In Liz Cheney’s world, she’s the only one whose opinion matters – to the point where any competing points of view are not only discounted, but purposely suppressed and ignored. This is why all her preening over her self-described work to “protect the Constitution” is landing with a loud thud in Wyoming. Our voters are smart enough to see what she’s up to, and protecting the Constitution isn’t it.
Cheney is one of two hand-picked Republicans serving on the January 6th Committee, having been placed there by Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi herself. The Republicans who should have been on the panel, selected by Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy, were rejected by Pelosi in favor of her useful tools, Cheney and Rep. Adam Kinzinger, who is about to be a former member of Congress from Illinois.
Because of this, the January 6th Committee was illegitimate from its inception, since the minority party (Republican) should have representation but does not. The formation of the committee was against the very rules of the House of Representatives itself.
And for a leader of such a committee to proclaim herself a defender of the Constitution as Cheney has, she sure has a strange way of going about it.
In the proceedings to this point, we have seen snippets of videotaped testimony from a variety of witnesses, some of whom testified for many hours or even days. When someone has testified for eight or nine hours, or even more, and the nation is shown only a 30-second sound bite from the lengthy interview, it begs the question: What are they not showing us?
Take note that the only witnesses called, and the only “evidence” shown, support only one version of the events of January 6th. The committee does not present testimony that challenges the pre-conceived conclusion of the members, there is no member of the committee who holds a contrary opinion, and there is no cross-examination of witnesses permitted. No one involved in the process serves to make the case for the de facto defendant, former President Donald Trump.
The opening statements of the committee members always tell the audience what they are about to hear, much like a prosecutor would, which is a clear giveaway that the narrative of January 6th has already been written. This is not a fact-finding mission or search for the truth; it is a story that has already been crafted and is being rolled out on television, produced by the former president of ABC News.
In one hearing, Democrat Adam Schiff actually produced altered text messages involving a member of Congress and the White House chief of staff, and Cheney sat silently while the fraudulent evidence was presented.
No court in this country would permit such a one-sided show trial, one so obviously unconstitutional in its disregard for due process. Stalin would be proud of this circus.
Additionally, Cheney has repeatedly stated that her main goal for the committee is to make sure Trump “never gets near the Oval Office again.” Someone should break it to her that it’s not her job to make that decision – to tell tens of millions of Americans who they can and cannot vote for in an election. It’s also not Congress’ role to play the prosecutor, judge, and jury. What they are doing is a violation of the separation of powers and it makes a mockery of the Constitution, the very document Cheney claims to be defending.
In fact, stepping on Constitutional rights has become a habit for Cheney, since she recently voted with Democrats for the Joe Biden-backed gun control bill, which infringes on the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. Red flag laws, for example, which were contained in the bill Cheney supported, can be easily abused to deny lawful gun rights to people, including men and women who serve courageously in our military.
I have been a constitutional attorney for over 30 years, fighting the overreach of the federal government and standing up for water, land, and property rights. I have fought to protect Wyoming, taking on and winning legal battles with the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Defending the constitutional rights of individuals is what I do, and when I look at Liz Cheney, I don’t see someone engaged in that same pursuit.
I took my constitutional law class on my way to a law degree from the University of Wyoming. I don’t know what they taught in Liz Cheney’s law classes in Chicago, but we obviously weren’t studying the same founding documents that we revere here in our great state.
All Americans should agree that defending the Constitution is essential. However, when Liz Cheney claims that’s what she’s doing, it just isn’t so.
Harriet Hageman is a Wyoming native, a constitutional attorney, a former Republican National Committeewoman from Wyoming, and a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives in Wyoming.