Amidst a swirl of controversy, the House Administration Oversight Subcommittee recommends that Liz Cheney face an FBI investigation over claims of witness tampering during the January 6 inquiry.
At a Glance
- House Republicans recommend an FBI probe into Liz Cheney for alleged witness tampering involving Cassidy Hutchinson.
- Cheney allegedly communicated secretly with Hutchinson without involving her legal counsel.
- There are implications of preemptive pardons and alleged collusion with the January 6 committee members.
- Cheney denies all allegations; her actions may not lead to legal consequences, depending on the Justice Department’s response.
Allegations Against Liz Cheney
The House Administration Oversight Subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Barry Loudermilk, has called for an FBI investigation into former Congresswoman Liz Cheney. The allegations center on Cheney supposedly tampering with witness Cassidy Hutchinson during the January 6 inquiry.
The report details concerns about Cheney’s use of encrypted communication app Signal to discuss matters with Hutchinson before her public testimony. This raises questions regarding confidentiality and possible breaches of trust integral to legislative procedures. The subcommittee contends these interactions happened without Hutchinson’s lawyer’s awareness, suggesting a possible violation of laws pertaining to influencing witnesses.
“Evidence uncovered by the Subcommittee revealed that former Congresswoman Liz Cheney tampered with at least one witness, Cassidy Hutchinson, by secretly communicating with Hutchinson without Hutchinson’s attorney’s knowledge,” stated Loudermilk in the report.
BREAKING NEWS!: Just minutes ago, a Congressional Committee recommended Liz Cheney be investigated for witness tampering. They have formally accused Cheney and says the FBI should criminally investigate her for witness tampering. See John Solomon's breaking news report seen first… https://t.co/umwfSCQ3hB
— David Brody (@DBrodyReports) December 17, 2024
Loudermilk’s Report and Committee Dynamics
Loudermilk’s report accuses Cheney of not only acting improperly with Hutchinson but also implies possible collaboration with other committee members. His report argues a breach of 18 U.S.C. 1512, which protects against tampering with witnesses, victims, and informants and 18 U.S.C. 1622, which prohibits any person from procuring another person to commit perjury. Loudermilk emphasizes the alleged impropriety, noting the potential violation of laws, and urges a criminal investigation by the FBI.
“Based on the evidence obtained by this Subcommittee, numerous federal laws were likely broken by Liz Cheney, the former Vice Chair of the January 6 Select Committee, and these violations should be investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation,” charges the report.
Despite Loudermilk’s findings, there remains uncertainty about how the Justice Department, soon to be led by Trump nominees, might approach these allegations. The weight of the subcommittee’s recommendation is subject to interpretation, as it does not automatically trigger an investigation.
Reactions and Broader Implications
Liz Cheney has vehemently denied the allegations, labeling them as fabrications. The potential for a preemptive pardon and the accusations of collusion, involving special counsel Jack Smith, add complexity to the situation.
The January 6 committee, to which Cheney was a key contributor, aimed to unravel the complexities behind the Capitol breach, ultimately recommending criminal prosecution for Trump. Loudermilk’s subcommittee, reviewing the committee’s findings, accuses the original group of procedural breaches, mishandling witness accounts and found discrepancies in stored data, witness management, and document handling. Loudermilk, in pushing for this FBI probe, underscores the need for transparent and accountable governance, all while asserting that such scrutiny is in keeping with constitutional guidelines.
As this story develops, the Republican push for transparency and accountability in governmental action underscores the potential significance of this inquiry. The subcommittee’s broader assertion that the Capitol riot could have been prevented highlights ongoing partisan tensions and differing historical perspectives.
