Will there ever be a cure for TDS?

Cheney's Pending Immunity Whiplash

by Tyler Durden
Monday, Dec 30, 2024 - 08:20 AM

Authored by Julie Kelly via Declassified with Julie Kelly (subscribe here),

Few people worked harder over the past few years to put Donald Trump behind bars than Liz Cheney, the former (alleged) Republican congresswoman from Wyoming.

Seeking revenge for Trump’s longtime criticism of her father’s “weapons of mass destruction” lie, Cheney sought to settle a family score by imprisoning Trump over the events of January 6. “No one is above the law!,” Cheney, in her grating sanctimonious style, frequently insists.

Well, except for her.

It now appears Cheney is preparing to fight any federal and/or congressional probe into her demonstrably corrupt role as vice chairman of the January 6 Select Committee. Text messages obtained by Representative Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga), chair of a House subcommittee looking into the J6 committee, prove that Cheney colluded behind the scenes with star witness Cassidy Hutchinson, who dramatically changed her testimony after connecting with Cheney. The communications could represent witness tampering, subornation of perjury—every former White House official including the driver of the presidential vehicle on January 6 has refuted Hutchinson’s account of Trump’s behavior that day—and obstruction.

Based on the results of his ongoing inquiry, Loudermilk determined that “numerous federal laws were likely broken by Liz Cheney” and called for the FBI to investigate her.

Cheney immediately responded by playing the victim and, of course, by blaming Donald Trump. But the American people appear uninterested in Cheney’s excuses; a new Rasmussen poll shows strong public support, including three-quarters of Republicans, for an FBI investigation into the bitter and defeated nepobaby.

If Trump’s Department of Justice decides to proceed, Cheney undoubtedly will seek immunity protections in an attempt to keep records away from federal investigators; members of Congress are entitled to immunity under the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution, which shields lawmakers from criminal liability related to their legislative duties.

Immunity for Me But Not For Thee or Thee or Thee

Cheney’s sycophants are already signaling that is the route she will take. During recent interviews, Rep. Jamie Raskin, a close pal of Cheney’s and fellow “NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW” squawker, warned the clause can prevent the FBI from accessing her communications.

Pressed by reporter Hugo Lowell during a recent podcast, Raskin pooh-poohed accusations that Cheney potentially broke the law. “That hardly is a crime in the United States,” Raskin said about Cheney’s secret collaboration with Hutchinson. “In any event, she’s completely protected by the Speech and (sic) Debate Clause, which protects all of us in our legislative capacities both in terms of our direct legislative action and in doing the investigative research that needs to be done in order to legislate and to act as legislators in a comprehensive way.”

Raskin said the same during a separate interview with CBS News. “They’ve been talking about going after Liz Cheney simply for doing her legislative work in a way that is completely covered by the Speech and (sic) Debate Clause. It is not a crime for someone to go out and find witnesses to a violent insurrection.”

Now, that is really rich coming from Raskin and potentially from Cheney. As members of the J6 committee, both were instrumental in stripping privilege sought by Trump and his inner circle including his attorneys, which resulted in the production of presidential records to the Trump-hating partisans on the committee and testimony by White House officials who are usually protected by executive privilege.

But Cheney also urged the Supreme Court to act quickly in denying Donald Trump’s claims of presidential immunity from prosecution after Special Counsel Jack Smith indicted Trump in August 2023 on four counts for his alleged role in “conspiring” to overturn the results of the 2020 election, representing the first time in history a former president faced a criminal federal indictment.

Despite the unprecedented nature of the question and troubling long term consequences for the country, Cheney acted as if the matter was a no brainer and accused anyone opposed as being, of course, a Kremlin stooge.

A few days before the court held oral arguments in Trump v US, the landmark immunity case, Cheney published an op-ed in the New York Times urging justices to move with haste. “If delay prevents this Trump case from being tried this year, the public may never hear critical and historic (sic) evidence developed before the grand jury, and our system may never hold the man most responsible for Jan. 6 to account,” Cheney wrote on April 22, 2024.

