The credibility of Cassidy Hutchinson, the star witness of the January 6 Committee, continues to unravel as new evidence emerges that she may have lied under oath to Congress. A report compiled by the House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight, chaired by Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-GA), reveals that a handwriting expert hired by the committee has contradicted Hutchinson’s testimony, potentially exposing serious perjury. Hutchinson, who previously testified that she wrote a note to then-President Donald Trump during the Capitol riots on January 6, 2021, now faces accusations that the note was written by White House attorney Eric Herschmann, not her.
In her June 2022 testimony, Hutchinson claimed that she had written the note under the direction of then-Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. The note read: “Anyone who entered the Capitol illegally without proper authority should leave immediately,” with the word “illegally” crossed out and replaced with “without proper authority.” The purpose of the note was to provide a potential statement for President Trump to issue as rioters breached the Capitol building. Hutchinson told the committee, “That’s a note that I wrote at the direction of the chief of staff,” claiming she wrote it at around 3 p.m. that day.
However, after Hutchinson’s testimony, Eric Herschmann came forward and directly contradicted her claims.
“The handwritten note that Cassidy Hutchinson testified was written by her was written by Eric Herschmann,” said a spokesperson for the former Trump White House attorney.
Herschmann had maintained his authorship of the note since 2021, but his rebuttal was largely dismissed by the January 6 Committee, led by then-Vice Chair Liz Cheney (R-WY). The handwriting expert’s analysis further corroborates Herschmann’s account, casting doubt on Hutchinson’s testimony.
This new revelation significantly undermines Hutchinson’s credibility as the “star witness”. “This new evidence provided by an independent, Certified Questioned Document Examiner not only contradicts Ms. Hutchinson’s numerous claims that she penned the note but also exposes the Select Committee’s willingness to accept all her testimonies without corroboration or further investigation,” Rep. Loudermilk said in a statement. The handwriting expert’s report reads: “Based on the documents submitted, the evidence supports my opinion that the handwriting that appears on the Questioned Document was written in the same hand as the exemplars,” referring to the handwriting samples provided by Herschmann.
Hutchinson’s credibility was already in question before. One of the most dramatic claims in her testimony was that President Trump had lunged for the steering wheel of his presidential limousine, “The Beast,” in an attempt to redirect the vehicle toward the Capitol during the riots. This claim was quickly refuted by the Secret Service driver, who was also present and stated that no such incident took place in the vehicle. Hutchinson also made a series of personal allegations, including the bizarre claim that Mark Meadows had accidentally consumed alcohol, which has been roundly mocked and dismissed as false.
Adding to the list of questionable claims is Hutchinson’s assertion that she never dated Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), a prominent Trump ally. Text messages obtained by The National Pulse reveal that Hutchinson had late-night FaceTime calls with Gaetz and even bragged to friends about dating him, contradicting her public denial. This pattern of providing dubious or misleading information has led critics to accuse Hutchinson of fabricating parts of her testimony, seemingly in coordination with Liz Cheney.
Cheney, who played a central role in the January 6 Committee, is now facing scrutiny herself. It has been revealed that she communicated with Hutchinson directly, often without the knowledge or consent of Hutchinson’s legal counsel, Stefan Passantino. Such conduct is considered highly unethical. In text messages obtained by the Subcommittee on Oversight, Hutchinson discussed with former Trump official Alyssa Farah Griffin ways to bypass her attorney and continue communicating with Cheney. “Liz was trying to figure out how to get the information from Hutchinson without involving her lawyer,” one of the messages reads.
It now appears that Liz Cheney played a significant role in shaping Hutchinson’s testimony. The Daily Caller published exclusive text messages between Hutchinson and Farah Griffin, revealing that Farah encouraged Hutchinson to leak information to reporters during the active investigation. “The alternative would be to just say, ‘F*** it’ and give it all to a reporter. Lol,” Farah texted Hutchinson, suggesting a strategy for manipulating media coverage of her testimony. The pair also discussed coordinating with Cheney regarding the information to be released to the public while avoiding legal repercussions.
The role of Farah Griffin in influencing Hutchinson’s actions has raised even more questions about the legitimacy of the January 6 Committee’s investigation. Griffin, a former Pentagon press secretary, had been working with the committee behind the scenes, encouraging Hutchinson to leak key details. Farah also proposed that Hutchinson could obtain immunity before testifying further, an idea Hutchinson seriously considered, according to the texts.
Another shocking revelation from the report is the degree to which Liz Cheney allegedly suborned perjury during Hutchinson’s testimony. Cheney, who has long been politically isolated, is accused of coaching Hutchinson on what to say during the hearings.
This includes Hutchinson’s claim that she wrote the note, but has now been thoroughly debunked by the handwriting expert’s analysis. The Subcommittee on Oversight emphasized that “the Select Committee never contacted Herschmann to confirm the authorship of this note,” revealing a deliberate effort to suppress exculpatory evidence.
Cheney’s motives for promoting Hutchinson’s unverified claims are now under intense scrutiny. Hutchinson’s testimony, heavily promoted by Cheney during the 2022 midterms, was a key element in the January 6 Committee’s attempt to portray Trump and his allies as directly responsible for the violence at the Capitol.
However, with key elements of Hutchinson’s testimony unraveling, critics argue that the committee’s entire narrative was built on a foundation of lies. Loudermilk pointed out that the Select Committee failed to follow basic investigatory protocols, preferring to rely on witnesses whose claims were politically convenient.
This pattern of misconduct is not limited to Hutchinson’s testimony.
Several other witnesses presented by the January 6 Committee have had their accounts either disproven or seriously called into question. Despite this, the committee often chose not to investigate further or seek corroborating evidence, fueling accusations that the investigation was politically motivated. For example, Hutchinson’s claim that former White House budget director Russ Vought was a “faithful Mormon” was inaccurate, reflecting yet another instance of her providing faulty information.
The fallout from these revelations has already begun, with Republicans calling for a thorough investigation into the conduct of the January 6 Committee. There are growing demands for accountability, not just for Hutchinson, but also for the political figures who promoted her testimony.
Rep. Loudermilk and others have signaled that Hutchinson could face legal consequences for perjury, given the mountain of evidence now undermining her credibility. “This wasn’t just a mistake—this was deliberate. She knowingly lied to Congress, and there needs to be accountability for that,” said a Republican member of the House Subcommittee.
With Election Day just around the corner, this scandal has reignited debates about the January 6 Committee’s true purpose and the legitimacy of its findings. For many conservatives, the collapse of Hutchinson’s credibility vindicates their long-held belief that the committee was a political witch hunt aimed at derailing Trump’s potential 2024 candidacy.
As the truth continues to emerge, it seems clear that Hutchinson’s testimony, far from being the “smoking gun” it was portrayed as, may have been one of the biggest fabrications in recent congressional history.
