Select Page

Attack on Trump: Hutchinson is a great storyteller … but

Attack on Trump: Hutchinson is a great storyteller … but

Ever since her appearance before the House January 6th Select Committee, Cassidy Hutchinson has been elevated to celebrity heroine status by Democrats and the leftwing media.  Personally, I do not find her all that credible – and I wrote that at the time of her testimony.

Simon & Schuster has just published her book, “Enough.”  It is reported that they paid her something in the neighborhood of $1 million for the rights.  That is a factor in judging the accuracy of the book.  Publishing houses do not pay that kind of money without a negotiation over content – especially salacious content.  An author has to provide them with red meat or no deal.

I suspect that may explain why Hutchinson – in thousands of interviews – never previously revealed her accusations of sexual misconduct against former New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani.  Outside of a few friends who said they believe her, there is no evidence or contemporary corroboration. 

Even her description of the encounter is vague.  He put his hand under her blazer, then under her skirt.  Is she saying he fondled her or touched her most intimate and sexual body parts?  We simply do not know what she specifically alleges he did.  It is a typical she said/he said story.

Apparently, Hutchinson never told anyone at the time.  She never complained to her boss, Chief-of-Staff Mark Meadows.  She certainly never called the police or filed a civil suit – although that could be coming. She obviously never mentioned it to January 6th Committee investigators.  Until the book was published … crickets.

We the people will never really know what happened between her and Guiliani.  Hutchinson’s accusation is without scintilla evidence.  That does not mean she is not telling the truth – but only that belief is merely in the mind of the individual.

Hutchinson says she reluctantly agreed to testify to essentially save democracy.  She takes on a kind of Joan of Arc persona.  She basks in the glow of her own narrative and the reflective light of an overly friendly media.  I say “overly friendly” because they never ask any of the tough questions we expect of journalists – and even those who pretend to be.  Instead, they not only leave her every statement go unchallenged. They accept them as gospel truth.

I have always been bothered by Hutchinson’s description with the certainty of an actual witness.  In her dramatic testimony of what transpired in the presidential limousine, she relates in the manner of fact that “Trump said …”, Trump grabbed the wheel …”, Trump put his hands round the neck of the driver …”,  “Trump was told …”.  She witnessed none of that.  And her portrayal is not corroborated by anyone in the vehicle at the time or the person who allegedly passed the information to her.

Many of the statements she attributes to Mark Meadows could be office watercooler conversation.  “We have to keep Trump out of jail.”  Was that a serious goal being implemented in real time?  Or was that lighthearted jest – common office banter about the boss. 

The claim that Meadow’s clothes smelled of smoke from burning so many documents in his office fireplace seemed more Hollywood than real.  As a person who has had a fireplace in most of my homes – and burned a lot of stuff in them, including Christmas trees — I have never had a problem with the smell of smoke on my clothes or even in the room.  Fireplaces draw all that up the chimney.  Bonfires are more likely to leave a smell on the person – not fireplaces.  But as a movie director once said of one of those fact-challenged bioflicks, “Don’t let truth stand in the way of a good story.”

Hutchinson’s testimony has brought her money and fame.  That is enough to cast at least a modicum of doubt on her story.  Is it the gospel truth as those on the left proclaim or is it a mix of facts, spin and outright prevarication?  I suspect it is the latter.

What makes that a reasonable judgment is the fact that Hutchinson’s entire story is without any evidence.  It is just her story … period.  And that may be why she has never been asked to appear before a grand jury by Special Counsel Jack Smith or Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis.  

For all the media adulation, Hutchinson is not a credible witness in a court-of-law in which rules-of-evidence apply.  Her story is largely based on hearsay and biased interpretations of conversations.  None of that is permissible in a court of law.

Admittedly, I do not KNOW what portions of Hutchenson’s story are factual and what is fanciful … what is information and what is disinformation … what is accurate and what is exaggerated.  That story may have gotten Hutchinson a million bucks, but it is not worthy of serious consideration in terms of the big picture.  At best it is office gossip – possibly driven by the siren calls of fame and fortune.

I am not saying Hutchinson is a liar, but just that her story has no particular value in judging the events surrounding January 6, 2021.  It is irrelevant.  It is nothing more than a well-told story.

