Few individuals worked harder in recent years to imprison Donald Trump than Liz Cheney, the former congresswoman from Wyoming. Her motivation seems to stem from a personal grudge against Trump due to his criticism of her father’s controversial actions. Cheney has often insisted that “no one is above the law,” except it seems, for herself.
Currently, Cheney is preparing to defend herself against federal or congressional inquiries regarding her involvement as vice chair of the January 6 Select Committee. Text messages obtained by Representative Barry Loudermilk suggest that Cheney may have worked with witness Cassidy Hutchinson to alter her testimony, which could count as witness tampering or obstruction of justice. Loudermilk believes that Cheney may have broken several federal laws and has recommended an FBI investigation into her actions.
In response, Cheney has adopted a victim mentality and blamed Trump again. However, a Rasmussen poll indicates that many Americans, including a significant number of Republicans, support an FBI investigation into Cheney. Should the Department of Justice move forward, Cheney is likely to seek immunity protections, which, under the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause, can shield lawmakers from criminal liability related to their legislative work.
Supporters of Cheney, including her ally Rep. Jamie Raskin, have suggested that this same clause could be used to prevent FBI access to her communications. Raskin dismissed claims against Cheney, stating that her actions do not constitute a crime and are protected by legislative privileges. This stance appears hypocritical considering that Cheney and Raskin previously supported the stripping of privileges that affected Trump and his associates.
Cheney has also encouraged the Supreme Court to deny Trump’s immunity claims, arguing against his privilege protections and insisting on swift justice for him. She criticized Trump for attempting to delay proceedings, despite the fact that her committee had faced little actual delay on the matter.
Additionally, recent court rulings have limited protections under the Speech or Debate Clause. For example, Rep. Scott Perry unsuccessfully tried to withhold communications from an FBI investigation by claiming legislative privilege. Courts determined that his claims were overly broad, suggesting that not all communications related to official business qualify for protection.
Cheney’s secret communications with Hutchinson are questionable in terms of legislative importance. Hutchinson's testimony did not significantly impact any legislative efforts, and discussions about non-credible or fabricated events cannot be deemed as legitimate investigations. While Cheney may try to secure immunity with sympathetic judges, her previous statements and actions may lead to public scrutiny of her hypocrisy.
This situation highlights a complex legal landscape surrounding privilege and accountability, with Cheney being one of several players in the ongoing legal battles against Trump-related actions.
https://www.declassified.live/p/cheneys-pending-immunity-whiplash
No comments:
Post a Comment