Adam Kinzinger, Adam Schiff, Alan Dershowitz, Eric Swalwell, executive privilege, George Washington, January 6 Committee, Jim Jordan, Joseph Schmitz, Liz Cheney, Mark Meadows, Miranda Devine, Nancy Pelosi, Sean Davis, Steve Bannon, Steve Schmidt, The Federalist
As I’ve previously noted, some 70% of Wyomingites strongly disapprove of Liz Cheney. To find every SMM writing, enter “Liz Cheney” in the SMM homepage search bar. A pseudo Republican, Cheney was not appointed to the January 6 Committee by the House Republican leadership, but by Nancy Pelosi after she refused to seat Republican choices. Cheney, however, is much appreciated by some, as Breitbart.com reports:
Lincoln Project founder Steve Schmidt said Wednesday on MSNBC’s ‘Deadline’ that Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) would lead a ‘clinic in patriotism’ in the coming months during her role as the vice-chair of the House select committee investigating the January 6 riot at the Capitol.
Anchor Nicolle Wallace said, ‘I think Liz Cheney will reveal not just everyone that was involved in the conspiracy to overthrow the counting of the electoral votes for Joe Biden, she will reveal the cowardice of men like Mitch McConnell, who if he wasn’t a coward would be saying and doing all the same things Liz Cheney was. What separates Liz Cheney and Mitch McConnell isn’t their worldview. It isn’t even a view of Donald Trump or a certainty Donald Trump incited the insurrection. It is fear.’
A “clinic in patriotism,” eh? But that’s not all:
Schmidt added, ‘I think in the months ahead, we’re going to see this clinic in patriotism and principle, by Liz Cheney, but also by Jamie Raskin, Chairman Thompson, and the others. This committee, as it’s functioning in its early days, is going to get to the bottom and lay this out for the American people. Liz Cheney is just someone who cannot be bought off, obviously cannot be dissuaded from her mission. I agree with her 110% when she defines this as the moral issue of our time. This goes to the heart of the American Republic being able to survive as a democracy past its 250th birthday, which is just a short five years away.’
Well. A “clinic in patriotism and principle”! Considering Cheney is single-handedly upholding the Constitution, I guess that sort of thing is to be expected. Cheney and her committee are so patriotic and principled, they’re countering their very own equally patriotic and principled FBI, which has proclaimed there was no insurrection, and so patriotic and principled are they, they’re falsifying documents:
The United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack admitted Wednesday that it had doctored a text message cited by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) in his push Monday to hold former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows in contempt.
The Federalist’s Sean Davis first reported Wednesday morning that Schiff had manipulated the text message, cutting out the full context and adding punctuation into it, which he falsely implied was authored by a Republican lawmaker.
As Breitbart News summarized:
One message, which Schiff attributed to a Republican lawmaker, was doctored to read: ‘On January 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, should call out all electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all.’
But the original message came from former Department of Defense Inspector General Joseph Schmitz, who had drafted and summarized legal arguments that Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) forwarded to Meadows. And Schiff left out the full exchange, which read (emphasis added):
On January 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, should call out all the electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all — in accordance with guidance from founding father Alexander Hamilton and judicial precedence.
‘No legislative act,’ wrote Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78, ‘contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.’ The court in Hubbard v. Lowe reinforced this truth: ‘That an unconstitutional statute is not a law at all is a proposition no longer open to discussion.’ 226 F. 135, 137 (SDNY 1915), appeal dismissed, 242 U.S. 654 (1916).
Following this rationale, an unconstitutionally appointed elector, like an unconstitutionally enacted statute, is no elector at all.
Schiff omitted the portions in bold, above, which referred to a legal basis for rejecting electors. As Davis reported:
In his statement and on-screen graphic, Schiff erased the final two paragraphs and the final clause of the first paragraph of the text message before inserting punctuation that was never there, all without disclosing what he was doing. The graphic displayed by Schiff, which was doctored to look like an exact screenshot, was similarly doctored, as it contained content that was never in the original message and eliminated content that was.
Schmitz’s legal brief was a complete and well-documented argument of the legal issues and precedent, which included commentary from the Founders.
In a statement provided to The Federalist via email, a Democrat spokesman for the Jan. 6 committee confessed that the committee doctored the text message.
‘The Select Committee on Monday created and provided Representative Schiff a graphic to use during the business meeting quoting from a text message from ‘a lawmaker’ to Mr. Meadows,’ the spokesman wrote. ‘The graphic read, ‘On January 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, should call out all electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all.’
‘In the graphic, the period at the end of that sentence was added inadvertently,’ the spokesman admitted. ‘The Select Committee is responsible for and regrets the error.’
Adam Schiff is a serial liar, who, for years, claimed in public he had seen evidence proving Donald Trump’s collusion with Russia. In private, and under oath, he admitted there was no such evidence, just as the Mueller Report stated. One lies not only by commission, by asserting things that aren’t true, but by concealing or omitting relevant things. It was an issue I constantly reiterated to my students. When quoting others, one must not only properly attribute the source, but must not alter the quote to change its meaning. One may leave out some portion of a passage for the sake of brevity, but must then use ellipsis–…–to indicate to the reader something has been omitted. But even then, ellipsis must not be misused.
