Cassidy Hutchinson‘s testimony to the January 6 committee has given the Capitol riots investigation a new direction. The panel is now diving deep into former President Donald Trump’s activities on January 6, 2021, when the US Capitol was stormed. The committee, however, has not revealed much about any possible witnesses that speak in upcoming sessions.

Adam Kinzinger, one of the two Republicans on the panel, said that more people have turned up to testify against Trump after former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson spoke to the committee. 

Also Read: Should Donald Trump be charged for January 6 riots? Liz Cheney, and 50% of US, thinks so

Tony Ornato

Tony Ornato, who was one of Trump’s Secret Service agents, was present with the former President on January 6, 2021, and may have insights into how the situation unfolded. Hutchinson’s testimony referred to Oranto multiple times.

Ornato has already spoken to the January 6 committee twice– once in January this year and then in March. There is no confirmation so far about a possible testimony.

Ginni Thomas

The committee has also been working on setting up an interview with Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice and Clearance Thomas.

She was asked to speak to the committee after disclosures of her communications with Trump’s team in the run-up to and on the day of the insurrection at the Capitol, according to reports from Associated Press.

Pat Cipollone

The panel already has subpoenaed former White House counsel Pat Cipollone, who investigators remain hopeful will appear Wednesday for a deposition and said it would also welcome follow-up details from Secret Service members with Trump that day.

Also Read: Cassidy Hutchinson, Jan 6 witness, was contacted by Trump allies: Report

January 6 committee chair Rep. Bennie Thompson and vice-chair Rep. Liz Cheney suggested that Cipollone had resisted transcribed testimony because of concerns about executive privilege.

In a statement announcing the subpoena, they said that “any concerns Mr. Cipollone has about the institutional prerogatives of the office he previously held are clearly outweighed by the need for his testimony.”