered the call. And he sounded rushed, but also frustrated and angry at me. I — I was confused because I — I didn’t know what the president had just said.

    He then explained the president just said he’s marching to the Capitol. You told me this whole week you aren’t coming up here. Why would you lie to me? I said I’m — I’m not lying. I wasn’t lying to you, sir. I — we’re not going to the Capitol. And he said, well, he just said it on stage, Cassidy. Figure it out.

    Don’t come up here. I said I’ll — I’ll — I’ll run the traps on this and I’ll shoot you a text. I can assure you we’re not coming up to the Capitol. We’ve already made that decision. He pressed a little bit more, believing me but I think frustrated that the president had said that. And we ended the phone conversation after that.

    I called Mr. Ornato to reconfirm that we weren’t going to the Capitol, and which was also in our text messages. I sent Mr. McCarthy another text telling him the affirmative, that we were not going up to the Capitol, and he didn’t respond after that.

    LIZ CHENEY: And we understand, Ms. Hutchinson, that the plans for the president to come up to the Capitol had included discussions at some point about what the president would do when he came up to the Capitol on January 6th. Let’s look at a clip of one of your interviews discussing that issue with the committee. [Begin videotape]

    UNKNOWN: When you were talking about a scheduled movement, did anyone say what the president wanted to do when he got here?

    CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: No, not that I can specifically remember. I remember — I remember hearing a few different ideas discussed with — between Mark and Scott Perry, Mark and Rudy Giuliani. I don’t know which conversations were elevated to the president. I don’t know what he personally wanted to do when he went up to the Capitol that day.

    You know, I — I know that there were discussions about him having another speech outside of the Capitol before going in. I know that there was a conversation about him going into the House chamber at one point. [End videotape]

    LIZ CHENEY: As we’ve all just heard, in the days leading up to January 6th, on the day of the speech, both before and during and after the rally speech, President Trump was pushing his staff to arrange for him to come up here to the Capitol during the electoral vote count. Let’s turn now to what happened in the president’s vehicle when the Secret Service told him he would not be going to the Capitol after his speech. First, here is the president’s motorcade leaving the Ellipse after his speech on January 6th….

    As I said it didn’t happen in the vehicle. We can tell from Trumps denial that he got out of the vehicle.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  31. Tony proceeded to tell me that when the president got in the beast, he was under the impression from Mr. Meadows that the off the record movement to the Capitol was still possible and likely to happen, but that Bobby had more information.

    So, once the president had gotten into the vehicle with Bobby, he thought that they were going up to the Capitol.

    Meadows conveyed one thing to Kevin McCarthy and another thing to Trump.

    In fact, Meadows was saying a lot of different things to different people.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  32. There will be another hearing on Tuesday, July 12 at 10 a.m. Eastern Time.

    This will involve the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys and others who plotted the assault on Congress, maybe including some person or persons who pleaded guilty.

    It will include financing and who assembled them hey weren;’t firstgathered at the Ellipse and then sent to the Capitol

    There will also be a prime time hearing on July 14th.

    No doubt in honor of DCSCA’s favorite holiday.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  33. the agreeent, according to an email reviewed by The New York Times, allowed discussions of a meeting with Jeffrey Clark,

    I think maybe Cippilone was not citing executive privilege, but attorney client privilege. The meeting that included Clark would not be covered by that.

    I think Cippilone was mot worried so muuch about Trump going to the Capitol but at him appearing to endorse the rally.

    Sammy Finkelman (b434ee)

  34. “We’re going to get charged with every crime imaginable,”

    – Pat Cipollone

    I’ve been wondering on what legal theory he was basing that on. And how Trump going to the Capitol would trigger that.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a) — 7/6/2022 @ 1:49 pm

    Tha didn’t make sense, (just like Trump lunging for the steering wheel of the car he was in didn’t make sense) and it’s now practically been confirmed that Pat Cipolone didn’t say that.

    The New York Times reported, relying on (probably honest) leaks, that before he testified on Friday, Cipolone told them he didn’t remember making any such comment, and the committee deliberately did not ask him to confirm or deny it!

    in fact they apparently didnt ask him about any of the things he was quoted as saying. They just asked him to tell what he knew in his own words, without reference to what other people said he said.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/09/us/politics/pat-cipollone-jan-6-trump.html

    Mr. Cipollone’s agreement to sit for an interview before the panel had prompted speculation that his testimony could either buttress or contradict the account of Ms. Hutchinson, who attributed some of the most damning statements about Mr. Trump’s behavior to Mr. Cipollone. For instance, she testified that Mr. Cipollone told her on the morning of Jan. 6 that Mr. Trump’s plan to accompany the mob to the Capitol would cause Trump officials to be “charged with every crime imaginable.”

    Two people familiar with Mr. Cipollone’s actions that day said he did not recall making that comment to Ms. Hutchinson. Those people said the committee was made aware before the interview that Mr. Cipollone would not confirm that conversation were he to be asked. He was not asked about that specific statement on Friday, according to people familiar with the questions.

    On Met the Press, committee member Stephanie Murphy was asked aa direct question on this point by Chuck Todd and she did not answer it, saying instead that his testimony (or all the testimony, was “more or less” in linee with the same narrative.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-july-10-2022-n1296939

    CHUCK TODD:

    I’ve seen some reports – other fellow committee members said Mr. Cipollone did not contradict previous witnesses. Did he confirm testimony that Cassidy Hutchinson gave?

    REP. STEPHANIE MURPHY:

    I think there was a lot of information that fit into this bigger puzzle that we’re putting together. And we have different voices telling about the same meeting, and – and more or less telling the same narrative. Of course, you have to understand, these are all folks who have had a year plus since the events. And so everybody has a different level of memory or recall on specific details. But the overall message that we have been gathering out of all of these witnesses is that the president knew he had lost the election, or that his advisers had told him he had lost the election, and that he was casting about for ways in which he could retain power and remain the president, despite the fact that the democratic will of the American people was to have President Biden be the next elected.

    CHUCK TODD:

    Sammy Finkelnan (b7dc9b)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1356 secs.