Former J6 Committee Co-Chair and Rep. Liz Cheney has long been criticized for her role in creating a one-sided and at times erroneous record of what occurred on January 6th. That includes editing out Trump’s call for supporters to protest “peacefully,” burying evidence on Trump’s offer to supply National Guard support for that day, and highlighting a false account of Trump in his presidential limo that was directly contradicted by witnesses.
She now stands accused of unethically contacting a key represented witness to get her to change her testimony. In my view, ethical proceedings are unlikely after the disclosure of ex parte communications with former Trump aide Cassidy Hutchinson. However, the evidence seemingly contradicts public accounts of how Hutchinson decided to fire her counsel and change her testimony.
Hutchinson was represented by Stefan Passantino, who some clearly viewed as a stumbling block to getting Hutchinson to turn against Trump. Hutchinson would claim under oath that Passantino pressured her to stay “loyal” to Donald Trump and coached her responses to support Trump despite her conflicting accounts.
However, newly disclosed evidence allegedly contradicts that account, including Hutchinson telling former Trump aide (and now The View co-host) Alyssa Farah Griffin that “[Passantino’s] not against me complying.” Griffin reportedly responded “I actually agree with Stefan’s approach and think it’s accomplished everyone’s goals. I am happy to tip liz off.”
Hutchinson would later dump Passantino and testify to allegations that have been challenged as untrue. That includes the limo allegation that was repeatedly raised by Cheney and others. Hutchinson recounted the story that Trump allegedly grabbed the wheel of the vehicle after the Secret Service allegedly refused to take him to the Capitol.
Cheney and the Committee were aware that the account was directly and clearly refuted by the driver of the vehicle. However, they buried his account and highlighted that claim in its final report as being credible.
The new allegation concerns the communications leading up to that changed testimony. Rep. Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., chairman of the House Administration oversight subcommittee has released the new evidence while alleging that Cheney used an encrypted phone app to evade defense counsel in speaking with Hutchinson.
Under Rule 4.2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, “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, unless the lawyer has the prior consent of the lawyer representing such other person or is authorized by law or a court order to do so.”
Cheney is a D.C. licensed lawyer.
At the outset, in my view, Cheney was acting as a member of Congress in this matter. That has always been a rather grey area for lawyers who are also members of Congress. The bar has taken a broad view of the need for lawyers to adhere to these ethical standards. However, it is not clear politically or ethically if the Bar officials would be inclined to pursue Cheney, who has been lionized in Washington for her role in the investigation.
Yet, the record does indicate that Cheney was not just aware of the represented status but the policy of the House to respect the rules governing represented parties. In one message Griffin tells Hutchinson, “Her one concern was so long ad [sic] you have counsel, she can’t really ethically talk to you without him.”
That did not appear to prove a barrier. Before Passantino withdrew as counsel, Cheney communicated secretly with Hutchinson. A later message was sent to Cheney reading on June 6, “Hi, this is Cassidy Hutchinson. I’m sorry for reaching out this way, but I was hoping to have a private conversation with you (soon), if you are willing.”
Cheney responded, “I would be happy to. Let me know what time works for you.”
A few days later, Hutchinson fired Passantino, who told Just the News that “I absolutely had no knowledge at the time that Congresswoman Liz Cheney was communicating with my client behind my back – either directly, through her staff, or through cutouts.”
However, Cheney has claimed that it was Hutchinson who reached out to her and indicated that she was severing her counsel. As an investigating member of Congress, she had an institutional interest, if not a duty, to pursue witnesses.
In her memoir, Cheney said that it was Hutchinson who contacted her directly after her third interview and added “I was very sympathetic to her situation, but I did not want our committee to be advising her on what she should do next…I told Cassidy that she could consult another lawyer, and seek his or her independent advice on how best to move forward.”
We have previously discussed Passantino’s defamation lawsuit against MSNBC legal analyst and former Mueller aide Andrew Weissmann.
Once again, I am doubtful that this would rise to a formal Bar ethics investigation. However, the evidence shows the communications leading to Hutchinson’s firing of her counsel and changing of her testimony, including accounts later challenged by critics.