She further lamented how Trump tried to “delay” proceedings before her House committee by seeking privilege protections in court. “I know how Mr. Trump’s delay tactics work. Our committee had to spend months litigating his privilege claims…before we could gain access to White House records.” (This is untrue since Joe Biden repeatedly and quickly denied Trump’s privilege requests and Judge Tanya Chutkan, who later presided over Smith’s J6 indictment, also expedited the matter ultimately forcing the national archives to turn over presidential material that usually takes years to litigate.)

So, according to Cheney’s logic, any assertion of executive privilege—a legitimate legal argument with decades of recent case law behind it—represents a “delay tactic.” Should be fun to watch Cheney explain her hypocrisy once the privilege tables are turned.

Lawfare’s Karma Could Catch Up With Cheney

Further, the lawfare Cheney supported against Trump and his congressional allies could very well come back to bite her. A pair of recent court decisions have narrowed Speech or Debate Clause protections including those that appear tied to legislative functions.

The day after the Mar-a-Lago raid in August 2022, FBI agents seized the cell phone of Rep. Scott Perry, who was traveling with his family at the time. The FBI then sought court-approved access to thousands of records contained on his device as part of the DOJ’s investigation into Trump for Jan 6.

Perry invoked the Speech or Debate Clause in asking a D.C. judge to prevent the DOJ from obtaining roughly 2,000 messages and emails the Pennsylvania congressman said were related to official legislative business, namely, the certification of the 2020 election. But Beryl Howell, the former chief judge of the D.C. district court and unabashed Trump-hating partisan, denied almost all of Perry’s claims.

Judge Howell in January 2023:

Rep. Perry contends that he is entitled to withhold as privileged under the Clause 2,219 responsive records spanning his communications not only with fellow congressional Members and staff, but also with private individuals and officials with no formal role or function in the United States Congress, including officials with the Trump campaign, the White House, Office of the President, and the Pennsylvania State Legislature. He articulates a broad reach of the non-disclosure aspect of the Speech or Debate Clause privilege to block access in a criminal investigation to any communications he had with any person in any capacity when “he was engaged in information gathering that is ‘part of, in connection with, or in aide of a legitimate legislative act’ . . . even where it is an informal effort undertaken by an individual Member of Congress or their staff. This astonishing view of the scope of the legislative privilege would truly cloak Members of Congress with a powerful dual non-disclosure and immunity shield for virtually any of their activities that could be deemed information gathering about any matter which might engage legislative attention (emphasis added).

The D.C. appellate court in September 2023 largely upheld Howell’s order only making an exception to a handful of records pertaining to the votes planned for January 6, 2021. “Informal factfinding,” the three-judge panel including two Trump appointees concluded, “does not necessarily mean that such acts are privileged.” (Perry, by the way, was never charged.)

So, what “legislative” function did Cheney conduct when she used an encrypted app to talk to Hutchinson, who already had testified twice to the J6 committee before connecting with Cheney? Further, Hutchinson’s now provably false account of Trump’s behavior on January 6 had no role in developing legislation; in fact, the J6 committee’s final report contained only vague legislative recommendations that were never enacted by Congress. (Republicans took control of the House a few weeks after the committee issued its report.)

Cheney’s conduct also appears to fail the “investigative” test established in other court decisions. Hutchinson’s fictional tales about Trump physically confronting his security detail or throwing dishes at the wall or watching cable news as the chaos unfolded at the Capitol did not represent the fruits of an “investigation” or serve any investigative purpose.

Cheney may succeed where others failed since her immunity litigation will be handled by likeminded D.C. judges who won’t care about the appearance of hypocrisy. But watching Cheney—one of the most insufferable, self-aggrandizing, and thin-skinned politicians around—eat her own words will be a satisfying spectacle on its own.

Hot links within the article here for even more information.

When your option piece starts out calling Liz Chaney an alleged Republican, the piece loses creditability in the first sentence.

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
Will there ever be a cure for TDS?

What TDS?

What pending immunity?

It's all spin, flipping the narrative for those who believe in fiction.

This is how it's done.

She has more class in her toe nails than the whole Trump family!

I think what these spin artists don't get is that Trump doesn't want all the insurrection stuff litigated while he's in office.