So, there ‘tis,

About The Author

Larry Horist

So,there‘tis… The opinions, perspectives and analyses of Larry Horist Larry Horist is a businessman, conservative writer and political strategist with an extensive background in economics and public policy. Clients of his consulting firm have included such conservative icons as Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman. He has served as a consultant to the Nixon White House and travelled the country as a spokesman for President Reagan’s economic reforms. He has testified as an expert witness before numerous legislative bodies, including the U. S. Congress. Horist has lectured and taught courses at numerous colleges and universities, including Harvard, Northwestern, DePaul universities, Hope College and his alma mater, Knox College. He has been a guest on hundreds of public affairs talk shows, and hosted his own program, “Chicago In Sight,” on WIND radio. Horist was a one-time candidate for mayor of Chicago and served as Executive Director of the City Club of Chicago, where he led a successful two-year campaign to save the historic Chicago Theatre from the wrecking ball. An award-winning debater, his insightful and sometimes controversial commentaries appear frequently on the editorial pages of newspapers across the nation. He is praised by readers for his style, substance and sense of humor. According to one reader, Horist is the “new Charles Krauthammer.” He is actively semi-retired in Boca Raton, Florida where he devotes his time to writing. So, there ‘tis is Horist’s signature sign off.


  1. frank stetson

    Have you no shame? You never smelled smoke in your open fireplace means you have not burned much. He was burning paper, not an established hardwood fire. I use pellet stoves, totally sealed, and I can smell smoke at times.

    The Rudy and Gate’s stuff is alleged, I doubt we will ever know. They both have other people accusing them, so yes, they are low hanging fruit.

    Her story on 1/6 does not have any real holes you can point at beyond your derived insinuations, your story, that it has not been told in court. She is under perjury risk for her “stories” in Congress —- that’s more than just a fable —– go hit her with perjury if you are so sure. Where’s Gaetz on that one?

    “Trump White House counsel Pat Cipollone corroborated virtually all of the revelations from previous witnesses, including former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, in lengthy testimony before the panel last week, a top Jan. 6 committee member told NBC News.”

    You, of all people, had to see some pretty surreal things during your time with Nixon. I know my friends did and they were only tangentially associated as White House service staff. For Carter and others too. It’s a strange place. Stories of Clinton’s wanderings were legendary lore as well. I was always amazed that the higher in business I associated, the weirder some of the goings on got. Food fights, chairs flying, it got feisty at times. I have to imagine Trump land is a pressure cooker that way.

    Good luck, see you in court. And please stop shaming yourself by blaming others as story tellers for the story parts that face perjury. There’s a law for that and your team ain’t even pressing.

    • larry Horist

      Frank Stetson … If you wish to believe her, that is your privilege. My point is that she is NOT credible witness in terms of EVIDENCE. That is why the prosecutors cannot use her testimony. In fact, on the morning news, she said that Meadows is key because he was in all the meetings. “He knows more than I do,” she said. You bias has you accepting non-evidence and ignoring real evidence in your personal spin machine.

      As I said in the commentary, I do not know if she is telling the truth or not … and neither do you. But in your response it is obvious you did not clearly read and comprehend what I wrote.

      • frank stetson

        Quit being a jerk. Of course I read, of course I comprehended. As I noted, who knows about the gropes, whether Rudy or Gaetz. Although I found her response to Gaetz claim of dating priceless. BUT, on the 1/6, you have Cipollone confirming confirming — they are both under oath.

        Not under oath, Mick Mulvany said: “This is explosive stuff. If Cassidy is making this up, they will need to say that. If she isn’t they will have to corroborate. I know her. I don’t think she is lying,” he tweeted.”

        “Anyone downplaying Cassidy Hutchinson’s role or her access in the West Wing either doesn’t understand how the Trump WH worked or is attempting to discredit her because they’re scared of how damning this testimony is,” tweeted former White House deputy press secretary Sarah Matthews, who resigned after Jan. 6. “For those complaining of ‘hearsay,’ I imagine the Jan. 6 committee would welcome any of those involved to deny these allegations under oath.”

        Since neither under oath, grain of salt, but Cipplione risks perjury.

        As to the famed SUV incident, there’s enough reports of people willing to come forward to describe a heated discussion, and those closer noting it’s about getting to the Capitol. Again, not under oath but it sure looks like she got more right than wrong and NO ONE has yet gone under oath to refute.

        You seem to say it’s about the money, it’s about the book, but this poor girl, at the very beginning of her career, has been in hiding for the year since she testified. I would not wish that for all the tea in China, much less a few pieces of silver. Romney pays $5,000 a day to keep his family safe from MagaRats.

        We may find out in court, but she’s already at risk of perjury and NO ONE from Team Trump is stepping up to do that. This is more than some schmuck mouthing off in a chat room or hard-right rag. She testified under perjury penalty to Congress. Collaborated by a lawyer facing the same perjury risk.

