Big papers still fight about Hutchinson's age!

SUNDAY, JULY 3, 2022

Still hazy after all these years: No, it doesn't exactly matter. That said, just how old is Cassidy Hutchinson, the former Mark Meadows aide?

In Saturday's print editions, the New York Times continued to say that she's now 26. But in the featured front-page report in this morning's Washington Post, she was still 25.

With respect to Hutchinson's credibility as a witness, it doesn't actually matter. Regarding somebody's journalism, it almost seems that it almost does.

One newspaper has to be wrong in what it's saying about the new arrival's age. It's always possible that neither newspaper really knows how old she is.

No, it doesn't actually matter. It does seem odd that, after almost a week, this initial stand-off remains. 

Twenty-five v. 26? It doesn't actually matter. We'll note a different part of this episode which seems more striking to us.

As far as we know, Hutchinson has been completely honest in everything she has told the January 6 committee. That doesn't mean that her powers of perception and recollection are infallible. It doesn't mean that she is immune from other possible sources of error. 

Obviously, one or more of her recollections might be imperfect, even wrong in some respect. It's also true that Hutchinson is a young person who few people previously knew—a witness without a track record.

Several major Trump aides who do know Hutchinson have vouched for her honesty. That includes Kayleigh McEnany, the former press secretary to Trump who was about as Trumpy along the way as being Trumpy gets.

Still, we've been surprised by the number of journalists who have treated Hutchinson's various statements as examples of established fact. Journalistically, a statement doesn't become a fact just because Hutchinson says it.

Journos have trusted new arrivals in the past only to see their statements and claims fall apart. We think, for example, of Kathleen Willey, but also of three or four young journalists who were just making [things] up.

We know of no reason to think that Hutchinson isn't a fully reliable witness. It's also true that a claim doesn't become a fact just because Hutchinson says it.

Even now, at the end of the week, our biggest newspapers can't even determine how old the new arrival is! It wouldn't be awful to add the following winged words—"According to Hutchinson's account"—to an array of press statements.

She seems to be offering her best recollections. Absent attempts at corroboration, such recollections aren't facts.


53 comments:

  1. "Obviously, one or more of her recollections might be imperfect, even wrong in some respect."

    What 'recollections', dear Bob?

    We didn't follow this bullshit show trial, other than listening to Jimmy Dore (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRoW6XD4Wis). For the laughs, y'know.

    And from listening to Jimmy Dore it follows that the lady didn't witness anything. She was just telling stories he heard from someone else (allegedly).

    Why is this even interesting to you, dear Bob -- or, frankly, to anyone -- at all?

    ReplyDelete
  2. This seems a minor point. Why waste words on the issue?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Somerby is throwing chaff in the air to defend Trump from Hutchinson's testimony. He implies she has lied about her age or doesn't know her own age -- or else why would papers be confused about it? He says she has an imperfect memory. He says she has never testified before and thus has no track record. Then he says she may be like women in the past who have been shown to be liars. (Clinton testified under oath that he did not harrass Willey but Willey was shown to have lied under oath.) See: https://www.vox.com/2016/10/9/13221670/paula-jones-kathleen-willey-bill-clinton-sexual-harassment-accusations.

    Then Somerby switches to accusing the press of treating her statements as facts. Her having made such statements are facts. It is the content of the statements that Somerby accuses the press of doing, but he gives no evidence they have done that. This is just Somerby's assertion.

    Somerby says: "She seems to be offering her best recollections. Absent attempts at corroboration, such recollections aren't facts."

    But there is corroboration. The 1/6 Commission has been presenting some of it. In this case, there is testimony by the secret service to that part of her statement about Trump's desire to go to the Capitol building. Trump himself said it. There is Giuliani's confirmation that he sought a pardon. And Somerby ignores that the 1/6 Commission has a great deal of info consisting of texts and phone calls and other witness statements -- the purpose of the hearing is to inform the public of findings of the investigation -- not to prove guilt as at a trial.

    Somerby chooses to disbelieve what doesn't fit his own narratives. He wants to defend Trump from Hutchinson's damaging testimony and he will use any way he can to do that, even suggesting that a young woman with an impeccable record for truthtelling (according to coworkers), in a position of trust and responsibility, may be like Kathleen Willey, a liar pursuing a book deal. Somerby should be ashamed of this low-key attempted smear of a woman who does not stand alone in providing evidence against Trump. Her testimony comes in the context of a lot of other witnesses -- a context Somerby cannot be permitted to ignore.

    ReplyDelete
  4. There is video of Trump inside the SUV. There are others corroborating her statements. Why doesn't Somerby mention that? He pretends she is hanging out there on her own, with nothing to support anything she has said. Not true.