Fraudulent quote: “…the proposed bill is constitutional.”
Actual quote: “No one in their right mind could believe the proposed bill is constitutional.”
This is a much more grievous matter than an inadvertent period. As we have seen in the Trayvon Martin trial, the Rittenhouse Trial, and many others, when prosecutors don’t have a case they resort to exaggerations, misstatements of the law, concealment of evidence and outright lying. That’s obviously what is happening in this case. What’s that you say? This isn’t a criminal trial?
Oh, but it is. Schiff and the Committee—let us not forget Liz Cheney is the number 2 on that committee—have held Steve Bannon in criminal contempt of Congress and have done the same thing with Mark Meadows. There is no doubt the utterly corrupt AG Merrick Garland will indict Meadows. Two Americans, who have done nothing more than advise a political enemy of D/S/Cs, including Cheney, are facing years in prison. We are also in danger of seeing the precedent set that the Congress may seize and make public any and all private papers of American citizens for any reason they please.
Democrats should have waited until a court could rule on former President Donald Trump’s executive privilege argument before it voted to hold former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows in contempt of Congress, according to legal expert Alan Dershowitz.
‘In the absence of a definitive judicial decision to the contrary, former chief of staff Mark Meadows would seem to be required to accept former President Trump’s claim of executive privilege,’ Dershowitz wrote. ‘Were he now to divulge communications that the courts ultimately held were privileged, the damage would be irremediable.’
‘The cat could not be returned to the constitutional bag. On the other hand, if he does not now disclose, and the courts ruled that he must, the only harm would be some delay. The balance of harms clearly favors non-disclosure at this time.’
The House voted Tuesday, almost exclusively on party lines, to hold Meadows in contempt of Congress for refusing to cooperate with the committee investigating Jan. 6, subpoenaing him to sit for a deposition and provide documents from his time in the White House.
Meadows argued the some documents are covered by former President Donald Trump’s executive privilege and therefore cannot be released. He is currently suing the panel over this issue.
‘That is precisely why it is so outrageous for the committee now to be seeking the criminal indictment of Meadows for refusing to disclose material that may well be constitutionally privileged,’ Dershowitz added. ‘They should seek to have the courts rule first on the constitutional issue, and if Meadows then refuses to comply with a judicial order, they can seek criminal penalties.’
‘This chronology is especially required because Meadows has said that he would comply with court orders.’
Of course, this isn’t about the law, the Constitution or Executive Privilege, a doctrine established by George Washington. This is about harming political enemies and ensuring D/S/Cs can never be voted out of office.
‘The Justice Department should therefore refuse any congressional demand to indict Meadows,’ he wrote. ‘If the Justice Department improperly secures an indictment from a grand jury — which they can easily do because, as one judge put it, grand juries would ‘indict a ham sandwich’ if asked to do so — the courts should immediately dismiss it and demand that the Justice Department first get a judicial ruling on the constitutional issue.’
Executive Privilege is important. Every President must be able to rely on the honest and complete advice of his advisors. If they have to worry that everything they say can be revealed for the gain of their political enemies, no president can trust he is getting the best possible advice. The implications for domestic and foreign policy, and national security are obvious.
The invaluable Miranda Devine of The New York Post, the oldest Newspaper in America, established by Alexander Hamilton, is also less than impressed with Cheney:
It must be nice to be Liz Cheney these days. There she is sitting on the Jan. 6 committee with her fellow GOP turncoat, Adam “Crybaby” Kinzinger, surrounded by new Democrat friends who flatter her and pay her great respect.
The New York Times just delivered a glowing profile of the Trump-hating Wyoming congresswoman, claiming she has ‘emerged as a leader and central figure,’ is ‘known for drilling down into the details of the assignment’ and is ‘well-versed in the criminal code.’
Eric Swalwell quoted Cheney reverentially on CNN this week, too. Nancy Pelosi butters her up with saccharine praise for her ‘courage’ and ‘patriotism.’
It’s fair to say that Pelosi has deputized Cheney to be the face of the select committee, which ostensibly is investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. Adam “Steele Dossier” Schiff played a supporting role this week as Cheney read aloud text messages of former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows as a prelude to charging him with contempt of Congress.
Don’t buy the myth that the committee is bipartisan just because it has two Republicans on board. Cheney and Kinzinger were handpicked to be useful idiots by the spitefully partisan, House Speaker. The committee was illegitimate the minute Pelosi rejected Republicans Jim Jordan and Jim Banks, who would at least have asked why the Capitol was left unprotected on Jan. 6. Every Republican has rightly condemned the violence in the Capitol, which was appalling.
Final Thoughts: The lies of the Jan. 6 Committee are disgusting, but not surprising. The public has as much confidence in Congress as they have Anthony Fauci. What kind of Republican, what kind of Normal American, would want the praise of The New York Times, Nancy Pelosi, or the traitorous Eric Swallwell? What honest politician—I know: oxymoron—would associate themselves with a committee that lies on this scale?