Hutchinson, Griffin, and Cheney have been reportedly campaigning together this month in support of Vice President Kamala Harris.
In the end, there are ethical concerns raised by these communications. Cheney should have worked through new counsel and proposing alternative counsel raises additional concerns given the interest of Cheney in having the witness “flip” against Trump. She could have waited for new counsel to communicate with her and the Committee.
Alternatively, Hutchinson could have fired her counsel and formally contacted the Committee as an unrepresented party. The ethical rules are designed to avoid this type of murky representational posture. Nevertheless, I am doubtful that this will result in any ethical proceedings against Cheney.
I love the headline for JusttheNews: “Like her father, Liz Cheney faces questions about wading into gray area of political ethics.”
(Subtitle: “Cheney may be following in her father’s footsteps as a narrative builder and politician undeterred from operating in ethical gray areas.”) “https://justthenews.com/
“narrative builder.” love it.
Cheney simply reeks of retaliatory animus. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
As much as I would love to discredit Liz Cheney (more than she has already done to herself) this doesn’t seem to me to rise to the level of any sort of misconduct. Nothingburger.
It’s not a nothngburger, it is just an addendum to her bio. History will deal with this little b*tch in a suitable way; it’s just for us to document her actions as a guide on how to be a vindictive harpy.
Is this off topic? I don’t mean to be mean, but, “According to the provided information, Liz Cheney’s husband, Philip Perry, is a partner at Latham & Watkins, a law firm in Washington, D.C. Latham & Watkins is a multinational law firm…
In a separate instance, Latham & Watkins was also mentioned as the law firm defending Hunter Biden, the son of former Vice President Joe Biden, in a controversy surrounding his business dealings. However, it’s essential to clarify that Philip Perry’s involvement with Latham & Watkins predates this specific case and is unrelated to his marriage to Liz Cheney.”
(ai browser results, Liz Cheney law firm)
Trump should be magnanimous: He should forgive Ms. Cheney and make amends. I suggest that if elected he should make her his liaison to Hezbollah and have her open a nice new office in South Beirut!
Possible misconduct committed by Cheney? No big surprise there. The entire Jan6 committee was a show trial, complete with an ABC producer and pre-written scripts. Everyone knew it. Unfortunately I believe the good professor is correct, nothing will be done.
“…nothing will be done.” aka “Business as Usual” in DC
J^ Committee with Liz Cheney and the crying congressman Kinziner? work smells and simply was set up to Get Trump and just look at the Witnesses card carrying DC Elite/insider crowd. Get Trump. Liz Cheney should suffer disbarment or severe consequences for her sneaking behind the scenes and talking to witnesses, I am sure there are more phone calls to others, The Cheney’s are card carrying DC Elite and NEOCONS
sorry istyped should read J6 not J^
We figured that out – I do wish there was a method to edit these posts.
We would have a (not a bad thing) shortage of lawyers if we disbarred all those who were unethical.
I think far too many forget that Dick Cheney as Secretary of Defense almost singlehandedly put 100,000 defense employees out of work on Long Island – those of Grumman Aerospace and its derivatives – largely for reasons unknown since Grumman’s F14D Super Tomcat was considered superior to McDonell Douglass’s F/A-18 Hornet, particularly so with expected future upgrades, while the F/A-18 was itself was an aging airframe. The impression is that Dick Cheney was a corporate shill, willing to sacrifice national security for personal benefit, who wanted those contracts to go elsewhere… (which ultimately, by the way, crashed the housing market on Long Island, but be that as it may)… People forget that GW chose to emphasize his role as commander in chief following 9/11 rather than favor the role of national administrator, as president. People forget that defense contractors are vital to support of today’s technologically enhanced battlefield and that defense contractors in Iraq actually outnumbered our troop totals. And they forget what Donald Trump had to say about Bush and the Iraq War. And what was it he said? That Bush’s invasion may have been “the worst decision in presidential history”? Words to that effect? So there ya have it folks… Cheney hatred of Trump runs deep. What I find particularly interesting is that Democrats, the traditionally perceived-to-be party of anti-war, and anti-defense spending, have joined with Cheney/ Bush in their attacks on Trump. And look around, see the homeless, see our vets, physically maimed, emotionally wounded, neglected by this very same DOD, and ask yourself, was Iraq and the profits it generated for those like Cheney a good thing? Are we the lowly all to indefinitely be but fodder in such rich man’s wars? And this, you say, is America, ehh?
