Bear with me offering a few paragraphs of background.  It's important to help set up why I think what Cassidy Hutchinson testified to was at worst almost-entirely correct.  And that if the two Secret Service agents involved testify under oath to correct the story, they can only confirm almost everything that she said.

​Cassidy Hutchinson testified under oath before the Select Committee hearing for an hour-and-a-half on Tuesday.  By all accounts, her appearance was impressive, detailed and credible.  It encompassed damning evidence about many of those around Trump, an awareness that something major was planned for January 6, as well as what may have been crimes by Trump, including that he was demanding that armed members of the mob be allowed to bypass metal detectors.
 
And for all that, pretty much the only thing the far-right media and Trump enablers can talk about is one story that she said was told TO her about Trump confronting Secret Service agents in a car.  Again, to be clear, she never said the story was true (nor that it wasn’t) – just that it was told TO her in front of one of the agents involved, who never contradicted the story at the time.
 
One would think that if you wanted to defend someone accused of demanding that security officials "take the f-ing mags away" to let an armed mob join him on an Insurrection march to the U.S. Capitol to overthrow the government, you would do all  you could to dispute that assertion of a federal crime to undermine democracy, rather than only dispute a single, almost insignificant story about grabbing a steering wheel.  But then, that's jut me.  If they think getting one story wrong (and there’s no evidence that she did get it wrong, more on that in a moment) discounts all her testimony, they have a woefully poor idea of how testimony works.  Further, if they think all her other testimony is untrue – or even any of it – you’d think that’s what they’d attack (most especially that part about, y'know, letting the "f-ing" armed Insurrection join him to overthrow the government), not a story about grabbing a steering wheel.  But I guess a drowning man will grab at anything floating by, even a piece of seaweed.
 
Which brings us to the news that the two Secret Service agents she testified about – Tony Ornato and Bobby Engel – are prepared to testify to correct the record.  Putting aside that both men are known to be huge, massive Trump supporters and likely don't want him painted in a bad light, it remains to be seen if they will testify.  Ornato in particular has a terrible reputation for what's considered his willingness to lie.  After all, Trump once said that he would testify in the past over some issue, and shockingly he never did.  And Ginni Thomas said she looked forward to testifying – but shockingly now says she isn’t inclined to.  So, maybe the two Secret Service agents will testify and maybe they want.
 
But let’s assume they do testify.  And if they do, all they would possibly be able to contradict (the only thing) is not that Ms. Hutchinson was lying about Trump’s actions, since she wasn’t claiming to be present, but only that the story Ms. Hutchinson said was told TO her was not true. 
 
Furthermore, if the agents testify, then since both were present when the story was told TO her (Ornato told it, in fact, and Engel listened) they will actually confirm that what she said under oath is 100% true – that that story was what, in fact, was told TO her, and that Engel did not contradict it at the time.
 
In other words, if she got the details of the confrontation in the car slightly wrong, then that’s only because the person telling it (Tony Ornato) told it slightly wrong.
 
Is it possible that Cassidy Hutchinson got the story completely wrong and that none of it was told to her by Ornato with Engel’s silent agreement?  This is where I’d normally say, to be fair, sure it’s remotely possible.  Except this time I can say – no, it is not even possible.
 
Why not?
 
Because, you see, Bobby Engel has already testified to the Select Committee in private. And some details of his testimony were reported by Politico.  Among them is that Engel testified, under oath, that Trump had insisted he wanted to go to the Capitol on January 6 but that Engel said he "took different views on the topic" and so they drove back to the White House.
 
Which is the foundation of exactly what Cassidy Hutchinson testified was told TO her. 
 
So, if Engel and Ornato do end up testifying under oath, they can’t see she made it all up and got it all wrong.  They can only testify that the story was, indeed, told TO her, and that she got the foundation of the story right.  Just perhaps, at worst, she remembered some of the details wrong.  Or that Ornato himself didn’t tell the story accurately, perhaps to embellish it to make it sound better, more exciting.  And that she was right about Engel not contradicting the story, but that was only because he didn’t want to embarrass his boss in front of others.  At worst.
 
At worst.
 
On the other hand, they could also rephrase the story now so that the basics of what Ms. Hutchinson said are completely true but just not as bad-sounding so that it doesn’t embarrass Trump.  Like, “He was upset because he wanted to join the crowd, and I had a different view, so he leaned towards the front seat to make his case, at which point I blocked him for his protection, and our arms got crossed.  Tony just told the story more dramatically.”
 
Though, since Cassidy Hutchinson testified under oath at risk of penalty of perjury that the more dramatic story is precisely what Ornato told TO her and that Engel didn’t contradict it at the time, and given that none of her actually-damning testimony about possible criminality of an armed Insurrection has been contradicted, it’s fair to assume that she got it spot-on right.
 
