Cassidy Hutchinson’s sworn testimony was solid and damning against Trump. The evidence took us from “everyone knows that happened” (which isn’t actually admissible evidence) to a new understanding of what happened in the form of sworn eyewitness testimony.
It also showed gaps in what we know. For example, we learned that Trump told Meadows to talk to Roger Stone and Michael Flynn on the night of Jan. 5th. We learned that Mark Meadows was planning to go to the Willard ‘war room,’ but Hutchinson talked him out of going because it wouldn’t be appropriate.
It seems to me that the next tasks are to:
🔹get the other witnesses and corroborating evidence, and
🔹fill in the gaps of what we don’t know.
“Come on, Teri, surely there is enough evidence now to indict.”
Certainly, but only a fool would bring charges before learning the entire story.
It’s harder to defend against eyewitness testimony that is corroborated by the others who were there. We heard from one person who was in the room where it happened. Lots of other people were in the room where it happened.
Here’s the best thing that can happen after yesterday’s hearing: Other witnesses saw what Cassidy Hutchinson did, and their lawyers told them this: If you are part of the coverup, you can get in trouble. If you have no liability, you’d better get in line to tell the story.
If you have one witness telling the story, the right-wing will find ways to discredit it. But if other people (including defendants pleading guilty) come forward, all saying, “I heard the same thing. And here are my text messages corroborating my impressions at the time” it’s harder to discredit the story.
If I were prosecuting this (which would never happen because I made up my mind early on never to be a prosecutor 🙂 my goal, under the circumstances, would be to get as many witnesses and as much corroborating evidence as possible.
Witnesses who are reluctant because they are scared, or True Believers, or they want to protect Trump can be persuaded if prosecutors can present enough evidence to the witnesses to show that the prosecution already knows the whole story and can prove it in court.
Because the DOJ has (and will soon have more) electronic records that these witnesses tried to hide, it’s likely that the DOJ has corroborating evidence and can fill in the gaps.
Looking forward to the next hearing of the Jan 6 Committee !!! 🍻