I am wondering why this article even exists. Did the writer call Toensing and ask who Hicks voted for, hoping that Hicks would turn out to be an evil, partisan, extreme (of course), witch-hunting Republican? I say that would have been the only reason even to consider writing this article.
It certainly sounds like this article was not Toensing’s idea:
“Toensing added that she did not know he was a Democrat until the day before the hearing. “I’m not interested in that,” she said.”
I have to imagine that every little thing is a big deal at that level, because I would instruct my lawyer to just hang up on that kind of question.
In the article itself it says that they “confirmed” the information with Toensing. That means that they already had the information.
It is not hard to see how this might have come about. Media propagandists went out to dig up dirt on the whistleblowers and one of the things they were hoping to find was that Hicks, and the other two are Republicans. Then they could roll that into the narrative that this is all just a political make-believe exercise. When “friends” and colleagues of Hicks said instead that Hicks was a big Hillary fan, but later got on board with Obama they had to go out and check on the information.
The story here does not fit the narrative, but it justifies the time spent. Reporters need to pay their mortgages too.
A good lawyer will always try to eliminate the charge of bias against a witness testifying for their client. What better way to do that in a political case than to show the witness is a supporter of the suspect?
But I do have questions. A lawyer is also supposed to ferret out such biases and other potential problems for her case well in advance of public testimony. Surprises are frowned upon in the legal profession. She should have at least been curious.
Second, not all of his testimony was helpful to the “stand down order” narrative put forward by Griffin’s original sources, and the anonymous witness of Housley. For example, was the jet comandeered or chartered? Bigger picture, if the admin knew some really damaging witnesses were soon to come forward, a reasonable response would be to preempt that testimony with other testimony that has a few diversions designed to lead, not to the true perp, but a a lower level fall guy.
That’s why you want to know all you can about your witness in advance. And that is why I would be concerned to know Hicks voted for Obama AFTER he saw the public falsehoods about the video. Perhaps he is himself involved in the alleged gun running operation, or perhaps he has some other personal motive for presenting the truth selectively.