For reasons that remain unknown, prosecutors chose not to include in the indictment any evidence from Cassidy Hutchinson, an aide to Mr. Trump’s former chief of staff Mark Meadows. In a gripping testimony last year in front of the House Jan. 6 committee, Ms. Hutchinson described how Mr. Trump, knowing his supporters were armed and threatening violence on Jan. 6, urged them to march to Capitol anyhow — and even sought to join them.

Ms. Hutchinson told the panel that Mr. Trump had demanded that security checkpoints be removed outside his rally on the Ellipse, near the White House, even though he had been warned that some in the crowd had been spotted with weapons.

“They’re not here to hurt me,” she quoted Mr. Trump as saying.

In theory, Mr. Smith’s team could bring new charges against Mr. Trump at almost any time, using accounts like Ms. Hutchinson’s to support an accusation that Mr. Trump played some role in encouraging the violence at the Capitol. The incitement charge recommended by the House committee is written quite broadly, making it a crime to “incite, assist with or participate in” a rebellion or an insurrection against federal laws or government authority.

Like you, I found Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony extremely compelling...at first. Then I wondered how likely it was that she would be Mother Confessor, the all-seeing eye, the omniscient narrator of the whole story. Then the two Secret Service aides disavowed her account, which came directly from them according to her. I came to wonder if she had some mental or emotional issue, a screw loose. I concluded I could not rely on her without corroboration, which never came. Thus, for me, the reasons are known "that...prosecutors chose not to include in the indictment any evidence from Cassidy Hutchinson."