Last year, useful fool Liz Cheney agreed to act as Pelosi’s J6 “vice-chair.” She hasn’t disappointed. She’s asked scripted questions like a good parrot, without a breath of critical thinking or circumspection.
The committee has spent millions of dollars gathering “proof,” then spent thousands of hours pouring over evidence. A few witnesses were referred to the DOJ by this Soviet-style courtroom trial for prosecution. They committed what crime? They failed to keep the party line.
The committee determined that manipulation was necessary after spending many millions of dollars and having reviewed thousands and thousands of records.
How has this committee performed against Donald Trump’s singular goal? I still don’t know. As a trial attorney, I’ve watched with dismay as the committee submits “evidence.” All of it is designed not to prove guilt, but rather to entertain a TV audience.
Take, for example, the committee calling Cassidy Hutchinson on Tuesday for a “special session.”
She was brought in for this “special” session, much like producers of TV dramas call in a “special guest star.” After all, this is for show, not evidence. The testimony she gave was almost all irrelevant and largely influenced by opinion and double hearingsay. She said almost nothing based upon her seeing anything. And, for me, it was the absence of any one who could challenge this. There’s no cross-examination but there are pundits writing romance novels in support. The left’s second favorite lawn gnome ate it up. Why? Because he’s a fool.
In my entire life, I have never seen a Congressional Hearing more condemning of a President. Never.
This makes Watergate’s darkest moments look like a bridge club meeting.
— Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) June 28, 2022
It’s easy to convince a willing TV audience and tiny bootlickers like Rick Wilson when you ask leading questions of salacious acts from a witness, who witnessed nothing. It would be easy to have asked an actor for lines. An actor would know the exact same facts. Additionally, she continually said, “something to the effect of.” If she’s claiming she heard something you don’t “quote” a witness and then say: “He said something to the effect.” He either said it, or he didn’t. He either did it, or he didn’t.
Assuming this charade went to trial in my state, I’d demand and likely get an Ev Code 402 hearing (to determine preliminary facts). Before she hit the stand, we’d determine if she could be called at all. Her hearsay, as well as double hearsay, would not be accepted. Her testimony about Trump’s outbursts are interesting but irrelevant and prejudicial (a separate Ev Code 352 motion would be offered). Cold water was being poured on Hutchinson’s claims before the Hutchinson seat was even cold.
She claims that Trump pulled the trigger on the Beast, grabbed a steering column and then grabbed the neck a secret agent. This is pure television fiction. She claims it was true, but it didn’t happen according to those who witnessed it.
She claimed she wrote a note, but the lawyer who did so quickly refuted it (a fact the committee knew before asking the question).
Liz Cheney is not impressed by her inconsistent behavior. Cheney claims Hutchinson is credible and has appeared on talk-shows. No, she doesn’t, Liz. Liz asserts that democracy is in danger. No it isn’t, Liz. Liz is quickly going to be a political memory. Good riddance.
Liz Cheney can play Chicken Little until November and scream “Democracy is Falling!, Democracy is Falling!” but it’s not. Cheney is on the verge of being killed along with her show trial. Democracy will, however, survive.
About Post Author
