Trump, GOP zero in on Liz Cheney?


When I say "SWAMP CREATURE" or "RINO" who is someone who jumps right into the frame of your mind right away? Well if you said Liz Cheney you are on the right page and clearly you read the title of this post. But with the obvious facts here there is a post on The Hill who claims that President-elect Trump has a fixation on former Rep. Liz Chaney. Also they claim in this post that "It's escalating as he suggests she should be prosecuted for her work on the now-disbanded House Jan. 6 committee." So while it's now clear that Liz has lied, and should be investigated especially in the wake of a report by a House subcommittee that alleges Cheney improperly communicated with star witness Cassidy Hutchinson, Trump accused Cheney of committing crimes as she led the panel.

“Liz Cheney has been exposed in the Interim Report, by Congress, of the J6 Unselect Committee as having done egregious and unthinkable acts of crime,” Trump wrote on his social media site, adding that her support “helped the Democrats lose the Election.” And continued with... “She is so unpopular and disgusting, a real loser!” While "The Hill" says "It would likely be difficult for a Trump Justice Department to successfully prosecute Cheney." Well I don't know as she is part of the CABAL which has taken part in making these FAKE accusations on Trump and now we all know that Nasty Pelosi, and DC Mayor Bowser were the ones responsible for the FAKE narrative which followed J6 which lead to the this fake prosecution of TRUMP!

Hutchinson first reached out to Cheney, and any work the former member of House GOP leadership did would likely be covered by the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause. But the report is nonetheless something of a road map for a possible investigation into a top Trump critic and someone the president-elect has repeatedly said should face consequences. The interim report is from Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), a House Administration subcommittee chair. Loudermilk was himself reviewed by the Jan. 6 committee after giving a Capitol tour on Jan. 5, 2021, to two constituents who later joined the rioters gathered around the building. His report that has been billed as a review of the “failures and politicization” of the panel calls for a criminal investigation into Cheney, saying she may have violated statutes regarding witness tampering by being in contact with Hutchinson. 

So it looks that when Hutchinson initially reached out to former White House aide Alyssa Farah Griffin, whom the report accuses of being a backchannel between Hutchinson and the lawmaker. It was Hutchinson who first reached out to Cheney, and in her memoir the lawmaker writes about encouraging her to find a new attorney as “every witness deserves an attorney who will represent their interests exclusively.”

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a former constitutional law professor who served on the Jan. 6 panel alongside Cheney, said the former lawmaker did not act inappropriately but would be protected regardless. “It is not a crime in America to tell someone to testify truthfully. That’s the opposite of witness tampering and suborning perjury,” he told The Hill. “And of course Cassidy Hutchinson did testify truthfully.” And continued. 

“But Liz Cheney was a member of Congress, which means that she had all of the robust protection of the Speech and Debate Clause, which insulates members in the performance of their legislative duties from prosecution and investigation outside of Congress. The legislative function, including investigation, is completely protected and, as the authors of the report obviously know, investigators routinely meet witnesses.”

Speech or Debate Clause protections are not absolute, and lawmakers can still face charges for crimes that have nothing to do with their role in Congress. “Speech and Debate protection does not extend to activities that have nothing to do with the legislative and political process but are purely criminal in nature, like paying for sex or purchasing cocaine and ecstasy,” Raskin said, making an apparent nod to activity unveiled in an Ethics Committee report on former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.). 

But bringing a witness tampering case against Cheney would also face roadblocks regardless of her status as a lawmaker. Loudermilk’s report argues that Cheney erred by being in touch with Hutchinson at all given that the aide initially worked with a lawyer paid through a Trump legal defense fund. “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,” the interim report states.

The law penalizes those who pressure witnesses to change their testimony or lie under oath, but Hutchinson agreed to testify publicly in a blockbuster hearing after saying her former attorney, Stefan Passantino, encouraged her to not be forthcoming with the panel. Elie Honig, a former federal prosecutor and CNN legal analyst, said law enforcement, prosecutors and even congressional investigators routinely encourage witnesses to testify as a function of their job. “Even if you take every word of the House Oversight Committee’s report on January 6 as gospel and, please, don’t Liz Cheney did not commit a crime. It’s not close. The suggestion to the contrary by the Republicans who ran the Committee betrays that they either have no clue about criminal law or don’t care because the politics of payback reign supreme,” he wrote in New York Magazine, adding that the report is slim when it comes to substantiating its own allegations.