    ReplyDelete

  5. Somerby doesn't trust any women to tell the truth. His motto is "bitches be lyin". We should never forget Somerby's massive misogyny. The idea that a woman can take down Trump over his attempted coup must gripe Somerby no end. Don't listen to her -- she's a girl who doesn't even know her own age! How can she know whether her boss asked Trump for a pardon? Aside from being there, on the inside, watching events unfold from a front row seat. But Somerby wants reporters to stick the word alleged in at every opportunity, and remember to tell readers that Hutchinson could be lying, even though there is no evidence whatsoever she is doing so, and a greal deal of evidence supporting her truthfulness in the face of death threats.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She was lying. The only alternative explanation is that the guys were goofing with a crazy story and she was dumb enough to believe it.

      Delete
    2. Not likely, 6:48, But they are welcome to testify under oath.

      Delete
    3. "the guys were goofing with a crazy story and she was dumb enough to believe it."

      That's why I don't buy the story that Roe vs Wade isn't the law of the land.

      Delete
  6. "Big papers still fight about Hutchinson's age!"

    The papers are not fighting with each other. They realize it is irrelevant and not worth the time to seek out information that is apparently not readily available on the internet. Someone could call her, but since she is being hounded by all sorts of people, including those trying to intimidate her and those making death threats, it wouldn't be surprising if she is not answering her phone. Odd that Somerby cannot put himself in her place and see why she is not available to random press inquiries.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It’s just Bob, wanting to latch onto anything but the actual ramifications of her testimony.

      Delete
  7. If you're on the Dems' side, any statement criticizing Reps is true. And, vice versa. Both sides do it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, they don't. There are perhaps people on both sides who do not value truth, who swear oaths they do not adhere to, who lie for their own gain, but that is not what most Democrats do. Note that most scandals and indictments and this whole Trump-inspired mess of fraud, crime, and insurrection, is happening on the right. There is nothing comparable to it on the left. No matter how hard the right looked for dirt, coming up empty-handed. Your own comment is evidence that both sides are not lying here to the same extent -- both sides are NOT doing it.

      Delete
    2. Give me a break, @3:42. The entire left believed (of claimed to believe) the Steele Dossier, which was an obvious fake from the get go.

      Delete
    3. Except that it was substantiated by our intelligence services. This is another Republican big lie you are repeating, David.

      Delete
    4. Both sides, Right and Left, KNOW Biden won the 2020 Presidential election in a landslide.

      Delete
    5. Doesn't Rationalist have an imaginary friend on the Right, who thinks Trump won the 2020 Presidential election?

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  8. Paul Campos at Lawyers, Guns & Money blog says:

    "After Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony, the inevitable right wing smear campaign revved up, with a bunch of low-rent courtiers jumping on a basically trivial secondary issue..."

    They initially focused on an event she never claimed to have witnessed, Trump's attack on the driver of the Secret Service SUV on 1/6. The much more important core of Hutchinson's testimony hasn't been questioned by the smear machine.

    Today, we see Somerby joining the smear machine in support of Trump, attacking Hutchinson's credibility in his usual plausiblly deniable way. He's saying, but not really saying, because maybe she is truthful and maybe she is not (like Kathleen Willey), but maybe she's a big fat liar, even if Somerby has no evidence to impeach her testimony, it is possible she is lying, so of course we are meant to believe she must be lying.

    David in Cal says the same thing in a much more direct way, revealing the right wing meme of the day, the conservative marching orders, just as Somerby has done today. And it is all irrelevant because Hutchinson's main truths are not being contested at all -- and there is both corroboration and video, as with the other revelations of the 1/6 Committee. Somerby should be ashamed of himself, except Republicans and conservatives have no shame.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2022/07/not-even-the-fee-for-the-gambling-license

      Delete
    2. You’re not going to convince anyone the hysterically funny lunge for the wheel and attack the driver lie is not the only thing of any interest in her testimony.

      Delete
    3. Lunged for the wheel?
      We're talking about Trump. Lunging takes strength in the legs. Trump probably lost his balance (again), and his pathetic excuse for a human body fell onto the driver.

      Delete
    4. "...and attack the driver lie is not the only thing of any interest in her testimony"

      What about the dripping ketchup episode? John Kerry, the lucky husband of Heinz Queen (and Veg's Climate Czar) gotta be outraged...

      Delete
    5. It's most important to remember that the 1/6 commission / propaganda variety show will come to nothing. Trump will not be indicted for anything and it will all evaporate away like a fart in the wind. Remember how you idiots were all upset about Loudermilk giving a tour a few weeks ago? And you you know how you've totally forgotten about it and it came to nothing? That's going to be true of the entirety of this propaganda event .

      Delete
    6. 10:09,
      Actually, it’s most important to remember Right-wing snowflakes threw a childish temper tantrum, just because black peoples votes counted in the 2020 Presidential election.
      Just because it was predictable, doesn’t mean it’s not the most important thing to remember.

      Delete
    7. Oops.
      That second paragraph should read, “just because it was entirely predictable…

      Delete
    8. As far as we're concerned, it would be perfectly fine if dead people's votes were counted.