        FYI: you’re part about her Rudy sex abuse description not being precise enough for you to believe is old man sexist bullshit. It’s her allegation, it’s not proven, but to immediately question it because you didn’t get enough detail. Come on man, have some class.

        • larry Horist

          Frank Stetson …. More childish name calling LOL. Sorry. I have NEVER found “blackening’ on my mantel or bricks/tiles with thousand of fires in scores of fireplaces. I doubt many people have — unless the draft or flue is malfunctioning over a LONG period of time. I you have had such experience you are a dangerous and reckless user of a fireplace. I have never seen such blackening in other folks home — never having been in yours. I doubt you will see such blackening on any of the White House fireplaces. They would not allow that to happen for obvious reasons. Fireplaces are designed to keep ALL gases and smoke out of the room and up the chimney. Maybe you just imagined it for the sake of the argument — just did not think it through and are trying to double down on your ignorance of the issue. Or you are … fibbing. At any rate, I you have smoke in the room, get your fireplace fixed. I am done with this silliness.

          • frank stetson

            He’s just Horist-ing around when he nickers: “More childish name calling LOL”

            as he opines: “you are a dangerous and reckless

            Maybe you just imagined it

            just did not think it through

            double down on your ignorance

            Or you are … fibbing

            in your response it is obvious you did not clearly read and comprehend what I wrote.

            You also have a fairy tale understanding

            letting your contrarian obsession lead you down this nutty rabbit holes of fact and logic.”

            And maybe you are a washed-up dickwad of a failed wannabee politician. Not saying you are, but you could be. Or you might be a stupid Floridian has-been trumpeting his glorious backwater success while trying breathlessly to prove his own relevance in the modern world. Or perhaps just an ass. I don’t know, it could be true, no one has told me it isn’t. And I did forget something: add either more, or again, as proof positive Horist has done it before.

            If you give it a rest Horist, I will to. But you are on first, I am just replying.

            Yes, it is dangerous to have fireplace gases in your house, but yes it happens. Often it is just on ignition and not after that. In my case, twas on Lake Erie so some powerfully downdrafts to begin with. Yes, the chimney should have been taller, might have been at one time. Yes, it puffed smoke, on ignition only, mostly on “those” days of winds, and it blackened the mantle over the decades. BUT, once the fire took, it was all drawl. No problem. We sold the house, black n all, no problem on any inspection.

            You say “scores of fireplaces,” while strongly hinting I am a fibber. That’s a minimum of forty fireplaces for you. You should settle down. Maybe invest in a sealed unit, get modern…. I haven’t had an open fireplace for a score :>) Too old school for me.

            Bear in mind, the White House fireplaces are cleaned in a way that you and I would never clean. The firebrick is even cleaned. Who the heck does that. But here’s your picture of Biden sitting in front of a fireplace with some black appearing on the mantle.


            Took me five minutes to determine who the potential fibber is. And recognize that the White House has to scrub these all the time yet the black still reappears. I am sure the black was there when Horist roamed the White House too, those scores of years ago. Score one for the Stetson IF I was keeping count, and I am not. (ran out of fingers and toes…. haha).

            Again, and IMO, to her credit:
            1. She dared to come forward, to toe the line, to take all they could throw at her, knowing that she would have to be in hiding for years, and if Trump re-elected, she would need to run. She, of those tender years, stood up when the brave, experienced, Republicans around her sat down, hid, empowered, enabled, and still endorse this man to trample the Constitutional right of fair elections and peaceful transitions.
            2. She told her story under oath, the brave men tell theirs to FOX.
            3. Pat Cippolone confirmed her facts under oath, he canned lose his career for lying.
            4. No one has denied her facts under oath, none of the Republican brave souls have stepped up to defend Trump against Cassie.
            5. Many have denied or supported in the press where, like Horist, they scream it can’t be proved without a shadow of a doubt so therefore it’s questionable.
            6. It’s a pretty long stretch to say she did this for a future chance at $1M given the track record of whistleblowers starting with John Dean, jailed, disbarred, writing book, etc. has $8.4M in net worth but certainly not the life he expected. Her doing this for money is a high-risk proposition versus doing nothing
            7. Trump could sue for defamation, he has not and he is not shy

            As far as I know, this is supported testimony, under oath, to the Congress, with penalties attached. No Republican investigation into her to date. No defamation lawsuits. And no one, under oath, disputing her story.

            And then, there’s Horist. Who says it is not validated when it was.

            Like I said, give it a rest and I will to. You’re on first.

    • Dan tyree

      Hillary did a better job erasing her emails.

