Fox anchor downplays bombshell testimony of former Trump aide Cassidy Hutchinson
Martha MacCallum: “I'm not sure that it really shocks anybody that the president just, you know, knowing what we've seen, observing him over the years, if he got angry that he might throw his lunch”
Published
Citation
From the June 28, 2022, edition of Fox News' America Reports
JOHN ROBERTS (CO-ANCHOR): Martha, John Dean, who we remember from the Nixon era and the Watergate hearings, tweeted this morning about this: "Better be a big deal" – because he was reflecting back on the one surprise witness and the hearing in the Watergate hearings back in 1973. Back then, that witness was Alex Butterfield, who testified to the existence of Nixon's secret taping system, which blew the whole thing wide open. Do we have anything that even approaches that from this witness?
MARTHA MACCALLUM (FOX NEWS ANCHOR): So I would say, John, you know, I'd agree with what you all have just been talking about. But I would say that we had sort of the basic parameters of what happened with regard to this. We had heard before that the president wanted to go to the Capitol and that there was pushback against that. So what we're getting today are a lot of details and fill in into just how dramatic that whole situation was. I think that she comes across very credible. She has a good memory for all of these different conversations that were being had. And clearly, the description of what happened in the Beast, which is the president's vehicle, of course, of him wanting to lunge toward the steering wheel, according to this account from Bobby, who was the security – Secret Service person who was in the vehicle who she says was very shaken up afterwards.
The question is, you know, all of this is obviously riveting. It's – it's very dramatic. It was clearly a very difficult day for her and for those who were involved and for everybody who witnessed it, I would add. But the question is, in terms of the Department of Justice, does it move the ball at all on any legal action that they could pursue? Or is it sort of an overall filling in the gaps, filling in the story that has an impact on whether or not the former president decides to run again and whether or not any of these details impact people's feelings about that all around.
SANDRA SMITH (CO-ANCHOR): Just a sort of an amazing turn there right at the end when the former aide to Meadows, the witness there, described the president smashing his lunch against the wall, ketchup on the walls after reading Barr's AP interview. Jonathan Turley just writing a few moments ago that in no way is this an exoneration of the president's role, but he's pointing again to the leaving out of the peacefully head to the Capitol – the words that Turley has pointed out quite often; no exoneration, but highlights the lack of any alternative perspective or questioning on the committee in that room. Nonetheless, Martha, we are learning a whole lot more. And to your point about her memory and the details that we're now getting around the basic framework we already had, John and I were talking about this this morning. She was also known to be a very good note-taker. So clearly, she's providing a lot of detail for the committee and for the country today.
MACCALLUM: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I'm not sure that it really shocks anybody that the president just, you know, knowing what we've seen, observing him over the years, if he got angry that he might throw his lunch, I'm not sure – it's obviously a very dramatic detail. And the way that she describes it is but I'm not sure that any of this is – is wholly out of character with the Donald Trump and the President Trump that people came to know over the years. And there's a lot of people out there who obviously shared his feelings of frustration over the course of those days. The problem was that they couldn't back it up with anything in the courts and they couldn't back it up with evidence that they produced. And that obviously was probably a source of deep frustration as well. Things were clearly not going his way. All of this is revelatory in terms of character and action and for people to take in and do with that information what they know over the course of time. As I said, whether or not the DOJ has more to go on here based on this testimony. You know, I'll leave that to Jonathan Turley and others, but that's the real question that underlies all of this in terms of action.