Former White House aide’s testimony could pose new legal challenges for Trump

Judy Woodruff:

Yesterday's remarkable testimony from former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson painted an incriminating picture of former President Donald Trump's actions on and leading up to the events of January 6.

Hutchinson's testimony outline how the former president knew that many in the crowd on January 6 were armed with weapons and wanted the metal detectors, or magnetometers, known as mags, to be removed, so that more of his supporters could attend his speech.

But at that rally, he still encouraged them to — quote — "fight like hell" and march to the Capitol.

Cassidy Hutchinson, Former Aide to Mark Meadows: I was in the vicinity of a conversation where I overheard the president say something to the effect of: "I don't effing care that they have weapons. They're not here to hurt me. Take the effing mags away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here. Let the people in. Take the effing mags away."

Judy Woodruff:

All of this and more raises questions about possible criminal charges and other consequences for the former president and for his inner circle.

To help us better understand the legal implications, I'm joined by attorney and former Watergate prosecutor Jill Wine-Banks.

Jill Wine-Banks, welcome back to the "NewsHour."

So much emerged from that testimony yesterday we were listening to. A lot of it was not just new, but it was shocking. But how do we distinguish between what's interesting and that just leaves us hardly believing what we're hearing and what is truly a potential legal violation?

Jill Wine-Banks, Former Watergate Prosecutor:

I think her testimony was one series of elements of crime after another.

She laid out a lot of things not just against the former president, but against her boss, Mark Meadows, and many others. The crimes that she spelled out were obstruction of Congress, inciting a riot or insurrection. She also played out a possibility for seditious conspiracy and conspiracy to defraud the U.S.

Those are among the crimes that she talked about. We already have state crimes. The Georgia call that the president, former president, made is another crime. But all of her testimony was really relevant to many of the aspects.

And the part that you just mentioned about his knowing that his supporters were armed, that they were carrying rifles, AK-47s, Glock pistols, brass knuckles, and that he, knowing that, said, go to the Capitol fight like hell, you have to do it, or we won't have a democracy left, while doing it could have endangered a democracy.

And he knew that they were violent. And so he is responsible for it. And I think she really laid that out. And she also linked the White House through Mark Meadows to the meeting that was at the Willard Hotel, talking about the fake electors slates and pressuring Pence and pressuring the state legislatures to take action to undo their confirmed votes.

So she laid out a lot of crimes and a lot of evidence, and was very credible, I think. Some of her testimony is now being maybe challenged. But until they testify under oath, her testimony is the only one under oath. So, Secret Service saying there's some dispute about her saying what she heard people who were in the car after his rally speech say…

Judy Woodruff:

Right.

Jill Wine-Banks:

… is what's being challenged. But they aren't saying it under oath. And until they do, hers is the one that's under oath.

Judy Woodruff:

Well, let me — and I do want to ask you about that. But let me take those one at a time.

What we heard her say about the president knowing that these people attending the rally, many of them were armed, encouraging them to go to the Capitol, is that, in and of itself, a violation of law, whether it's obstruction of justice or an attack, as you said, on democracy?

Jill Wine-Banks:

It could be both. It can be an obstruction of Congress, because the intent of getting the crowd there was to prevent Congress from taking and opening the ballots and counting them.

That's what the Electoral College Act says. That's what the Constitution gives the responsibility to the vice president. His only responsibility is really ceremonial. He's to open the envelopes that the states have confirmed and sent. That's all he does. And then the ballots are counted.

The crowd was intended to and did, of course, actually disrupt it, fortunately only temporarily, because the vice president did not leave the Capitol. And neither did the members of Congress who were threatened by this violent mob. But they came back, and they did their job working late into the night.

And it's — once it starts, it cannot be adjourned, according to the law. So they did the right thing staying. That's very important to keep in mind. So that's one crime. But it is also, of course, a threat to democracy if we don't count the votes as they were cast and if we turn it back to the states to say, well, I didn't like that vote, so I'm going to appoint a different slate of electors.

That would be the end of democracy.

Judy Woodruff:

Is there…

Jill Wine-Banks:

That would be an authoritarian dictatorship.

Judy Woodruff:

Excuse me.

Is there any one thing that she said that, in and of itself, could provide enough information, enough evidence to prove that a law was violated?

Jill Wine-Banks:

Well, I think you have to be realistic and say that one person against another is never going to make a case.

But, here, we have heard testimony and many others. We have heard days now of testimony before it in public from the committee where Republicans have come forward saying: This is what I know. This is what I was asked to do.

We heard Rusty Bowers from Arizona. We have heard all of these people say things. And the combination makes it what is a crime. I don't know that you can take any one thing that could be rebutted. Certainly, his saying, I don't care about them being armed, they're not out to hurt me…

Judy Woodruff:

Yes.

Jill Wine-Banks:

… that certainly means he knew that they were out to hurt someone, and he just didn't care because it wasn't him.

It's always about him. And so I think that's one of the most damaging things that she personally heard him say, was, I don't care, I want them here, they can march to the Capitol from here, knowing they were armed.

That, to me, is probably a violation of the most important law, which is one that says, if you ever are involved in an insurrection, you can never run for office again, if you, once having taken an oath to the United States, then engage in an insurrection.

And that pretty much would establish it, but not on its own. It takes all of their testimony.

Judy Woodruff:

But what — in just a little bit of time we have left, the statement — the hearsay, she overheard the chief of staff saying to Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel, that you know the president agrees that the vice president deserves what the crowd is chanting, "Hang Mike Pence," could that in any way lead to a criminal charge?

Jill Wine-Banks:

It — in order to be tried and used in court, it has to either be within an exception to the hearsay rule. You cannot in a trial say, I heard somebody else say that they heard somebody say.

But a lot of those do fall within exceptions of statements against interest. And so it might be admissible. It does point to how important getting Mark Meadows to testify is. He is really a key factor here and Pat Cipollone.

I cannot believe that they haven't been subpoenaed, that they haven't come in to testify. This 25-year-old aide is the one who was advising her boss, don't go to the meeting at the Willard Hotel. That's not a good idea. She was the adult in the room.

But it is really important that John Dean's successor, Pat Cipollone, could be the next John Dean.

Judy Woodruff:

Well, we know…

Jill Wine-Banks:

So, let him come forward.

Judy Woodruff:

We know the committee is trying to get those other individuals to testify.

Jill Wine-Banks, we thank you.

Jill Wine-Banks:

Thank you. It's been a pleasure.