Trump 'apologist' Elise Stefanik singled out for lying about the latest Jan. 6 hearing

On Sunday, John Dickerson of CBS singled out Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) for flagrantly lying about the latest House committee hearing on the Jan 6th Capitol insurrection with a pair of tweets -- one of which was later deleted.

As Dickerson pointed out, the hearings have painted a portrait of Donald Trump who not only encouraged the rioters to storm the Capitol and send lawmakers fleeing, but the latest installment demonstrated that he did nothing for over three hours to halt the violence -- based on testimony from White House staffers who were in attendance that day.

Writing, "The hearing this past week offered a clear example of the instinct of accommodating the inexcusable. The committee outlined how, on January 6, President Trump did nothing for three hours to stop the rioting at the Capitol, despite the presidential obligation 'to preserve, protect and defend,'" he added, "But Donald Trump was like a fire chief who did nothing more than warm his face in the flames."

According to the political analyst, "By the standard of any profession, a failure this grave would disqualify a person from the job," but that hasn't stopped the Trump apologists from running to defend him -- including Stefanik who occupies a GOP leadership position in the House.

As Dickerson pointed out, "the conditioned response is to distract. So, the office of the third most powerful member of House Republican leadership tweeted about the hearing: 'All hearsay,'" with the CBS correspondent adding, "It wasn't! Trump officials were under oath recounting their direct experience trying to get the president to act."

Additionally, Stefanik's office had a part in a tweet that labeled White House staffer Sarah Matthews, "just another liar and pawn in Pelosi's witch-hunt." That tweet was later deleted.

"... by attacking the witnesses, Trump defenders admit that they have no evidence he did his job," he wrote before adding, "At issue is more than the actions (or inaction) of a single president, but the standards of the presidency, and whether a large portion of those who the founders relied on to maintain those standards have become practiced in lowering them … or casting them aside entirely."