12/17/2024

26 Responses to “Lead Republican Recommends Criminal Investigation Of Liz Cheney”

1. Hello.

   Dana (035ea5) — 12/17/2024 @ 9:48 pm

   
   

2. Why would we expect that the Bund would stop acting like the Bund? They’re the Bund; scumbags, morons, notseys, some that are moron scumbag notseys.

   Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a) — 12/17/2024 @ 9:57 pm

   
   

3. Liz cheney is a warmonger ;but if that was a crime hillary clinton would be in the slammer along with a lot of republicans who supported the Iraq war. Joe biden supported it to.

   asset (5eddcc) — 12/17/2024 @ 10:02 pm

   
   

4. Is there a law about “witness tampering” in a congressional hearing?

   Kevin M (a9545f) — 12/17/2024 @ 10:32 pm

   
   

5. If there is one, why has it not be charged before? “Witness tampering” is a sport in the House and Senate.

   Kevin M (a9545f) — 12/17/2024 @ 10:34 pm

   
   

6. Liz’s sin is not only questioning Trump’s Big Lie, but investigating all he did in furtherance of that Big Lie.

   Alas, all too many downplay what Trump did, probably because it interferes with their tribalist high.

   Ambivalence just isn’t as fun.

   norcal (a72384) — 12/17/2024 @ 10:40 pm

   
   

7. Alas, all too many downplay what Trump did

   I look at it differently — the people voted that it wasn’t decisive to them. I have to accept that and move on. I think that Trump is being stupid to relitigate it, too.

   Kevin M (a9545f) — 12/17/2024 @ 11:08 pm

   
   

8. This is like Clinton going after Monica in 2003.

   Kevin M (a9545f) — 12/17/2024 @ 11:08 pm

   
   

9. For the umpteenth time! His voters hate the same people he hates so they don’t care! The enemy of my enemy is my friend! The democrat party is controlled by the donor class elites. Upper class liberals don’t like anti free trade populists like Bernie Sanders and have to tolerate the left for their votes. They(Hillary Clinton) didn’t in 2016 and it cost the party. In 2024 10 million democrats didn’t vote over 2020 and others held their nose and voted for trump. ( I voted Jill Stein ) They are not ignorant, they don’t care what never trumpers/media/democrats say about trump.

   asset (5eddcc) — 12/18/2024 @ 2:24 am

   
   

10. The House isn’t a court of law. Case dismissed.
    I expect Ms. Cheney will punch back hard, all the way through.

    Paul Montagu (7de6df) — 12/18/2024 @ 7:13 am

    
    

11. Didn’t Liz accuse Trump of witness tampering during the hearings and went as far as submitting a referral to the DOJ? (Which went nowhere, apparently, even with a partisan DOJ.) And wasn’t that referral cheered by Nevertrump? Didn’t hear much about Trump being “smart and fearless” in standing up to that. If Liz did nothing illegal, she should welcome the scrutiny. Telling that she isn’t.

    lloyd (4b3ce8) — 12/18/2024 @ 8:44 am

    
    

12. @11 Yes, I remembered correctly.

    lloyd (4b3ce8) — 12/18/2024 @ 8:49 am

    
    

13. I’m sure Kash Patel’s Federal Bureau of Retribution will eagerly pursue an investigation against not only Cheney but all of the members of the January 6th Committee.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 12/18/2024 @ 9:16 am

    
    

14. Section 1512 of Title 18 constitutes a broad prohibition against tampering with a witness, victim or informant. It proscribes conduct intended to illegitimately affect the presentation of evidence in Federal proceedings or the communication of information to Federal law enforcement officers. It applies to proceedings before Congress, executive departments, and administrative agencies, and to civil and criminal judicial proceedings, including grand jury proceedings. See 18 U.S.C. § 1515(a)(1).

    This is the law as to why Trump could be accused of witness tampering. Members of Congress are protected by the Speech & Debate Clause, but there was no witness tampering by Cheney. Hutchinson approached her.

    Paul Montagu (7de6df) — 12/18/2024 @ 9:45 am

    
    

15. Loudermilk’s full report can be read here.

    I can access this on one Windows 10 computer (a laptop) where it opens in a separate tab if I press Shift when clicking.

