Mediaboss Marketing

What characteristics make a good leader? What characteristicsmake a good leader?

Annie, 27, Illinois, Leans Democrat

Aaliyah, 23, Florida, Independent

Barrett, 39, Texas, Leans Democrat

For all the attention Liz Cheney, Mike Pence and Cassidy Hutchinson have received recently, their acts of political bravery standing up to Donald Trump and facing threats to their safety and future as a result are hardly defining features of our current political moment. Bravery and courage are not only leadership traits seldom seen by Americans but also qualities subject to debate: By refusing to go along with Mr. Trumps subversion of the election, was Mr. Pence brave or simply doing his job? Is Ms. Cheney courageous in her pursuit of Mr. Trump, or is she thumbing her nose at the many Wyoming Republicans who elected her and still embrace him?

In our latest Times Opinion focus group, which took place before the July Fourth weekend, a mix of 10 Democrats, independents and Republicans said they were hungry for leadership. They admired people they saw as patriots, like Ms. Cheney, President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine and, in some cases, President Biden for making the hard call to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan. But what several of them wanted leaders willing to tell hard truths, go against the grain, stand up for something unpopular seemed to them qualities belonging to past leaders: Winston Churchill, the suffragists, Moses. Still, they saw glimmers in politicians like Pete Buttigieg, Katie Porter and Joe Manchin, though Mr. Manchin divided the group sharply.

We wanted to understand how Americans saw political bravery and courage and who they saw displaying it in an era when political posturing, attacks and stunts are so much more common. The conversation ultimately turned back toward ourselves, with a Democrat from California arguing that Americans get the politicians they deserve that, in other words, if politicians today arent brave and courageous, it might be because we arent brave and courageous, either.

Mr. Healy is the deputy Opinion editor. Mr. Rivera is an editorial assistant in Opinion.

Barrett 39, Texas, White, Consultant, Leans Democrat

Aaliyah 23, Florida, Asian, Tech, Independent

Tiffany 30, Georgia, Black, Clothing Designer, Leans Democrat

Angel 25, Ohio, Asian, Engineer, Leans Republican

David 56, Massachusetts, White, Adminstrative Support, Independent

Annie 27, Illinois, White, Consultant, Leans Democrat

Susan 64, New Jersey, White, Retired, Independent

Jeremiah 47, Arizona, Black, Truck Driver, Independent

Roger 51, California, Black, Real Estate Broker, Leans Democrat

Barry 57, California, White, Retired, Independent

Moderator, Kristen Soltis Anderson

Who do you think of as a good leader?

Roger, 51, California, Black, Real Estate Broker, Leans Democrat

First person that comes to mind is Barack Obama.

Annie, 27, Illinois, White, Consultant, Leans Democrat

Angela Merkel.

David, 56, Massachusetts, White, Adminstrative Support, Independent

Barack Obama and the coach of my beloved Celtics, Ime Udoka.

Angel, 25, Ohio, Asian, Engineer, Leans Republican

Elon Musk.

Tiffany, 30, Georgia, Black, Clothing Designer, Leans Democrat

LeBron James.

Barry, 57, California, White, Retired, Independent

George W. Bush.

Jeremiah, 47, Arizona, Black, Truck Driver, Independent

The mayor of Long Beach, Robert Garcia. Hes wonderful, and he's coming up quickly on the platform.

Aaliyah, 23, Florida, Asian, Tech, Independent

Bill Gates.

Moderator, Kristen Soltis Anderson

What characteristics make a good leader?

Jeremiah, 47, Arizona, Black, Truck Driver, Independent

Effective communication.

Annie, 27, Illinois, White, Consultant, Leans Democrat

Compassion, understanding, being a servant leader.

David, 56, Massachusetts, White, Adminstrative Support, Independent

Honesty.

Aaliyah, 23, Florida, Asian, Tech, Independent

Consistency.

Roger, 51, California, Black, Real Estate Broker, Leans Democrat

Clear direction.

