the testimony of the star witness to that committee. today the january 6th committee released the transcript of the most important testimony, the committee received from the committee s most important witness. 26-year-old cassidy hutchinson. the committee has found not a shred of evidence to in any way reduce what appears to the solid credibility of the committee s star witness cassidy hutchinson. and we learned in her full testimony released today that the first lawyer who represented her in dealings with the committee will face disbarment proceedings in washington, d.c. and will face prosecution for suborning perjury if cassidy hutchinson s testimony is
on page 36, cassidy hutchinson says, i said, but if i do recall something but not every little detail, stefan, can i still say i don t recall, and he had said yes. for that one word, yes, stefan passantino should be disbarred if that testimony is believed and should be convicted of suborning perjury if that testimony is believed. cassidy hutchinson goes on and i said, but if i do remember things, but not every little detail and i say i don t recall, wouldn t i be perjurying myself and he had said, stefan had said something to the effect of the committee doesn t know what you can and can t recall so we want to be able to use that as much as we can unless you really, really remember something very clearly and that s when you give a short, sweet response. the correct answer to that
right? because this what we saw on that videotape very much appears to be a violation of georgia criminal law because there is a crime of, one, suborning perjury. frankly, poll workers being told a lie about voter fraud, that is in and of itself a crime. but also intimidating poll workers, harassing poll workers falls under the criminal code. one of the reasons why ahmaud arbery s case finally saw some justice is because people organized and made noise about the fact that law enforcement was not taking action against his killers. this is the same situation in the context of poll worker intimidation. we have to also have on the ground organizing that identifies where and how the apparatus of government should be doing its job and there s a real question to me in this reporting and i don t know the facts of whether that s happening. and just one other point because
evidence. it has said this is worse than watergate, because we re talking about a matter of national security. do you agree with that? it s different from watergate, but let s not minimize what richard nixon did, and the evidence was overwhelming. everybody thinking about watergate as involving the break-in and the cover-up of the break-in into the watergate hotel of the dnc. the always of impeachant were much broader. it wasn t just one egregious act. it was a investigate of acts. you had the whole cover-up, the hush money, the suborning perjury, breaking into the psychiatrist s office, the illegal wiretaps, the enemies list, a whole bunch of other things who you had in the articles of impeachment was not
malcolm, joins me now. thank you for coming on the beat. my pleasure. did you have a good time? well, i was alarmingly ignored. john dean got an awful lot of attention from the republicans and the democrats and didn t get asked a single question by a single democrat. it seems they wanted to hear what the other two had to say. we re interested, we ve been hearing from people on all sides of this. let me show one of the disturbing claims you made. it is almost infairbly the case that someone attempting to obstruct an investigation also engages in other nefarious activities such as destroying evidence, suborning perjury, bribing witnesses or threatening them with bodily harm. i thought you laid out the law quite clearly there. you were implying the president never did any of that. as you know, it is incontrovertible that did he