The January 6 committee released another batch of transcripts Tuesday, including two more of its interviews with blockbuster witness Cassidy Hutchinson and testimony from several other Trump White House officials.

The transcripts shed new light on how then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows regularly burned documents during the transition period, according to Hutchinson. She also described how Meadows occasionally told staffers to keep some Oval Office meetings “close hold” and potentially omitted from official records.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/27/politics/january-6-transcripts-key-findings/index.html

Cassidy has emerged as the Profile in Courage of this infamy.

 

Quote

Hutchinson thought about "the mirror test," which she'd heard about from a member of Congress. Could she live with looking herself in the mirror every morning for the rest of her life, knowing what she'd done?

"If I'm going to pass the mirror test for the erst of my life," she told the committee, "I need to try and fix some of this."

https://www.businessinsider.com/cassidy-hutchinson-googled-watergate-to-help-decide-whether-to-cooperate-with-january-6-committee-2022-12

 

I would like to know who this "member of Congress" was.

For a completely opposite perspective try to dig up what turned out to be the on-air audition for Kayleigh McEnany on Fox News.  A few days later DT brought her into the WH.  The summary of what she said is that DT is always honest and correct, standard business kiss-ess statements.

 

 

Unless she prove what was on the burnt documents that's a bit meaningless.

 

I suspect she won't be looking for employment by any GOP entity in the future.

21 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Unless she prove what was on the burnt documents that's a bit meaningless.

 

I suspect she won't be looking for employment by any GOP entity in the future.

She doesn't have to prove anything.  She's not on trial.  

 

1 minute ago, Credo said:

She doesn't have to prove anything.  She's not on trial.  

 

I never said she was. I said that without proof of what was on the documents, her testimony is meaningless.

IMO no court would convict based on that testimony.

What happened?did Donnie have a tummy ache or was the toilet plugged up so they had to resort to burning?what a bunch of clowns 

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I never said she was. I said that without proof of what was on the documents, her testimony is meaningless.

IMO no court would convict based on that testimony.

No, you used the words,  "Unless she prove".  Again, she doesn't have to prove anything.  

Unless he was burning his Christmas shopping list, or something similarly personal, this action speaks to criminal intent of underlying activity (ies), and destruction of government property.

 

And given other testimony that Meadows ordered WH staff to keep minimal records, and meetings, "off the books", he clearly understood that these activities were illegal. I'm guessing Cipollone informed him often on this. Cipollone is the one who referred to this as a “a murder-suicide pact.”

 

Definitely not a good look for Mr. Meadows. Can't wait to see which actors get to play him, and his fireplace antics will certainly warrant a long shot, with an exterior of the WH chimney belching smoke.

 

Without Ms. Hutchinson, not unlike John Dean before her, the country would be in a much more challenging era.

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Unless she prove what was on the burnt documents that's a bit meaningless.

 

I suspect she won't be looking for employment by any GOP entity in the future.

Is there any fragment of a straw you won’t grasp in an attempt to avoid facing the facts surrounding Trump and his administration’s corruption and criminality?

7 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

Sort of similar to Hilary purging her computer records... 

Out she pops again from that rent free accommodation.

20 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Is there any fragment of a straw you won’t grasp in an attempt to avoid facing the facts surrounding Trump and his administration’s corruption and criminality?

It's a consequence of watching Fox News.  Their chyron should be a warning label.

 

 

This’ll play well to the religious zealots on the SCOTUS.

 

They’ll see a similarity with white smoke coming from the chimney of the Sistine Chapel.

 

 

Around June 2021, when it started looking like accountability would be questioned, the chatter among the political pundits (who have whispering friends) was that Meadows is going to be the fall guy.  Never did find out if it were true, but we may soon.  Fat chance of them succeeding in that ploy!

 

 

Whatever those documents were, I thought all records had to be sent to the National Archives and if Trump was involved then they are also official Presidential Records.

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I never said she was. I said that without proof of what was on the documents, her testimony is meaningless.

IMO no court would convict based on that testimony.

They wouldn't try but this will put Meadows under the spotlight grand jury.

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Unless she prove what was on the burnt documents that's a bit meaningless.

 

I suspect she won't be looking for employment by any GOP entity in the future.

Cassidy Hutchinson is precisely the kind of person the GOP needs.

 

26 years old, taking the stand and telling the truth, regardless of the consequences to herself.

 

She put her country before her Political Party And before her self.

 

She’s an outstanding citizen.

 

Far too good for the traitors, insurrectionists and lackies to America’s enemies that is today’s GOP.

 

The icing on the cake is she’s a millennial, standing up and showing the haters how duty is done.

21 hours ago, Credo said:

No, you used the words,  "Unless she prove".  Again, she doesn't have to prove anything.  

I never said she had to provide proof, but without proof she could say anything she likes and it won't mean a thing.

20 hours ago, bamnutsak said:

Unless he was burning his Christmas shopping list, or something similarly personal, this action speaks to criminal intent of underlying activity (ies), and destruction of government property.

and can anyone prove he wasn't burning personal papers? Hardly proof a court of law would accept, but as pointed out, the committee isn't wasn't a court of law and has had no power to convict.

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

and can anyone prove he wasn't burning personal papers? Hardly proof a court of law would accept, but as pointed out, the committee isn't wasn't a court of law and has had no power to convict.

Do you think that testimony will be ignored by the special prosecutor?

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I never said she had to provide proof, but without proof she could say anything she likes and it won't mean a thing.

Mark Meadows is alleged, under oath,  to have habitually burned documents.

 

Do you think that there’s only one copy of documents given to Mark Meadows?

 

Do you think other people might have copies of documents given to Mark Meadows?

 

Do you think other people may have been witness to Mark Meadows receiving those document?

 

Do you think other people might have witnessed Mark Meadows burning documents?

 

Neither Mark Meadows, you or any other Trump supporter are going to wish this away.

 

Mark Meadows a DOJ target rich environment.

 

 

Edited December 30, 20223 yr by Chomper Higgot

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

and can anyone prove he wasn't burning personal papers? Hardly proof a court of law would accept, but as pointed out, the committee isn't wasn't a court of law and has had no power to convict.

Personal papers will still require the Archivist of the United States written views on the proposed disposal. Clear disposal guidelines stated in the Presidential Record Act. Mark Meadow apparently didn’t seek those views. He is in deep poo poo. Cassidy Hutchinson gave that testimony under oath and thus carried lots of legal weight. Onus on Mark to prove otherwise 

 

19 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I never said she had to provide proof, but without proof she could say anything she likes and it won't mean a thing.

Well, I see you have nothing to say, so now you are just trolling.