Barrett, 39, Texas, White, Consultant, Leans Democrat

Straightforward, no sugarcoating.

Tiffany, 30, Georgia, Black, Clothing Designer, Leans Democrat

Not being afraid of doing what is right, no matter what everyone else thinks.

Moderator, Kristen Soltis Anderson

How do you define bravery? What does it mean to be brave?

Susan, 64, New Jersey, White, Retired, Independent

You see a situation, have a solution, and you go and you do it. You pretty much do it without fear because you have a level of confidence that you know what youre doing.

Angel, 25, Ohio, Asian, Engineer, Leans Republican

Bravery is not being afraid to do something that you want to do. It does not necessarily have to be the right thing. Its just going for what you believe in, regardless of whos watching you.

Aaliyah, 23, Florida, Asian, Tech, Independent

Being someone whos able to confront things that other people arent able to confront.

Barrett, 39, Texas, White, Consultant, Leans Democrat

Being brave is being willing to stand up for someone else.

Jeremiah, 47, Arizona, Black, Truck Driver, Independent

I would include that you do what you do because you need to, you have to or you want to, regardless of those consequences.

Moderator, Patrick Healy

A show-of-hands question: Do you think American political leaders today are brave when it comes to making tough decisions? [Nobody raises a hand.]

David, 56, Massachusetts, White, Adminstrative Support, Independent

Do I think some politicians are brave? Yes. But overall, as a unit, I dont think politicians are very brave. I think theyre beholden to what or who theyre beholden to, regardless of whats best for their constituents.

Tiffany, 30, Georgia, Black, Clothing Designer, Leans Democrat

I dont think theyre brave. I just feel like there are a lot of things they should agree on that affect us no matter what. Its like our life is just a game to them.

Moderator, Patrick Healy

Is there an example of something, Tiffany, that you think they should be able to agree on that comes to mind?

Tiffany, 30, Georgia, Black, Clothing Designer, Leans Democrat

I mean, like, feeding kids in school for free. Why is that such a debate? I dont think there should be a debate. We should feed our kids at school.

Moderator, Patrick Healy

David made the point that some political leaders can be brave. Is there anyone who agrees with that, and does any politician come to mind?

Susan, 64, New Jersey, White, Retired, Independent

There are some political leaders who can be brave, but they are penalized, punished, demeaned and disgraced by their cohorts. Bravery is moot. If youre the only Republican and standing up for a Democratic proposal, youre sanctioned. Liz Cheney is a perfect example. She tried to stand up for what was right even though it was counter to what her party line was. And she was sanctioned because of it. That line that we all are afraid to cross doing whats right regardless of the cost stops a lot of people. But it also makes a lot of good people leave, which is another danger. If you want to affect change, you cant do it if you walk away.

Angel, 25, Ohio, Asian, Engineer, Leans Republican

Cheney stood up for what she believed in. And shes currently at a position where she has to face continued backlash from the politics environment. So I definitely think that shes brave.

Moderator, Kristen Soltis Anderson

Thats a good segue to our next question. Im going to give a couple of examples of actions, and with a show of hands, tell me if you consider those actions to be brave or not: If an elected leader holds a different point of view than most of the people in the state or district they represent, and they vote or act based on their principles rather than what the majority view is even if they know that it might be unpopular is that considered brave?

Is it brave if you vote or act in a way thatis based on your principles, even if it isunpopular with the people you represent? Is it brave if you vote or act ina way that is based on your principles, even if it is unpopularwith the people you represent? 6 people raised their hands.

Barrett, 39, Texas, Leans Democrat

Aaliyah, 23, Florida, Independent

Tiffany, 30, Georgia, Leans Democrat

Angel, 25, Ohio, Leans Republican

David, 56, Massachusetts, Independent

Annie, 27, Illinois, Leans Democrat

Susan, 64, New Jersey, Independent

Jeremiah, 47, Arizona, Independent

Roger, 51, California, Leans Democrat

Barry, 57, California, Independent

Moderator, Kristen Soltis Anderson

Annie, you did not put your hand up. Why?