As John Adams has been quoted, (and I paraphrase here) ‘our constitution will only work in a nation of religious people’. We can see that this ship has sailed long ago *note Madeline Murphy.
Adams was saying that a free republic is only possible when the average citizen knows “right” from “wrong” and is willing to act on it, even when it conflicts with self-interest. “Religion” simply refers to moral rectitude — taking responsibility even when things go wrong. That’s Trump’s big blindspot — he cannot bring himself to admit to mistakes. Wasn’t it Kim Jong Un’s grandpappy that insisted he was “perfect”, and everybody had to believe it or was guilty of disloyalty?
” taking responsibility even when things go wrong. That’s Trump’s big blindspot — he cannot bring himself to admit to mistakes. “
So what? That is an issue common to all politicians. But since you are talking about mistakes, why not tell us what mistakes Trump didn’t admit to that were significant and occurred while President? He might be the most transparent President we ever had.
Lez Cheney is bad old news. However, if DJT elected I would lock her up and all those she conspired with and call it January 6th, take two… put them all in jail, delay the trial, give them no opportunity to defend themselves as they are Enemies of the State. When a few months have passed and the MSM has tired of the topic, drag them out into the public eye and expose all of their treason through leaks to the highest bidder…
Wait a minute, can’t do that you say… then we deserve all of the law breaking, treasonous behavior we get from the Neo Marxists and regardless of their political persuasion they should all be locked up… Lez will take a lot of rats along with her to prison and it might include a few Bushes 😉 … but mostly Clintons, Soroses, Obamas, Shumers, etc. etc. etc.
We can call it purification of our great country that was momentarily hijacked by septic tank dwelling rogues 😉
Here’s a question for you mescca1994 — Under your “put them all in jail” concept, would juries be the ones deciding guilt vs. innocence? Based on factual evidence? Would a neutral judge be in charge of the proceedings? Would a written law have to be violated?
These are key questions about due process. Does Trump care about it? Do you? You sound like the result is pre-ordained; screw the process.
As is the case with most of the “evidence” being found today, the entire Jan. 6th Committee work was from the beginning a “Get Trump” action. From the establishment of this committee, to the rejection of the Minority party representatives to the appointment of Liz Cheney and Adam Klingzeter(sp). There was no effort to “find the truth”. There was simply an effort to establish a crime in search of Donald Trump. I will be interested to see if this Cassidy Hutchinson is a Grand Jury witness in the Jake Smith/Judge Tanya Chutkan case???????
She was only of value because she was an aide to Mark Meadows, and he refused to give a deposition. However, under indictment in Fulton County GA, and facing the prospect of GA prison (state sentences cannot be commuted by the President), he gave a video deposition back in February. That would essentially pre-empt anything Cassidy H. would have to offer.
Meadow’s under-oath deposition will likely come out publicly before the election. Why shouldn’t the voters have all the facts when they vote? We’re rational people and can weigh and balance the info, so there’s no reason to censor it.
Meadow’s under-oath deposition will likely come out publicly before the election. Why shouldn’t the voters have all the facts when they vote?
The obvious counterpoint to pbinca not having similar other concerns: Why shouldn’t voters have had ALL the facts involving the Clinton/Obama/Biden DNC “Russia Dossier” fully released prior to the 2020 election?
Why shouldn’t voters have had ALL the facts involving the Biden Bribery laptop before the 2020 election?
Why not all the facts on why the FBI kept Biden criminality and investigations hidden from the public eye prior to the 2020 election?
