Ethics: Liz Cheney Communicated With Cassidy Hutchinson About J6 Testimony

Ethics: Liz Cheney Communicated With Cassidy Hutchinson About J6 Testimony

Ethics: Liz Cheney Communicated With Cassidy Hutchinson About J6 Testimony

Ethics? What ethics? It seems Liz Cheney has none. It turns out Liz was communicating with Cassidy Hutchinson regarding her J6 testimony, WITHOUT Hutchinson’s attorney’s knowledge.

Oh there’s more. But first, lets get this out of the way. Liz Cheney is an attorney licensed to practice law in Washington D.C. She absolutely knows that communicating with a witness is a big huge ethical NO NO. Evidently her hatred of President Trump caused her to toss her ethics into the trash. 

However, it appears that Cheney knew communicating with Hutchinson while Hutchinson was represented by an attorney and a subject of the Select Committee’s investigation, without going through Hutchinson’s attorney, would be unethical. This is evident by Farah Griffin’s text to Hutchinson that Cheney’s “one concern was so long as [sic] you have counsel, she can’t really ethically talk to you without him.”?

Remember, Liz will go to her grave insisting that the events of January 6 meant that there was no peaceful transfer of power. 

Former President Donald Trump “sat and watched for over three hours while our Capitol was brutally attacked by a mob that he sent there while police officers were brutally beaten. And Donald Trump refused to tell them to go home for over three hours,” Cheney (R-Wyo.) told NBC’s “Meet the Press” host Kristen Welker. “So anybody who is interested in the truth ought to go look at those videos. We did not have a peaceful transfer of power in 2021.”

I find it fascinating that she’s completely willing to overlook the two and potentially THREE attempts on President Trump’s life and is ignoring all the riots in 2017 prior to, during, and after President Trump’s inauguration. Those WEREN’T peaceful by any stretch of the imagination. 

Yet here’s LIZ! Throwing ethics out the window to help Cassidy Hutchinson give the testimony with all the talking points they desire. As a member of the Select Committee, Liz nor anyone else in that group was supposed to have any, and I mean ANY outside contact with witnesses. Hutchinson’s attorney was left totally in the dark at the time. 

“I absolutely had no knowledge at the time that Congresswoman Liz Cheney was communicating with my client behind my back – either directly, through her staff, or through cutouts,” Passantino told Just the News. “I filed suit against Congress over a year ago on these matters and had absolute confidence in my claims at the time I filed them.

“I am frankly shocked that the smoking gun documents still exist and have come to light. I am currently examining what additional remedies may be available to me in light of Chairman Loudermilk’s remarkable investigative work,” he added.

So Passantino was left in the dark about this? Wow. I’m sure now that he knows of this, it explains how he was kicked to the curb suddenly by Hutchinson. Yes, she finished out her appearances before the committee with a totally different attorney! 

Keep in mind, Liz was breaking all ethics by having these conversations with a witness and doing so without the knowledge of the attorney who was representing that witness. In my opinion, that’s at the very least grounds for censure if not the start of disbarment proceedings. 

Yes, the DOJ should be taking a very hard look at Liz right now, but I doubt they will because you know… Trump. 

In Liz’s book she claims she was sympathetic to Hutchinson’s situation but couldn’t, as a member of the Select Committee, advise her on anything. Meanwhile, Hutchinson in HER book claims that Liz provided her with legal contacts at several firms in the DC area. Interesting isn’t it? 

And then we find out that they tried to have Stefan Passantino disbarred.

After Hutchinson switched attorneys at Cheney’s direction, the Select Committee needed to ensure Hutchinson’s credibility as a witness and explain away her changed testimony. To do this, the Select Committee needed to create a new narrative that would make Passantino the scapegoat. They manufactured the story that Passantino gave Hutchinson faulty advice — such as instructing Hutchinson to withhold information, to misrepresent her testimony, and even that Passantino implied he would help Hutchinson with employment in return for favorable testimony. Contrary to the Select Committee’s and Hutchinson’s narrative, however, the Subcommittee obtained messages between Farah Griffin and Hutchinson where Hutchinson admits that Passantino was acting in her best interest and that she agreed with his counsel.

Liz was so happy with the results of Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony, that she’s stayed friends with her and they were on the campaign trail together this week for Kamala. 

Remember, one of the key claims Cassidy made was that President Trump tried to take control of the presidential vehicle on January 6. Which was refuted by not only the driver but the agents in the vehicle. And the J6 committee ignored that and claimed in their report that Cassidy’s testimony was true. 

Liz wants to lecture us on ethics, Trump, and the Constitution. 

Tell me Liz, whose the liar now? 

Feature Photo Credit:

Written by

1 Comment
  • Scott says:

    Yeah, this lying partisan hack needs to be disbarred. They’ve got the receipts, there is NO doubt of what she did. Should be a slam dunk case.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead