The House Jan. 6 select committee abruptly scheduled a sixth public hearing to begin today at 1 p.m. ET. Cassidy Hutchinson, a former top aide to Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, provided explosive in-person testimony.
Our contributors today were MSNBC Daily writer and editor Hayes Brown, MSNBC columnists Jessica Levinson and Michael A. Cohen, and "The Rachel Maddow Show" legal analyst Lisa Rubin.
Obstruction of justice could still be happening in real time
You’ve likely heard the saying, “The cover-up’s worse than the crime.” It’s one that appears very relevant to today’s hearing.
To hear Cheney tell it, there’s been a fair amount of witness tampering going on in Trump World. She didn’t name names, but we know that practice included reminding a witness that “Trump does read transcripts” and that so long as they protected those who needed protection, they would “continue to stay in good graces in Trump World.” Another witness was allegedly told that an unnamed person — presumably Trump — “wants me to let you know that he is thinking about you” the day before the witness’s deposition.
Federal law prohibits intimidating or even attempting to intimidate witnesses before Congress. Specifically, 18 USC 1512(b) says that any person who “knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so . . . with intent to influence . . . the testimony of any person in an official proceeding” or cause that person to “withhold testimony” can be imprisoned for up to 20 years. And the phrase “official proceeding” is expressly defined to include “a proceeding before the Congress.”
No doubt, today’s hearing was chock full of shocking revelations. But perhaps the most stunning of all was Cheney’s disclosure that the potential crimes just keep coming.
There could be more Cassidy Hutchinsons waiting in the wings
There's no doubt Hutchinson's testimony today was historic. And there's reason we can expect more bombshell testimony from other young people in Trump's orbit.
As Ja'han Jones wrote for The ReidOut Blog today:
"Back in May, before the Jan. 6 public hearings began, committee member Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., tipped the committee’s hand a bit to the press. In a Politico interview, Raskin said the committee was getting lots of helpful information from young staffers in the White House, and he explained why they were so essential to the Jan. 6 investigation."
Raskin told Politico that the committee was "definitely taking advantage of the fact that most senior-level people in Washington depend on a lot of young associates and subordinates to get anything done."
“A lot of these people still have their ethics intact and don’t want to squander the rest of their careers for other people’s mistakes and corruption,” he added.
Read Ja'han's full story below.
Does Hutchinson’s bombshell testimony change the legal landscape?
We have already talked about the possibility that Trump could be charged with obstruction or attempted obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to defraud the United States by preventing the counting of electoral college votes.
But today’s testimony brings to the fore another potential federal criminal charge — seditious conspiracy. The criminal statute requires that a prosecutor show that two or more people conspired to, among other things, “by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States.” Food for (legal) thought.
White House lawyers were the grown-ups the Trump administration needed — and mostly lacked
The White House counsel is the chief legal officer of the executive office of the president. And clearly, then-White House counsel Pat Cipollone, his deputy Pat Philbin, and other lawyers within that office, notably including Eric Herschmann, gave plenty of legal advice on Jan. 6, including Cipollone’s ominous warning that if they allowed Trump to head to the Capitol on Jan. 6, they’d all face potential criminal charges.
But what stood out today from Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony is how often the lawyers of the White House counsel’s office attempted to moderate Trump and others’ actions and reactions, whether or not it had anything to do with the law.
Their involvement in drafting Trump’s so-called “remarks on national healing” on Jan. 7 is illustrative. Philbin prepared a first draft because he believed “more needed to be said” after Trump’s thoroughly unsatisfying Jan. 6 statement; he shared the draft, Hutchinson recalled, with both Cipollone and Herschmann, who agreed. Ultimately, however, Trump gave no speech at all.
Lawyers are often maligned in our culture. But in a White House run amok, Cipollone, Philbin, and Herschmann publicly played Trump’s defenders — and privately served as the grown-ups he and Meadows so desperately needed. Sadly, they often ignored them.
Trump World appears to be engaging in witness tampering
In her closing remarks, Cheney suggested members of Trump's inner circle were engaging in witness tampering via phone calls and messages to some witnesses.
“He knows you’re loyal, and you’re going to do the right thing when you go in for your deposition,” one witness allegedly received in a message from an unnamed Trump ally.
Of course Trump's cabinet considered the 25th Amendment
According to Cheney, Trump’s cabinet secretaries considered invoking the 25th Amendment and stripping Trump of his presidential powers. It’s emblematic of one of the major themes of these hearings to date: virtually every person in Trump’s orbit vehemently disagreed with his efforts to steal the election.
They knew he’d gone too far and they were disgusted by his actions. Indeed, Cassidy Hutchinson used those exact words, noting that she herself was “disgusted as an American” after Trump tweeted disparagingly about Mike Pence as the insurrection raged. We found out today that White House counsel Pat Cipollone was apoplectic about the violence at the Capitol and demanded that Trump do something to stop it. We’ve heard variations of this from a number of witnesses. They all knew. They all tried to stop it. And then after it happened they remained silent.
Trump wanted to pardon the Jan. 6 rioters
It was tough convincing Trump that he needed to say anything the day after the attack, Hutchinson testified. And when he was convinced to give a short speech, Trump insisted on taking out language about prosecuting the rioters. In fact, according to Hutchinson, Trump wanted to include language about pardoning the insurrectionists who attempted to block the peaceful transfer of power. He was ultimately convinced not to do so, but it’s telling that even after everything that had happened, Trump still believed that pretty much the only person who had done something wrong on Jan. 6 was Mike Pence.
How Trump urged on rioters targeting Mike Pence
We’ve heard before that Trump did not necessarily disapprove of the rioters chanting “hang Mike Pence” during the attack on the Capitol. Hutchinson confirmed that in her testimony today. Cipollone told Meadows that the president needed to act. “You heard him — he doesn’t want to do anything, Pat,” Meadows told Cipollone, but the still two went to speak to Trump in the Oval Office dining room, Hutchinson said.
During that meeting, Hutchinson brought Meadows his phone with Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, on the line. In the background she could hear the conversation referring to the crowds’ chants. When the two men came back to Meadows’ office, Hutchinson said, Cipollone was still insisting that Trump needed to tell the crowd to leave. “You heard him, Pat,” Meadows replied. “He thinks Mike deserves it. He doesn’t think they’re doing anything wrong.”
It was only after that conversation that Trump sent out the now-infamous tweet declaring that Pence didn’t “have the courage” to overturn the election results. Trump knew that the rioters wanted to hurt Pence, he knew they were in the Capitol building, and he still hit send.
That tweet would be read out loud by the rioters, spurring them on further, as we saw in footage during an earlier committee hearing.
Why we need Pat Cipollone’s testimony now more than ever
A week ago today, Liz Cheney ended the fourth hearing by pleading with then-White House counsel Pat Cipollone to appear before the committee, noting “[o]ur evidence shows that Mr. Cipollone and his office tried to do what was right.”
And while Cipollone — who also figured prominently in last week’s testimony from Justice Department senior leaders — has not reached an agreement with the committee to testify, Cassidy Hutchinson’s appearance today makes Cipollone’s own account more important, not less.
Hutchinson testified that Cipollone told her that there would be “serious legal concerns” if Trump went to the Capitol on Jan. 6 and urged her to convey that message to boss Mark Meadows. Hutchinson further testified that Cipollone seemed to believe Meadows “was pushing this along” with the president and warned that if Trump were allowed to head to the Capitol, “we’re going to get charged with every crime imaginable,” which Hutchinson understood to include obstruction of justice and defrauding the United States by impeding the electoral count. And most Hutchinson testified that Cipollone “barreled” down a White House hallway to beg Meadows to intervene after the Capitol riot began so people would not die.
Between last week’s testimony and today’s, we know Cipollone opposed three critical elements of Trump’s efforts to overturn the election: Trump’s plan to install Jeff Clark as attorney general, Trump’s walk to the Capitol, and the Capitol attack itself. Why — having thrown himself in front of Trump’s wayward bus repeatedly — wouldn’t Cipollone want America to hear that from him personally?