Former special counsel Jack Smith told the House Judiciary Committee that Cassidy Hutchinson’s Jan. 6 testimony relied heavily on second- and thirdhand reports and lacked direct, firsthand evidence for several of her key claims. Smith said a defense attorney likely would seek to exclude portions of her testimony as hearsay and noted that interviews with other witnesses, including a Secret Service officer, produced differing accounts. The deposition — more than eight hours long — also covered Smith’s broader investigations and prosecutorial decisions in cases tied to the 2020 election and classified documents.
Jack Smith Says Cassidy Hutchinson’s Jan. 6 Claims Were Largely Hearsay, Lacked Firsthand Evidence
Jack Smith, former special counsel, arrives for a closed-door deposition before the House Judiciary Committee in Washington, D.C., Dec. 17, 2025.
Former special counsel Jack Smith told the House Judiciary Committee in a closed-door deposition that Cassidy Hutchinson—an important witness for the Jan. 6 committee—relied largely on second- and thirdhand accounts for several of her most dramatic claims, according to a transcript released Wednesday.
Smith’s Assessment
Smith said he reviewed Hutchinson’s statements during his investigations and prosecutions connected to former President Donald Trump and the 2020 election. He told lawmakers that many portions of her testimony suffered from a lack of firsthand knowledge and would likely be vulnerable to defense objections as hearsay in court.
"If I were a defense attorney and Ms. Hutchinson were a witness, the first thing I would do was seek to preclude some of her testimony because it was hearsay," Smith said during the deposition.
Specific Disputed Claims
Smith addressed two high-profile claims Hutchinson made publicly: that the president knew some supporters attending his rally might be armed, and that he reached for a Secret Service agent’s steering wheel while demanding to be taken to the Capitol. Smith described Hutchinson as "a second or even thirdhand witness" on some matters and said interviews with other witnesses, including the Secret Service officer in the vehicle she described, produced different accounts.
Cassidy Hutchinson, an aide to Mark Meadows when he was White House chief of staff in the Trump administration, gestures toward her neck as she retells a story involving President Trump during House Jan. 6 select committee hearing on Capitol Hill June 28, 2022.
Smith said investigators interviewed the people Hutchinson said she had spoken to, as well as officers who were present. He recalled that the officer confirmed President Trump appeared angry and wanted to go to the Capitol, but that officer's description did not match the secondhand version Hutchinson reported.
Background And Context
Hutchinson served as a senior aide to White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows in the final months of the Trump administration and testified publicly and privately for the Jan. 6 committee. Her testimony helped shape the committee’s narrative and drew intense media attention. Some of her most vivid anecdotes—most notably the steering-wheel account—were not disclosed in earlier interviews; she later said she had withheld that detail at the direction of her then-lawyer, Stefan Passantino.
Broader Deposition Topics
The deposition lasted more than eight hours and covered Smith’s investigations of Trump tied to the 2020 election and to allegations about retained classified material. Smith defended investigative steps he took—such as subpoenas for lawmakers’ phone data—and explained prosecutorial decisions, including seeking gag orders and filing a narrowed superseding indictment after the Supreme Court recognized some presidential immunity protections.
What This Means
Smith’s remarks underscore a central difference between congressional testimony and courtroom testimony: statements that attract media attention as compelling narrative in a committee hearing may face admissibility and credibility challenges in criminal proceedings if they are not based on firsthand observation. Smith suggested parts of Hutchinson’s testimony would be less persuasive in court unless corroborated by direct witnesses.
