Our Best Stuff From an Explosive Week

Cassidy Hutchinson testifies before the January 6 committee.

By
74

Hello and happy Saturday! Who among you had “The January 6 committee hearings knock the overturning of Roe v. Wade off the front page” on your 2022 bingo cards?

I’ve spent more time watching congressional hearings in the last five years than in my previous 40-plus years combined. Nearly all of them promised to expose Donald Trump as power hungry, dangerous, and unfit for office. Former FBI Director James Comey testified about his firing over the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Robert Mueller, who was appointed as special counsel to take over that investigation after Comey was fired, testified about his report. While he documented many examples of contacts between Trump’s team and Russian nationals but “did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government,” Mueller was also clear that his investigation did not exonerate Trump. 

We sat through not one but two impeachment trials during Trump’s tenure. In the first, we watched as Trump sent disparaging tweets about Marie Yovanovitch, U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, while she was testifying, and as he criticized National Security Council staffer Lt. Col Alexander Vindman before he could even address Congress.

In the second, we saw disturbing footage of the events at the Capitol on January 6, and learned how close the mob got to Vice President Mike Pence. We heard a statement from Rep. Jamie Herrera Beutler about Kevin McCarthy’s conversation with Trump in which he first denied that the rioters were his supporters and then refused McCarthy’s plea to call off the riot. 

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
74
By
Comments (74)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Julie from Texas

    Your summaries of the week are a news highlight for me. Thank you.

    Collapse
  2. Andrew Holmes

    Two observations.
    1. Hutchinson's hearsay is widely acceptable, in my opinion, even with one element that has been contradicted, because it feeds the convictions of the bad orange man ideologes. A different standard applies to Trump, perhaps because he's an egomaniacal jerk. There is plenty of room for "whatabout" that is ignored or treated as (slightly less) abrasive politics as usual.
    2. Vineland at least impliedly cited as a worthy source rankles. As a LTC, offended that the President failed to follow the guidance of a committee on which he sat, is deluded. His belief in his own self importance causes me to discount his judgments.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Synchronize Your Dogmas (Bill B)

    Ha! You have great one to. Don’t hold the firecrackers from the lit end.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Dave Conant - MO

    Great summation as usual Rachel; notably including the first mention I've seen of the absurdly political nature of both impeachment trials which, had they been handled thoughtfully, might have spared us the circus that started on Jan. 6 and continues to this day. Hopefully the Committee report and the resulting action by the DoJ will have an end to it. Still not holding my breath.
    Have a great weekend.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    David Burke

    Have a great July Fourth, Rachael.

    Thank you for pointing out that we still have much to celebrate as we admire the brave patriots who stand up to lance the pustules like trump and Meadows etal on our Nation’s butt.

    Remember to throw it after you light it.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Victor Clairmont

    HAPPY 4th WHEN IT COMES RACHEL!

    Thank you for the Round Up!~~~

    Collapse
  7. L R Dillon

    It is too bad that Cassidy Hutchinson cannot be awarded some sort of honor for doing what will in all likelihood (if this has not already happened) earn her death threats and perhaps actual attempts on her life. A witness protection plan might be needed.

    At 66, I am old enough to be her grandfather: wow, I would be so proud to be able to claim her as my descendant.

    Folks, we are on the precipice of a crisis that makes Aaron Burr's treason trial look like a picnic in the park. I've said it before, but I'll say it again: if this nation does not react decisively and immediately against Trump, I will live out my final years under an authoritarian regime, not a republic.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Aylene Wright

      I certainly got the impression one reason the Hutchinson testimony was done as an "emergency hearing" with only a day's notice, was because of concerns for her personal safety. She was also escorted by security out of the heating room, even for the brief 10 minute recess. I don't recall that happening for other witnesses. The messages trying to intimidate her to stay loyal to Team Trump, were quite chilling.

      Collapse
      1. L R Dillon

        I did not realize that, thanks. Very scary.

        Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    DeniseMc

    I just want to jump on here and wish everyone a safe 🇺🇸 holiday! Already, we’ve had an urgent care visit to dig a deeply embedded fish fin out a hand, our pontoon lift is on life support, and a Carolina wren built a nest in my lake bag with all the towels and sunscreen 😑 and YET, we still celebrate. ❤️⚪️💙

    Collapse
    1. Harlon Martin

      Fishing can be dangerous. Hope y'all have a SF Medic living nearby, just in case. Best wishes for happy and safe 4th holiday.

      Collapse
  9. OregonJon

    Rachael, your summary is a disappointment, and you know why. When the Republican leadership is ignored in the selection of Republican committee members we know the fix is in. When cross-examination of witnesses is not allowed, we know the fix is in. When Cassidy Hutchinson's hearsay testimony is allowed we know the fix is in. When Rachael Larimore ignores all of this in what can only be considered a white (can we use that term these days) wash we know that TDS is evident. The Dispatch needs to do better if we are to consider it objective. Yeah, I know, stupid me.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Stephanie

      "The fix is in . . . " = "who needs facts when I can just proclaim CONSPIRACY!!"