Annie, 27, Illinois, White, Consultant, Leans Democrat

I think theres a difference between personal bravery and political bravery. For me, its not politically brave, because if its unpopular with your constituents, then that shouldnt be something that you vote for.

David, 56, Massachusetts, White, Adminstrative Support, Independent

If you stand for what you believe, even though the others in your group or the others in your party dont, then I think that shows some bravery.

Moderator, Kristen Soltis Anderson

See the rest here:
Opinion | From Biden to Cheney to Manchin, Are Politicians Brave Anymore? - The New York Times

By Richard Cowan and Katanga Johnson

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Congressional investigators into the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol expect this week to draw connections between militant groups that took part and government officials, possibly including then-President Donald Trump, a member of the committee conducting the investigation said on Sunday.

"We are going to be connecting the dots during these hearings between these groups and those who were trying in government circles to overturn the election," Democratic Representative Zoe Lofgren said on CNN's "State of the Union."

Asked if Trump was aware members of these groups attended a rally he led outside the White House when he urged them to march on the Capitol, Lofgren said: "You have to reach your own conclusions but based on the events leading up to the day, I think that would be a logical conclusion."

Trump, a Republican, has falsely claimed Democrat Joe Biden defeated him in the 2020 presidential election through massive fraud - assertions rejected in U.S. courts, by Trump's own Justice Department and even Republican-led audits.

After Trump spoke outside the White House on Jan. 6, his supporters marched to the Capitol in a failed bid to prevent Congress from certifying Biden's victory in a session where then-Vice President Mike Pence was presiding.

Two groups, the self-described Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, will be under the spotlight in the two hearings this week, expected on Tuesday and Thursday.

NBC News reported that Jason Van Tatenhove, a former spokesperson for the Oath Keepers, would testify on Tuesday. A committee spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

Federal prosecutors have alleged that Jeremy Brown, a member of the Oath Keepers, brought explosives to the Washington area on Jan. 6. Brown, in a statement, called the charges a "disgusting lie."

During a September 2020 debate between Trump and Biden before the November election, Trump was asked whether he would condemn white supremacist and militia groups for violent activities during his presidency.

Story continues

Trump responded, "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by." He added, "Somebody's got to do something about antifa and the left. ... this is a left-wing problem."

On Friday, former White House counsel Pat Cipollone testified to committee investigators behind closed doors.

Videotaped excerpts of that testimony will be presented at Tuesday's hearing, said Lofgren, who is one of nine members on a bipartisan House of Representatives Select Committee that began its current series of public hearings last month.

"He was able to provide information on basically all of the critical issues we are looking at, including the president's what-I-would-call dereliction of duty on the day of Jan. 6," Lofgren said.

The committee has yet to say whether this Thursday's hearing, expected in evening prime time when U.S. television audiences are at their peak, will be the final one before a panel report is issued, possibly in September.

Representative Adam Kinzinger, one of two Republicans on the panel, is expected to lead witness questioning that night, along with Democratic Representative Elaine Luria.

"We're going to really focus on what was the president doing from in essence the moment the insurrection started until he finally, hours later, put out a tweet that said, 'We shouldn't do anything like this,'" Kinzinger told ABC's "This Week."

He added, "Keep in mind in the middle of that was the tweet that said in essence this is what happens when you steal an election; that Vice President Pence deserved this."

In earlier committee testimony, witnesses said Trump signaled support for rioters calling for Pence to be hanged.

Lofgren also said the committee had received a letter from Trump adviser Steve Bannon saying he would be willing to testify. Bannon was charged last year with two counts of contempt of Congress for defying a committee subpoena.