And why not ALL the facts about the “Russia Dossier” and Biden laptop before THIS election?
For this election, how about ALL the facts about the J6 Commission – including everything Cheney hid, which is slowly being uncovered, but will never be shown to the public before this election?
pbinca of course, is only obsessed with the public seeing Mark Meadow’s depostion – and zero similar depositions given under the threat of jail from Cheney and her co-conspirators on the J6 commission i.e. Pelosi, Cheney, Raskin, et al.
As usual, pbinca lives up to his reputation as a Cheap Fake Police State Fascist Democrat American. You expose yourself as what you are every single time. If you didn’t have double standards, you’d have no standards at all.
AOD, Pbinca’s right eye is blind. She can only see left. She is smart enough to use braille, or her ears to realize how one-sided she appears and is.
The whole J6 committee is a sham. Pelosi and others should be arrested for the conspiracy and subversion they have participated in from 2016 forward. Never has a duly elected president ever been subjected to this third world BS. Look no further than Barry and the DNC. Time for a good old fashioned house cleaning party.
It has gotten to the point – SO WHAT? We knew the panel was corrupt. Nothing done to the particants. CBS is at it again changing responses of first Harris and now the Speaker. Robert Malley committed treason and is still walking around. The FBI stands around and does nothing to those who are rioting and attacking Jews and Jews interest. Butler coverup — security allowed the high point not to be covered. USSS CMD center knew of the sniper 3 minutes before shots fired. Called made to heir sniper teams, but NOT TO TRUMP’S DETAIL SO THEY COULD SECURE HIM. FBI is investigating & covering up. WHY?
None of these people will ever face any consequences for their actions. They take oaths as attorney, they take oaths as representatives and violate them at the blink of an eye. For 3 years they lied to Americans shouting “Russia Russia Russia” attempting to illegally remove a legitimate President and disrupting the American process and nothing happened to them. People in law enforcement spoke of “insurance” to prevent a candidate from being elected and nothing happened to them. Now the mantra is “disinformation, misinformation” to curtail free speech and counter positions and if the wrong candidate is elected that may very well happen.
Biden took the oath at 12 noon to execute the laws faithfully and by 2 o’clock signed an order to cease deportations for 100 days.
It seems that Liz was trying to influence the outcome of an election? And since she pays no price for her actions, she will do it over and over.
Hutchinson was way in over her head and no match for the charlatans that helped set her up for this fall. Cheney, at least, got her comeuppance when dispatched from Congress and disgraced by a wipeout election. She now goes around trying to woo those who demonized her before her satanic conversion. Amazing how things seem to work out in the end for those who perpetrate evil. Fortunately, the people are wise to all this and discounted its “importance” years ago. The Three Stooges – Hutchinson, Griffin, and Cheney – have only a few weeks to peddle their phony wares and after that all they will have is time to commiserate themselves as they ponder what might have been.
Once again we see proof that We The People are trying to find Justice in a playground of lawyers who use The Law, not for Justice, but as a tool to absolve themselves from scrutiny. Turley makes a strong case that Cheney, as a lawyer, made a mockery of Justice. Yet he seems to excuse her from being held accountable for her reprehensible conduct. The machinations of the lawyers involved seem regarded as sacrosanct and above scrutiny by the peasants outside of the legal profession. You know, the simple People who just want Justice. When The Law becomes antithetical to the cause of Justice, it and its practitioners become the enemy of everything we hold dear. At that point, its demise may be seen as an opportunity to restore Justice to its proper noble status.
This rot is like everything else in our putrid, malignant system. Until enough of us peasants get really hungry, nothing of substance will change, but if/when that happens, genteel folk will find the actions of us peasants quite unpleasant. Down right harsh. As I see it, that is the lesser of evil outcomes. The other option is that the degradation continues and eventually the totalitarians win.
– John Underwood
Tyler, TX
* It’s much worse. It’s the actual anti-christ. It’s global.
