Liz Cheney Referred For Criminal Prosecution

[Dragonlady]

yes, yes they did. i provided links to show that

Secret Service denial of Hutchinson story fuels attacks from both sides

The Secret Service is doubling down on its denial of an alleged altercation between former President Trump and his security detail on Jan. 6 of last year, providing a rare defense of Trump’s …

thehill.com

Both Ornato and Engel, who remain active Secret Service agents, have said they are willing to testify under oath to dispute Hutchinson’s narrative, even as they have refused to speak publicly about it. The unnamed driver, the agency has signaled, is also denying her account.

Where is the sworn testimony? An article written by Politico reporters and based on interviews is not sworn testimony.

Neither of the people mentioned in the Politico article refuted Hutchison’s sworn testimony. They said they would refuted in sworn testimony, but they never did, and that’s the whole point.

They did a lot of trash, talking about Hutcherson, but nobody went before the committee, and swore she was lying. NO ONE.

 

[struth]

She told her story as she was told.

Good luck with trying to make her a sycophant again.

Yes, that's the problem....she told lies, as Liz told her to tell.

Hence why the criminal referral

 

[Marener]

you mean, besides all the testimony, and text messages? Showing the corrupt backchannelling and perjury?

Besides all that?

Uh, the text messages don't show anything illegal. A "backchannel" isn't illegal.

I keep asking for actual evidence of anything illegal and you keep refusing to provide it.

Because there is none.

 

[Dragonlady]

they did, they were willing to come back AFTER Liz's tampered with witness...to correct the record....Liz wouldn't allow them to.

That is a total lie. In fact, multiple members of the Secret Service testified to the committee after Hutchison testified, and none of them refuted her testimony.

 

[WEATHER53]

Everything he said in his testimony was I don’t recall or remember.

Butt kisser

No he did not
He said It did not happen
I don’t remember that happening is the same thing as that did not happen when I was around
Your word changes and pretzel twisting is hysterical crap

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

She repeated a lie foolishly and brazenly

No, she answered a question under oath truthfully.

I can see how such honest and ethical behavior would look pretty foreign, to a Trumper.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No he did not
He said It did not happen

Not under oath, he didn't.

Because he didn't want to perjure himself.

 

[WEATHER53]

That is a total lie. In fact, multiple members of the Secret Service testified to the committee after Hutchison testified, and none of them refuted her testimony.

Two others in the car. A slew of agents not in the car means zero

 

[struth]

Where is the sworn testimony? An article written by Politico reporters and based on interviews is not sworn testimony.

Neither of the people mentioned in the Politico article refuted Hutchison’s sworn testimony. They said they would refuted in sworn testimony, but they never did, and that’s the whole point.

They did a lot of trash, talking about Hutcherson, but nobody went before the committee, and swore she was lying. NO ONE.

what makes you think when they refuted what she said that they didn't refute her?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I don’t remember that happening is the same thing as that did not happen when I was around

In fantasyland

 

[otto105]

I literally copied it from his report....that is in his report.

Sure you did.

You can look at the partisan hack report here.

https://cha.house.gov/_cache/files/...73D3298D955C8E19F.initial-findings-report.pdf

 

[otto105]

Yes, that's the problem....she told lies, as Liz told her to tell.

Hence why the criminal referral

She told the story that was told to her.

So, you can sycophant that.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

She told the story that was told to her.

So, you can sycophant that.

It's not her fault Trump surrounds himself with liars and criminals.

 

[struth]

Not under oath, he didn't.

Because he didn't want to perjure himself.

no, because Liz wouldn't recall them after they publicly stated Cassidy was a liar.

 

[otto105]

No he did not
He said It did not happen
I don’t remember that happening is the same thing as that did not happen when I was around
Your word changes and pretzel twisting is hysterical crap

Hilarious

When asked under if Heil Shitler! reached for the wheel he stated that he didn’t recall that.

 

[struth]

She told the story that was told to her.

So, you can sycophant that.

correct, she lied because she repeated the story that Liz told her to.

 

[struth]

Sure you did.

You can look at the partisan hack report here.

https://cha.house.gov/_cache/files/...73D3298D955C8E19F.initial-findings-report.pdf

Yes, I literally did...your link, and mine were from a bipartisan subcommittee

 

[otto105]

correct, she lied because she repeated the story that Liz told her to.

She told the story the oranoto related to her.

He doesn’t recall the conversation and has been under oath.

 

[struth]

That is a total lie. In fact, multiple members of the Secret Service testified to the committee after Hutchison testified, and none of them refuted her testimony.

Actually you are right they did, but you are wrong....they did refute her

House GOP report details testimony that contradicted key Jan. 6 witness​

The testimony by a Secret Service agent that was previously unreleased contradicts that of Cassidy Hutchinson, a former White House aide

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

 

[WEATHER53]

She told the story that was told to her.

So, you can sycophant that.

So when you repeat a lie then that’s OK
Lib 101