Speaker 1: Welcome, everybody. You all know that I have no interest whatsoever,
no intention whatsoever, no motivation whatsoever to deceive you about the believability
or the trustworthiness of anybody. But in particular, in the context of the January six
committee investigating the Trump riots, I have no interest in telling you that a witness is any more
or less credible than they actually are. And in a few minutes, we're going to look
at a specific claim made by former aide to former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows.
Cassidy Hutchinson We're going to look at a specific claim she made that's being disputed.
And we will discuss is this plausible? Who do we think is telling the truth? We're going to look
at that. And she may have said something that wasn't true. We'll figure it out. But first,
we have to talk about these brazen and completely baseless smears that have launched against Cassidy
Hutchinson. And it's a really great insight into how a propaganda outlet in this case, Breitbart,
the right wing propaganda outlet, Breitbart, can generate what looks like a news story based on
nothing. Headline from this morning Breitbart Report. Cassidy Hutchinson Fabricated testimony
about conversation with former White House Counsel Patrick Maloney. Whoa. Report. This must be pretty
serious. You start reading the article and you will very quickly see what this is about.
The article reads. Cassidy Hutchinson, a former White House aide who was the January six committee
star witness during a surprise hearing held on Tuesday, reportedly fabricated pieces of her
testimony about conversations she had with former White House counsel Patrick Maloney.
Okay. During her testimony, Hutchinson claimed that Chip Maloney told her to tell her boss,
Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, that former President Trump should not go to the Capitol on January 6th.
That's true. She did testify to that. Hutchinson testified Chip Maloney said, We're going to get
charged with every crime imaginable if Trump went to the Capitol. The committee's vice chair,
Liz Cheney, doubled down on her calls to get Chip Maloney to testify before the committee
due to Hutchinson's testimony. As we heard yesterday, White House Counsel Patrick Maloney
had significant concerns about Trump's activities on January 6th. Cheney tweeted, It's time for
Mr. Chip Maloney to testify on the record. Any concerns he has about the institutional interests
of his prior office are outweighed by the need for his testimony. That's true. They are now. They
have now subpoenaed Patrick Maloney. And we will get to that. But then it starts to get a little
weird. The Breitbart article reads, However, Chip Maloney was reportedly not at the White
House on the morning of January 6th. According to Human Events senior editor Jack Posobiec. Oh,
and then you look. What is the source of this report? And it is tweets from a conspiracy
theorist, Jack Posobiec. That's the source. Jack Posobiec tweeted, apropos of nothing, citing no
sources, breaking multiple sources, including one who was at the White House on January six.
Tell me. Jim Maloney was not there in the AM when Hutchinson testified. She spoke with him.
January six committee is aware of this discrepancy and are ignoring media inquiries about it. Seems
she made up the entire conversation. Okay, this is an example of the collapse of journalism. Now,
remember, I don't do journalism. I do commentary. I'm not a reporter. Okay. And so when I tell you,
where am I getting a story? I tell you, I'm getting this from a news reporting agency or I'm
getting this from an opinion person or whatever the case may be. Breitbart claims to be doing
news and reporting. And when you look, they are just citing a tweet from a conspiracy theorist.
That's it. That's the whole basis. Anybody who has worked at an actual journalism
institution would know there are standards and practices, and no serious journalism outfit
would publish such a story based on a tweet from a conspiracy theorist. That's all it is. That's all
that this is. There's nothing there. There's just nothing there. And when someone in Trump's orbit.
Is trying to gather information to discredit a witness. And everybody's insisting on anonymity.
And none of them actually show up to testify under oath. And maybe some of them will. And then I'll
change my perspective. When you publish something like this, you are you are becoming a node or in
a signal booster of disinformation. And by the way, it's disinformation all in the service
of defending and running interference for those who tried to convert completely,
subvert the democracy of the United States. But I guess it generates clicks. I don't know
now if Secret Service wants to testify under oath. What if they want to do that? Then let's listen
to them. And then we will have two competing under oath statements to evaluate and compare.
Okay. Right now we have the under oath testimony of Cassidy Hutchinson, and then we have, you know,
unsourced tweets, vague statements about we would be willing to dispute elements of her testimony,
but nobody's actually shown up under oath despite being invited by the January six committee.
So that's what this is. This is pond scum. Now, let's get to a more substantive claim
about something Cassidy Hutchinson said, which is being contradicted specifically and narrowly.