Thread by @squidlord

I think it's fascinating to watch the evolution of the Hutchinson story through mass media. Or rather – the *collapse* of the Hutchinson story. #J6Hearings #HutchinsonTestimony #CassidyHutchinson

https://twitter.com/Forbes/status/1541846244343029760?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1541846244343029760%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Face.mu.nu%2F

1/29

After all, this isn't a real story. It's a thing that happened, certainly. Just as all the Star Chamber show trials that the USSR put on were things that happened and which Pravda was eager to share. 2/29

Just so we're clear ...

ace.mu.nu/archives/39980… 3/29

I think @ggreenwald puts his finger directly on the beating pulse of reasons why the J6 Committee hearings were ridiculous to begin with when he gives this quote: 4/29

> As any lawyer will tell you (if being honest), few things are less reliable than a proceeding with no adversarial component. These hearings have zero. 5/29

But this isn't news. Everyone has known since before the formation of the J6 Committee that it is both an embarrassment and a failure for its original constituted idea. Not to find the truth. That was never the plan. 6/29

No, it was a deep failure to properly demonize Donald Trump and the rising power and potential of the MAGA/populist/America First political machine. 7/29

That was its original intent, that was the original plan, and just like everything else that the Democrats have planned to do for the last several decades – they completely blew it because they don't have a single brain to pass among them. 8/29

All they needed to do was actually have someone who could pretend to be actually oppositional on the #NeverTrump/Conservative Inc. side of the Committee, and they would have been scot-free

They didn't even have to believe it. 9/29

They just needed someone who could act convincingly. They just needed to be willing to pretend to take a loss on a few points in order to bolster the credibility of the rest of the show trial. 10/29

In short: only had to do was put on a show and they couldn't even do that.

Much like Amber Heard. 11/29

Unfortunately for them, for six weeks Amber Heard was exactly what the American populace had been watching every single night, half the night, in what was a real trial.

With real lawyers. Who made real arguments. 12/29

Like @RekietaLaw , an actual lawyer who with nearly a dozen other lawyers provided in-depth detail and analysis of the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard trial.

13/29

REAL LAW, which the American people on both sides of the aisle find fascinating, especially when it's combined with the pleasure of watching rich people scream at each other like junkies in a Walmart parking lot. 14/29

But we all learned something significant in the process of following that trial.

Hearsay evidence is bullshit.

Let me repeat that for the people in the back row:

Hearsay evidence is bullshit. 15/29

It's not admissible. It's not meaningful. And as Greenwald points out later in the previous citation, a lawyer brings in hearsay evidence when they know going to the primary sources isn't going to get the story told that they want spoken. 16/29

The J6 Committee is a monocultural black hole. We know and they know they have no devotion to answering questions of truth. No interest in answering questions of truth. 17/29

If they did, they would have consciously and publicly set up an oppositional architecture where argument would lead to truth by exposure of credible evidence. That's not what they did, ergo it's not what they want.

Enter Hutchinson, stage left. 18/29

She is photogenic (moderately), young (stupidly), and brings a story which is too good to question for anybody on the J6C. Anybody.

And that story is all hearsay. 97% of it. Even the parts which aren't being discussed in either conservative or liberal media. 19/29

The bits which aren't hearsay are directly contravened by evidence either easily verified or validated by walking outside and looking at something or asking a large number of other people who were there. 20/29

J6C: "Who wrote this note that you testified in detail that you yourself wrote?"

HUTCHINSON: "I did."

WHAT NO ONE SAID: "You mean not the guy that we called to testify a month ago and who has stated explicitly that he wrote it?"

wjla.com/news/nation-wo… 21/29

1:50:29 here is pretty important. If you were actually interested in evidence.

c-span.org/video/?520804-… 22/29

WHAT NO ONE DID: Actually look at other notes written by those two people and see whose handwriting it looks like. 23/29

And when I say "no one," that includes major news organizations who have people that refer to themselves as journalists on the payroll. Some of them even call themselves "investigative journalists."

The numbers are looking really bad. 24/29

Not just the economic indicators for all Americans but the trust indicators for all Americans of the federal government.

The people that think that you, personally, are stupid enough to fall for this level of bullshit. Some of you are. Many of you aren't. 25/29

But every time they push it forward on the plate in front of you and expect you to eat it, I believe that they advocate evermore strongly for the Strange Fruit solution. 26/29

Whether "they" be federal government actors or the media butt-puppets who can't even do the one thing they're supposed to be good at, write a good storyline. 27/29

I don't think anybody involved really wants that, but the last 150,000 years of history was not written by people who wanted what happened. It was written by people who who survived what happened. 28/29

Cassidy Hutchinson is the worst kind of liar. She's not good at it. And the members of the J6 Committee are of a like kind.

The least we can do is demand a better class of scumbag as members of the political elite. Is that asking so much? 29/29