      Collapse
    2. Gerald Cuesta

      Maybe give a look on the reality as to why this happened, if you are honest in your reading of it you’ll see that the McCarthy and the gop didn’t want to do anything that they thought would upset trump. Of course trump feeling some heat now is pissed at McCarthy for doing what trump initially wanted him to do, it’s his MO, the heat gets turned up, blame someone else. Now… Jordan was turned down because of his vocal support for the big lie and the rallies. He was nothing but a trump syncophant who would grandstand and deflect and try to destroy the committee before allowing a real investigation. Question: Why are two life long conservatives, once respected in their party, now persona non grata in the gop? One reason: they stood up to trump and his lie and actions. The gop is beholden to the man who tried to steal an election through intimidation. Knowing this… That’s not tds. What is tds is continuing to try and find fault with those who stand up to the con artists traitor - which is what he is as far as I am concerned — while continuing to excuse said piece of garbage. That’s tds.

      Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      ^^ The Republican voting base, ladies and gentlemen....

      Collapse
    4. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
      Rachael Larimore vertical-nib Author

      Kevin McCarthy rejected the original Jan 6 commission that was proposed with John Katko and then tried to put Jim Jordan of all people in this committee. The House Republicans had a chance to participate and declined.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Stephanie

        Thank you for saying what most people in this discussions have been a broken record about for days now.

        Sometimes there is just no defense.

        The Republicans don't seem to want to accept accountability because some of them were implicated in the insurrection. But they should not shield those people.

        Collapse
    5. Avatar photo
      JohnM.

      Your penultimate sentence confirmed your last sentence. Happy 4th of July!

      Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Show Jay Janney the 🚪!

    I’d like to see Congressional claims for sexual harassment handled under the aBiden guidelines. Ditto for all government agencies.

    Maybe then they might see the concerns others have.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Stephanie

      I'll have to look up both Obama's and Trump's/DeVos's rules.

      Because I recall an AO where David was praising Devos's and Sarah pointed out problems with them. Not sure, but I thought she felt the accusers were given an impossible burden of proof. But I'd have to research it.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Stephanie

        I found it already, the part that bothered Sarah:

        "The Obama-era definition of 'unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature' would be significantly narrowed to include only sexual misconduct that is 'so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive' that it denies a person access to a school's education program or activity."

        Sarah was looking askance at it because, as she said, how is someone supposed to proved that being sexually harassed or assaulted denied them access to their education?

        Other of the rules might've been helpful, but that one leads me to think that it'd discourage even people with valid claims.

        And raising the evidentiary standard from preponderance to clear & convincing could she some people out.

        If you're being sexually assaulted or raped, you might not exactly be mentally focused on collecting evidence, especially as witnesses tend not to be present at such a time.

        I also wonder if the word "pervasive" means if you were only raped one time it doesn't count?

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Show Jay Janney the 🚪!

          A few thoughts, as someone who was a department chair.

          Rape is a criminal act, and should be prosecuted by the local authorities who have jurisdiction for that area. Once an allegation is made on campus that rises to that level, the college should notify the police ASAP, and turn it over to them. Currently there's grey area on that, and some colleges have been accused of trying to keep the incident private. If having to work with the police scares a person, I'm not sure what can be done there. The accused have rights.

          Pervasive is used to describe a climate, not a specific act, and rarely rises to the level of criminal. If a faculty tells dirty jokes, it can become pervasive very quickly (I've terminated adjuncts for doing that). A coed who dreads office hours with a prof because the prof says suggestive things is experiencing a hostile environment, due to it being pervasive. If the professor were to attempt to rape someone, it's now a crime.

          As far as evidentiary standards, is the college gathering information for the accused with the same effort as for the accuser? If not, then preponderance is a very low standard. And again, if the person collecting the information also makes the judgement, are there concerns for bias entering into the decision?

          I felt the Devos standards did a decent job of protecting the rights of the accused. Given that being kicked out of college can have serious life consequences, it seems important to do it right. I'm not confident in "he said/she said" cases that preponderance can lead to serious mistakes. Colleges aren't allowed to talk about cases, but when they expel someone the act of denying talking about it can send a strong message to another college. When we fired one of my colleagues, I was contacted by another college, the fact I was exceedingly careful talking to them, and referred them to HR told them there was a serious issue. In this case the colleague pled guilty to a crime, so that's public record.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Stephanie

            Thanks, I was hoping you'd provide some perspective from the PoV of someone who actually works in that environment.

            Reading further on the Biden guidelines/regs, whatever they are--I guess they will be regs after going through the notice and comment period--apparently they've tried to keep the most fair provisions of the Obama rules and the DeVos rules, and eliminated some of the more arbitrary or unfair ones.

            The results of notice and comments and rule making will probably take months, but they'll show up in the Federal Register.

            Collapse
Load More