The hearing room was charged with tension as Chairman Jim Jordan directly confronted former Special Counsel Jack Smith. The core of the questioning: Cassidy Hutchinson, a key witness whose testimony regarding President Trump’s actions on January 6th had come under intense scrutiny and widespread doubt.
Jordan pressed Smith on whether he considered Hutchinson a credible witness, despite evidence suggesting her claims were fabricated. He zeroed in on the dramatic allegation that Trump attempted to seize control of the presidential limousine, a story vehemently denied by Secret Service agents present that day.
The exchange revealed a startling admission from Smith. While acknowledging Hutchinson’s testimony was largely secondhand and potentially unreliable – even stating he’d seek to exclude it if defending the accused – he hadn’t definitively ruled her out as a potential witness in a trial. This sparked immediate criticism from Jordan.
“That is the point,” Jordan declared, his voice resonating through the room. “The fact that they used her in a prime time hearing, and you won’t rule out using her…when everybody knows she wasn’t telling the truth, that says it all.” He argued this demonstrated a willingness to employ questionable tactics in the pursuit of a case against the former president.
Jordan highlighted the accounts of Tony Ornato and Bobby Engle, both Secret Service personnel who directly refuted Hutchinson’s claims. He relentlessly questioned Smith about whether his team had ever independently verified her story, receiving evasive answers focused on the scope of their investigation rather than a direct confirmation.
The questioning grew more pointed as Jordan referenced Smith’s own prior statements. He reminded Smith that he’d previously described Hutchinson’s testimony as “hearsay” and acknowledged a defense attorney would likely seek to exclude it. Yet, the possibility of presenting her to a jury remained open.
Further fueling the intensity, Jordan cited reporting from *Washington Post* journalists Carol Leonnig and Aaron Davis. Their book detailed internal discussions within Smith’s team, revealing initial consideration of Hutchinson’s account, ultimately abandoned due to widespread disputes from Trump administration officials.
Jordan’s final remarks were scathing. He emphasized the sheer volume of times Hutchinson was referenced in the January 6th Committee’s report – a staggering 185 mentions – despite the widespread knowledge of her questionable credibility. He framed it as evidence of a desperate attempt to build a case against President Trump, regardless of the truth.
The exchange left a clear impression: a deep skepticism regarding the foundation of the case against the former president and a pointed accusation that political motivations may have overshadowed the pursuit of factual accuracy.
