The Justice Department just hit a major wall in its effort to indict Cassidy Hutchinson.
A federal grand jury in Washington reportedly refused to return an indictment against the former White House aide, whose testimony became one of the most explosive moments of the House January 6 committee’s televised hearings.
The rejection is especially striking because grand juries hear the prosecution’s evidence without a defense team in the room, and the government only needs to establish probable cause rather than prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
But even that lower threshold was reportedly not met.
The Washington Post reported Tuesday that the grand jury declined the Justice Department’s attempt to charge Hutchinson over the account she gave lawmakers concerning President Trump’s actions on January 6, 2021. The report attributed the development to people familiar with the matter because grand-jury proceedings are secret.
That means there is no public indictment laying out an exact criminal theory, no trial date and no court finding that Hutchinson committed a crime. Prosecutors could still try to present the matter again, but the reported refusal is an unmistakable setback for a case the department had been building for months.
The investigation came into public view earlier this year after House Republicans referred Hutchinson to the Justice Department over allegations that she had lied to Congress.
By early October, prosecutors were no longer merely reviewing documents behind closed doors. The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division had begun presenting evidence to a federal grand jury in Washington.
CBS News independently reported on October 8 that federal prosecutors were presenting evidence to a Washington grand jury examining whether Hutchinson may have lied in her testimony. Two sources familiar with the matter confirmed the grand-jury activity, while the precise charges under consideration remained unclear.
The network also noted that Hutchinson had served as an aide to White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows before becoming the committee witness whose account drew national attention in June 2022.
The most famous part of Hutchinson’s testimony concerned what she said she had been told about President Trump’s presidential vehicle after his speech at the Ellipse.
Hutchinson did not claim to have witnessed the alleged incident herself. She testified that White House Deputy Chief of Staff Anthony Ornato told her Trump became angry when the Secret Service would not take him to the Capitol, reached toward the steering wheel and moved toward the head of his security detail.
That account quickly became one of the committee’s biggest headlines.
It also became one of its most heavily disputed claims.
The Secret Service driver later told investigators that he did not see Trump grab the steering wheel or lunge toward the front seat. Other witnesses described the president as angry about being taken back to the White House, but did not corroborate the physical confrontation Hutchinson recounted.
House Republicans later widened their scrutiny beyond the vehicle story.
The House Committee on Administration said an independent handwriting analyst concluded that a proposed January 6 message Hutchinson testified she had written was instead penned by White House lawyer Eric Herschmann. The committee argued that the analysis contradicted Hutchinson’s sworn testimony and her later account of the note in her book.
The committee also said several White House employees and Secret Service witnesses had not corroborated key parts of her televised testimony. Hutchinson and her defenders have maintained that she truthfully relayed what she remembered and what others told her, while critics argued that the January 6 committee rushed sensational claims into a public hearing without adequate corroboration.
Those disputes gave federal prosecutors a politically explosive but legally difficult case.
To bring a criminal charge based on false testimony, the government would have needed to identify a specific statement, show that it was material and establish probable cause that Hutchinson knowingly lied. A conflict between witnesses, or proof that an underlying secondhand story was inaccurate, would not automatically establish that Hutchinson deliberately gave false testimony about what she had been told.
That distinction may help explain why the Justice Department came up empty before the grand jury.
For now, Hutchinson has not been indicted, and the department has no public criminal case against her.
The reported rejection does not necessarily end the investigation. Prosecutors can gather more evidence, call additional witnesses or attempt another presentation.
But failing to secure an indictment from a grand jury is rare, and doing so in a case this prominent makes the setback impossible to dismiss.
The Justice Department spent months examining one of the most controversial witnesses from the January 6 hearings.
When the case finally reached the people empowered to authorize charges, they reportedly said no.
Continue reading...
[ H/T WLT Report ]
