FBI should probe 'potential' Liz Cheney 'witness tampering' in Jan 6 matter

[Marener]

Plenty of evidence for witness tampering and subornation of perjury

Yet no one has been able to describe this evidence or how it could be construed to constitute any crime.

 

[Marener]

Hahah why do you lie? I’ve repeatedly posted it

The corrupting influence of the cult has you good

Nope. You only post a link to the report, which is irrelevant since the report does not have evidence of a crime.

That’s why you only copy the conclusion into your posts. You never copy the evidence, because there is none.

 

[Rawley]

Yet no one has been able to describe this evidence or how it could be construed to constitute any crime.

We have, repeatedly. But you keep stamping your feet and chanting "no evidence."

 

[Marener]

We have, repeatedly. But you keep stamping your feet and chanting "no evidence."

Unfortunately, that’s just not true, but you are more than welcome to post the evidence in your next reply.

Cheney never threatened, harassed or did anything to corruptly influence Hutchinson. There’s no evidence she asked her to lie under oath.

But again, if you think I’m wrong you can always prove it by posting the evidence.

 

[Rawley]

Unfortunately, that’s just not true, but you are more than welcome to post the evidence in your next reply.

Already have. You ignored it

Cheney never threatened, harassed or did anything to corruptly influence Hutchinson. There’s no evidence she asked her to lie under oath.

But again, if you think I’m wrong you can always prove it by posting the evidence.

Already done.

 

[struth]

Nope. You only post a link to the report, which is irrelevant since the report does not have evidence of a crime.

That’s why you only copy the conclusion into your posts. You never copy the evidence, because there is none.

You don’t like the evidence. But it’s loaded with evidence, hence why they concluded she violated the law and referred her to prosecution

It’s weird you don’t think tampering with a witness to get them to commit perjury is a crime.

 

[Marener]

Already done.

I’d love proof of this, but it appears you are not going to provide it.

If you change your mind, I’m more than happy to discuss it.

Thank you.

 

[Marener]

You don’t like the evidence. But it’s loaded with evidence, hence why they concluded she violated the law and referred her to prosecution

It’s weird you don’t think tampering with a witness to get them to commit perjury is a crime.

There’s nothing to dislike. It simply doesn’t exist.

Tampering with a witness is very bad, something which Trump avoided prosecution for, unfortunately.

There simply is no evidence that Cheney committed this serious crime. The report does not describe any evidence. The communications between Cheney, Hutchinson and Farah do not constitute witness tampering because it does not include any harassment, intimidation, coercion or corrupt influence. Nor is there any evidence whatsoever that she asked her to lie.

 

[struth]

There’s nothing to dislike. It simply doesn’t exist.

Tampering with a witness is very bad, something which Trump avoided prosecution for, unfortunately.

There simply is no evidence that Cheney committed this serious crime. The report does not describe any evidence. The communications between Cheney, Hutchinson and Farah do not constitute witness tampering because it does not include any harassment, intimidation, coercion or corrupt influence. Nor is there any evidence whatsoever that she asked her to lie.

Oh no the report really exist! Haha wow

Now you are pretending it doesn’t exist?? Haha wow

 

[Marener]

Oh no the report really exist! Haha wow

Now you are pretending it doesn’t exist?? Haha wow

The “report exists” but the content of the report has no evidence of the crime the allege.

 

[struth]

The “report exists” but the content of the report has no evidence of the crime the allege.

You think it’s not illegal to create corrupt back door channels to get a witness to change her testimony and commit perjury? Wow

You are insane

Well, newsflash, it is

 

[Marener]

You think it’s not illegal to create corrupt back door channels to get a witness to change her testimony and commit perjury? Wow

You are insane

Well, newsflash, it is

Again, there is no evidence Cheney asked her to commit perjury.

As for the back channel, it’s not illegal. There’s no law preventing a member of congress from communicating with a witness.

 

[struth]

Again, there is no evidence Cheney asked her to commit perjury.

As for the back channel, it’s not illegal. There’s no law preventing a member of congress from communicating with a witness.

Other then she changed her testimony after speaking to her to perjury

 

[Marener]

Other then she changed her testimony after speaking to her to perjury

This could not be considered evidence that Cheney asked her to lie.

 

[struth]

This could not be considered evidence that Cheney asked her to lie.

Sure it is.

She wasn’t lying at the prior testimony before Cheney got a hold of her

 

[Marener]

Sure it is.

She wasn’t lying at the prior testimony before Cheney got a hold of her

Not at all. You need actual evidence. You’re making an assumption. Assumptions are not evidence.

 

[struth]

Not at all. You need actual evidence. You’re making an assumption. Assumptions are not evidence.

Of course it is, if someone is sober when they want in a bar and drunk when they walk out it’s actual evidnce they drank in the bar

Liz will have the opportunity to prove her corrupt back door channels and communications were in fact lawful

 

[Marener]

Of course it is, if someone is sober when they want in a bar and drunk when they walk out it’s actual evidnce they drank in the bar

Liz will have the opportunity to prove her corrupt back door channels and communications were in fact lawful

That’s very illogical. You make it sound as though Hutchinson isn’t capable of making her own decisions.

If you want to claim that someone told someone to do something, you need evidence that they told them to do it.

 

[struth]

That’s very illogical. You make it sound as though Hutchinson isn’t capable of making her own decisions.

If you want to claim that someone told someone to do something, you need evidence that they told them to do it.

Of course she is, she decided to commit perjury and go along with the corrupt back channel deals to undermine the official proceedings

It’s weird you think it’s illogical that person in my hypo drank in the bar

 

[Marener]

Of course she is, she decided to commit perjury and go along with the corrupt back channel deals to undermine the official proceedings

It’s weird you think it’s illogical that person in my hypo drank in the bar

Your hypothetical is not relevant to the discussion because it does not accurately reflect the situation we are discussing.

If Hutchinson is capable of deciding what she will testify to, then there is no evidence that Cheney told her to do so.