      Delete
    9. 10:09,
      Relax. I’m here for you and all the citizens of the greatest country in the history of mankind.
      I promise to never, ever let the American people forget that Right-wing snowflakes threw a childish temper tantrum, just because black peoples votes counted in the 2020 Presidential election.
      You are correct that it SHOULD lead every news story for the rest of time, but you can’t trust the corporate- owned Right-wing media (AKA the media) to do what’s good for American citizens, but that’s why you have me.

      Delete
    10. The most important point is that the 1/6 commission will come to nothing. This testimony of this young woman will not amount to anything significant. There's nothing significant in it. They don't have enough evidence to indict Trump for anything or tie him to any kind of planning. It's just a show. It's designed to reinforce the divide between the vast majority of the citizens of our country in order to keep their minds off of the dual economy that has taken over our country, one set of rules for one set of citizens, and another for the rest of us. Something Paul Campos would never mention in a million years.

      Delete
    11. @10:38 AM
      So, exactly how many dead people's votes did you count, dear psycho-dembot? You never say...

      Delete
    12. 10:47,
      The entire reason for Trump’s personality is to distract you from the rigged economy, he supports.

      Delete
    13. 10:47 is right.
      Laws are for little people.

      Delete
    14. Loudermilk did give a tour and a man on that tour did take photographs of a stairwell.

      Are you going to deny that is obvious proof of collusion?

      THERE'S VIDEO FOOL.

      Delete
    15. "Are you going to deny that is obvious proof of collusion?"

      Ha-ha. You're precious, dear dembot.
      Thanks for the laughs, dear.

      Delete
    16. You know damn well what I mean. Trump and Loudermilk were colluding to overthrow the election. They arranged a tour so all the stairwells could be documented and then be arranged into a map that the insurgents could use the next day. And they did use it. Typical maga denial of what is obvious.

      Delete
    17. security checkpoints were also videoed.

      Delete
    18. Exactly. How' else could anyone find out where the security checkpoints were? Good point.

      Delete
  9. Bob digs deep here into what can only be regarded as self parody. People with accounts that contradict her’s are welcome to testify under oath, obviously.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thank you for the definite information. They were really helpful to me, who had just been put into related work. And thank you for recommending other useful blogs that I might be interested in. I'll tell you where to help me, too.먹튀검증

    ReplyDelete
  11. "“An Oklahoma court on Friday set execution dates for 25 death row prisoners, setting up a string of executions that would take place nearly every month over the next two years,” the New York Times reports."

    Here is your pro-life hypocrisy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Those are people, not fetuses or military veterans they can use as props so they can give billionaires tax breaks.

      Delete
    2. Since we’re assigning value to humans by age and development level, we see that the liberal tribe values the lives of the brutal murderous and sadistic older humans over the innocent and young temporarily disabled.

      Delete
    3. Liberals aren't saying anything about whether these executions should go forward. The comments suggests that those who value life should be against such executions since a life is being taken with each one.

      No one who opposes abortion knows what the fetus will grow up to be or do with that spared life. It could grow up to be a truly horrible person, worthy of the death penalty for all the pro-lifers know. Hence the lack of concern with helping babies once they are born. They just don't care what happens after they have ruined the life of the mother.

      Delete
    4. Liberals believe in executing the young so their mothers can return to toiling in their cubicles and resume providing the fathers with cost-free sex.

      Delete
    5. liberals believe that medical decisions should be left to the person whose body it is, and not the govt or random nutso religious fanatics.

      Delete
    6. 11:09 Thank you for your contribution. You show why Somerby should feel humiliated: yours is the type of comment that leads to the impossibility of a discussion of abortion, especially with extremists. His view, that liberals should be able to modify how they talk about abortion and reach some sort of kumbayah with abortion opponents is ludicrous, especially now that the most extreme anti abortion position is becoming dominant in the Republican Party. So, thanks again for proving the futility of Somerby’s critiques.

      Delete
    7. mh-pot, meet anonymouse11:09-kettle.

      Delete
    8. We disagree with 11:09's thesis that liberal tribe's shamans are motivated by desire to return abotionees (so to speak) to their cubicles and keep providing their sexual partners with cost-free sex.

      We suspect that liberal tribe's shamans won't give a shit about that. In the same way as they won't give a shit about any "blacks", or any other bullshit liberal "identities".

      All they want is to stir up hatred, to get some votes.

      Otherwise, as many observers noted, they had plenty of occasions to "codify" Roe.

      Most certainly during the first 2 years of Demigod Barry's administration, when they had a filibuster-proof supermajority. But they didn't. Because all they want is culture wars and hate-mongering.

      Delete
  12. According to Hutchinson's sworn account?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Bob has this obsession with accuracy. Even the slightest press failing absorbs his attention. Her age doesn't matter. It affects nothing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bob has often been written wrong, I remember his endless insistence that during Katrina the levy’s had not been breached. Corrections in these cases are not forthcoming.

      Delete