0
0
Any chance Democrats had of their January 6 Select Committee being taken seriously went out the door.
The committee called former White House counsel Pat Cipollone into chambers.
However, the committee did so behind closed doors and refused to televise his testimony out of fear he would counter Cassidy Hutchinson and discredit her testimony.
That is far from the worst of it, however.
Not Asking
Cassidy Hutchinson dropped bombshells, only most of her testimony had been debunked by the very people she cited.
The committee was reportedly terrified that Cipollone might hurt that testimony, so they did their best to avoid giving him the opportunity.
As luck would have it, Jake Tapper, who was among those saying that Hutchinson’s testimony is only damaging if it can be corroborated, had this shot at getting some answers on this front on Sunday.
He sat down with Rep. Lofgren (D-CA) this weekend to talk to her about Hutchinson and Cipollone’s private testimony.
Tapper asked her, “You heard from another key witness this week, White House counsel Pat Cipollone, who sat with you on Friday. Your committee said he gave critical testimony that shows, quote, ‘Donald Trump’s supreme dereliction of duty,’ unquote.
“What does the committee mean by that? And will we hear excerpts of Cipollone’s testimony in this week’s hearings?”
She responded, “Yes, we will have some excerpts of Mr. Cipollone’s testimony. He was able to provide information on basically all of the critical issues we’re looking at and including the president’s, what I would call dereliction of duty, on the day of January 6.
“So, yes, that was important.
“As you know, the committee rules don’t allow us to disclose the testimony without a vote of the committee.
“That hasn’t happened yet, but it was important testimony.”
Tapper shot back, “Former Mark Meadows’ aide Cassidy Hutchinson said Cipollone said something along the lines, they would be charged with every crime imaginable if Trump went up to the Capitol.
“Two sources told CNN that the committee did not ask Pat Cipollone whether he said that.
“Is that true? If so, why wouldn’t you ask him that?”
She replied, “We never call in witnesses to corroborate other witnesses or to give their reaction to other witnesses.
“But I will say that he did an interview with us for eight hours and provided very insightful information.
“And that augments and certainly does not dispute Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony.
“So, stay tuned for this week’s hearings. We think they’ll be worth attending.”
So, they had a witness on the stand that could have corroborated or disproved Hutchinson’s testimony, yet they purposely avoided doing so.
This was the exact person that Hutchinson cited in her testimony, and they REFUSED to ask him if he said what she testified to!
Do you realize how idiotic that is?
If the purpose of these hearings is to get to the truth, how do you not corroborate testimony with a firsthand account?
This entire committee is a sham and that single line by Lofgren proves it.
