From the Washington Post:
The claims — which, if true, amount to possible witness tampering…
…a former junior aide, was the star witness…
According to the committee in June the "junior aide" was uniquely positioned to hear and see the things about which she testified.
The committee has said it stands behind her testimony...
Saying you stand behind someone is not identical to standing behind someone.
though some of her most explosive claims have remained uncorroborated or have been disputed by others involved.
In Hutchinson’s retelling…
The Washington Post has not corroborated with Alyssa Farah, the subject of this "retelling" that Farah acted as a "back channel" to the Committee for Hutchinson to correct her testimony.
The committee said…that it regarded Hutchinson as “earnest” with “no reason” to invent her accounts.
"Earnest" is not identical to truthful.
"No reason to invent" is not identical with "did not invent."
But many inside the committee have questioned the decision to allow her to testify live on television to some events she had only heard about secondhand without corroborating those accounts with others who were actually involved, people familiar with the matter told The Post.
"Many" is a lot. "Many" is more than one or two. So many on the committee do not stand behind Hutchinson. Or if they do they're standing behind her at a distance outside the potential blast zone.
Of all the transcripts, Hutchinson’s has caused the most concern within the committee, people involved with the investigation said.
From the New York Times:
Hutchinson also said Mr. Passantino [her first lawyer, paid for by Trumpists] was working to “protect” Eric Herschmann, another lawyer for Mr. Trump, who also emerged as a standout of the Jan. 6 committee hearings for his colorful and profane put-downs of the attempts to overturn the 2020 election.
In a statement through a spokesman, Mr. Herschmann disputed parts of Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony.
It is not clear what Herschmann disputed Hutchinson on. In fairness to all the reporters on this, they just got these transcripts dropped on them yesterday.
“She told Mr. Herschmann that she was desperate, had no money and needed to find a lawyer,” the statement said.
That statement is relevant regardless of the rush job.
She recounted an April 16, 2021, call with Ornato where he made a dark joke to her about how “the President could have tried to strangle you on Jan. 6th.”
In fairness...but I cannot make heads or tails of that. The gravamen to me is "could have". "Could have" is not "did," in fact, it is more consistent with "didn't"--but "could have".
One witness, if believed, is always enough but there is indubitably a ready change of tone in the Post's account of Hutchinson from June. There is doubt.