    • larry Horist

      Frank Stetson …. As a person who has used my many fireplaces for burning a lots of stuff, I can only warn that you had better get the flue fixed before you kill yourself. The only time I have had ANY smoke in the room was when I forgot to open the flue. You should note that all the romantic references to fireplaces address warmth and glow … not smoke. We do talk about the smell of smoke when it comes to burning leaves, campfires and the neighbor’s house. Or something we left on the stove too long.

      You also have a fairy tale understanding of the lies-to-perjury charges when it comes to congressional testimony. She is in no danger of perjury charges even if EVERYTHING she said was a lie because there is no hard evidence one way or the other. Remember … I did not say she was lying. i made that clear. I said there is not proof of the validity of what he said. There are reasons she might lie, however. That means we should be suspect and not believe only based on political viewpoint. That works in the court-of-public-opinion, but not in a legitimate court of law.

      And shame on you for letting your contrarian obsession lead you down this nutty rabbit holes of fact and logic.

      • frank stetson

        Sir, I burn six tons a year. I woodstoved for decades. My parents house have three open fireplaces.

        First, have you never seen a fireplace with a bit of blacking in the front mantle due to inadequate draw (or other reasons); these can be working fireplaces that just need to heat up a bit to get all the draw to be up the chimney.

        My pellet stove is similar. I have a 20 foot direct draft of six inch pipe leading to the stove’s 4 inch intake that creates some drag. The initial outtake has a razor think gap in the pipe connections that I could glue but then it would be harder to clean. My chimney is designed for wood and it’s quite larger so not a lot of pull if air is cold. After one puff or two of smoke, it heats up, all pull in or out gets rigorous, and all flow is good. Been checked, no big deal and no leakage after the first puff. We kind of like it and no —– it does not permeate anything else, it’s just a puff.

        But if I burned a ream of xerox paper, that would be some smoke forcing me to fix it. Lucky you really can’t burn paper in a pellet stove…..

        Others can chime in, but I find it hard to believe you have a fireplace and have never smelled smoke. As to it being in your clothes, does not take much and I am sure he was putting off much more given all the paper.

        “She is in no danger of perjury charges even if EVERYTHING she said was a lie because there is no hard evidence one way or the other. ” The is a remarkedly unbelievable statement. I would think if you could prove there’s no smell to burning papers, and could prove that small piece of the story as perjury, that the rest of the story begins to unravel as fruit of a poisonous tree. However, you need to take Cipolone’s testimony down too and you seem to be avoiding that.

        • frank stetson

          oh yeah, i forgot —- after a ton or so the fly-ash pretty much stops the puff until I rigorously clean the firepot.

          and ntw, I have co2 detectors as well.

          been over a decade and not even a headache.

          • peter allen

            Most girls would write a story, any kind, for a million, inflated bucks????

          • Frank stetson

            Fyi: 1970’s Richard Chamberlain movie The slipper and the Rose shot in ancient castle with two scenes, two huge castle fireplaces, both blackened.

            It’s a frequent thing. Yes to be avoided but not necessarily a killer. The question is; on ignition or during full burn. Full burn is definitely dangerous. Ignition may or may not be. We didn’t even smell smoke.

          • larry Horist

            Frank Stetson … OMG, you are still whining and pining over an old commentary on a meaningless subject. You really are easily wounded. And then you defend you silly opinion with movie props. I have seen a number of huge fire places and never soot on the mantle. Maybe what you saw was added for visual impact. You really do not believe that all that “blood” you see on the screen is real, do you? Only in Alex Baldwin movies.

  2. JoeyP

    No evidence . . . He said/She said?!?

  3. Mike f

    Another post where Larry thinks people really give a shit what he thinks on a topic that is very much yesterday. While I have not read her book, many of her statements in the jan 6 testimony were caveated by “I was told by…”. To the best of my knowledge none of her statements have been challenged under oath-and that is the key there. So, since much of what she said was “hearsay” even though she documented it, it would not be courtroom admissible. The lack of challenge under oath makes questioning her testimony suspect, especially when everyone is aware that the trump regime was the most corrupt in our nations history…

  4. Frank stetson

    Ironic if the cheeseburger tosser is done in by a Chesebro.

    It appears we now know who was rigging the election in a big way with three criminal convictions in election tampering with probably at least a dozen more to go. One convicted was in the room with Trump, the other with Ghouliani and Eastman.

    One was also in the oval for the meeting of lunatics and will probably plead or just testify for Jack Smith in DC case.

    Keep the faith, keep donating to the Don. Good Luck.

    • larry Horist

      Frank Stetson … Did you forget what commentry you are posting on? This one is about 17 days in the past and on an entirely different topic — although I know that does not matter to you since your primary interest is merely expounding on you pre-recorded topics.