WorldNetDaily had a recent meltdown over Liz Cheney’s work on the committee to examine the Capitol riot — and, more specifically, her communications with Cassidy Hutchinson — so it was inevitable that Capitol riot whitewasher extraordinaire Jack Cashill would have something to say. And he indeed did that in his December 18 WorldNetDaily column:
Although she played a backstage role in the J6 show trial staged to destroy Donald Trump, former Rep. Liz Cheney may find herself in the starring role of her very own, very real trial.
In a report released Tuesday, Rep. Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Oversight, “outlines criminal recommendations” for the former vice president’s daughter.
As Loudermilk makes clear, Cheney ran the show at the January 6 Select Committee. Democrat Rep. Benny Thompson may have been the nominal chairman, but nominal Republican Cheney assumed the improvised role of vice chairman and pulled all the relevant strings.
That string pulling culminated in the most spectacular Deep State show trial since Watergate. Its goal was not to seek the truth but, says Loudermilk, to showcase the “false, pre-determined narrative that President Trump was personally responsible for the breach of the Capitol on January 6.”
Well, not so much — but we’ll get to that later. Cashill’s first order of business was to whine about how well the committee presented the evidence against riot participants with the help of “veteran TV executive James Goldston.” He went on to huff:
Those paying attention, especially those concerned with the trafficking of children, had reason to distrust Goldston even before he put the “show” in show trial.
In 2019, Goldston made news, at least on the right, for spiking a 2015 interview ABC’s Amy Robach had done with Virginia Roberts Giuffre, a Jeffrey Epstein victim. In 2019, an ABC insider leaked a hot-mic moment in which Robach complained about the burial of this story.
In the 2015 interview, Giuffre claimed that at 17 she had been forced to have sex with Prince Andrew. She also claimed to have seen Bill Clinton on Epstein’s island.
Had ABC aired the interview, Epstein’s predatory ways may well have ended four years and countless victims sooner. Fortunately for Epstein, Goldston was a friend of both the Clintons and the Royal Family. The Deep State takes care of its own.
We remember when the ConWeb was bashing Giuffre for making similar allegations against current right-wing darling and former Epstein lawyer Alan Dershowitz. Newsmax, for example, gave Dershowitz lots of space to attack Giuffre over the allegations. So perhaps it may have been for the best that the Giuffre interview got spiked since there are still too many questions about it. Cashill didn’t mention the Dershowitz controversy, nor did he explain why he considers Giuffre credible regarding Prince Andrew.
Cashill eventually got back to the main issue:
Co-starring in “All About Liz,” in the role of the ambitious ingenue, would be the “star witness” of the Goldston production, Cassidy Hutchinson.
Just 24 years-old on January 6, Hutchinson had more title – “Special Assistant to the President and Coordinator for Legislative Affairs for White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows” – than she did common sense.
It was Hutchinson who changed her testimony for no better reason, it seems, than to add punch to Goldston’s production.
In her revised testimony, Hutchinson famously claimed that President Trump tried to seize the steering wheel of “the beast” from the driver’s control and, when thwarted, lunged toward the neck of the other Secret Service agent in the vehicle.
This was all second and third-hand nonsense, easily refuted by the actual participants. The story also undermines a central finding of the select committee, namely that Trump refused to intervene in the riot.
The Capitol Police were already lobbing munitions into a peaceful crowd at the Capitol when Trump allegedly tried to go there. Why would he have wanted to go to the Capitol if not to intervene?
Doctoring the timeline is the least of Cheney’s problems. Loudermilk accuses her of colluding with Hutchinson without her attorney’s knowledge and recommends investigating the fallen congresswoman for “potential criminal witness tampering.”
In fact, Hutchinson’s testimony was clear that she was repeating what she was told by Secret Service agent Tony Ornato Contrary to Cashill’s claim that her testimony was “easily refuted,” Ornato and other Secret Service agents initially declared he would testify and dispute Hutchinson’s claim, then suddenly went silent and lawyered up. Ornato abruptly retired two days before he was to testify to the House committee, forcing a rescheduling of the testimony; when he finally did testify a few months later, he pleaded ignorance and conveniently “did not recall” the incident in question or saying anything about it to Hutchinson.
Cashill also didn’t mention the reason why Hutchinson was purportedly “colluding with Hutchinson without her attorney’s knowledge”: Her lawyer at the time, Stefan Passantino, was being paid for by Trump’s political action committee, and he told her to conveniently forget certain details about her testimony, which would make it reasonable that she did not want to loop him into her conversation. And as the Washington Post pointed out, charges of witness tampering apply to efforts to inhibit testimony, which is what Passantino was trying to do, as opposed to Cheney making sure Hutchinson could tell her story free of intimidation.
Nevertheless, Cashill weirdly concluded: “His evidence against Hutchinson for perjury is powerful. Once she rolls over on Cheney for suborning that perjury, who knows? Maybe even a D.C. court will give justice a chance.” Again, Passantino was the one who was allegedly suborning perjury, not Cheney.