ALL the MAGAdites want Cheney to get pre-emptive pardon so they can spin it like they want.

Garland's and Smith's last task, for the sake of the country, is to disclose the entire evidence of Smith's investigation to the public, which will corroborate the findings of the 1/6 committee.

I would not disclose the case against Trump publicly.

The case is dismissed wo prejudice. There are professional rules against making public statements concur prosecution. A dismissal wo prejudice makes prosecution possible.

They need to stay away from your suggestion. Statements or release of information could act to foreclosure prosecution or seat a jury.

Now, if they want to go back and dismiss w prejudice, talk all you want.

quote:

But watching Cheney—one of the most insufferable, self-aggrandizing, and thin-skinned politicians around

… I used to think Americans didn’t understand irony …. I was evidently correct about at least two of you …

She became another vindictive politician
There is nothing better about her

I suspect there will be a probe and I suspect wrong doing on Cheney’s behalf will be found and made public. Illegalities…don’t know???

I wouldn’t rule out a pardon before Biden leaves office.

PS: I hope he does pardon her and they put her under oath as well.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I would not disclose the case against Trump publicly.

The case is dismissed wo prejudice. There are professional rules against making public statements concur prosecution. A dismissal wo prejudice makes prosecution possible.

They need to stay away from your suggestion. Statements or release of information could act to foreclosure prosecution or seat a jury.

Now, if they want to go back and dismiss w prejudice, talk all you want.

I didn't think of that, but I'm not an attorney.

I figure they will never prosecute Trump.

===========================================

On second thought, what I meant to say is since Smith is required to submit a report to Garland, the report should be released to the public, redacted as deemed necessary for reasons including the preservation of the case dismissed w/o prejudice.

https://www.nycbar.org/reports...eral-criminal-cases/

Committee Reports
Publicizing the Special Counsel’s Report on President-Elect Trump’s Federal Criminal Cases

https://www.newsweek.com/jack-...trump-report-1991904

Jack Smith Plans to Release Report Before Donald Trump is Sworn In: CNN
Published Nov 26, 2024 at 12:00 PM EST
Updated Nov 26, 2024 at 12:35 PM EST

quote:

Originally posted by nute:

quote:

But watching Cheney—one of the most insufferable, self-aggrandizing, and thin-skinned politicians around

… I used to think Americans didn’t understand irony …. I was evidently correct about at least two of you …

You don’t listen!

How many times have told you to go easy on our Yanks friends!

Years and years of self brainwashing.

They have been telling themselves, and Hollywood keeps repeating!

They live in the BEST country the world has EVER KNOWN!

They have FREEDOMS others only DREAM ABOUT!

Of course, don’t go to YouTube and see a few facts about their intelligence!


1. “What language do they speak in European Union?”

American answer: European!

She's about the only decent person left in the GOP. No wonder she's unpopular among them--she didn't kiss Trump's ass.

She's a hero, as far as I'm concerned. I didn't agree with her father's war-mad policies, or hers either. But she's got courage and principles.

quote:

Originally posted by nute:

quote:

But watching Cheney—one of the most insufferable, self-aggrandizing, and thin-skinned politicians around

… I used to think Americans didn’t understand irony …. I was evidently correct about at least two of you …

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
She's about the only decent person left in the GOP. No wonder she's unpopular among them--she didn't kiss Trump's ass.

She's a hero, as far as I'm concerned. I didn't agree with her father's war-mad policies, or hers either. But she's got courage and principles.

Thanks, rolly... I needed a good laugh to start off the new year

I do not know why you would laugh at the truth.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I do not know why you would laugh at the truth.

that a self proclaimed liberal elitist would think Liz was of the few decent people in the GOP - like calling someone the best player on the other team when they score for the opposite team -

pretty dang funny, basically saying if rolly thinks she's awesome, that's dang funny

Chaney was one a the few GOP House members who did her job concerning Trump and Jan 6.

She voted w conservative 90 plus percent of the time.

You do not have to like Rolland, but what he says is true.

Why are they picking on Cheney?

I'm surprised they haven't done the same with Adam Kinzinger.

It's all about flipping the script and retribution.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Chaney was one a the few GOP House members who did her job concerning Trump and Jan 6.