“There’s nothing to indicate that Hutchinson committed perjury or that Cheney pushed her to do so … But the committee unilaterally declares its worst suspicions to be correct and then labels testimony it doesn’t like as perjury. That won’t fly in a criminal court,” he said. While Republicans have taken issue with some of Hutchinson’s testimony, including a story about Trump lunging at his driver that day, she made clear she was relaying a story told to her by someone else. William Jordan, a lawyer for Hutchinson, defended her testimony while calling the claims of collusion between the women “preposterous.”

“Ms. Hutchinson made the independent decision to part ways with her Trump-funded lawyer, freeing her to provide candid, truthful, and honorable testimony to the January 6th Committee about the attack on the Capitol, alongside dozens of Republican witnesses and law enforcement officers,” he said in a statement to NBC when the report was released. “Despite baseless attacks by men with their own agendas to discredit her, Ms. Hutchinson stands by her testimony and remains committed to the truth and accountability.” Any successful prosecution of Cheney would likely also need cooperation from Hutchinson.

But she declined to get involved in ethics complaints against Passantino after he was accused of encouraging her to say she remembered little about the day and said she would be able to get a good job in Trump World. Various bar associations declined to take action on the matter, dismissing two ethics complaints in citing a lack of sufficient evidence to move forward. Conservative legal commentator Jonathan Turley said a similar ethics complaint before the bar would likely be the only avenue for pursuing Cheney, though he said he was “doubtful that this would rise to a formal Bar ethics investigation.” For her part, Cheney blasted the entirety of Loudermilk’s review.

“Chairman Loudermilk’s ‘Interim Report’ intentionally disregards the truth and the Select Committee’s tremendous weight of evidence, and instead fabricates lies and defamatory allegations in an attempt to cover up what Donald Trump did. Their allegations do not reflect a review of the actual evidence, and are a malicious and cowardly assault on the truth. No reputable lawyer, legislator or judge would take this seriously,” she said. Loudermilk called the former panel “a political weapon with a singular focus to deceive the public into blaming President Trump for the violence on January 6 and to tarnish the legacy of his first Presidency.” Trump seemed to agree, praising the Georgia Republican for “the great work he has done in exposing the massive corruption of the J6 Unselect Committee of Political Thugs!” He’s also previously said members of the panel “should go to jail.” But Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), who served as the chair of the committee, said Loudermilk “failed to discredit” the panel’s work while sidestepping Trump’s accountability. And Raskin called the report “thin gruel.”



“It talks about everything except what actually happened on January 6. The bloody mob violence seems to have disappeared. Donald Trump’s speech of incitement on the Ellipse and provocative tweets have vanished. The plan to spread the big lie and overturn the election, which Joe Biden won by 7 million votes, has apparently been vaporized,” he said. “This report does not lay a glove on the 845-page report of our bipartisan committee. It’s empty heckling.”

Could Joe Biden Go to Jail after Pardoning Hunter?


IN A Crazy possible twist could the Hunter Biden pardoning end up backfiring? By Pardoning Hunter, Joe Biden Might Be Going to Jail according to some Conservatives who are still talking over the fact that Hunter Biden’s gun and tax charges were pardoned by his father after his father specifically said he wouldn’t use his presidential power to do so. Now remember anyone who really believed that promise also still believes in the tooth fairy, Santa, and the Easter Bunny! But the most “gullible” in our population said he was a hero and a real man because he promissed he wouldn't Pardon his son if he was found guilty. Man that statement by the left didn't age well as we now know.

However, it was the brazenness of it all the language he used, the fact he dumped it at the end of the Thanksgiving weekend, and then the fact he jetted off to Angola right after it was issued that made it particularly galling. “No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter’s cases can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he is my son and that is wrong,” he said in his statement on the pardon, two sentences after he praised “a carefully negotiated plea deal” that “unraveled in the court room,” he said because of pressure from his “political opponents in Congress.” (It was, in fact, because the judge was incredulous at the unusual nature of the deal, which she called potentially unconstitutional.)

“For my entire career I have followed a simple principle: just tell the American people the truth. They’ll be fair-minded. Here’s the truth: I believe in the justice system, but as I have wrestled with this, I also believe raw politics has infected this process and it led to a miscarriage of justice and once I made this decision this weekend, there was no sense in delaying it further,” he said in conclusion.

That too was a lie he’d sworn that he’d not interfere with the power of the pardon but never mind. What’s done is done, and now there’s a deeper question: Did Joe Biden sign onto a pardon that could put him in jail? That seems like an insane question, but perhaps not so much. First, let’s look at the breadth of the pardon, which goes well beyond the federal gun and tax charges. In fact, it covers everything back to 2014 the year when he started on the board of Burisma, surprise. This means all of Hunter’s foreign business dealings including potential FARA violations and the like are off the table for the prosecution. As you might remember, Joe was always linked to these in a very ancillary way, never playing a major part but always closer to the action than you might have liked him to be if you were one of his handlers.

