Speaker 1: So as we already looked at in the immediate aftermath of the testimony this week
from Cassidy Hutchinson before the January six committee like in the hour right after it, Fox
News was completely in shambles. Awkward silences. Brett Baker having no choice but to concede. This
is some of the most jaw dropping testimony since Watergate. They didn't know how do we downplay
this? How do we manage this? By the time the night time came during the so-called opinion programing,
they had a strategy. And the strategy is smear campaign against Cassidy. Hutchinson. Cassidy
Hutchinson, who has really nothing to gain from doing this other than then certainly receiving
death threats, which I'm sure she started to receive by now and hoping to avoid legal jeopardy,
which is why I imagine someone of her position would say, Yeah, I'll show up and tell the
truth as I recall it. The smear campaign starts immediately. First and foremost,
they start accusing Hutchinson of lying, just making it up for personal gain. How
would that benefit her? Hmm. Okay, let's listen. Speaker 4: I served with both Bobby and Tony. They
are career civil service agents, their former military. They embody what career government
officials should be. I would take their word over any word of this junior staffer who is
completely, I believe, lying to the January six Committee for Own Self Game, Bobby and Tony.
Speaker 1: So, first of all, Bobby and Tony are not under oath. Cassidy Hutchinson is
under oath. If we put them under oath and they have a conflicting account now,
we'll have something to evaluate. For the time being, we have Cassidy Hutchinson under oath,
needing security now, receiving threats now getting doxxed, etc. under oath. And we have
Trump posting on Truth Social and we have media reports of two Secret Service agents allegedly
claiming that if they testified under oath, they would have something different to say.
But they want to say she's just making it all up. Speaker 4: Acted appropriately every single time
I travel with the president over 40 separate trips with those two individuals. I would
love to hear them contradict this lie with the truth. But, you know, I'm a little different on
this one. Bobby and Tony need to continue to serve America. We don't need to put them on full blast.
Speaker 1: Oh, okay. So don't. They're busy doing work. So even though they would say
something different under oath, we shouldn't actually bring them in to testify. So the
weakest possible attempt at smearing her. Then we go to Laura Ingram. Laura Ingram has
Stephen Miller on and Miller goes. She was such a low level aide, but that doesn't really contradict
the subject matter or the substance of what she says. She could be a low level aide or not and
still have seen the things she says she saw. Speaker 4: Reach that way to get. I couldn't
remember. But it's been the whole you know, the whole story seemed ridiculous. But you knew you
knew Cassidy Hutchison. What kind of a you know, I've met her a few times, but I didn't really have
much contact. Look, she really she's an extremely. Speaker 2: Junior, low level aide.
I don't think I ever had a. Speaker 4: Conversation with her that.
Speaker 2: I can at least recall of any. Speaker 4: Of any substance or death. But
but to Molly's point, this is a and remember. Speaker 1: The fact that Stephen Miller didn't
have deep conversations with Cassidy Hutchinson
doesn't mean she's not telling the truth. Speaker 2: Test for your sanity. If you heard this
story and you thought, Man, I believe every word of this, I'm going to go on line and say something
about it energetically that something. Speaker 4: Is wrong with you,
something is wrong with you. Speaker 1: Right? If you.
Speaker 4: Believe. Speaker 1: She might be telling the truth,
you're the crazy person. Instead, you should believe Stephen Miller and Laura Ingram. Ingram,
who, by the way, was quite literally texting Mark Meadows about the riots, saying one
thing and then went on TV that night and said a completely different thing, running interference,
saying it could have been the feds, it could have been Antifa, could have been just certainly wasn't
Trumpist or anything like that. She wants us to believe her view about Cassidy Hodgkinson
when she was implicated in trying to manage the media coverage of those very same riots.
And then Ingram continues saying that the entire testimony seemed like an audition for The View.
Speaker 4: Do you notice she kept saying something, something to that effect. She
kept couching everything she said. A lot of it was hearsay, obviously not admissible in
any kind of real accord. But she kept saying something to that effect always about Trump's
reaction to Pence and the hanging chant to it. But I found it almost like she
was auditioning for a seat at The View or. Speaker 1: Now the fact that she would say
something to the effect of to me doesn't really raise any red flags. I mean, it seems natural if
you're under oath and you're not quoting something verbatim that you would use that phrase. Just
think about an instance in your mind. If I think back, this is just something so banal, right?