(Reporting by Richard Cowan and Katanga Johnson; Additional reporting by Tyler Clifford and Patricia Zengerle; Editing by Mary Milliken, Howard Goller and Edwina Gibbs)

Read more here:
Links between Trump associates, militants in focus at Jan 6 hearings this week - Yahoo News

Why isn't Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland prosecuting Trump? Indicting a former president for trying to subvert an election is harder than it looks. (Patrick Semansky / Associated Press)

The House committee on the Jan. 6, 2021, insurgency, whose hearings resume this week, has produced impressive evidence that could allow prosecutors to argue that former President Trump committed crimes as he tried to overturn the 2020 election.

Thanks to the hearings, we now know more clearly that Trump tried to bully Vice President Mike Pence into blocking Congress count of electoral votes, tried to bully Justice Department officials into declaring the election fraudulent even though they knew it wasnt and stood by with seeming approval while his armed supporters sacked the Capitol.

All of which has led many ordinary citizens and not just Trump-haters to wonder: Why isnt Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland prosecuting this man?

The answer is both complicated and simple. Indicting a former president for trying to subvert a presidential election is harder than it looks.

Its definitely not a slam-dunk, Paul Rosenzweig, a former federal prosecutor (and anti-Trump Republican), told me last week. It will require tough decisions.

The problem isnt lack of evidence. The former Trump aides who have testified before the House committee and been interviewed by the FBI have taken care of that.

The problem, Rosenzweig and other former prosecutors said, is that convincing a jury that Trump is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt will still be difficult especially when the former president, armed with good lawyers, can challenge that evidence.

We know from the polls that about 30% of the American people think Trump did nothing wrong on Jan. 6, Rosenzweig said. Thirty percent of a jury is three or four people. I think getting a unanimous conviction will be nearly impossible, even in the liberal District of Columbia.

And a trial that ends in Trumps acquittal, he warned, would backfire.

It would not only have the effect of giving Trump impunity, he said, "it would give him impunity and an aura of invincibility.

Others disagree. Donald B. Ayer, another Republican former prosecutor, thinks a conviction would be possible. Trump was ready to have Mike Pence be killed, Ayer said. You tell that story to a jury, and I think you win.

Story continues

But Ayer notes that Justice Department regulations require that prosecutors believe they have a high probability of winning a conviction before they can indict. By that standard, what Garland is doing is both correct and by the book. Hes investigating aggressively but prosecuting cautiously.

Justice Department lawyers have served subpoenas on Rudolph W. Giuliani and John Eastman, lawyers who advised Trump on his schemes, and on pro-Trump activists who organized bogus slates of alternative electors in swing states like Arizona and Georgia.

Last month, FBI agents searched the Virginia home of Jeffrey Clark, a former top Justice Department official who pushed colleagues to endorse Trumps claims of voter fraud.

And prosecutors have indicted leaders of the right-wing Proud Boys and Oath Keepers militias on charges of seditious conspiracy in connection with Jan. 6.

All of which suggests that the Justice Department is pursuing a traditional organized-crime model in its investigation: prosecuting small fish to build cases against the higher-ups.

Even so, Trump will be able to argue in his defense that he lacked criminal intent, by claiming either that he genuinely believed the election had been stolen or did not know that interfering with Congress could be against the law.

The most likely charges against Trump are conspiracy to defraud the United States, a broad statute that covers almost any illegitimate interference with government operations, and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding.

There is also a broader policy question surrounding a decision to indict a former president, an action no prosecutor has taken before: Would it be in the national interest?

Indicting a past and possible future political adversary of the current president would be a cataclysmic event, Jack Goldsmith, a former Justice Department official in the George W. Bush administration, warned last month. It would be seen by many as politicized retribution. The prosecution would take many years to conclude [and would] deeply affect the next election.

Others lawyers, both Republicans and Democrats, disagree vigorously.

Its essential that Trump be prosecuted, if only to deter him and future presidential candidates from trying to do this again, Norman Eisen, a former Obama administration official, argued. It would do terrible damage to allow a former president to walk free after committing acts for which anyone else would be indicted.

Those debates dont amount to a conclusive argument against prosecuting Trump. But they do add up to a list of reasons why Garland should avoid a rush to judgment while his investigators do their work and that, to all appearances, is precisely what hes doing.

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

Read the original post:
Prosecute Trump? Merrick Garland is investigating aggressively but prosecuting cautiously - Yahoo News

WASHINGTON The day before Cassidy Hutchinson was deposed for a fourth time by the Jan. 6 committee, the former Trump White House aide received a phone message that would dramatically change the plans of the panel and write a new chapter in American politics.

On that day in June, the caller told Ms. Hutchinson, as Liz Cheney, the committees vice chairwoman, later disclosed: A person let me know you have your deposition tomorrow. He wants me to let you know hes thinking about you. He knows youre loyal. And youre going to do the right thing when you go in for your deposition.

At Ms. Hutchinsons deposition the next day, committee members investigating the attack on the Capitol were so alarmed by what they considered a clear case of witness tampering not to mention Ms. Hutchinsons shocking account of President Donald J. Trumps behavior on Jan. 6, 2021 that they decided in a meeting on June 24, a Friday, to hold an emergency public hearing with Ms. Hutchinson as the surprise witness the following Tuesday.

The speed, people close to the committee said, was for two crucial reasons: Ms. Hutchinson was under intense pressure from Trump World, and panel members believed that getting her story out in public would make her less vulnerable, attract powerful allies and be its own kind of protection. The committee also had to move fast, the people said, to avoid leaks of some of the most explosive testimony ever heard on Capitol Hill.

In the two weeks since, Ms. Hutchinsons account of an unhinged president who urged his armed supporters to march to the Capitol, lashed out at his Secret Service detail and hurled his lunch against a wall has turned her into a figure of both admiration and scorn lauded by Trump critics as a 21st-century John Dean and attacked by Mr. Trump as a total phony.

Ms. Hutchinsons testimony also pushed the committee to redouble its efforts to interview Pat A. Cipollone, Mr. Trumps White House counsel, who appeared in private before the panel on Friday. His videotaped testimony is expected to be shown at the committees next public hearing on Tuesday.

Now unemployed and sequestered with family and a security detail, Ms. Hutchinson, 26, has developed an unlikely bond with Ms. Cheney, a Wyoming Republican and onetime aide to former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell during the George W. Bush administration a crisis environment of another era when she learned to work among competing male egos. More recently, as someone ostracized by her party and stripped of her leadership post for her denunciations of Mr. Trump, Ms. Cheney admires the younger womans willingness to risk her alliances and professional standing by recounting what she saw in the final days of the Trump White House, friends say.

I have been incredibly moved by young women that I have met and that have come forward to testify in the Jan. 6 committee, Ms. Cheney said in concluding a recent speech at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, Calif.

When she mentioned Ms. Hutchinsons name, the audience erupted in applause.

The path that led a young Trump loyalist to become a star witness against the former president was not exactly prefigured by Ms. Hutchinsons biography.

She grew up in Pennington, N.J., a one-square-mile village dating back to the 1600s whose most famous previous resident was Peter Benchley, the author of Jaws. Her father owned a tree-trimming service.

No one in her family had gone to college, but in 2015 Ms. Hutchinson left home for Christopher Newport University, an under-the-radar liberal arts institution in Newport News, Va., with a strict dress code.

Ms. Hutchinson selected political science as her major. She took two classes taught by the department chair at the time, Michelle Barnello.

We have a fairly conservative student body, and while I think of Cassidy as someone who was committed to Republican principles, she didnt stand out as a hard-liner, Dr. Barnello said.

She remembered Ms. Hutchinson as convivial but also determined, and that she often sat in the front row of the classroom with her lacrosse-playing boyfriend.