Clarke: You provoke an interesting and important question: is a lawyer by trade capable of providing honest service? Law school teaches lawyers to represent clients, including those accused of serious law violations. Many years ago, I had an opportunity to ask a well-known mob lawyer if he requires his clients to admit their crimes before representing them and, if so, would that not be a conflict as he pleads them “not guilty”? His answer to me was that before he accepts a client, he gives them all the same spiel: If you did what they are accusing you of, it’s best for you to tell me because I will be able to fashion my defense to represent your interests best. If you don’t tell me, I will have to proceed with a defense that might be knocked off the rails by surprises in the government’s case that come to light during the trial. We tend to think that a lawyer’s first allegiance is to the law but in reality, a lawyer’s first allegiance is to her client. And you get exactly what you pay for and little else. As another great defense lawyer told me, “You’re guilty till proved broke; then I’ll plead you!”
Speaking of Cassidy Hutchinson, the other shoe could soon drop publishing deposition testimony given to GA investigators by Mark Meadows. This material could finally shed light on whether the Willard Hotel “war-room” (Bannon, Kerik, Giuliani, Meadows) conspired with armed militia groups to instigate a National Emergency Declaration, imposing martial law under the Insurrection Act, and postponing the Jan 20 2021 Inauguration.
As far as the Ellipse Speech goes, yes, Trump advised the protest to remain peaceful — AND — clearly boasted several times that he and his lawyers were counting on Mike Pence to “do the right thing” leading to “I become President”. Trump was setting up the throngs of loyalists to witness something “wild” — a peaceful, lawyerly coup in the Joint Session where DJT would be announced the winner of the Electoral College.
Two things can be true.
Your comment has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Also, you are delusional.
Are you using drubs?
When significant lies (misinformation and disinformation) occur, we don’t hear a whimper from Pbinca or why the First Amendment needs to be abridged. Instead, she deflects. Pbinca, your talk is big, but obviously, it is not about how to improve things but rather how to forget that the left has done a terrible job in managing the spread of misinformation and, while doing so, has caused people to perjure themselves.
I’ve never recommended the First Amendment be abridged. Govt. officials have zero legal authority to work with outside infowarfare shops, as the Biden team recklessly pursued until Michael Schallenberger and Matt Taibbi blew the cover off.
What I have said is that the public cannot make good decisions in a public square dominated by militant infowarriors engaging in manipulative deceptions and intimidations. Good ideas can’t get off the ground in such an emotionally-charged, threatening environment. What this leads to is regretful public decisions and/or paralysis/ping-pong policy gyrations.
I’ve suggested a couple of things to regain a measure of trustworthiness and authenticity in public speech.
1) Roll back Section 230, so that the social media platforms are considered publishers, and have the same level of liability for pushing out frauds as traditional print. This change will force them to scale down, and use human moderators/editors, and that will filter out the manipulative infowarfare garbage.
In response to govt. issuing daily lies to dupe the public I have suggested passing legislation to allow infowarriors in govt. to be sued immediately when pushing out a whopper (Public Frauds lawsuits). Why? We live in a fast-paced decision space, and have to respond immediately to such repugnant, untrustworthy attempts by govt. officials. Lawsuits give us a way to challenge deceitful infowarfare (e.g. defamation) — this is the approach favored by the First Amendment — citizen vs. citizen dispute brought to a jury to decide who is telling the truth.
“I’ve never recommended the First Amendment be abridged.”
That is good to hear, and I wish you would clarify that because the comments following yours suggest you want to abridge the First Amendment. I’ll accept what you say as what you believe. Be careful when you request a third party be involved in determining what is true. That is the path to the degradation of that amendment.
“What I have said is that the public cannot make good decisions in a public square dominated by militant infowarriors engaging in manipulative deceptions and… “
I note what you say above, but then, I see you shift the discussion to get Trump who has been on the receiving end of the militant info warriors. Don’t get me wrong; I am not concerned with whether you support Trump. It appears that the words surrounding what you say demonstrate a desire to censor Trump and leave the militant info warriors doing so alone.
