Listen to the article
Former Special Counsel Jack Smith has cast doubt on key claims made by Cassidy Hutchinson, a prominent witness in the January 6 Committee hearings, according to a newly released transcript of Smith’s testimony to Congress.
During his deposition before the House Judiciary Committee earlier this month, Smith acknowledged that Hutchinson’s explosive testimony about former President Donald Trump’s actions on January 6, 2021, had significant evidentiary limitations because it relied heavily on secondhand and thirdhand information.
“If I were a defense attorney and Ms. Hutchinson were a witness, the first thing I would do was seek to preclude some of her testimony because it was hearsay,” Smith told the committee. This assessment from the special counsel who investigated Trump’s actions related to the 2020 election represents a notable departure from how Hutchinson’s testimony was initially received when she appeared before the January 6 Committee.
One of Hutchinson’s most dramatic claims involved an alleged incident in which Trump supposedly tried to grab the steering wheel of his presidential vehicle when Secret Service agents refused to take him to the Capitol during the riot. Smith directly addressed this account in his testimony.
“We interviewed the people she talked to, and we also interviewed officers who were there, including the officer who was in the car,” Smith explained. “That officer said that President Trump was very angry and wanted to go to the Capitol, but the version of events that he explained was not the same as what Cassidy Hutchinson said she heard from somebody secondhand.”
Smith emphasized that “a number of the things that she gave evidence on were secondhand hearsay” and that such testimony “may or may not be admissible, and it certainly wouldn’t be as powerful as firsthand testimony.”
Hutchinson served as a top aide to then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows during the final months of the Trump administration. Her position gave her proximity to key discussions following the 2020 election, making her testimony highly anticipated when she appeared before the Democrat-led January 6 Committee in June 2022.
During that hearing, Hutchinson testified under oath about alleged warnings within the White House concerning possible violence on January 6, and claimed Trump was aware that some rally attendees would be armed. She also recounted the disputed story about Trump allegedly attempting to grab the steering wheel from a Secret Service agent.
Notably, Hutchinson had not mentioned the steering wheel incident in her prior interviews with the committee. She later attributed this omission to guidance from her former attorney, Stefan Passantino.
Republicans have long questioned the credibility of the January 6 Committee’s work, pointing to its composition of primarily Democratic members alongside just two anti-Trump Republicans. Smith’s recent testimony may bolster these criticisms by highlighting the evidentiary weaknesses in one of the committee’s star witnesses.
Smith’s remarks about Hutchinson came during an extensive eight-hour closed-door deposition focused on his investigations of Trump regarding both the 2020 election and the alleged retention of classified materials. During the deposition, Smith defended various aspects of his investigative approach, including his decision to subpoena phone data from members of Congress and his pursuit of gag orders against the former president.
The special counsel also addressed his decision to file a streamlined superseding indictment against Trump after the Supreme Court ruled that former presidents have some immunity protections for official acts performed while in office.
Smith’s assessment of Hutchinson’s testimony adds another layer to the ongoing legal and political disputes surrounding the events of January 6 and the multiple investigations involving the former president, illustrating the complex evidentiary challenges facing prosecutors in high-profile political cases.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
8 Comments
I’m curious to learn more about the specific evidentiary limitations that the special counsel identified in Hutchinson’s testimony. Hearsay concerns are certainly valid, but I wonder if there are other factors at play as well.
That’s a fair point. The special counsel’s comments raise important questions about the strength and robustness of the evidence being presented in these high-profile hearings.
This is an interesting development in the January 6th investigation. It’s good to see the special counsel providing a more nuanced perspective on the evidence and witness testimony.
Agreed, it’s important to carefully evaluate the credibility and reliability of witness accounts, especially on such a politically charged issue.
The special counsel’s comments highlight the need for rigorous scrutiny of witness testimony and evidence, especially in such a politically charged and high-stakes investigation. It will be interesting to see how this shapes the ongoing proceedings.
This news seems to underscore the complexity and challenges involved in investigating the events of January 6th. It will be interesting to see how the various investigations and inquiries navigate these evidentiary issues moving forward.
While the special counsel’s assessment may raise doubts about certain aspects of Hutchinson’s testimony, I think it’s important to remember that this is an ongoing investigation with many moving parts. A balanced and thorough examination of the evidence is crucial.
Absolutely. Rushing to judgment or drawing firm conclusions before all the facts are in would be unwise. A measured, impartial approach is needed to get to the truth of what happened.