by Patricia Anthone, America Outloud:
Did Liz Cheney’s malicious actions on the “J6 Subcommittee” violate laws governing Congressional inquiries? There seems to be growing consensus that she did and should face charges for witness tampering.
In privately coaching the false testimony offered to the committee by Cassidy Hutchinson, she suborned perjury. As it was crafted to do, the sensational story went viral:
“Enraged President Trump lunged for the steering wheel when Secret Service drivers refused to drive him to the Capitol.”
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
Cassidy subsequently failed to identify the vehicle in which the event supposedly took place. The driver of President Trump’s vehicle then came forward to renounce the entire tale as a fabrication.
Even before we examine the specific statutes, Congressional rules, and ethical proscriptions applicable in this case, it is obvious that Cheney violated the most fundamental American principles by coaching a false story from a “witness” called before her committee.
This was no accidental overstep, not simply an incidental infraction of technicality. She purposely coached a false narrative in a malicious effort to support the preconceived determination of her committee’s “investigation.”
Liz Cheney’s actions are a manifestation of the inevitable decline of Constitutional order permitted by our previous reticence to prosecute the willful fabrication of damning and FALSE testimony.
The corrupted and degrading confirmation processes to which SCOTUS Justices Clarence Thomas (1991) and Brett Kavanaugh (2018) were subjected offer recent examples of salacious, unverifiable accusations being given center-stage by Leftists. Yet even these two confirmation processes, separated by 27 years, reveal marked degradation in Congressional standards and ethics.
While Clarence Thomas’ accuser was cross-examined and required to provide date/place/time details, Kavanaugh’s accuser was not. Christine Blasey Ford claimed to have forgotten the specific place or even the year in which the sordid events she tearfully described took place. This effectively granted her immunity from prosecution for perjury since her claims could neither be verified nor disproven.
The willingness to entertain “testimony” from a “witness” that offers no verifiable detail represented a new low in the ever-declining evidentiary standards for Congressional hearings. It should not surprise us that by 2022, in the absence of sufficient “damning evidence” sought by the so-called J6 Committee, such testimony would be solicited, coached, and staged by those advancing the effort to destroy Trump as a political adversary.
While the confirmations were ultimately made, and Trump was ultimately vindicated, the damage done was nevertheless severe.
Read More @ AmericaOutloud.news
