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 6th.
Hodgins and testimony outlined how the former president knew that
many in the crowd on January, 6th 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 encourage them to quote, fight like hell
and marched to the Capitol.
I was in the vicinity of a conversation where I overheard the president.
Say something escape Act of, you know, I don't even care that they
have weapons.
They're not here to hurt me. Take the effing bags away. Let my people
in. They can march the capital from here. Let the people in. Take
that I think. Mags away
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.
Joe Wang Banks welcome back to the news hour 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 is
just leaves us hardly believing what we're hearing and what is truly
a potential legal violation.
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 your boss, Mark Meadows
and many others.
They 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 US 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 40 Sevens Glock pistols.
A breast knuckles and that he
Knowing that said.
Go to the capital fight like hell. You have to do it or we won't
have a democracy left well 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 um, 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
may be challenged, but until they testify under oath
Her chest. Timoney is the only one under oath. So Secret service,
saying there's some dispute about her, um, saying what she heard
people who were in the car after his rally speech.
Say 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. 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 capital is that in and of itself a violation of
law, whether it's obstruction of justice or an attack? As you said
on democracy?
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
an opening the ballads
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 has 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 disrupted fortunately
only temporarily because the vice president did not leave the capital.
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
and dictatorship. Excuse me. Is there any one thing that she said
that in and of itself could provide enough?
Information enough evidence to prove that the law was violated.
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 her testimony
and many others. We've heard days now of testimony before it in public.
Um, 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've 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. That's 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. I don't care. I want them here. They can march to
the capital 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 in just a little
bit of time. We have left the statement that the hearsay she overheard
that chief of staff saying to Pat sip alone, 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 criminal charge?
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 trial say I heard
somebody else say that they heard somebody say
But a lot of those do follow 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 Scipione. I cannot believe
That they haven't been subpoenaed that they haven't come in to testify.
This 25 year old aid is the one who is 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 Scipione. Could be the next John D. So
we know forward. We know the committee is trying to get those other
individuals to testify. Jill Wine Banks, We thank you.