About two years ago, I had many discussions on Section 230 and agreed things should change. Platforms should act as platforms or let them be sued. I also thought there were workarounds at that time that would ease some of the problems. You might be interested in this article, which I posted at least a half-dozen times.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-constitution-can-crack-section-230-11611946851
A platform doesn’t need an editor except for things that break the law, profanity and to protect children. We saw platforms actively involved in political censorship. That should not be permitted on any platform. If the platform wants to change its nature and become a publisher where it can censor, the laws of defamation already exist. If you think a non-platform censoring militant warriors on any issue should not be immune from suit, then you are abridging the First Amendment. Section 230 permitted that abridgment, and since it was a federal law, that can be considered indirect censorship by the government. That is wrong, wrong, wrong, and that is what we saw on Twitter.
” I have suggested passing legislation to allow infowarriors in govt. to be sued immediately when pushing out a whopper (Public Frauds lawsuits)”
Defamation laws already exist. If you wish to enhance them, you cannot favor any side of the debate. If someone says the following: climate change is a hoax, the Covid Vaccine is a hoax or causes illness, or Democrats are lying, you cannot censor that, and you cannot sue a person’s opinion. (I provided things previously censored with the government’s indirect involvement). Even after a jury verdict, without an order of restraint, you can’t censor a person who repeats what he said again. Monetary damages are the usual way of managing such verdicts.
You said many things on the blog that point in various directions. You control what you say, so don’t blame me or others for interpreting your opinions in a way that disagrees with the face you choose to show. I would like to know what you believe and how your thoughts differ from mine. I want that because I am concerned with the same issues you discuss, but it sounds like we are on different sides too often. None of this should have anything to do with politics.
Speaking of Cassidy Hutchinson, the other shoe could soon drop publishing deposition testimony given to GA investigators by Mark Meadows.
Can you think of any other shoes that might drop, now that you’ve reminded us of liars like Hutchinson and yourself, pbinca? How about shoes dropping that you didn’t mention, with more releases from whistleblowers on how corrupt the J6 committee was from beginning to end?
As you said, more than one lie can be uncovered and liars put in the spotlight than just Cheney and Hutchinson. And speaking of Georgia, Fani Willis right now is screaming like hell that her sex toythat she paid millions to prosecute Trump has been subpoenaed to give evidence to the House.
Ever think that the Soviet Democrat police state fascist schemes that your party has been endlessly engaged in might be pulled out of where the Democrat-Media Marxist Police State Fascist Complex has kept them hidden?
You are a despicable false flag Cheap Fake Democrat Police State Fascist American, pbinca
“do the right thing” leading to “I become President”.
Pbinca, did you copy that from the transcript, or did you or someone else say I become President? Those are not Trump’s words, yet you placed those words in quotes. Why do you have to lie in order to make a point?
/
Liz Cheney has always had the option of working for changes within the Republican party but has never done this … rather chooses to vocalize her discontent. Maybe it is time for Cheney to leave the Republican party to become independent or even Democrat. Re moderators who would moderate the moderator.
There are many Liz Cheney supporters in the Repub Party. She is more conservative than most of them, and among those conservative values she exemplifies are authenticity and accountability.
How do you know this? Are you willfully spreading misinformation?
Her problem, IMO, is that she took things personally, and that ruined her political career. People would forgive her for opposing Trump; they will not forgive her for supporting someone so antithetical to her announced philosophy. She now comes off as a bitter ex
“She now comes off as a bitter ex”
Perfect description of her.
Love how the Dems once vilified Papa Cheney as a “war criminal” but now, because it serves their agenda, praise him. This is how it is now done in America. Forget ethics, forget what’s best for country. It’s the “Me Generation” on steroids.
How could a conservative support the most liberal candidate in presidential history? So this “conservative” supports abortion on demand, an open border, cutting off Israel, defunding the police, banning fracking and tax payer funded trans procedures for illegals in prison???