    But on another computer a tab opens and then immediately closes and I can’t even find a place to have it open in Adobe Acrobat.

    Right click lets me save a file called 145DD5A70E967DEEC1F511764D3E6FA1.final-interim-report to disk.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 12/18/2024 @ 1:27 pm

    
    

16. @4

    Is there a law about “witness tampering” in a congressional hearing?

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 12/17/2024 @ 10:32 pm

    Suborning perjury?

    Or, is that a Debate Clause protection?

    whembly (477db6) — 12/18/2024 @ 1:36 pm

    
    

17. Paul Montagu (7de6df) — 12/18/2024 @ 9:45 am

    Hutchinson approached her.

    Loudermilk soesn;t disagree wth that but does disagree about Cheney not helping her select an attorney

    Unfortunately for Representative Cheney, Hutchinson published her own memoir and recounted a different set of circumstances. In her book Enough, Hutchinson stated that not only did Representative Cheney play an integral part in Hutchinson’s developing testimony but even
    provided Hutchinson with a list of attorneys to replace her current counsel.

    Loudermilk also says:

    It is unusual—and potentially unethical—for a Member of Congress conducting an investigation
    to contact a witness if the Member knows that the individual is represented by legal counsel.
    Representative Cheney is an attorney, and an attorney who circumvents an individual’s legal
    representation would violate well-established attorney ethics standards and the Washington D.C.
    Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, regardless of who initiates the contact. 82 While it is not clear
    how the D.C. Bar would apply this rule to an attorney who also sits as a Member of Congress, its rules state that “a lawyer shall not communicate or cause another to communicate about the subject of the representation with a person known to be represented by another lawyer in the
    matter. . . .”83 This appears to be precisely what Representative Cheney did at this time, and
    within a matter of days of these secret conversations, Hutchinson would go on to recant her previous testimony and introduce her most outlandish claims.

    I suspect the “ethics” rule about not interfering with representation was put in to prevent lawyers from stealing clients, but this helps bad lawyers who sign up a client first.

    Loudermilk doesn’t seem to specify what about Hutchison’s testimony was wrong or disproven or outlandish beyond the famous grabbing the steering wheel claim.

    They seem to think the absence of a Secret Service plan to take President Trump to the Capitol means there was no such plan (and that it was therefore only a “rumor”) but all that means is that White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows sabotaged that idea from the beginning…(most likely because he knew there could be trouble)

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 12/18/2024 @ 1:49 pm

    
    

18. Loudermilk seems to be claiming (without going into detail) that Hutchison’s earlier testimony was entirely truthful, and her later testimony false, but she could have tilted her testimony, or mentioned or omitted things, in both cases.

    He’s right about the rules the committee evaded or exempted itself from and their pushing a point, but that’s not criminal.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 12/18/2024 @ 1:55 pm

    
    

19. About “Hang Mike Pence” I think its correct that Trump and Meadows discussed at first whether it was Trump supporters who were saying that but Trump did attempt to justify it – there’s his 2:29 pm tweet about Mike Pence.

    Loudermilk points out:

    Perhaps one of the more bizarre fabrications Cassidy Hutchinson submitted to the Select Committee was her claim that she wrote a note for President Trump relating to the events at the Capitol, when the note clearly was not written by her.

    but it was written! Who wrote it is of minor importance except maybe for purposes of admitting it into evidence in a court proceeding. It seems like Cassidy Hutchison was trying to be helpful to the committee. The true author later said he wrote it.

    While the riot was happening at the Capitol,

    That should be he end of the previous sentence.

    the Select Committee again tried to portray President Trump as apathetic that the Joint Session had paused due to the violence. This claim was never substantiated by the Select
    Committee. It appears that Hutchinson took credit for writing a note to President Trump to help
    bolster the Select Committee’s narrative. However, Hutchinson’s authorship came under
    immediate scrutiny following her live public hearing.143 The Subcommittee retained an
    independent certified handwriting expert to review the handwriting of the note, and the expert confirmed that Hutchinson’s story is not true. While the note in and of itself is not wholly critical to the events of January 6, it demonstrates another example of Hutchinson presenting easily refutable testimony to the Select Committee, and the Select Committee accepting her fabrications as truth.

