Did the Jan. 6 committee shoot itself in the foot?

It looks like it might have.

For weeks, the proceedings of the January 6 Commission have hummed along like a well-oiled machine. As a lawyer, my trial proceedings would similarly have hummed along if there had been no opposing counsel and my co-counsel had presided.

I’d like to think that in this congenial setting, I would have avoided shooting myself in the foot — for example, putting my star witness’s credibility in jeopardy by having her present extraneous hearsay testimony that might well be contradicted by those with first-hand knowledge.

It’s too early to say for sure, but the January 6 Commission may have done just that. I’m referring to the testimony of star witness Cassidy Hutchinson regarding what happened (or didn’t happen) when the Secret Service was ready to drive Donald Trump back to the White House after he addressed the crowd on January 6.

Hutchinson testified that the deputy White House chief-of-staff, Tony Ornato, told her Trump insisted on being driven to the Capitol to be with the protesters. When the Secret Service said this wasn’t going to happen, Trump tried to grab the steering wheel of the vehicle. When an agent intervened, Trump lunged at him. Or so Hutchinson says Ornato told her.

As I said the day of Hutchinson’s testimony, the only portion of this testimony that really matters for purposes of analyzing the Jan. 6 rioting is Trump’s strong desire to join the protesters at the Capitol. The other stuff was just a quest for headlines. It amounted to gilding the lily or, to put it a better way, tarring the crow.

It looks like the Committee should have stuck to the relevant stuff. The Secret Service has expressed interest in “responding formally on the record” to Hutchinson’s claims about what went down in the vehicle. The two agents who were in the vehicle — the driver and the man Trump supposedly lunged at — reportedly are willing to testify that the then-president neither tried to take control of the car nor assaulted an agent. (The agents reportedly will confirm that Trump was furious that he wasn’t being allowed to join the protesters at the Capitol which, again, is all the Committee really needed to show.)

From a logical standpoint, the testimony of the two agents, standing alone, shouldn’t hurt Hutchinson’s credibility. She never testified to what happened in the vehicle — only to what Ornato told her happened.

Thus, when it comes to Hutchinson’s credibility — which is the crucial thing here — Ornato is the key witness.

But there’s bad news for the Committee on that front, as well. Ornato (who is also with the Secret Service) apparently denies that he told Hutchinson what she says he told her.

If Ornato so testifies, Hutchinson will be deemed credible only if Ornato is not. The Committee will have to attack his credibility.

The Committee could do so if it had deposition testimony from Ornato that undercuts his later denial. I understand that Ornato has testified before the Committee, and I had thought it likely that staff lawyers obtained such testimony. So too with the Secret Service agent Trump allegedly lunged at. As I lawyer, I’m pretty sure I would have nailed this down before staking Hutchinson’s credibility on her extraneous testimony about what happened in the limo.

But according to reports, the Committee doesn’t have such testimony from Ornato or the agent whom Trump allegedly lunged at. Thus it will need to find another way to go after Ornato.

One approach would be to argue that he’s a hardcore Trump loyalist. The Committee could point out that Trump promoted him from a Secret Service job to the powerful White House position of deputy chief-of-staff. That’s said to be a very unusual, if not unprecedented, step up. There are also claims that Ornato has lied in similar contexts. (I take no position as to the truth of these claims.)

But the last thing the Committee would have wanted was for its star witness to be embroiled in a he-said, he-didn’t-say dispute.

Moreover, this dispute could tilt in favor of Ornato, depending on what the two agents who were in the car say. If they testify that Trump never even made a move towards the wheel or the agent, that testimony increases the likelihood that Ornato never told Hutchinson anything like what she’s says he told her.

Since we don’t really know what any of the three players will say under oath, how well they’ll withstand cross-examination, and even if they’ll end up testifying, I’m getting pretty far afield here. Still, there’s a chance that when the dust settles, Hutchinson’s credibility (or lack thereof) will be such that she won’t widely be believed on the two key parts of her testimony — that Trump knew the crowd he wanted to lead was armed and that Trump was worse than indifferent to Mike Pence’s fate at the hands of the mob — unless they are corroborated by another witness or by undisputed facts.

As to the first point — Trump’s alleged notice that members of the crowd were armed —Hutchinson says she overheard a conversation with Trump about this. If her credibility is in doubt, those who allegedly were part of that conversation can undercut her testimony, Ornato in particular. Unless the Committee pinned him down on this matter, it may have a big problem here.

As to the second point — Trump’s response to reports that the mob was after Mike Pence — Hutchinson lacks first-hand knowledge. She relies on a conversation she heard between Mark Meadows and White House counsel Pat Cipollone. If Hutchinson’ credibility is undermined, Cipollone is the Committee’s best hope.

It has just subpoenaed him. We’ll see how that goes.

There are several ways all of this could play out. At a minimum, however, I think it’s fair to say that the Committee, free from pressure that pro-Trump Republicans might have applied during the proceedings, has overplayed its hand.