Let's think back to when I had a chipped tooth repaired a year and a half ago at my dentist. I
remember vividly. It's not every day that I chip a tooth and it's not every day that I get the tooth
repaired. So I generally remember the experience. If you said to me, What exactly did your dentist
say about what probably caused it, I wouldn't be able to quote my dentist. So if I were under oath,
I would go, Listen, my dentist said something to the effect of my bite and potentially grinding my
teeth that night led to the chip. It's accurate. That was the that that was the gist of what
was said. It's completely representative of my dentist's view. But I don't remember the words
that were used. It was a year and a half ago, so I would naturally say something like, Well,
the dentist made me understand that this was the cause. The dentist said something to the effect of
the fact that Cassidy Hutchinson is using that term does not to me raise any red flags. Now,
she may just not be telling the truth, but right now we don't have any contradictory claims under
oath. Put someone under oath and let's get some contradictory claims. Okay, then, then. HANNITY
What was the next one? He Oh, no. Ingram also spoke to other people about Cassidy Hutchinson.
Speaker 4: Now, the first attempted distraction or shiny object, a former aide to Mark Meadows,
Cassidy Hutchinson, was slotted into what was billed as a special, super duper special
session of the January six committee today. And I spoke with some former White House staffers,
three or four of them in the afternoon, and they knew her well. And not one person had anything
good to say about her performance today. Speaker 1: Well, why does it matter why?
Extremely biased people with a vested interest in minimizing the insanity of what happened. Think
about her performance. Why does that matter? The question is, did what she say line up with other
testimony? The answer is yes. Did what she say get contradicted by anyone else testifying under
oath? The answer is no. And is she in any way likely to benefit from this, or is she actually
exposing herself both to legal jeopardy and to death threats and to needing security and to being
docs? And the answer is yes, of course it does. Sean HANNITY jumping in and participating on this
as well. He jumped on the word hearsay. Hearsay has become a big focal point of yesterday's
testimony. Today, we heard more rumors, a ton of hearsay and wow, a lot of impeached.
Speaker 4: Testimony that we'll. Speaker 1: Get to in a second.
And this is why it's never hearsay is never. Speaker 4: Admissible in a real court of law.
Speaker 1: Including this wild claim from a former low.
Speaker 4: Level, low. Speaker 1: Staffer. Watch this.
Yeah. So then he goes on to play the testimony. So the entire hearsay thing. All right. There are so
so two things on that. First of all, the fact that Cassidy Hutchinson is recalling what others said
does not really change our understanding of it in a congressional hearing. It is true that there
are restrictions on what hearsay is admissible in courts of law. We're not even talking about crimes
here yet. So why they continue to talk about hearsay? Well, we know why, because other people
hear and they go. It was hearsay. So. But does hearsay mean it was false? Does hearsay mean that
she's make it up? No. Hearsay relates to courts of law. This is not a court of law. But I want to
go beyond that. There are 30 exceptions to hearsay not being admissible in courts of law. Oftentimes,
hearsay is admissible in a court of law. There's the present sense impression. Exception. This
is a hearsay statement which could be allowed if it describes or explains something that happened
based on something said by someone right after it happened. So when she says, Hey, this is what Mark
Meadows said right as they were chanting Hang Mike Pence. I'm not saying it would be allowed
in a court of law, but there is a present sense impression. Exception to hearsay restrictions
in courts of law, which sometimes can be argued for. There's what's called the excited utterance
exception. If you were somewhere and someone made an excited utterance, it was it happened
close to whatever it was they were reacting to. It was sort of like a visceral reaction. It was
it it almost even startled the pages came out of the person making the claim that can be admissible
because it was an excited utterance and it may not even be something the person who made the
utterance would remember. Imagine that there's been an explosion. Happens right in front of
you. That's such an unusual thing. I might go, Oh, oh, look at this. I knew. I knew this was
happening. This was my cousin Joe. I knew he was going to do I might not even remember that. But a
court might say to someone who heard me make that excited utterance, we're going to we're going to
allow that, even though it's hearsay under the excited utterance exception. The point here is
this attack on everything is hearsay, as if it's some open and shut thing. Well, it's hearsay. It
wouldn't be allowed in a court, and therefore it can't even be believed in this setting. It's B.S.
and it's a scripted and coordinated attack. Last thing. Mark Levin on Fox News just completely
losing it and demanding that news networks fire their legal analysts for not properly attacking.
The entire January 6th committee proceedings. Speaker 2: You also do not participate in a
transition period and ordered the Department of Defense to work with the Biden people.
Easy, but they have no evidence for any of this committee's come up with nothing,
despite the fact it's all one way. And I want to encourage networks all over the country who
I'm sure will listen to me. Fire your legal analysts. Fire them. There's too many former
federal prosecutors. This isn't about a federal prosecution. These legal guys,
they keep coming on. They know nothing about the Constitution. A president,
a candidate has the right to lobby and lobby the state legislature if he or she
believes that the electors should be for them. Speaker 1: Just because he's yelling doesn't
make it true. Mark Levin should try decaf. And he is just furious, furious that not every
legal analyst is saying it's all lies and it's imprisoned. The people doing the investigation,
Mark Levin isn't happy. So that's the totality of the smear campaign that Fox and the right
wing put together in just a few hours after Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony.