Jack Smith Admits Star January 6 Witness Relied on Hearsay
We all knew Cassidy Hutchinson filled her 2022 testimony with hearsay as it was going on.
Former Jack Smith dropped a bomb during a deposition with Congress.
Smith admitted that January 6 star witness Cassidy Hutchinson relied on hearsay for her testimony.
From Fox News:
Asked during the deposition how he would have approached cross-examining Hutchinson, Smith said he would have moved to prohibit a portion of her testimony from being used.
“If I were a defense attorney and Ms. Hutchinson were a witness, the first thing I would do was seek to preclude some of her testimony because it was hearsay, and I don’t have the full range of her testimony in front of me right now, but I do remember that that was a decent part of it,” Smith said.
Smith was also asked about specific claims Hutchinson had made, including that Trump was aware that some of his supporters would be armed at his rally and that Trump attempted to grab the steering wheel of his driver out of anger.
Hutchinson “was a second or even thirdhand witness,” Smith said, adding that other witnesses gave “different perspectives” than her.
Did you ever play the game telephone? The original message, no matter how simple, seemed to be messed up by the time it got to the third person!
I’m not shocked Smith admitted it. I wrote in 2022 that Hutchinson’s testimony went up in flames almost as soon as she finished it.
We all knew it was hearsay. Hutchinson literally told Congress “that as then-President Donald Trump was being driven back to the White House after the Jan. 6 rally that he demanded to be taken to the Capitol and tried to grab the steering wheel from a Secret Service agent.”
Cassidy Hutchinson testifies that she was told that as then-President Donald Trump was being driven back to the White House after the Jan. 6 rally that he demanded to be taken to the Capitol and tried to grab the steering wheel from a Secret Service agent. https://t.co/JefVhEsY0b pic.twitter.com/uUyQcnSlLG
— The Associated Press (@AP) June 28, 2022
First off, it’s all hearsay: “information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.” It’s not a trial but it’s still gossip. I do not understand why anyone would allow hearsay in a formal and supposed important setting.
Especially since it can be disproved. It didn’t take long for sources to come out to dispute Hutchinson’s testimony. Video also shows Trump in an SUV not The Beast.
This is from a tweet by a protected account:
ABC’s @PierreTABC: “A source close to the Secret Service just told me to expect that the secret service will push back against any allegation of an assault against an agent or President Trump reaching for the steering wheel.”
It looks like Smith actually interviewed the Secret Service agents:
“We interviewed, I think, the people she talked to, and we also interviewed, if my recollection is correct, officers who were there, including the officer who was in the car,” Smith said. “And that officer, if my recollection is correct, and I want to make sure I’m right about this, said that President Trump was very angry and wanted to go to the Capitol, but the version of events that he explained was not the same as what Cassidy Hutchinson said she heard from somebody secondhand.”
Smith noted that “a number of the things that she gave evidence on were secondhand hearsay, were things that she had heard from other people and, as a result, that testimony may or may not be admissible, and it certainly wouldn’t be as powerful as firsthand testimony.”
Beyond embarrassing. Embarrassing.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Former Jack Smith
What did he change his name to?
Or did someone drop a word?
He added “ass” to the end of his first name.
His name is now Mud
I knew his real name wasn’t Jack Smith. Cmon, man. “Jack Smith”?
Exactly. Everyone knows it’s John Jones.
Jan 6 committee (the first one) – not even a show trial run by clowns…
It was so authentic that they had to destroy all the exculpatory evidence after the charade was over.
It’s not hearsay, it’s an outright lie. Cassidy was *coached* by Liz Cheney to change her testimony. After several days of relative bland testimony, Cassidy and Liz vanished out of sight of Cassidy’s lawyer, and when they emerged, suddenly Cassidy had “new testimony she had just recalled’ which (of course) was swatted down by the Secret Service agents who were actual eyewitnesses to the event not-happening, which did not happen hours later, but almost immediately. Afterwards, Cassidy has followed the normal route of people who abruptly turn to the Democrats’ side: Book deal, sweetheart job, and fawning press coverage. The book by itself is impressive. It is so ghostwritten it practically floats.
Here’s the Stefan Passantino interview that blows Cassidy’s story and subsequent lies apart.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xin0OC5e66A
The “tried to grab the wheel” claim was always ludicrous.
When she prefaced everything she said on the stand with “…to the effect of…” we knew she was making stuff up. I think that was the time everyone who blindly supported Lizzy Cheney finally realized what trash she was.
Cheney has to go: hunting with her dad.
You made the wrong choice
It was at least double hear say. she heard about it from someone else who also wasn’t there.
Hutchinson “was a second or even thirdhand witness,” Smith said,
so Smith lied, then. A “winess” is someone with up close and personal knowledge. Second, third hand> NOT “witness” material.
It wouldn’t even have mattered had her “testimony” been true. People attending a protest have a constitutional right to be armed. And Trump did want to join the march on the Capitol, as was his right. The Secret Service had no right to prevent him from attending it; it was their job to make sure he could do so safely, not to tell him he couldn’t go.
The big lie here was that there was something sinister about the march on the Capitol, that it was somehow an “insurrection”, that violence was planned. It was to be a peaceful protest of the exact kind that has been traditional in Washington for well over a century.
“People attending a protest have a constitutional right to be armed.”
But DC will imprison them regardless.
That it will. Which is a problem to be fixed.
Did you stir up someone who prefers DC’s gun control laws as they are, or even as they were pre-Heller? Or is it just people who will downvote you no matter the content of your comment?
I downvoted it specifically for repeating this accusation
“And Trump did want to join the march on the Capitol….”
