Hutchinson Testimony Exposes Tensions Between
Parallel Jan. 6 Inquiries
That the House panel did not provide the Justice
Department with transcripts of Cassidy Hutchinson’s interviews speaks to the
panel’s reluctance to turn over evidence.
Glenn
ThrushLuke BroadwaterMichael S. Schmidt
By Glenn
Thrush, Luke Broadwater and Michael S. Schmidt
June 29,
2022
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/29/us/politics/jan-6-committee-justice-department-trump.html
WASHINGTON
— The explosive testimony of a former Trump White House aide on Tuesday may
have increased the likelihood of new prosecutions stemming from the attack on
the Capitol, but it also bared lingering conflicts between the Justice
Department and congressional investigators.
The federal
prosecutors working on the case watched the aide’s appearance before the House
committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, riot and were just as astonished by
her account of former President Donald J. Trump’s increasingly desperate bid to
hold on to power as other viewers. The panel did not provide them with videos or
transcripts of her taped interviews with committee members beforehand,
according to several officials, leaving them feeling blindsided.
The
testimony from the aide, Cassidy Hutchinson, who worked for Mr. Trump’s final
chief of staff, Mark Meadows, came at a critical moment in parallel
investigations that will soon converge, and possibly collide, as the committee
wraps up a public inquiry geared for maximum political effect and the
department intensifies a high-stakes investigation aimed at securing airtight
convictions.
Her
revelations ramped up calls that the committee summon a former White House
counsel, Pat Cipollone, who could verify some of her disclosures and who
repeatedly resisted efforts to subvert the election. Late Wednesday, the panel
said it had subpoenaed Mr. Cipollone after he refused to publicly testify.
Committee
members have repeatedly suggested that Attorney General Merrick B. Garland has
not moved fast enough to follow up their investigative leads. But for reasons
that are not entirely clear — classic Washington bureaucratic territorialism,
the department’s unwillingness to share information or the desire to
stage-manage a successful public forum — members have resisted turning over
hundreds of transcripts until they are done with their work.
Senior
Justice Department officials say that has slowed their investigation. Ms.
Hutchinson’s name has not yet appeared on subpoenas and other court documents
related to their investigation into the effort to overturn the 2020 election,
and she did not seem to be a primary witness before the hearings.
The
committee and its supporters say its independence has allowed it to create an
investigative road map for the department’s subsequent inquiries, even if
members remain divided over whether to make an official criminal referral to
Mr. Garland.
“It’s fair
to regard this series of most recent hearings as a slow-motion referral in
plain view of conduct warranting, at minimum, criminal investigation and
potential prosecution,” said David H. Laufman, a former federal prosecutor and
senior Justice Department official. “They haven’t held back anything.”
At each of
its hearings this month, the panel has presented evidence that members believe
could be used to bolster a criminal investigation. The committee has provided
new details about cases that could be built around a conspiracy to defraud the
American people and Mr. Trump’s own donors, as well as plans to submit false
slates of electors to the National Archives and obstruct an official proceeding
of Congress.
At its
hearing on Tuesday, the committee laid out how Mr. Trump had forewarning of
violence, allowed a mob of his loyalists to attack the Capitol and, in fact,
agreed with what they were doing.
A person
familiar with the panel’s work said Representative Liz Cheney, Republican of
Wyoming and vice chairwoman of the committee, took a leading role overseeing
the team investigating Mr. Trump’s inner circle and was instrumental in
organizing the surprise hearing featuring Ms. Hutchinson.
Over the
past month, the committee has aired hours of testimony — none more significant
than Ms. Hutchinson’s narrative of Mr. Trump’s actions on the day of the attack
— that legal experts believe bolstered a potential criminal case against Mr.
Trump for inciting the mob or attempting to obstruct the special session of
Congress.
That, in
turn, has escalated the already intense pressure on Mr. Garland and his top
aides. The now familiar meme — exhorting Mr. Garland to do his “job” by
indicting Mr. Trump — began to emerge on social media even before Ms.
Hutchinson left the hearing room.
“We need
some action from the D.O.J., and we need it now,” Representative Ruben Gallego,
Democrat of Arizona, said in an interview. “We’re in a time crunch now. Every
day these criminals walk free is one more day of them evading justice. As we
get closer to the midterm elections, I fear not acting will only empower the
complicit Republicans more if they take power.”
For their
part, members of the committee have repeatedly and publicly called for Mr.
Garland to do more, even as the panel has denied the Justice Department access
to its transcripts. (A committee spokesman has said the panel is negotiating
with the Justice Department and could turn over its transcripts as early as
July when it finishes its public hearings.)
“I have yet
to see any indication that the former president himself is under
investigation,” Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California and a
member of the committee, said on “Meet The Press” on NBC recently, adding,
“It’s not a difficult decision to investigate when there’s evidence before
you.”