She voted w conservative 90 plus percent of the time.

You do not have to like Rolland, but what he says is true.

she was one of all BOTH gop that nancy selected, rejecting GOP selected members, of the jan 6th committee - ever play soccer or basketball? of COURSE the otherside loves it when goals are scored on the wrong goal

a copperhead (or other venomous serpent) spends 99.x% of it's like not trying to bite me - doesn't change my opinion when they do -

but are you insinuating that every GOP that didn't "do their duty" is wrong? just trying to be clear here -

you are right, i don't like elitists, and when they "speak truth" (insert forked tongue reference), it has to be corrected for their lens --

of course, her voters rejected "her duty" when she was PRIMARIED (hahahhahaha) and when she endorsed quemala -- was traveling and endorsing harris "her duty" ?

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Why are they picking on Cheney?

I'm surprised they haven't done the same with Adam Kinzinger.

It's all about flipping the script and retribution.

you are giht, as the dems showed how to be welcoming and accepting of a person's choices with tulsi ...

maggie, there's little moral high ground in a swamp

Honestly, I don't understand your first sentence.

Regarding "moral high ground" --- wow.

quote:

there's little moral high ground in a swamp

That's just another false equivalence when you boil it down.

Need I further explain? I'm ready.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Chaney was one a the few GOP House members who did her job concerning Trump and Jan 6.

She voted w conservative 90 plus percent of the time.

You do not have to like Rolland, but what he says is true.

she was one of all BOTH gop that nancy selected, rejecting GOP selected members, of the jan 6th committee - ever play soccer or basketball? of COURSE the otherside loves it when goals are scored on the wrong goal

a copperhead (or other venomous serpent) spends 99.x% of it's like not trying to bite me - doesn't change my opinion when they do -

but are you insinuating that every GOP that didn't "do their duty" is wrong? just trying to be clear here -

you are right, i don't like elitists, and when they "speak truth" (insert forked tongue reference), it has to be corrected for their lens --

of course, her voters rejected "her duty" when she was PRIMARIED (hahahhahaha) and when she endorsed quemala -- was traveling and endorsing harris "her duty" ?

This discussion fits well within the OP premise if Belief in Fiction. Thanks Jeffee for the demonstration.

Here's what is not fiction. The GOPer nominees for the committee were all corrupt, especially GYM Jordon, and out to corrupt/spin the "investigation": which is why Pelosi chose the two who were not corrupt.

The way I know that for sure is by looking at all the effort after the fact those GOPers went to spin it and now seek retribution. They wanted to spin it from the inside and Pelosi thwarted that. With GOPers the boundaries of dishonesty are blurred.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
false equivalence

Maggie, do you hold on to that phrase like a talisman? i bet you think "apples and oranges" is a "false equivalence" --which actually means two things, largely alike, can be different .. you keep saying it, which from "the intelligencia" might be interesting ... from you? you seem to think it's a magic formula that erases the merit behind the statement .. perhaps you stop saying it so often? couldn't hurt, and doesn't make you seem so, well, dull

The thing that would be the best remedy is for you GOPers and GOPer lites to recognize when you make false equivalences and stive for distinctions.

Otherwise, I'm the self-appointed regulator of GOPer and GOPer lite's false equivalences.

It's my thing and I enjoy it, and hope it irritates you like an itchy rash.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
I'm the self-appointed regulator

did you get a badge in your cereal for that, tinman?

do you THINK someone "cares" about you "new year, new ME...ntal illness" ? poor little thing, but i guess you have found a hobby .. bless your heart

quote:

do you THINK someone "cares" about you

I'm satisfied on this forum if someone "cares" about what I say. I remind myself often that it ain't personal. You should do the same. I've said that before, but you didn't listen.

I think it's fair to say that you "care" about what I say, or you would just ignore me. Likewise reciprocally.

Hummm

I'm happy. Are you?

Bless you and wish you a happy new year.

And here is why folks give you the response you get at times.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
The thing that would be the best remedy is for you GOPers and GOPer lites to recognize when you make false equivalences and stive for distinctions.

