WAPO: GOP members sent rape threats to Cassidy Hutchinson after her testimony

[deminks]

so GOP members of Congress sent rape threats ("sexually explicit texts") to Cassidy Hutchinson after her testimony and now GOP leadership is afraid they'll come out?

— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm.bsky.social) 2025-01-23T19:03:44.856Z

wait what

so GOP members of Congress sent rape threats ("sexually explicit texts&quot to Cassidy Hutchinson after her testimony and now GOP leadership is afraid they'll come out?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/01/23/cassidy-hutchinson-lawmakers-texts/

MAGA Mike told his goons not to subpoena Cassidy for fear these texts will come out?

I say bring them out anyway, now. We need to know who the predators are.

[Lemons UK]

1. Gaetz was bored that day.

[Attilatheblond]

2. Gaetz wouldn't even make my list of suspects

He relies on young and naive women for his pleasures. Rape and threats of rape are tools of angry, violent, usually cowardly men.

[Renew Deal]

11. She's too old for him

[HereForTheParty]

59. Where's the rape threat?

It's appalling, but I don't see anything that is a threat to rape her.

[obamanut2012]

61. Stop it -- they are threatening her with sexual assault

[HereForTheParty]

69. " they are threatening her with sexual assault"

Honest question - where do you see that in the article? A "sexually explicit text" doesn't mean a rape threat.

[58Sunliner]

77. Sexual texts that are unsolicited and graphic are sexual harassment and abusive.

No one in the media has seen the actual texts. We are forced to rely on the repubs telling us they were "soliciting". Sounds like perp talk to me for abusive threatening, and demeaning harassment. Every woman knows that this type of unsolicited comment or communication is a thinly veiled threat when given in response to her testifying against one of them.

[Maru Kitteh]

3. She's still one of them. So, even after they abused her,

She still considers herself a conservative Republican. So I guess she’s not smart as many may have hoped.

[angrychair]

4. That's such a weird phenomenon

How can people like Pence or Hutchinson get actual violent threats from their own Party, not just from randos on the street but people they know personally, that are gop leaders, yet still remain unwaveringly loyal? It's literally like a cult. That is the only possible explanation.

[newdeal2]

14. Stockholm syndrome nt

[Irish_Dem]

24. Trama bonding.

[Wiz Imp]

28. But she didn't vote for him this time.

[LastDemocratInSC]

34. I think she's plenty smart and just afraid to make any moves.

She's in a bad spot at a bad time dealing with malevolent political operatives. It's likely she is concerned about her future in more ways than just being an outcast in her party.

[soldierant]

45. I may have to copy this to an easy-to-find location, since this confusion seems to be widespread.

Left and right are not actually political positions, but economic ones.

There is anothe dimension to politics - it is Autocracy and Democracy. In order to easily compare this with lrft and right, you can think of this dimension as up and down and make a graph of it. Any one can be anywhere on that graph

Hutchinson is on the good side in terms of form of government. She is on the wrong side economically. So is Liz Cheney, incidentally.

While I too feel emotionally that left and democracy go together, and right ans autocracy go together, that's just a feeling. The fact is that they don't necessarily.

This combination may feel weird, but it isn't. There are many people in this category. If we are going to meet them where they "are at," we need to learn to separate the two in our minds.

We don't need to get them to move left. We need to get them to realize the difference between the two divides, and that they are already on the right side of one of them, and that that one was what this last election was actually about.

[electric_blue68]

50. Interesting pov.

[soldierant]

75. Not original with me, although I do change some of the terms

because I think a few are confusing here: politicalcompass.org.

There was a period in the 1990s when we almost got it - we had candidates saying they were "fiscally conservative and socially liberal." Almost. But that language went away, roughly when the "fidcally conservative" candidates failed to persuade enough Republicans to vote for them.

[Straw Man]

81. I wouldn't call her "one of them."

There's a difference between being a conservative Republican and being a MAGA fascist thug. The former is regrettable; the latter is abhorrent.

[RockRaven]

5. Note the plural "memberS/lawmakerS"

Not just a "bad apple" or "lone wolf"

It is just who they are as a party.

[demmiblue]

6. I am surprised by Josh Marshall; there is no mention of rape threats in the article. n/t

[Buns_of_Fire]

7. WAPO archive link (no paywall):

https://archive.ph/zFNw9

[skylucy]

9. Thank you for that link, Buns_of_Fire!

[ShazzieB]

20. Thanks for this!

[struggle4progress]

8. Threatening to rape a witness may not always be covered by the debate clause

[chicoescuela]

48. Ha, are you sure? There are no longer any rules that Rs follow

[malaise]

10. Of course they did

Rec

[BoRaGard]

12. Wonder if the G.O.P. RAPE threats will somehow be leaked

G.O.P. is really into the heinous rape thing. What absolute pigs they are.

[JT45242]

13. Note that hostile work environment does not apply to them

I'll bet Gaetz know who they were.

[moniss]

15. I would suspect

"Cushions" Vance or Gym Jordan.

