Hutchinson’s testimony had many dramatic moments. There was the revelation that Trump specifically wanted the metal detectors removed so that armed supporters could join the rally crowd; the incredible stage of him grabbing the wheel of the presidential limo when the Secret Service refused to take him to the Capitol; and testimony that Meadows and Trump’s legal counsel, Rudy Giuliani, later sought a presidential pardon.

Trump, in a social media post on Tuesday, denied the allegations.

But on the morning of the insurrection, Hutchinson testified, Cipollone urged her to prevent Trump from heading to the Capitol with the growing and seething crowd of protesters he had gathered nearby. Hutchinson described the scene this way:

Mr. Cipollone said something like, “Please make sure we don’t go up to the Capitol, Cassidy. Keep in touch with me. We are going to be accused of every crime imaginable if we make this move happen.

Keep in mind that one of Cipollone’s jobs as White House attorney was to keep people who work in the White House, including the president, from committing crimes – which, according to Hutchinson , clearly worried him.

Notably, the fear of Cipollone intensified as January 6 wore on. Hutchinson testified that as the riot spiraled out of control, Cipollone came “rushing down the hall to our office” to tell Meadows they needed to speak to the president. She continued:

And Mark looked up and said, “He doesn’t want to do anything, Pat.” Cipollone then replied, “Mark, something has to be done or people are going to die and the blood is going to be on your fucking hands. It’s getting out of hand. I’m going there.

As enlightening as it would be to hear it, Cipollone refused to cooperate with the committee. So what exactly did Cipollone fear here?

It’s possible, of course, that in this last reported exchange, Cipollone was simply expressing his horror as an American at what was about to happen, not his assessment as a lawyer. But remember that just days earlier, Cipollone reportedly raised specific concerns about legal exposure relating to the Capitol.

During a discussion on January 3, Hutchinson testified, Cipollone urgently warned that Trump going to the Capitol on January 6 would raise serious legal issues. Hutchinson and Cipollone had conversations about possible laws that might be involved, she says.

Although it’s not entirely clear what laws they discussed, a reasonable guess based on Hutchinson’s testimony is obstruction of due process (the count of voters in Congress) and conspiracy to defraud the United States (conspire to obstruct the electoral count, a legal function of government).

And so when Cipollone saw the crowd of Trump supporters heading for the Capitol and rushed into the room in the White House to warn Meadows that this needs to be stopped, he might have had legal issues on his mind.

“It seems as if he was potentially thinking in legal terms — he was thinking about the obstruction of Congress and a conspiracy to defraud the United States,” said Randall Eliason, a white-collar crime law specialisttell us.

What is essential here is that Trump and his advisers never admitted that the mob assault on Capitol Hill was in any way related to his efforts to procedurally nullify the election (this which they also don’t recognize as criminal or wrong, but put that aside for now).

Still, Cipollone clearly seemed to see Trump’s manipulation of the crowd as directly linked to the president’s efforts to overturn the electoral count, which Cipollone seemed to view as potential criminality.

“That’s what was so devastating today,” Eliason says, noting that Tuesday’s hearing provided the most direct evidence yet linking Trump’s machinations “directly to mob and violence.” .

Neal Katyal, a former United States Solicitor General, notes that when Hutchinson testified that Trump specifically wanted gun-toting supporters allowed to participate in the rally on the Ellipse, it could also have indicated legal vulnerability.

“The picture painted today is of Trump helping an insurrection,” Katyal told us, noting that it could involve the federal law against rebellion or insurrection, or lending them aid and comfort.

What’s still unclear is whether Trump saw the use of crowds to pressure his vice president, Mike Pence, as part of the plan throughout the days leading up to January 6, 2021. or if he came to see violence as a weapon in real time, as it developed.

But as Eliason notes, even if it is the latter, it is not necessarily exonerating. After all, Trump refused to call out the mob for more than three hours, leading to horrific destruction and death, apparently as part of a larger effort to disrupt the conclusion of the election.

“The failure to try to stop him, and to encourage him, is further evidence of the global conspiracy to obstruct,” Eliason said.

“He sat on his hands for the three hours of the attack, providing massive aid to the insurgents storming the capital,” Katyal added.

And keep this in mind: Jan. 6 Committee Vice Chair Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) concluded by saying that in future hearings, the committee will detail even more what Trump did during that the violence raged. Things will get worse for Trump.