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

[struth]

Yes, because Hutchinson wasn’t forthcoming earlier.

That’s not illegal.

According to everyone else she was, it was only after Liz tampered with her testimony, that she lied.

 

[Marener]

According to everyone else she was, it was only after Liz tampered with her testimony, that she lied.

That doesn’t make any sense. How could “everyone else” say she was fully forthcoming? They don’t know what she does and doesn’t remember.

Where did Cheney tell her to lie?

 

[struth]

That doesn’t make any sense. How could “everyone else” say she was fully forthcoming? They don’t know what she does and doesn’t remember.

Where did Cheney tell her to lie?

Everyone else there said she was a liar. The only people that said her new testimony was forthcoming were the people now being investigated for tampering with her testimony.

Cassidy Hutchinson's Jan. 6 testimony comes under increased scrutiny

An incident she relayed about Trump in the presidential SUV is being disputed.

www.nbcnews.com

Trump's driver contradicts Cassidy Hutchinson about Jan. 6 SUV altercation, GOP report says

Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony about Trump's actions on Jan. 6 was contradicted, in part, by Trump's driver, a new report from a Republican-led House committee claims

abcnews.go.com

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/03/11/jan-6-committee-secret-service-testimony/

 

[White 6]

Did you read your own link? Testifying before Congress is an "official proceeding"

1730. Protection Of Government Processes -- "Official Proceeding" Requirement -- 18 U.S.C. 1512

This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function. Please contact webmaster@usdoj.gov if you have any questions about the archive site.

www.justice.gov

Not of an agency of the US Government. Good luck. Ought to be fun to watch.

 

[struth]

Not of an agency of the US Government. Good luck. Ought to be fun to watch.

It doesn't have to be....an offical proceeding, as defined, as shown in the link I provided is

B. a proceeding before the Congress;

1730. Protection Of Government Processes -- "Official Proceeding" Requirement -- 18 U.S.C. 1512

This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function. Please contact webmaster@usdoj.gov if you have any questions about the archive site.

www.justice.gov

 

[Marener]

Everyone else there said she was a liar. The only people that said her new testimony was forthcoming were the people now being investigated for tampering with her testimony.

That has nothing to do with the topic.

Unless you have evidence Cheney told her to lie. Of course you don’t have any evidence of that, which is why the accusation of witness tampering is baseless.

 

[struth]

That has nothing to do with the topic.

Unless you have evidence Cheney told her to lie. Of course you don’t have any evidence of that, which is why the accusation of witness tampering is baseless.

of course it does, her changed testimony was all lies. The topic is that changed testimony and how Liz tampered with the witness to get the lies.

 

[Marener]

of course it does, her changed testimony was all lies. The topic is that changed testimony and how Liz tampered with the witness to get the lies.

All evidence shows that Cheney only wanted her to tell the committee everything she knew.

That’s not witness tampering.

Where’s the evidence they Cheney told her to lie?

 

[struth]

All evidence shows that Cheney only wanted her to tell the committee everything she knew.

That’s not witness tampering.

Where’s the evidence they Cheney told her to lie?

All the evidence shows she tampered with the witness....if she wanted her to be forthright, she wouldn't of needed backchannelling to communicate with her.

 

[Marener]

All the evidence shows she tampered with the witness....if she wanted her to be forthright, she wouldn't of needed backchannelling to communicate with her.

No evidence shows witness tampering. That’s why I keep asking for evidence of intimidation, coercion, induction of false testimony, but you’re consistently said there is no such evidence.

To constitute witness tampering, you have to have one of these elements. Otherwise it’s just someone doing an investigation. A back channel is not illegal. Talking to Hutchinson without her corrupt Trump lawyer is not illegal. Offering suggestions for a new lawyer is not illegal.

 

[struth]

No evidence shows witness tampering. That’s why I keep asking for evidence of intimidation, coercion, induction of false testimony, but you’re consistently said there is no such evidence.

To constitute witness tampering, you have to have one of these elements. Otherwise it’s just someone doing an investigation. A back channel is not illegal. Talking to Hutchinson without her corrupt Trump lawyer is not illegal. Offering suggestions for a new lawyer is not illegal.

If there was no evidence, then the US Congress wouldn't be providing all of it to the US DOJ for criminal prosecution.

Duh.

You might not like the evidence, you might disregard it because it doesn't fit your narrative...like Liz didn't like the evidence, hence why she used backchannels to get a witness to change her testimony, and that "new" testimony was debunked by all the other witnesses.