That
followed a steady drumbeat of similar statements from members of the panel who
have urged the Justice Department to investigate Mr. Trump and charge with
contempt his allies who will not cooperate with the committee’s investigation.
Mr. Garland
and his top advisers have repeatedly declined to comment on the details of
their investigations, other than to say they will follow wherever the evidence
leads them. His spokesman had no comment on Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony and what
it meant for the Justice Department’s work.
In recent
weeks, the panel has openly debated whether it should ratchet up additional
pressure on the department by issuing a criminal referral at the end of its
investigation.
After
Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi and the committee’s
chairman, indicated to reporters on Capitol Hill that the panel was unlikely to
do so, other members, including Mr. Schiff and Ms. Cheney, quickly disputed
that assertion.
“The
January 6th Select Committee has not issued a conclusion regarding potential
criminal referrals,” Ms. Cheney wrote on Twitter this month. “We will announce
a decision on that at an appropriate time.”
Making a
case against Trump. The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack appears
to be laying out evidence that could allow prosecutors to indict former
President Donald J. Trump, though the path to a criminal trial is uncertain.
Here are the main themes that have emerged so far:
An
unsettling narrative. During the first hearing, the committee described in
vivid detail what it characterized as an attempted coup orchestrated by the
former president that culminated in the assault on the Capitol. At the heart of
the gripping story were three main players: Mr. Trump, the Proud Boys and a
Capitol Police officer.
Creating
election lies. In its second hearing, the panel showed how Mr. Trump ignored
aides and advisers as he declared victory prematurely and relentlessly pressed
claims of fraud he was told were wrong. “He’s become detached from reality if
he really believes this stuff,” William P. Barr, the former attorney general,
said of Mr. Trump during a videotaped interview.
Pressuring
Pence. Mr. Trump continued pressuring Vice President Mike Pence to go along
with a plan to overturn his loss even after he was told it was illegal,
according to testimony laid out by the panel during the third hearing. The
committee showed how Mr. Trump’s actions led his supporters to storm the
Capitol, sending Mr. Pence fleeing for his life.
Fake
elector plan. The committee used its fourth hearing to detail how Mr. Trump was
personally involved in a scheme to put forward fake electors. The panel also
presented fresh details on how the former president leaned on state officials
to invalidate his defeat, opening them up to violent threats when they refused.
Strong
arming the Justice Department. During the fifth hearing, the panel explored Mr.
Trump’s wide-ranging and relentless scheme to misuse the Justice Department to
keep himself in power. The panel also presented evidence that at least half a
dozen Republican members of Congress sought pre-emptive pardons.
Trump’s
rage. Cassidy Hutchinson, a former White House aide, delivered explosive
testimony during the panel’s sixth hearing, saying that the president knew the
crowd on Jan. 6 was armed, but wanted to loosen security. She also revealed
that Mr. Trump, demanding to go to the Capitol, tried to grab his vehicle’s
steering wheel from a Secret Service agent.
The panel
has also suggested Mr. Trump and unnamed people close to him were involved in
inappropriately influencing witnesses.
Its members
have suggested, for instance, that the former president may have swayed
Representative Kevin McCarthy, the House Republican leader, when he refused to
cooperate with the investigation.
On Tuesday,
Ms. Cheney displayed what she said were two examples of unnamed Trump
associates trying to influence witnesses. One witness was told to “protect”
certain individuals to “stay in good graces in Trump World.” In the other
instance, a witness was encouraged to remain “loyal.”
“Most
people know that attempting to influence witnesses to testify untruthfully
presents very serious concerns,” Ms. Cheney said. “We will be discussing these
issues as a committee and carefully considering our next steps.”
According
to Punchbowl News, Ms. Hutchinson received such a warning. A person familiar
with the committee’s investigation confirmed that account. Her lawyer did not
respond to a message seeking comment.
The
allegations were reminiscent of other questions that have emerged about Mr.
Trump and his allies’ use of intimidation to stop witnesses from implicating
Mr. Trump.
During the
Russia investigation, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, John Dowd, dangled a pardon
to Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn.
Mr. Trump
later pardoned Mr. Flynn after he stopped cooperating with investigators. Mr.
Trump himself had similar overtures made to his personal lawyer and fixer,
Michael D. Cohen.
Luke
Broadwater covers Congress. He was the lead reporter on a series of
investigative articles at The Baltimore Sun that won a Pulitzer Prize and a
George Polk Award in 2020. @lukebroadwater
Michael S.
Schmidt is a Washington correspondent covering national security and federal
investigations. He was part of two teams that won Pulitzer Prizes in 2018 — one
for reporting on workplace sexual harassment and the other for coverage of
President Trump and his campaign’s ties to Russia. @NYTMike
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário