A federal grand jury in Washington refused on Tuesday to indict Cassidy Hutchinson, the former Trump White House aide whose 2022 testimony made her the best known witness of the House Jan. 6 committee.
The grand jury returned what is known as a "no bill," rejecting the Justice Department's effort to charge her, NBC News reported, citing a senior U.S. official who confirmed the case was hers. Her name was not stated in court. The Associated Press reported the same outcome, citing two people familiar with the matter, and called it "the latest setback in the Justice Department's efforts to charge perceived adversaries of the Republican president." Hutchinson has not been charged with any crime.
Who brought the case
The case came from the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, led by Trump appointee Harmeet Dhillon, according to NBC. That division traditionally enforces civil rights and antidiscrimination laws, not false statement cases. A grand jury heard evidence against Hutchinson in early October, a person familiar with the effort told NBC.
ABC News reported that prosecutors sought charges of lying to Congress. The AP said details of the government's allegations were not immediately clear. Neither the Justice Department nor Hutchinson's attorneys responded to requests for comment from NBC. ABC said Hutchinson could not be reached Tuesday and that she has maintained she stands by her testimony.
The testimony at the center of it
Hutchinson was a special assistant to then White House chief of staff Mark Meadows. At a public hearing on June 28, 2022, announced only 24 hours earlier, she described a president who wanted armed supporters let past security screening at his Ellipse rally, according to the AP. She also testified that a White House security official told her Trump grabbed the steering wheel of the presidential SUV when the Secret Service refused to drive him to the Capitol.
That second account was always secondhand, and she said so at the time. In March 2024, House Republicans released a transcript of an interview with the Secret Service officer who drove the vehicle. The AP reported that he said Trump "never grabbed the steering wheel," though the transcript corroborated Trump's push to go to the Capitol. ABC noted that former special counsel Jack Smith chose not to treat Hutchinson as a material witness because much of her testimony was hearsay.
Trump has called her a "scam artist" who lied under oath and has suggested she be prosecuted, NBC reported. In March he posted a link to a story about House Republicans referring her to the Justice Department.
Why a no bill is so unusual
A grand jury only decides whether there is probable cause, a low bar, and it hears only the prosecution's side. There is no defense lawyer in the room and no judge. That is why refusals are rare, as we explained in What Grand Juries Do and Why They Meet in Secret.
Yet this administration has heard "no" repeatedly. NBC reported that after a first case against New York Attorney General Letitia James was dismissed on technical grounds, the department tried three more times to indict her and was turned down each time. It also failed to indict six Democratic members of Congress over a video urging troops not to follow unlawful orders. Attorney General Todd Blanche told NBC in April that in some of those cases the grand jury "just made the wrong decision."
The refusals now leave a paper trail. NBC reported that the chief federal judge in Washington adopted a policy this year requiring prosecutors to notify the on duty magistrate judge when a grand jury rejects an indictment, which is how Tuesday's result surfaced in court.
Our analysis: what the no bill does and does not mean
A no bill is not an acquittal. Double jeopardy attaches only once a trial begins, so the department remains free to present the case again, to the same grand jury or a new one, as NBC noted. What limits a second try is time.
The general federal statute of limitations for false statement and perjury charges is five years. If the case rests on the June 28, 2022 public hearing, the newsroom's arithmetic puts the deadline at June 28, 2027, about eight months from now. Anything she said to the committee before that hearing would run out sooner. That clock is the same pressure that has shaped the department's case against James Comey, which we explored in Information vs. Indictment.
There is also a practical cost to trying again. Prosecutors would have to persuade a fresh panel of ordinary Washington residents, after one panel has already heard the evidence and declined. The department's recent record, including the third set of charges against Comey, suggests it does not easily walk away.
Two Taps News stories summarize reporting and the analysis discussed on Two Taps and Friends. They are not legal advice. Read our standards.