But yeah, let’s focus on the steering wheel.  When that’s all you’ve got.

Two things leaped out for me with Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony yesterday.  First, for any Republicans trying to smear her, she worked for Steve Scalise, Mark Meadows and in the Trump administration.  And second, what a remarkable 25-year old woman with poise, intelligence and courage, who exuded utter credibility. 
 
Okay, a third thought also leaped out.  What a shame that was all wasted on working for such far-right policy makers.  But at least they had a smart, courageous and poised young woman to give them a sense of perspective.

For all her explosive testimony, what stuck out for me was almost the very first thing she discussed.  That on January 5, she was walking with Rudy Giuliani who enthusiastically was telling her about what a great day it was going to be the next day.  Now, there was only two event taking place the next day – certifying the electoral votes to make Joe Biden and a rally to complain about it.  The first of those is no reason for anyone in the Trump administration to be giddy, and the second (saying how upset you are that you lost) isn’t either.  The only thing that can make a Trump official excited about January 6 is if he was aware something big was planned to change things.  Which means the Insurrection was not an angry gathering that got out of control, but planned by those at the top.  (As a side note, what also stood out is that she kept referring to him as “Rudy,” so clearly she knew him well.)
 
And related to this is that the very next thing in her testimony is that when she told her boss Mark Meadows, chief of staff to Trump, about this odd conversation with “Rudy,” he didn’t even react.  Which pretty much suggests he, too, knew this was planned.  The fact that he intended to go to the rally "war room" at the Willard only supports that.  And the fact that it took her, his 25-year-old aide with far more integrity and common sense, to make sure he didn’t go, speaks even louder to her clear-eyed testimony.  And from all this, we can now understand her surprising revelation why Meadows asked Trump for a pardon.
 
The details that Cassidy Hutchinson just flowed throughout her long testimony – some substantive to the attempted coup, some meaningful as mosaic piece about the full picture of who Trump was.
 
When he tried to get the metal detectors taken away so that they could knowingly let those in with guns, because “they’re not here to hurt me,” may have been the most damning testimony about Trump’s part in the Insurrection.  Again, it not only suggests that the attempted coup was planned, but planned as an armed Insurrection.  After all, if he know who the mob wasn’t there to hurt, it suggests he had a good idea who it was there to hurt.
 
Then, there was the story of the out-of-control Trump, so angry at not being able to lead to mob to the Capitol that he grabbed the wheel of his presidential limo and grabbed the throat of the Secret Service agent in charge of his detail – a man whose job was to protect Trump’s life and even risk his own if necessary.
 
And that was only matched by the picture of Trump being so petulant about all this that he threw his food on the wall and pulled off the tablecloth.  It made me think the Baby Trump balloon should maybe be taken out of mothballs.
 
(So, we have a new fun game – Which is a Worse Image?  Attacking his Secret Service agent or throwing food.  I was going to vote for food throwing because it’s SO infantile.  But I can see a powerful person having a tantrum and knocking things off the table.  But attacking your Secret Service agent?  Hmmm, yeah, that might be the winner.)
 
The meticulous details of her entire testimony – keeping in mind that she testified in private previously for the Select Committee – only added gravitas to what she presented.
 
It came as no surprise in the slightest that Trump released a statement during Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony that (as his go-to response about most anyone who says something critical about him) in which he claimed that he hardly knew her.  The thing is, regardless of whether Trump says he doesn't know Ms. Hutchinson well (and of course he does – she was the advisor to his chief-of-staff who worked down the short hallway every single day), it doesn't matter if he knows her.  That’s because Mark Meadows (her boss) knows her. Rudy Giuliani knows her. Kevin McCarthy knows her.  Jim Jordan knows her. Tony Ornato and Bobby Engel know her, the men both in charge of different areas of Trump’s Secret Service security detail.  And she was in the room with Trump, often.  Taking notes about everything -- because that was her job.  So, if Trump doesn’t actually know her (and of course he does), he should have paid much better attention, and not let this little person who means nothing to him escape his attention.
 
How devastating was her overwhelmingly-credible testimony?  The GOP House Judiciary put out a tweet in which the best they could do was say, in its entirety – “It’s literally all hearsay evidence. What a joke.”

Now, keep in mind, this is from the GOP House Judiciary, the party’s experts in the law – which explains a lot.  For starters, if yesterday was a court trial, that would have been be a semi-interesting point.   But only semi, since some hearsay evidence is allowed in court. As attorney Renato Mariottii replied to the GOP Judiciary tweet, "You might want to read Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2). Her testimony regarding Trump’s statements would be admissible in a criminal case against Trump."

Furthermore, not everything she said, “literally," was even hearsay.  But more to the point, unfortunately for the GOP House Judiciary Team, this was not a court trial, which they should know as GOP Judiciary members.  And they also should have understood that, whether hearsay or direct evidence or a hearing or a trial…she was under oath at penalty of perjury about everything she “literally” said.  And nothing in the GOP House Judiciary tweet said that a single word about what Cassidy Hutchinson testified was untrue.
 
It was also notable at the end of the day that co-chair Liz Cheney addressed the reality of pressure being put on many of the Republican witness we’ve heard, raising the specter of witness tampering, quoting a couple of them, and making clear that this is something that would be address.  Basically this was what nautical experts call giving a warning shot across the bow.  There might be quite a few Republicans on the Trump team who come to mind.  Rudy Giuliani is one who comes to mind, given that we already know from previous testimony about some of his efforts.

And that one crime only touches the surface of the list of crimes that legal analysts on TV were presenting about what further exposure Trump now has.
 
The one thing to keep in mind is that everything that Cassidy Hutchinson testified to under oath was valid for the hearing, but not all wouldn’t be admissible in a court.  Though some would.  So, to the DOJ, yesterday’s hearing has to be seen as the starting point for getting the information they can use.  Some or much of which, I suspect, they already have.
 
And in the end, one other bit of testimony stood out for me – and it wasn’t from Ms. Hutchinson.  Rather, it was a video of retired Gen. Mike Flynn being questioned by Liz Cheney.  And when asked if he thought the violence on January 6 was morally justified, he pled the Fifth Amendment.  And when asked if he thought that the violence on January 6 was morally justified, he again pled the Fifth Amendment.  But the one that most-caught my attention was when he was given a softball from Rep. Cheney.  “Gen. Flynn,” she asked, “do you believe in the peaceful transfer of power in the United States of America?”
 
To which the retired general answered, “The Fifth.”
 
It is my hope that Mike Flynn is re-activated to service, court-martialed and then stripped in rank.  That isn’t likely to happen, but it remains one of my hopes.  And I don’t put it in the fantasy file.

And in the end, that one exchange may best describe what this hearing is all about.  A retired general whose sworn oath and duty of his career was to defend the Constitution and country couldn’t answer “Do you believe in the peaceful transfer of power in the United States of America?”  He believed that responding might incriminate himself.
 
That is the Trump administration and his enabling acolytes surrounding him – in office and in the public.
 
That’s today’s Republican Party.

I was having a discussion with a friend about how he hopes the furor over the Supreme Court decision doesn’t die down before the election, and that Democrats make every effort to make sure it stays strong.
 
I wrote back that, yes, Democrats have to make sure the furor keeps burning hot.  But honestly, I don’t think the furor will come close to dying down – because of several reasons.  1) Women won’t let it.  2) Democrats know that if inflation doesn’t improve by the mid-terms, this is now their issue.  And 3) Republicans aren’t going to stop with the court decision – they’re already talking about codifying a ban of abortion if they take control of Congress, and other issues wildly out-of-step with the public.  (Even same-sex marriage is supported by 70% of the public.)  So, Republicans will actually become their own worst enemy and keep showing themselves to be even more horrific.  I think this furor is only going to grow – especially combined with the Select Committee hearings on the Insurrection to overthrow democracy to which this furor is related to.  It’s all part of GOP fascism.
 
Well, later in the day I can across this video.  And it’s further evidence that, no, the furor is not going to die down.
 
I didn’t know this song, though it sort of rumbled in the back of my mind as something I’d hear of.  It’s from a British pop/rock star and songwriter Lily Allen who was brought onstage by the huge American pop/rock star Olivia Rodrigo to sing it together.
 
And though this is at Glastonbury in England, not in the United States, in some ways the massive crowd participation speaks loudly to the public response.  (I’m also sure the public reacts this way whenever the song is performed, but they do seem especially and understandably involved.  And even though a British crowd, they react to mention of the Supreme Court and even certain justices.)
 
Shorter versions of this appearance have shown up on social media, but this is the full 5-minute, official clip of the introduction and complete performance.  And a warning, it’s not for the Family Hour, but blunt in its language.

To expand on this a little, beyond the 288-character limit of Twitter --

​There's a phrase I've used a LOT for the past five years that I've begun hearing more recently as the Select Committee hearings have been on -- "willful ignorance." One may be ignorant about something, but just because you've chosen intentionally to be.

Trump was told by ALL his own advisors what the truth was. He's heard it. He's aware of the reality. But he's chosen to ignore it.

He believes he can't lose at anything. But he has no evidence -- zero -- to support his insistence that he won. So, that's not thinking he won. It's not thinking, period. It's choosing to say he won, because he doesn't have it in him to say anything else.

After my first reaction to hearing the news of the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade, my almost-immediate next reaction was not about abortion, since everyone was expecting this news following the leak a couple months ago, but rather how the five far-right justices have come very close to putting a final nail in public trust of the Supreme Court.  Between expanding gun use after a massacre of schoolchildren and the very next day getting rid of a 49-year settled and confirmed precedence of women’s right -- all for clear political reason, having zero to do with the law, since nothing legally or scientifically has changed Roe v. Wade was passed and later reaffirmed, these far-right justices are telling the public that the law may not be even remotely dependent on judicial standards but only what political party is in office to appoint and approve them.
 
By this ruling and that on guns, the far-right Justices have shown that politics and personal beliefs will be the foundations of their decisions, not precedence and settled law (indeed confirmed precedence) until legal conditions change which require a change in the law.  Now, these justices are saying that even if absolutely nothing changes that affects existing, settled laws, we will change the law and even take away long-held rights because of our politics and personal belief.
 
Former Attorney General Eric Holder, who ran the Department of Justice, explained it more pointedly in a simple tweet –
 
“Make no mistake, the decisions of the last two days - guns & abortion - are not a function of legal, constitutional interpretation. They are solely the result of a change in Court personnel. This makes the Court a more obvious political institution, not one removed from politics.”
 
Does this mean these far-right Justices will next go against contraceptives, same-sex marriage and more?  We’ll find out.    I don’t think they’d go after interracial marriage – that would be about 10 bridges too far (though honestly, if they actually held to their stated reasons for overturning abortion, they should try to overturn interracial marriage, but far-right hypocrisy has no limits.  And yes, I’d like to see Clarence Thomas write that opinion, as well) – but I could see them at least consider going against same-sex marriage…and maybe even doing so.  All the while ignoring the hypocrisy that by the same justification they could rule against interracial marriage but don’t dare to.
 
By the way, even though everyone was expecting this after the leak two months ago, I’m now very curious how it will impact people’s reaction now that it is official and the law and states start actually stopping abortions.  Last week before the ruling, a friend said a poll showed that just 13% of the country said abortion and guns were important issues to them when it came to voting.  I replied that that poll was taken before abortion was officially ended, not just assumed.  But now that it’s real and final and abortions are banned throughout red states, even with no exceptions, and people can see the literal meaning of it, as the cold, hard reality hits people in the face.  I’ll be curious to see how polls react as it all truly sinks in and we near the election.  (Further, I also said that polls like that tend to ask what issues are most important to you, so people largely rank them.  It doesn’t mean that a “lower” issue is unimportant, nor that people can have several issues that are important to them when it comes to voting.  Just which are the “most” important.  And now, too, with these two Supreme court rulings on abortion and guns, I suspect even that level of important may start to change.  As reality rears its head, and people have to deal with it.)
 
To be clear -- I’m not saying I know to what degree this will change what people say about how important abortion (and guns) are to them as issues.  Just that the landscape affecting that is now totally different once the law has been officially overturned and Red states start action and it now literally impacts women’s lives.
 
Indeed, the big political problem Republicans have with the Roe reversal is that while inflation may still be an issue in November and remains a great concern to Democrats, it has the possibility of improving even a little by then, if not more -- but the Supreme Court decision throwing out abortion rights stands. And will continue to stand.  And worse for Republicans, the public knows that if Republicans win control of Congress, the party is on record wanting to now ban all abortion, for any reason, outright. Something that around 80% of the public (at the very least, I suspect) is against.

That's not going away by the mid-terms. But inflation, as huge a problem as it is for Democrats, at least has the possibility of getting better. And further, even if inflation doesn't go away or even improve, most people know that eventually, or soon, it will. But unless Democrats keep political control and pass a law to basically codify Roe v. Wade, the right of all women to an abortion is gone. 
 
Up until Friday, abortion has only been a national issue.  As of Friday, it is now also a local issue.  State and city, where laws will now be passed that impact how abortion is dealt with in a community. Those are the races that are now just as critical as national campaigns.  To be clear, it will still be a national issue, especially as Republican consider passing a law to ban abortion outright.  (Or, for that matter, if enough Democrats get elected at some point, to pass a law making abortions legal nationally.)  And national, too, for electing senators who vote to confirm Supreme Court justices when there’s an opening.  But now, it is also a local matter.
 
And contraception and same-sex marriage – and if the far-right political Justices weren’t as hypocritical as they are – interracial marriage could be on the ballot, since they all largely fall under the same ruling issues.
 
And for all that, I still think the impact these two rulings this week will have on public confidence in the Supreme Court to act on the law, not politics – a confidence that had already plummeted – risks being profound, and for a long time.
 

If  you didn't see Last Week Tonight with John Oliver on Sunday, the Main Story was on School Police.  In fact, other than a short piece at the beginning on Queen Elizabeth's 70th anniversary and a short segment at the end on a banana statue, almost the entire show was the Main Story.  And it was a terrific one -- very interesting (including about how studies show that having school police risk causing more gun violence), but also able to lend itself to a lot of humor.
​