There is no evidence that Trump wanted to join the march on the Capitol, and Smith’s refutation of Hutchinson’s testimony, who I believe was the only person to make such a claim, makes that abundantly clear.
What do you mean, no evidence? Trump himself explicitly said he would be joining the march! And people were disappointed when he didn’t. They blamed him for bailing on them. And the reason was that the Secret Service didn’t do their job and refused to take him there.
It is a New Year. And I find myself wholeheartedly agreeing with Milhouse.
Not hung over, I think I am awake.
can someone explain to me
in monosyllable words
why Mr. Smith is not awaiting
trial …
Dem. O. Crat.
He is a dem o crat.
Or, the Ruso-Irish troublemaker Demitri O’Crat.
He was politically motivated, and acted in bad faith, but what actual crime did he commit? I’m sure Trump has someone looking into what charges can be brought, but I assume if none have been then it’s because they couldn’t find any.
Aren’t lawyers supposed to perform their duties in good faith?
Nah, I guess not. So long as there’s no law against what they did, well, like Al Gore said, “There’s no controlling legal authority.”
They are and he should be disbarred but it’s not clear he violated the law. Being a sleazebag is not a crime.
suborning perjury is a crime
There’s no evidence he suborned perjury.
Yes, but failing to do so is not a crime.
True, but when they fail to act in good faith, they only add to the old joke, “It’s 99% of the lawyers who make the other 1% look bad.”
Puts me in mind o the old saw “there are no rules, and we make them”.
Since when has “no laws have been broken” stop the Democrats from going after Trump, Flynn, Stone, Granny or pops who attended Jan 6 protest and protested peacefully? 🙄
Maybe also do him for actual insurrection.
It didn’t. But that was wrong. We protested loudly. If Trump were to have Smith charged with a made-up non-crime Smith would be morally estopped from complaining, but it would still be wrong. It would be karma, but it wouldn’t be justice.
Actually, it would be justice. Just not the lawful kind.
because he wasn’t legally
appointed to the office, he had no legal standing to do the things he
did..
isn’t that against the law?
That he wasn’t legally appointed is nothing but Seth Tillman’s theory. Until he came up with it no one else had ever thought of it. And generally whenever he comes up with a theory almost everyone dismisses it and thinks it’s ridiculous until suddenly he turns out to be right.
It may be that, eventually, this theory too will be upheld, but so far it hasn’t been. One district court judge has endorsed it, and one supreme court justice has said nice things about it, but that’s all. Even if it’s eventually upheld, it was not the established law at the time, so it’s impossible to say that Smith committed a crime by not obeying it. Not even Tillman himself would say that.
The only legal ruling in existence concerning says he was not. That stands until a higher court overrules it
That ruling didn’t exist at the time he took on the job. There was absolutely no reason for him to have supposed there was any flaw in his appointment, just because some maverick scholar had a theory. A scholar who, as I said, is routinely dismissed by the mainstream of legal thought, which is perpetually surprised when he turns out to be right. So there is no possible way to turn that into a crime.
I think the term is “false prosecution.”
There is no such crime.
It’s a one word answer,..’Blondie”
I may be old, but I appreciated the music and I thought Debbie Harry was pretty hot. What Blondie had to do with Jack Smith is unknown to me.
As there is no edit capability: Oh, you mean Hutchinson is a blonde.
MarkS could be quoting “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly”
Eli Wallace’s character yells to Clint’s character (Blondie) to help him at the end of the movie
The vile, stupid and evil Dhimmi-crat neo-communist/Islamofascist/Muslims supremacist apparatchiks are brazenly mendacious, subversive, lawless and totalitarian clowns.
Nothing new under the Sun, each time that new revelations of their perfidy, deceit, lawbreaking and vindictive maliciousness come to light.
Can we be honest? Cassidy Hutchinson was flipped by the thoroughly corrupt J6 committee. Either testify against Trump or face prosecution.
Has anyone seen Pam Bondi this month? Does she still work for the Trump Administration. Just rhetorical questions that come to mind.
Actually I’d like to see this chick being done for purjery since she blatantly LIED to Congress about Jan 6.
that would require a criminal referral from one of the Republican eunuchs in Congress
Neither of the republicans on that corrupt, illegitimate committee are in Congress anymore and the communist traitor filth certainly aren’t referring.
What lies did she tell? She said she had heard a rumor. How do you know she didn’t?
Public trials not only serve to punish the guilty and absolve the innocent, they also provide some degree of closure to the public, so we can move on. The relentless stream of Democrat malfeasances is being normalized as just “politics as usual”, and this is destroying whatever remains of the credibility of our institutions and governance. This must be stopped, and if Republicans don’t have the stomach for it, then they need to step aside and stop pretending to care about the fate of our country, so we can identify and empower those who do, and are willing to aggressively pursue what needs to be done. Patel and Blondi are just not up to the task, which includes the banishment of all those Deep State apparatchiks who refuse to enforce accountability. I’m sure there are some “ham sandwich” prosecutors around who can secure indictments. The Democrats seem to have no trouble finding them, so Republicans have no excuse.
Like their Communist party forefathers whom the current Leftists disguised as Democrats are descended from, lying is a cherished tactic, as is (now we see) the strangling of free speech and political violence.
Almost every single democrat still believes Hutchinson because of Smith.
Smith is irrelevant. Democrats believe it because;
1. It involves Trump therefore it is true.
2. Everything they accuse Trump of having done they have actually done themselves.
Who does Cassidy Hutchinson lie for now?
Gee, who knew?