That’s Joe Biden with Carlos Slim Mexico’s richest man, once the world’s richest, with whom Hunter and his partners were pursuing business deals at the time.

This becomes particularly problematic when you look at Hunter’s time on Burisma’s board and Joe’s own claim he got a Ukrainian prosecutor who just happened to be interested in Burisma’s corruption once upon a time fired: Biden’s people have always maintained, of course, that the prosecutor himself was corrupt. Which might have been true indeed, it’s likely to be, because virtually everyone in Ukrainian politics was so corrupt that the country elected an actor who played an every-man anti-corruption presidential candidate who ended up winning on a fictional TV show to be an every-man anti-corruption president of their country in real life. (To be fair, Volodymyr Zelenskyy managed to defend the country against Russian aggression admirably, if to a stalemate, even if he hasn’t quite tackled corruption just yet.)

However, consider this: Now that he’s not in trouble for anything he says, Hunter Biden might have to talk about it. From Mike Davis, an attorney with the constitutional Article III Project: See, here’s the thing: With the Fifth Amendment, your right to stay silent against self-incrimination only applies if you have something you can incriminate yourself for. This is why certain witnesses are often given immunity: that immunity then forces them to say the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, or else they’re the ones breaking the law. 

Now, to be clear, this principle has never been applied to a high-level presidential pardon. Immunity, when employed in such a way, is used to either bargain for or compel accurate testimony under the rubric that, if the subject lied, they’d be in deeper trouble because that’d then be the crime. And various news sources are wondering just what this pardon means if the House GOP or a special counsel decides to open up an investigation. Newsweek quoted an attorney who said Hunter would absolutely be compelled to testify, the legal team at Reuters said the “pardon could limit his ability to invoke that [Fifth Amendment] right” if called to testify, and an attorney who talked to NewsNation simply called the situation “uncharted territory.” 

The last one is probably the most apt. If presidential pardons could compel testimony, for instance, Hunter Biden probably wouldn’t be the first recipient hauled up before Congress to spill the beans. After all, it’s worth remembering that in the wake of Gerald Ford’s Nixon pardon, the Democrats had nearly 300 seats in the House of Representatives thanks to huge midterm gains in the wake of the Watergate scandal. Presidential privilege might make that a bit different, but you might think those Democrats would be inclined to get Nixon to tell everything he knew about Liddy, Hunt, Ehrlichman, Segretti and the like, and get it on record.

Furthermore, pardons don’t cover state charges and Hunter could reasonably assert that there are a few states with a passing interest in unreported income from his foreign business affairs, to say nothing of the bizarre case of the gun in the dumpster. And, even failing all that, it’s still worth noting that, legally speaking, the phrase, “I have no recollection of that, congressman,” goes a long way in a Capitol Hill hearing especially when most of the period covered by the pardon was when the man in question was verifiably a poly drug addict. That being said, if anything about the Biden family “business” doesn’t still hinge upon stuff where state charges could be brought, this could be extraordinarily damaging to Joe “The Big Guy” Biden, if not put him in prison if he’s deeply enmeshed enough in either the Burisma or Chinese Communist Party-linked CEFC deals that Hunter is forced to give old dad up.

Then that being said, it’s also quite likely that any prosecutor treats Joe Biden like special counsel Robert Hur over Biden’s retention of classified documents — where he recommended charges not be pursued not because the circumstances didn’t warrant it or because there wasn’t duplicitousness on the president’s part, but that a jury would likely see him as a “sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory.” However, at the very least, if courts decide the pardon is de jure immunity and that Hunter must testify, at the very least, the concept of Joe Biden as a well-meaning dad who was simply a little overindulgent with his child could be indeed, likely would be torpedoed out of the water for the rest of history. We’d know how thoroughly we’d been lied to on this, just as it will invariably tumble out that we were thoroughly lied to on so many other fronts.

The difference is that Hunter’s compelled testimony would be an immediate, shock-therapy dramatization of how bad it really was the second act of the June 27 debate in which the veil was pulled back and we all realized how thoroughly cognitively deficient the president had become. If it doesn’t end Joe in jail or both Joe and Hunter sharing a cell, if Hunter refuses to testify or perjures himself it will, at least, end the half-decade charade of snow-white innocence the outgoing first family has pulled on us.