You must be joking. The only accountability she has suffered was actually delivered to her, good and hard, by the biggest drubbing in a primary I have ever seen. Keep in mind that the Republican party in Wyoming is actually two Republican parties as it is elsewhere in the country. Yet, they came together to collectively kick her in the butt. And as far as authenticity goes, she or her campaign, sent out materials before that primary urging Democrats to register as Republicans so they could viote for her — which many did. And don’t even get me started on her eager participation in that highly orchestrated, constructed, partisan J6 Committee. Nothing speaks of authenticity like wallowing in mud with the opposition.
Cheney lived and worked in DC for decades before buying a house in Wyoming so she could run a carpetbagging campaign for a U.S. Senate seat, hoping her daddy’s coattails would elect her to the U.S. Senate. That’s how “authentic” she is. But her effort failed. She regrouped and collected tons of money from people who are not Wyoming residents to run for the House. She won. So she continued to live in her hometown of DC while representing Wyomingians.
Then Wyoming voters held her “accountable” in her last re-election effort. She was defeated in a landslide, getting less than 30% of the vote in the GOP primary. Did she move back to Wyoming? Of course not. She lives and works in her hometown of DC. That’s how “authentic” she is.
There has always been tension in the Republican Party between the “establishment” and populist/conservatives. Going as far back as the 1952 convention floor fight between Eisenhower (who had been heavily recruited by both Democrats and the liberal wing of the Republican Party, led by Henry Cabot Lodge) and Taft. Goldwater lost in a landslide in ’64 largely because the establishment Republicans voted for the Democrat, LBJ.
When the populists/conservatives lose, they hold their nose and support the establishment GOP candidate as happened with both Bushes. When the RINOs lose, they turn around and support the Democrat, as Cheney and many other “authentic” Republicans are doing.
Haliburton
Liz Cheney is the very essence of the industrial war complex. Conservative my azzz!
* Liz Cheney is a nothing. She’s soon forgotten.
Is that the reason the WY Republican Party showed her the door?
“There are many Liz Cheney supporters in the Repub Party.”
There are probably three or more who support her. I know one, Adam Kinzinger. You hold Liz Cheney in high esteem even though her ethics are below standard, yet you are the one always yelling about the misbehavior of those you dislike, even when your information is misinformation.
“She is more conservative than most of them.”
Is she? I know she and her father like war. Is that why you call her a conservative? Today, it is the Democrats pushing for war even though when Joe Biden was inaugurated, there was peace.
” she exemplifies are authenticity and accountability.”
Liz Cheney is one of those most responsible for the disinformation from the J6 committee.
Do you recognize how much disinformation you provide? Instead of censoring others, you should consider censoring yourself.
pbinca There are many Liz Cheney supporters in the Repub Party.
There’s a parroted Nancy Pelosi lie that ain’t gonna fly, and pbinca being the parrot of that lie isn’t going to give it wings.
If Cheney has supporters, you certainly don’t hear from them today. She is persona non gratia, forever.
If Cheney has secret Republican supporters – then how does pbinca claim to know they exist, and in what numbers do they exist for pbinca to describe them as “many”?
Occam’s Razor suggests that the conclusion: pbinca is lying his/her ass off. As Liz Cheney did after accepting and co-chairing Pelosi’s offer on the J6 “Get Trump” Committee.
Again.
Hutchinson used a couple lawyers. Where did she – a low level nobody – get the money to pay for big dollar lawyers?
Pro bono of course, the DNC will pick up the payback due in some other unrelated nonsensical legal action. Billable hour are billable hours.
Nevertheless, I am doubtful that this will result in any ethical proceedings against Cheney.
Doubtful? Seriously? It’s more likely she’ll be featured on the cover of Vogue and receive a star on the Hollywood Walk-of-Fame for her role impersonating a Republican on the J6 committee.
This site needs a moderator to keep comments relevant.
Sounds like you need to read the constitution. Just skip to the the First Amendment.
-John Underwood
Tyler, TX
This site need commenters who understand that the site’s *owner* permits OT comments.
Your comment is ironically irrelevant.
Isn’t that interesting. Since your comment was the 1st on JT’s post today, a moderator would have necessarily removed it for being irrelevant.