Actually, based on what I heard in the hearings, I think in this case what Cummings is referring to, apart from his ignorance of fundamental English, is to say that Hicks’ story changed because his testimony this week was that he had been instructed not to meet privately with Chaffetz. In prior testimony Hicks had stated that he wasn’t instructed to withhold information from anybody. Genius Cummings evidently can’t distinguish between the concepts of “withholding information” and “private meeting.”
During the hearing, he was trying to leverage this into an accusation of changed testimony, and I guess he’s now running with it.
By the way, I’m not connecting this with the “was punished/wasn’t punished” accusation re the GOP putting words in his mouth. I think that’s a separate bit of nonsense from Cummings. I’m only tying the changed testimony accusation to the Chaffetz issue.
Thank you for the response.
Although both of the incidents mentioned by you and I happened, you may be correct about what Cummings was referring to. It’s hard to tell with dedicated liars, because they have a tendency to jump to whichever ‘truth’ works best for them at the time.