fbpx
Skip to content

The J6 Committee Has a Serious Issue with the Truth

Contents

Available: Español

[Leer en español]

The latest surprise hearing by the J6 Committee featured former Trump WH staffer Cassidy Hutchinson, who decided to testify before the Committee (for a second time) about what she allegedly witnessed at the WH amid the certification of electors on January 2021.

This Hutchinson hearing, like the previous ones, featured a number of flaws that unavoidably raise questions about the committee’s tactics, line of questioning, and protocols. From the implications of hearsay and the origins of this testimony to contradicting the FBI and the U.S. Secret Service, the flaws are deeply concerning.

J6 Committee v. The FBI: Who to Believe?

First, let’s start with the undeniable facts. Business Insider, citing Reuters, reported on August 2021 that the FBI found “no evidence that Trump and his allies were directly involved with organizing the violence of the Capitol riot.” 

Some may argue that the elected officials who sit on the J6 Committee are finding new evidence, which may prompt federal charges against Trump officials. If that is the case—let’s pretend—we have some serious issues about the efficiency of the FBI. The FBI is known as one of the best crime-solving institutions in the world. But suddenly they have to rely on the U.S. Congress for intel?

"*" indicates required fields

Is the Mar-A-Lago raid an unjust witch hunt?*
This poll gives you free access to our premium politics newsletter. Unsubscribe at any time.
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Readers, if that is the case, I have to say that our nation is doomed for failure—and we might as well declare China, Russia or Cuba as our emperors.

The J6 Committee v. The U.S. Secret Service: Who to Believe?

Hutchinson claims that the former U.S. President allegedly “lunged” at a U.S. Secret Service. This is quite a strong claim. However, the MSM has omitted that Cassidy did not directly witness such an attack. Instead, she was reportedly told by somebody who—wait for it—was told of such an incident. In any court setting, no such allegation would be permitted. This is straight up hearsay.

Shortly after these claims were aired, NBC News’ Peter Alexander—not quite a conservative—citing a source, said that the Secret Service agents were prepared to testify under oath that no such incident took place.

Ahh… now what?

Hearsay and No Cross-Examination?

The left has celebrated Hutchinson and right-wing attacks against her could be somewhat unfair. However, the J6 Committee has positioned itself as a legal trial against Trump and his supporters. If it continues to perpetrate such claims, it must adhere to the protocols of our legal system. Banning hearsay and allowing the cross-examination of witnesses. Otherwise, these hearings will continue to be yet another clown show against Trumpism, further dividing and damaging our nation.

Cassidy Hutchinson: The Perfect Pawn for Alyssa Farah

In defense of Hutchinson: we learned on Thursday that Alyssa Farah—yes, the same woman who for years served the Trump administration and suddenly had an anti-Trump awakening in the weeks after the lost 2020 election—encouraged Hutchinson to speak out and put her in contact with Liz Cheney.

How do we know that fame-hungry Farah did not use Hutchinson to further push her popularity on cable news? Didn’t Vanity Fair report that she was “auditioning” for The View? We also saw how she gave the exclusive to CNN that it was her who actually pushed Hutchinson to speak. Hutchinson served as the perfect pawn for Farah, who can now position herself as this moral, popular face against Trumpism.

Using Past Convictions to Imply Guiltiness? 

In the same Hutchinson hearing, Liz Cheney outlined the previous convictions of Roger Stone and Gen. Michael Flynn—none of which are related to the 2020 elections. Rep. Cheney said it herself: “Mr. Stone previously had been convicted of other federal crimes unrelated to January 6th. General Flynn had pleaded guilty to a felony charge also predating and unrelated to January 6th.”

For the love of God, Cheney has a Juris Doctorate. She knows, and I know—even with my legal studies minor from a public university—that prior convictions cannot be used to suggest criminal behavior in new trials. No respectable prosecutor would rely on these claims as evidence to pursue criminal charges against anyone.

I’ve argued before in this space that the J6 committee is a plot at tarnishing the former president and his supporters. I take no pride in making these claims. However, as journalists, commentators, and most importantly, conservatives, we have the duty of standing up to power so that you, the American people, are informed with fact-based information.

We take that duty seriously at El American.


This article originally appeared in El American’s newsletter on July 1, 2022. Subscribe for free here!

Total
63
Share