[Wiz Imp]

29. Jordan is a good guess. I would rate MTG as a top suspect too.

[moniss]

37. Your're maybe onto something with MTG. nt

[republianmushroom]

16. More republican values ?

Threaten rape if you don't go along with the so called leaders.

[EllieBC]

17. Publish them. Name and shame.

Stop playing nice with these people. We always take the high road and where has it gotten us?

[Rebl2]

30. It has

gotten us nowhere. I even think Michelle Obama realizes that now.

[Quakerfriend]

18. Yes, release their names NOW!!

Did Cassidy get a pardon from Biden?
I hope so.

[Rebl2]

32. Never

heard her name mentioned.

[Cha]

19. TY I'm surprised Bezos Fascist Fuck WaPo

Reported this.

[moniss]

38. You can be sure someone

is being demoted, fired or disappeared at the WAPO.

[dchill]

21. WTF. Release the names AND the threats!

[Irish_Dem]

22. The GOP controls women by threatening to rape them.

This is how the GOP silences women.

[Paladin]

23. Unsurprising. (nt)

[rubbersole]

25. She's very brave.

Kinda pulled back the curtain on J6. tsf probably has her on the list right under Liz Cheney.

[Bluethroughu]

26. Republicans are degenerate slobs!

[Rebl2]

27. Absolutely

She should release them herself. On second thought no. They will hunt her down if she did that.

[sakabatou]

31. There is no bottom for the GOP

[Joinfortmill]

33. Perverted goons.

[Dem4life1234]

35. We need goons from the left

I mean it, we need equally nasty goons from the left to be just as nasty to these scumbags.

[spanone]

36. Scum of the earth, republicons.

[Raven123]

39. When did WaPo become aware of this information?

Why is it coming out now?
Yes, it should all be made public.
Where is the Ethics Committee?
Sad to think these threats weren’t reported to the Police (I am assuming it wasn’t), I can certainly understand why Hutchinson felt she couldn’t report them. Says volumes about the GOP.

[Evolve Dammit]

40. Bring it out. Just bring it. "We need to know who the predators are." Rec x 1000.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

41. The Republican Party has become a terrorist organization.

And they're in the house!!

[Permanut]

42. Nothing to see here, folks..

Their Grand High and Exalted Mystic Rapist does it, so no problem.

[karin_sj]

43. Read the full article

And this jumped out at me:

"Before that meeting, a Johnson aide told Loudermilk’s staff that multiple colleagues had raised concerns with the speaker’s office about the potential for public disclosure of “sexual texts from members who were trying to engage in sexual favors” with Hutchinson, according to correspondence produced at the time that detailed the conversation."

Calling threats of rape "sexual text from members trying to engage in sexual favors" is next level gaslighting. She definitely needs to name and shame, and why this hasn't already been done is a travesty. The people that did this need to be removed from congress.

[choie]

44. They wouldn't call her as a witness

because she'd tell the truth, which would go against their lying narrative.

[Alice Kramden]

46. Degenerate goons indeed

Makes my blood boil

[Bernardo de La Paz]

47. So Mike Johnson is a conspirator covering up a crime, the crime of sexual harassment. Makes him criminal too. nt

[Initech]

49. What the ever-loving fuck is wrong with them?

[JohnSJ]

51. Then why don't they name them? There has to be Democrats on the January 6th committee privy to that.

[Jit423]

52. Sure, i favor having that sub-committee investigate the investigators and the witnesses.

Now the witnesses can tell it all to the MAGAs who refused to listen the first time.

[OAITW r.2.0]

53. An Organized Crime Party would do this.

[AZJonnie]

54. This thread frustrates me, from the headline on down and throughout

If you look at the BlueSky message, the situation is that Josh Marshall is responding to an excerpt from the WaPo article that mentions 'sexually explicit texts' and he takes the liberty of translating those three words for all of us as being synonymous with 'rape threats', with no source whatsoever, just out of the blue. Then everyone here reads it and believes what Marshall has said is fact, rape threats were made. We don't know that, nor, I would wager, does Josh Marshall. Frankly it's pretty much click-bait.

The fact that there were sexually explicit texts sent her way, in that context, is already terrible (and possibly criminal) sexual harassment. We KNOW that happened, from the actual WaPo story. Is this not bad enough? With all the other horrors going on, I personally don't really need to see any hyperbole making me feel even more stressed and pissed. JMHO, fwiw, friends

[onenote]

55. +1

[Celerity]

57. The WaPo article never mentions rape threats: "sexual texts from members who were trying to engage in sexual favors"

The vermin Rethugs wrre hitting on her, not threatening rape, according to the article. No idea why Josh Marshall injected rape threats into it.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

58. This.

[demmiblue]

65. He also states, without evidence, that the texts were sent after her testimony.

If anything, I would have assumed that they were sent during her time in the Trump administration. Again, though, it is not specified.

I am totally not surprised that this thread has so many recs. That is all I'm saying about that.