    And it goes to the honesty of the committee.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 12/18/2024 @ 2:13 pm

    
    

20. This is the direct link to the House Administration Committee interim report, I don’t know if this wil be useful on all computers.

    https://cha.house.gov/_cache/files/6/d/6dae7b82-7683-4f56-a177-ba98695e600d/145DD5A70E967DEEC1F511764D3E6FA1.final-interim-report.pdf

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e) — 12/18/2024 @ 4:20 pm

    
    

21. Loudermilk soesn;t disagree wth that but does disagree about Cheney not helping her select an attorney

    One, I really don’t care what Loudermilk points out. He earlier lied about Milley’s testimony, so he can’t be taken at his word.
    Two, a Congressional hearing isn’t a court of law, so the rules of a federal court don’t apply. This was a political venue, not judicial.
    Three, Cheney was acting as a member of Congress in her role as member of an established committee, and the Speech & Debate Clause applies.
    Four, Loudermilk is making spurious claim that Hutchinson perjured herself, which he can’t prove. She testified under oath as to what Ornato told her. When Ornate testified under oath, he didn’t recall the conversation, so her testimony was not contradicted.

    Paul Montagu (7de6df) — 12/18/2024 @ 4:49 pm

    
    

22. Says his advice was paraphrased, manipulated into a lie

    https://x.com/_WilliamsonBen/status/1869196673995485339

    steveg (1c779d) — 12/19/2024 @ 10:53 am

    
    

23. Loudermilk doesn’t disagree with that but does disagree about Cheney not helping her select an attorney

    Paul Montagu (7de6df) — 12/18/2024 @ 4:49 pm

    One, I really don’t care what Loudermilk points out. He earlier lied about Milley’s testimony, so he can’t be taken at his word.

    I didn’t follow what Loudermilk said. What did he claim about Milley?

    Two, a Congressional hearing isn’t a court of law, so the rules of a federal court don’t apply. This was a political venue, not judicial.

    I mentioned a court because only in a court proceeding would they have needed to go to such lengths to verify the note.

    See https://cha.house.gov/2024/10/expert-analysis-reveals-hutchinson-not-the-author-of-january-6-tweet.

    Cassidy Hutchinson handed the note to Mark Meadows, and said it was dictated to her by Eric Herschmann.

    It was evidently some words that Eric Herschmann wanted President Trump to tweet. She testified that it was in her handwriting but in fact she didn’t write it but Eric Herschmann wrote those 12 words (plus one crossed out – he changed “ILLEGALLY” to “WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORITY

    And note it was not an idea that Trump should say that the demonstrators should disperse but only that they should leave the Capitol (building) This might have come after some back and forth already with Trump as to what exactly he should say. This could have been a compromise proposal)

    Some lawyer on the committee staff must have thought she herself write it down, and she didn’t want to disabuse whoever was questioning her of that idea, o maybe she thought disabusing them that it was her words was all she had energy for

    It would be simpler if the person who handed it to Mark Meadows was the person who wrote it. But her handwriting doesn’t at all resemble They were stupid.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 12/19/2024 @ 4:08 pm

    
    

24. Three, Cheney was acting as a member of Congress in her role as member of an established committee, and the Speech & Debate Clause applies.

    There’s a question as to how far that goes, as it wasn’t in a committee proceeding. Loudermilk raises the queston of if violated the bar code.

    Four, Loudermilk is making spurious claim that Hutchinson perjured herself, which he can’t prove. She testified under oath as to what Ornato told her. When Ornate testified under oath, he didn’t recall the conversation, so her testimony was not contradicted.

    You can’t say she perjured herself as she was stretching her recollection. She learned from somewhere that President rump had wanted to go to the Capitol and was stopped. Which was true:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/28/us/politics/tony-ornato-jan-6-committee.html

    Ms. Hutchinson also said Mr. Ornato told her the president “lunged” at Mr. Engel. Mr. Engel, Ms. Hutchinson testified, was present as Mr. Ornato related the story to her and did not dispute the account.

