First, a couple disclaimers. I have not followed the hearings closely, and criminal law is not my area of practice.
You may know everything that follows already, so this post may not be especially informative.
One thing to keep in mind about second hand statements is that whether or not the statement is "hearsay" in a legal sense depends on what facts the statement purportedly supports. For example, I believe Hutchinson stated that Trump was told that some of the protestors were armed. If this statement were proffered as evidence that the protestors were in fact armed, it would be hearsay. However, if it were to be proffered as evidence showing that Trump had reason to think that the protestors were armed (e.g. to rebut a claim by Trump that he had no idea if the protestors were armed), it probably would not be hearsay.
Simplifying somewhat, if the fact in question is whether or not the other person made a certain statement, an eyewitness statement (under oath) "He said X" is not hearsay, whereas "He said X" would be hearsay if the issue is whether or not "X" is true.
In some cases it is possible to get these types of statements entered on the basis that they are not hearsay because they are probative of some issue other than the truth of "X." A great deal of time and energy may go into arguing that there is some reason other than the truth of X why the statement should be entered.
There are also numerous exceptions that often permit evidence that is hearsay to be entered (
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803).
Assuming it's a jury trial, once the evidence is entered the jury can consider the evidence even if it's hearsay. In any given case, the jury may decide that hearsay is not persuasive (e.g. if it's contradicted by other solid evidence), but it still gets entered and considered.
Having said all that, I'm not sure what a judge would decide concerning the statements by Hutchinson that someone else said Trump tried to grab the steering wheel. For example, it might fall under the Rule 803(1) exception as a "present sense impression."
Also, at this point in time we really don't know what other evidence for or against Trump and his inner circle might come out, and we also don't know what (if any) charges might be brought. The steering wheel incident may turn out to be a tiny piece of the total picture.
Shifting gears somewhat, one thing that struck me about the testimony so far is that Trump's sole concern was clinging to power. Unless I missed it (which is quite possible), no witnesses have said anything about Trump being concerned about the well-being of the country, our democratic form of government, etc. i.e. nothing like "Rudy, your ideas appeal to me in some ways, but we really need to think about what is best for the country, and I have a duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States to the best of my ability while I am president, consistent with my oath of office. The well-being of our Constitutional system of government is much more important than me winning the election."
The hearings are, of course, one-sided but it's hard to believe that the witnesses thus far have been consistently lying under oath (Unless, of course, one is a Qanon type).
On a highly speculative and hypothetical note, I found myself wondering what would happen if Trump is indicted, and if the evidence is rock solid, and if Trump is facing serious jail time? (notice the three "ifs" I'm not saying this is going to happen). In this hypothetical, one of his only ways out is a presidential pardon. Would he run for office hoping to win so he can pardon himself, or would he switch and support DeSantis (or another Trumpy candidate) in hopes that DeSantis will win and pardon him? It's unclear if a President can pardon himself, but my money is on "he can't." Given the uncertainty of a self-pardon, Trump would be faced with 1) supporting someone else like DeSantis which goes completely against Trump's massively inflated ego, or 2) go all in on winning himself and granting a self-pardon. This is of course purely hypothetical, and I have no idea if DeSantis would grant a pardon, etc.
Of course, we can imagine scenarios that are even less appealing (e.g Trump is convicted and he incites a civil war in an effort to overthrow the government and his criminal convictions)(this seems uncomfortably plausible to me given what we've seen in the hearings thus far).