[uponit7771]

67. Can't put it past MAGA, they're accepting the evil that good may come

[AZJonnie]

73. True but there's a difference between saying 'it's possible' and 'it's factual'

[58Sunliner]

78. Well I am going out on a limb and will say this has never happened to you.

Women who have worked out in the labor force know exactly that this type of behavior, especially when given in response to testifying against their leader, challenging abuses in the work place, etc..., is meant to be threatening and demeaning. They don't have to say 'I will rape you". They phrase it in vulgar, sexually explicit, and demeaning ways and the threat is a given. I'm sorry you don't understand that. It's pretty simple really. I too am disappointed by this thread. The number of people who can't grasp the reality of what these men were attempting to do to her, the means they used, and what women cope with is disheartening.

[AZJonnie]

80. I'm sorry, and yes, what you said is true. However, the OP's headline is still bullshit.

"WAPO: GOP members sent rape threats to Cassidy Hutchinson after her testimony" is a lie. Not only did the WaPo NOT say "rape threats", but it didn't say when they supposedly happened. She'd been working for Trump for awhile, and these advances could have been before she was acting against Trump, for all we know from what the article states. I'm sorry if I prefer to live in a world where my fellow liberals don't make up unsubstantiated spin and then falsely attribute it to the Washington Post. I don't disagree with the point you're making about the nature of the world here, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't admit what we know and don't know, based on what the story actually says. Say "in my opinion, these were probably effectively rape threats", the way you just explained. I wouldn't have taken a single issue with that approach, nor would anyone else on this board. Or, you say "Josh Marshall: GOP members sent rape threats to Cassidy Hutchinson after her testimony". I.E. the actual source

[58Sunliner]

82. They didn't want her to testify because she would expose the abuse related to her testimony.

I doubt they would have sent those texts while she was employed at the Whitehouse. They could be sued for harassment if that was the case, but as a private citizen, it's a very different scenario, she would not have grounds to sue for sexual harassment. I'm certain they understood the difference, even if you don't. No one saw the texts, unless Marshall was allowed to view them off the record and that is a possibility. We only have republican men telling us that they don't want them made public because it would look bad. Which to my mind answers the question, how bad were they? I don't have to imagine, I've lived it. These are despicable, misogynistic, cretins. I have no doubt she was sent violent/demeaning pornographic clips and explicit texts that were intended to threaten her into silence.

[Celerity]

56. The WaPo article doesn't back up Marshall's claim of rape threats.

Before that meeting, a Johnson aide told Loudermilk’s staff that multiple colleagues had raised concerns with the speaker’s office about the potential for public disclosure of “sexual texts from members who were trying to engage in sexual favors” with Hutchinson, according to correspondence produced at the time that detailed the conversation.

Additionally, a member of Johnson’s staff told Loudermilk aides that Hutchinson, an aide to then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, could “potentially reveal embarrassing information,” according to a separate email reviewed by The Post and corroborated by two additional people.

[Timeflyer]

60. Standard MAGA male tactic--not surprised at all. Revolted, but not surprised.

[obamanut2012]

62. It is rape, and I don't understand why some DUers aren't getting and are snarking at the OP

Unwanted and unsolicited sexual "favors" is a threat of sexual assault. "Come suck my dick, Cassidy," or similar is a sexual threat of rape/sexual assault to shut a woman up. It has been done for forever. Period.

It is scary and humiliating, and shame on anyone refusing to understand that and downplay any of this.

[onenote]

64. Some of us "aren't getting" the OP because its misleading and unsubstantiated

It indicates that the Post has reported that repub members sent "rape threats" to Hutchinson. But the Post article doesn't say that. Josh Marshall says that. And if he has substantiation for that claim, he should put it forward. Maybe it will turn out to be the case, but I'm not blindly accepting Josh Marshall's word for it when he doesn't offer any substantiation.

So you can keep your shame. I still prefer to live in a world where unsubstantiated claims are exactly that -- unsubstantiated claims.

[Celerity]

66. +1

[AZJonnie]

74. We don't have any idea what was actually said though

Your argument is based on a hypothetical text. And in fact, we don't even know the texts happened in the context of her giving testimony. They could've been any at time, perhaps long before anyone could've known that she 'needed to be shut up' because she'd later testify against Trump If WaPo had stated that what you theorized was actually texted to her, during or soon after her testimony, then I doubt anyone here would downplay it. Although I think you'd see arguments made that she definitely should've reported it at the time, to the world, including from myself.

[58Sunliner]

79. Absolutely. It's astounding.

[Kid Berwyn]

63. Terrorists Use Sexual Violence

Republicans and NAZI gangsters also use violence to achieve political aims.

What a coincidence!

[PortTack]

68. Be proud gqp..be proud. Hateful SOBs

[dchill]

70. This is on a "need to know" basis...

... and EVERYBODY needs to know.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

71. What. A. Surprise.

This is what they do. Isn't the patriarchy lovely?

😡

[Kablooie]

72. Republicans won't care.

They’ve become completely amoral and are willing to accept any crimes done to further their power.
Exactly like all other, criminal dictators have done in history.

[Initech]

76. WTF is wrong with these psychos? This is not how normal humans behave!

Rape threats and death threats are NOT NORMAL BEHAVIOR! It is utterly psychotic!