In 2017, a year after spending a summer interning for Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, Ms. Hutchinson and her boyfriend each became summer interns for Republican House members in her case, for Representative Steve Scalise, then the majority whip, who in June of that year was shot while playing softball with Republican colleagues. The following spring, Ms. Hutchinson was accepted for a White House internship, a celebrated achievement at Christopher Newport. The campus website and the political science departments Facebook page posted stories about their high-achieving junior.

By luck of the draw, Ms. Hutchinsons internship was in the White House Office of Legislative Affairs where, unlike the coffee-fetching and tour-guiding requirements of a Capitol Hill internship, enrollees are expected to take notes at high-level meetings and to interact with senior staff members and House members. Former Trump White House officials said Ms. Hutchinson distinguished herself from the other interns as a hard worker with a good attitude. On graduation she landed a permanent job as the junior-most staff assistant on the House side of the Trump presidencys legislative affairs operation, at a salary of $43,600.

She kind of came in and took the place by storm, said a former White House official, who like others who spoke highly of Ms. Hutchinson and asked for anonymity to avoid the public wrath of Mr. Trump and his allies. Just an incredibly smart and driven person. She was the sort of person who worked so hard, I often had to tell her to slow down so that she wouldnt burn out.

During the first impeachment of Mr. Trump in 2019, Ms. Hutchinson was among the handful of legislative affairs staff members tasked with shoring up support among disgruntled House Republicans for the embattled president. In the end, not one of them defected, a triumph that reflected well on every White House staff member involved, including Ms. Hutchinson.

Some colleagues found it presumptuous that the young assistant so quickly came to refer to House members by their first names. But others could see that it worked: Ms. Hutchinson, they said, developed exceptionally strong contacts with representatives during her first year on the job.

Trust me, nobody ever sat down and said, Hey, Cassidy, youre being too chummy with the members, recalled another colleague who asked for anonymity out of fear of inciting Mr. Trump. You can be one of those assistants whos rarely on the Hill. Or you could be like Cassidy, who took every advantage to help her get a better job in the future.

Which quickly occurred. Ms. Hutchinsons backstage work during the impeachment hearings put her in frequent contact with the influential chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, Representative Mark Meadows. When he became Mr. Trumps chief of staff in March 2020, he promptly poached Ms. Hutchinson from the legislative affairs office as his special assistant.

Her influence was soon apparent. Republican aides on Capitol Hill learned that Ms. Hutchinson was the way to get to Mr. Meadows, and that if they texted him she might be the one responding. She was in frequent contact on Mr. Meadowss behalf with leading House Republicans like Representatives Kevin McCarthy, Jim Jordan and Elise Stefanik. One former colleague recalled that there were times when Mr. Meadows got staff members taken off Air Force One to make room for Ms. Hutchinson.

Some staff members begrudged her rise. I think she became a victim of her own access and success, said Ms. Hutchinsons friend, Alyssa Farah Griffin, a former Trump White House communications director. Im sure that more senior people resented her for it.

Early this year, a federal marshal knocked on Ms. Hutchinsons door and served her with a subpoena to appear before the Jan. 6 committee. Unemployed and unable to pay for legal fees, she hired as her lawyer Stefan Passantino, a former Trump White House ethics lawyer. Mr. Trumps Save America PAC paid for Mr. Passantinos representation of Ms. Hutchinson, as it did for some other witnesses called before the panel.

Mr. Passantino had extensive financial ties to Mr. Trumps orbit. Federal Election Commission reports show that his legal compliance firm received more than $1 million from Trump-related political action committees in the 2021-22 election cycle, and that in the previous cycle Marjorie Taylor Greene, a staunch Trump loyalist and a House candidate at the time, paid him more than $93,000 for his services.

Ms. Hutchinsons first deposition to the committee was on Feb. 23, when it was not yet apparent to her that Mr. Passantinos interests as a Trump affiliate might diverge from hers, two people close to the situation said. What was clear were her disclosures that morning and in two subsequent depositions to committee members, who found them startling as well as clear evidence of her proximity to power.

