That was yesterday’s analysis

David French explains why Hutchinson’s testimony makes the case for prosecuting Trump stronger:

I confess that I’ve been skeptical that the January 6 committee would produce evidence that Donald Trump was directly criminally responsible for the attack on the Capitol. Certainly he was morally and politically responsible. There’s no credible argument that a mob would have stormed the Capitol if he had the basic decency to concede a race he clearly lost. 

At the same time, it’s legally quite difficult to hold a politician responsible for the violence of his followers.

It’s very difficult for non-lawyers to keep that distinction in mind – at least it’s very difficult for me and I doubt I’m special that way. It feels as if the two ought to be the same, so we balk at accepting that they’re not. Times a million in Trump’s case.

That was yesterday’s analysis. Today’s is different. Because of a courageous woman named Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide to Mark Meadows. 

Hutchinson claims she overheard Trump say about the crowd, “You know, I don’t effing care that they have weapons. They’re not here to hurt me. Take the effing mags away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here. Let the people in. Take the effing mags away.”

As Jake Tapper noted, the “mags” refer to magnetometers deployed to keep armed individuals away from the president. 

Trump has denied Hutchinson’s testimony in a series of “truths” (equivalent to a tweet) on his website, Truth Social. Moreover, it is important to attempt to corroborate Hutchinson’s sworn testimony by interviewing others who may have heard Trump’s words. But Hutchinson’s sworn testimony closes a gap in the criminal case against Trump, and Trump is closer to a credible prosecution than ever before.

I hope she has very good security.

One Response to “That was yesterday’s analysis”