Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY), vice chair of the Jan. 6 Select Committee, on Sunday denied there is a dispute among members of the panel over whether to issue a criminal referral for former President Trump.
Earlier Sunday, the New York Times reported that leaders of the committee are divided over making a criminal referral of Trump to the Justice Department, despite the panel having concluded that it has enough evidence to proceed with the referral. Some members of the committee are reportedly concerned that such a referral could potentially politicize the Justice Department’s investigation into Jan. 6.
During an interview on CNN, Cheney said that the committee has not made a decision about referrals, but she thinks “that it is absolutely the case.”
“It’s absolutely clear that what President Trump was doing, what a number of people around him were doing, that they knew it was unlawful,” Cheney said. “They did it anyway.”
Asked about the Times’ report during an interview, Cheney rejected the notion of a dispute within the committee over a criminal referral of Trump.
“The committee is working in a really collaborative way to discuss these issues, as we are with all of the issues we’re addressing,” Cheney said. “And we will continue to work together to do so. So I wouldn’t characterize there as being a dispute on the committee.”
Cheney added that she views the panel, which is made up of seven Democrats and two Republicans, as “the single most collaborative committee” she has ever served on.
“I’m very proud of the bipartisan way in which we’re operating,” Cheney said. “And I’m confident that we will work to come to agreement on all of the issues that we’re facing.”
Last month, the committee alleged in a court filing that the former president and his allies “engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States.” Lawyers for the committee wrote that Trump and key allies engaged in criminal acts in trying to pressure former Vice President Pence to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
Committee members such as Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) have since urged the DOJ to take action against Trump’s Big Lie efforts — particularly, the former president’s infamous call with Georgia secretary of state Brad Raffensperger (R) to “find” nonexistent votes.
Late last month, it was reported that DOJ investigators looking into the events of Jan. 6 are expanding their scope beyond Capitol insurrectionists. Investigators are reportedly looking at the planning for the “Stop the Steal” rally that preceded the insurrection; figures in executive and legislative branches involved in any pre-insurrection rallies or who attempted to “obstruct, influence, impede or delay” Congress’ Jan. 6 certification of the election results; and an unsuccessful plot to push slates of fake electors by some Trump allies.
Watch Cheney’s remarks below:
Hey look, a new thread!
I watched the interview. She was crystal clear that Trump and his cronies knew what they were doing was criminal, that they went ahead and did it anyway. Her sharpest criticism was for Kevin McCarthy. She is a great spokesperson for the committee. She came across as very measured.
“It’s absolutely clear that what President Trump was doing, what a number of people around him were doing, that they knew it was unlawful,” Cheney said. “They did it anyway.”
Why is the NYT reporting on things this way? A discussion on what to do with the evidence the committee is collecting isn’t a dispute, that implies there is a fight on the committee to keep Trump out of legal trouble, which isn’t the case. They are discussing how the politics might affect the DoJ investigation, and trying to steer clear of anything that looks like influence, and have opinions on what that means. That’s it, no nefariousness, no interference to save Trump’s ass, it’s trying to figure out how to go forward once they produce their report.
The Times decision to report this as a full blown dispute is really questionable, and makes me wonder why they would take that editorial direction. Everyone just needs to stop trying to push the result they want and allow the evidence to speak to what happened, and then go forward based on that. The rest of this is just noise that distracts from what happened.
NYT wants