Otherwise, I'm the self-appointed regulator of GOPer and GOPer lite's false equivalences.

It's my thing and I enjoy it, and hope it irritates you like an itchy rash.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
And here is why folks give you the response you get at times.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
The thing that would be the best remedy is for you GOPers and GOPer lites to recognize when you make false equivalences and stive for distinctions.

Otherwise, I'm the self-appointed regulator of GOPer and GOPer lite's false equivalences.

It's my thing and I enjoy it, and hope it irritates you like an itchy rash.

Anyone that wastes a rational response on the mangina.....is....just killing time....

She's an idiot, an old senile, estrogen treated idiot....

Your response is why you are a bitter and misogynistic fool.

Your response provides nothing but your sophomoric attack on someone’s masculinity.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Your response is why you are a bitter and misogynistic fool.

Your response provides nothing but your sophomoric attack on someone’s masculinity.

hmmm, despite all actions, Maggie purport to be a male , so this "misogynistic " is wildly inappropriate -- jim, maggie, and others, are old enough that being (not)misgendered was an insult

Just like you declare you did not vote for Trump, ME has the same good grace on what he says about himself.

Even if ME were a woman that would not excuse Jtex behavior.

get over yourself, man -- this is just bits on a screen.. you don't like it .. cool ... you like it? cool .. it's just bits

When JTex speaks no da Rs are advanced, no intelligent inferences from those facts, no actual argument is made.

He just projects his bitterness for those he defines as less then him upon those who disagree with him.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
When JTex speaks no da Rs are advanced, no intelligent inferences from those facts, no actual argument is made.

He just projects his bitterness for those he defines as less then him upon those who disagree with him.

I just belittle idiots with no da Rs.

I just like to make fun of little kids that know it all with no life experience..... And the inability to make a literate post

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...e6f409959b662e&ei=47

Cheney hits back at Trump: ‘You can’t change the truth’
Story by Sophia Vento • 1h • 2 min read

====================================

BTW, this is the best dignified way to deal with JTEX:

quote:

Ignored post by JTEX posted 04 January 2025 02:32

quote:

Ignored post by JTEX posted 04 January 2025 02:32

If you're going to ignore someone, then ignore him. Don't acknowledge him and show that you have read his post.

There's an individual I ignore here, and I scroll past his posts. He had no presence in my life; he is dead to me. When I retired from law, I promised myself to never again get involved with nasty, unpleasant people.

Did I acknowledge that I read his post?

You inferred that.

I acknowledge, specifically, that I ignored his post.

That means that I won't address or respond to him directly. He can't bait me. And I want him to know that.

Here's the point:

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience" Mark Twain.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that JTEX is stupid, but his beliefs in fiction have about the same effect, worse actually, just wasted.

The part about arguing with him is futile because his main ploy is actually to drag you down to his level.

Reciprocal name calling, reason, facts, etc. have no effect on him. He's not out to debate or discuss. He's out to purely make those who don't share his bitter and vulgar and sick worldview just wrong.

He's an example of the AHs in the world who are beyond reasoning with.

Be thankful that we can ignore them in real life and herein. I am.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Ignored post by JTEX posted 04 January 2025 02:32

If you're going to ignore someone, then ignore him. Don't acknowledge him and show that you have read his post.

There's an individual I ignore here, and I scroll past his posts. He had no presence in my life; he is dead to me. When I retired from law, I promised myself to never again get involved with nasty, unpleasant people.

awww, i am touched by your outpouring of love and tolerance, headless - i know, it must be unpleasant to lose EVERY discussion, so take your ball and go home ... ah, the tolerant, respectful left ... as measured by an elitist, and of course, the left's love and respect of the constitution, especially the 1st amendment --

though, yes, i can be unpleasant -- i don't suffer fools lightly --

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Did I acknowledge that I read his post?

You inferred that.

I acknowledge, specifically, that I ignored his post.

That means that I won't address or respond to him directly. He can't bait me. And I want him to know that.

so, which time was the lie, kabob? the time that you said you read the posts, then mark them ignore if the post was a personal attack, or that you didn't read his post before "ignoring" it?

hmmm, well, liar, which time?