    Secret Service officials have privately said that Mr. Ornato, Mr. Engel and the driver of the vehicle were prepared to testify that some details in that account were incorrect. The officials, who have insisted on anonymity to discuss the matter, have not disputed that Mr. Trump angrily demanded to be taken to the Capitol as it was under attack, but they have denied that there was any physical altercation.

    The committee decided to back up Cassidy Hutchison on every detail and accuse anyone who said something different of lying. The committee also never tried to make it very clear she was reporting something second or third hand

    Loudermilk is also wrong – or misleading – in saying there was no Secret Service advance plan for Trump to go the Capitol. There was an intention on the part of President Trump but it was not communicated to the Secret Service until very late:

    The committee has obtained more than 1.5 million pages of documents and communications from the Secret Service in response to a subpoena. The communications lay out how Secret Service personnel tried to find a route to take Mr. Trump to the Capitol in the S.U.V. and how those plans were ultimately scrapped amid the chaos.

    The Secret Service staff initially tried to accommodate Mr. Trump’s wishes, but supervisors at the agency expressed alarm, and the District of Columbia police declined to block off intersections for his motorcade as a mob of his supporters began attacking and injuring dozens of police officers, according to the communications, which were described by two people familiar with their contents.

    The irony here is that Loudermilk is so eager to discredit the Jan 6 committee that he winds up agreeing with what Adam Schiff claimed around Trump’s second impeachment – that Trump had lied to the crowd in saying that he would be there at the Capitol with them.

    He had a finding that went:

    FINDING 2: There was no pre-planned off-the-record move to the Capitol in the days leading up to January 6.

    There was no pre-planned move that was communicated to the Secret Service, but Cassidy Hutchison said Rudolph Giuliani told her a few days before that he would go there – and also se told Kevin McCarthy that he would not go there and later McCarthy questioned her about this – if it held. Meadows was gloomy about what would happen if Trump went there.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 12/19/2024 @ 4:18 pm

    
    

25. 22.

    Says his advice was paraphrased, manipulated into a lie

    We don’t know where the version of events in which Ben Williamson was the person who told her that she would be disloyal if she responded to a subpoena came from but in his person she had already been told that by someone else and he disabused her of that notion

    From Ben Williamson’s tweet:

    …Almost three years ago, in early 2022, I got a phone call from Cassidy telling me her closed-door deposition with the J6 Committee (under subpoena) was approaching. Cassidy claimed to be worried that our old Trump WH colleagues, including our boss Mark Meadows, might think she was “disloyal” for following a subpoena and showing up to the deposition.

    I cut her off mid-convo and responded: “No one will think you’re disloyal just for following a subpoena. And Mark would never, ever ask you to do anything other than the right thing and tell the truth. He wouldn’t think you’re disloyal.” She agreed, and the convo ended perfectly fine.

    Months later, Cassidy appeared out of nowhere at her now infamous public J6 hearing, making completely outlandish claims untethered from reality — many of which were rightly disputed or shot down within minutes. But you may also recall that after Cassidy’s appearance, Liz Cheney put up a bizarre anonymous message on a big screen, allegedly received by Cassidy before her (aforementioned) private deposition. Cheney claimed it was evidence of “witness intimidation.”

    Maybe that anonymous message sent to Cassidy Hutchison really happened. It’s an plausible prelude to Williamson’s version of the conversation he had with Cassidy Hutchison.

    It just is that it wasn’t Williamson who sent her that message but someone who wanted to protect himself. That should be followed up if anyone wants to get at the bottom of what happened on January 6, 2021.

    The committee was focused on the idea of everything being directed by Donald Trump

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 12/19/2024 @ 4:31 pm

    
    

26. steveg (1c779d) — 12/19/2024 @ 10:53 am

    I read his transcript and it was filled with “I didn’t know about it” and “I don’t recall”, which is what we’d have expected if Hutchinson kept her Trump-paid attorney.

    Paul Montagu (7329e4) — 12/20/2024 @ 8:11 am