According to portions of her first three depositions made public, Ms. Hutchinson said she had heard Anthony M. Ornato, the deputy White House chief of staff, warn Mr. Meadows that intelligence reports were forecasting violence several days before Jan. 6. She also testified that by late November 2020, House Republicans were already pushing a plan for Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the election results.

But Ms. Hutchinson took pains to avoid speculating about the president. I cant speak to if Mr. Trump yeah, Ill leave it there, she said at one point.

Over the next months, Ms. Hutchinson warmed to the idea of helping the committees investigation, according to a friend, but she did not detect the same willingness in Mr. Passantino.

She realized she couldnt call her attorney to say, Hey, Ive got more information, said the friend, who requested anonymity. He was there to insulate the big guy.

Mr. Passantino declined to comment.

At that point Ms. Hutchinson got in touch with Ms. Griffin, who had been cooperating with the committee herself. Ms. Griffin passed on Ms. Hutchinsons concerns to Barbara Comstock, a former Republican congresswoman and outspoken critic of Mr. Trump. In an interview, Ms. Comstock said that she could have predicted Ms. Hutchinsons predicament, recalling how she had once talked a young man out of joining the Trump administration. I said, Youre going to end up paying legal bills, Ms. Comstock recalled.

Ms. Comstock offered to start a legal-defense fund so that Ms. Hutchinson would not have to rely on a lawyer paid for by Trump affiliates. But this proved unnecessary. Jody Hunt, the former head of the Justice Departments civil division under Jeff Sessions Mr. Trumps former attorney general and another pariah in Mr. Trumps world offered to represent her pro bono. Mr. Hunt accompanied Ms. Hutchinson to her fourth deposition in late June, when she felt more comfortable talking about Mr. Trumps actions on Jan. 6. Everyone agreed it was time to speed up her public testimony.

Two realities have now taken hold for Ms. Hutchinson. One is that she will continue to offer information to the Jan. 6 committee, with Mr. Hunt as her counsel and Ms. Cheney as the committees designated interlocutor to her.

The other is that an uncertain future awaits her.

A former colleague in the White House legislative affairs office who remains on friendly terms with Ms. Hutchinson said that from the moment she got her subpoena, her goal in cooperating with the committee was to find the quickest way to put the entire ordeal behind her.

But, the friend said, this is only the beginning for her.

Read more from the original source:
Cassidy Hutchinson: Why the Jan. 6 Committee Rushed Her Testimony - The New York Times

Its too late for the Supreme Court and Mitch McConnell who kept changing the rules that allowed Donald Trump to appoint three Supreme Court Justices instead of just one. We now have a rogue court taking away 50+ years of women and girls reproductive freedom and ignoring the majority of public opinion on nearly everything else.

Vote the Republicans out of office that believe the big lie that Donald Trump won the presidency in 2020. You need to vote to make sure your voice is heard. Ignorance of current events is no excuse.

Vote the Republicans out of office that still insist that our last election was fraudulent and have passed laws to suppress the vote and to actually change the outcome if they dont like it. Your vote will ensure that all eligible voters will continue to be allowed to vote.

Vote the Republicans out of office that were involved in trying to overthrow the government on January 6, 2021. After the insurrection was put down, many still voted against certifying the presidential election and the peaceful transfer of power. Vice President Pence will go down in history as faithfully fulfilling his duty and upholding the constitution of the United States.

Mitch McConnell is now threatening Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema with what he will do if they dont continue to vote with the Republicans. We need more Republicans like Liz Cheney and Mike Pence who put the constitution ahead of party.

Our representatives are supposed to be working together to solve our problems not just trying to denigrate the other party and stay in office.

Throw the bums out! If you dont bother to study the issues from a reliable source and vote, dont blame President Biden. Blame yourself for our country looking more and more like a banana republic.

Carol Lazear Mitchell

Marietta

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

Read more here:
Throw the bums out vote in the next election! - Marietta Times