It's no longer doing an investigation when you are using backchannels to get ta witness to change her testimony.

Don't worry, I am sure Liz will get her day in Court to maybe even raise your silly defense

 

[Marener]

If there was no evidence, then the US Congress wouldn't be providing all of it to the US DOJ for criminal prosecution.

Duh.

You might not like the evidence, you might disregard it because it doesn't fit your narrative...like Liz didn't like the evidence, hence why she used backchannels to get a witness to change her testimony, and that "new" testimony was debunked by all the other witnesses.

It's no longer doing an investigation when you are using backchannels to get ta witness to change her testimony.

Don't worry, I am sure Liz will get her day in Court to maybe even raise your silly defense

The Republicans in Congress are trying to make a headline and promote a narrative.

The intended audience isn’t the DoJ, but the MAGA rabble. The goal is to attack critics of Trump as a warning to those who would dare do so.

We can tell because their report does not actually provide any evidence or witness tampering and they don’t explain how that statute could possible apply to the behavior they describe.

Neither can you.

 

[Godboy]

I read the report. It doesn't have evidence of a crime.

 

[Marener]

If you’ve seen the evidence of a crime in the report, let’s see it.

Post the evidence.

 

[Godboy]

If you’ve seen the evidence of a crime in the report, let’s see it.

Post the evidence.

Its been posted many times and its all over the internet. Look it up yourself you lazy piece of shit.

 

[struth]

The Republicans in Congress are trying to make a headline and promote a narrative.

The intended audience isn’t the DoJ, but the MAGA rabble. The goal is to attack critics of Trump as a warning to those who would dare do so.

We can tell because their report does not actually provide any evidence or witness tampering and they don’t explain how that statute could possible apply to the behavior they describe.

Neither can you.

People should be warned, when you tamper with witnesses in official proceedings you will have consequences

 

[struth]

If you’ve seen the evidence of a crime in the report, let’s see it.

Post the evidence.

The report also took direct aim at former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, Cheney’s star witness at the nationally televised hearings, alleging that Cheney encouraged false testimony about a handwritten document and noting her sensational claim that former President Donald Trump tried to commandeer his presidential limousine that day to take it to the Capitol was directly refuted by the Secret Service.

Loudermilk’s report suggested Cheney also bore responsibility for Hutchinson's testimony.

“The Federal Bureau of Investigation must also investigate Representative Cheney for violating 18 U.S.C. 1622, which prohibits any person from procuring another person to commit perjury,” the report said. ”Based on the evidence obtained by this Subcommittee, Hutchinson committed perjury when she lied under oath to the Select Committee.”

 

[Godboy]

The report also took direct aim at former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, Cheney’s star witness at the nationally televised hearings, alleging that Cheney encouraged false testimony about a handwritten document and noting her sensational claim that former President Donald Trump tried to commandeer his presidential limousine that day to take it to the Capitol was directly refuted by the Secret Service.

Loudermilk’s report suggested Cheney also bore responsibility for Hutchinson's testimony.

“The Federal Bureau of Investigation must also investigate Representative Cheney for violating 18 U.S.C. 1622, which prohibits any person from procuring another person to commit perjury,” the report said. ”Based on the evidence obtained by this Subcommittee, Hutchinson committed perjury when she lied under oath to the Select Committee.”

He will ignore every word of that and employ some weak deflection. Thats why i didnt bother. Im not putting in anymore work for these dipshits who will simply ignore it anyway.

 

[Marener]

The report also took direct aim at former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, Cheney’s star witness at the nationally televised hearings, alleging that Cheney encouraged false testimony about a handwritten document and noting her sensational claim that former President Donald Trump tried to commandeer his presidential limousine that day to take it to the Capitol was directly refuted by the Secret Service.

Loudermilk’s report suggested Cheney also bore responsibility for Hutchinson's testimony.

“The Federal Bureau of Investigation must also investigate Representative Cheney for violating 18 U.S.C. 1622, which prohibits any person from procuring another person to commit perjury,” the report said. ”Based on the evidence obtained by this Subcommittee, Hutchinson committed perjury when she lied under oath to the Select Committee.”

There's no evidence in that text. Just accusation.

Post the evidence.

 

[struth]

There's no evidence in that text. Just accusation.

Post the evidence.

Correct, that is a summary of the investigation....here's the entire report with the boat loads of evidence that you will continue to ignore....don 't worry the DOJ won't ignore it after Jan 20th

https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2024-12/Final_Report_Compiled_Working_Doc__final_locked_version_.pdf