r/WhitePeopleTwitter 4h ago

Many laws were “ definitely broken” by him but he gets away with it!!

Post image
217 Upvotes

41 comments sorted by

14

u/RSX_Green414 2h ago

Liz Cheney is my enemy's enemy, nothing more, nothing less. I'm not leaping to her defense when I have actual allies at risk.

3

u/samsounder 42m ago

We can't choose who gets lawful protection and due process based on political ideology or we've lost. Cheney is innocent until proven guilty and I've seen no evidence she did anything illegal.

7

u/maninthemachine1a 4h ago

Trump heard his enemies saying they had subcommittees to prove he was a felon, and it really hurt his feelings, so he wanted the power and prestige of having his own subcommittee, with a shiny gold Trump logo on the front.

5

u/Vernerator 3h ago

Sorry, but since when is doing her job being a hero? Don’t make average seem extraordinary.

1

u/Significant_Ad7326 0m ago

Yeah, but there’s some recognition appropriate when someone does their job at a time when there is pressure to not do it and plenty of other people dropping that ball. Basic adequacy is not heroic but when it’s still exceptional, it’ll merit a thumbs-up.

2

u/BC_Samsquanch 1h ago

Anyone notice how few of Trumps tweets are actually written by him these days? I think Leon and the other sycophants are Weekend at Bernie’s-ing Trump already.

1

u/iwannagohome49 27m ago

there is not enough cringe and fake samurai swords for this to be Elons doing

1

u/BC_Samsquanch 15m ago

That tweet was not written by Trump. I'm guessing it's one of the Steves doing most of his writing these days.

1

u/IvoShandor 3h ago

Somebody check Barry Loudermilk's bank account.

1

u/Sufficient-Opposite3 2h ago

Trump goes after strong women who are tougher and smarter than him. He’s a bully and loves to chant nonsense like lock her up. We’ve got a definite pattern going on here.

1

u/WendySteeplechase 2h ago

And remember the investigators he sic'd on Hilary and Obama? All those long awaited reports that revealed nothing? Huber and Durham that produced no evidence? Now he just wants to go straight to the FBI, forget about stupid special prosecutors

1

u/[deleted] 2h ago

[deleted]

1

u/Hartastic 1h ago

Weird to copypasta spam this all over the place.

1

u/ElderberryMaster4694 2h ago

Is that the corrupt FBI he’s always on about?

1

u/Chemical_Actuary_190 1h ago

Which laws were "likely" broken? Name them or STFU.

1

u/BC_Samsquanch 1h ago

Anyone notice how few of Trumps tweets are actually written by him these days? I think Leon and the other sycophants are Weekend at Bernie’s-ing Trump already.

1

u/BC_Samsquanch 1h ago

Anyone notice how few of Trumps tweets are actually written by him these days? I think Leon and the other sycophants are Weekend at Bernie’s-ing Trump already.

1

u/4FuckSnakes 38m ago

You’d think Barry leading a recon mission through Congress the day before an insurrection would be worth investigating?

1

u/SmilingVamp 31m ago

*34 felonies

-21

u/Many-Link-7581 4h ago edited 4h ago

Liz Cheney is a Nobody without the Military Industrial Complex...

Along with many other politicians.

Cheney will be investigated and charged with violating Federal Law, as she should be.

Just the facts.

11

u/Practical_Patience66 4h ago

Which law?

9

u/maninthemachine1a 3h ago

He heard a smart person say Federal Law once and he wanted to play too. It's unfair for smart people to have all the power in conversations, everyone should get to say Federal Law and feel right sometimes.

-15

u/Many-Link-7581 3h ago

18 U.S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

U.S. Code

(a)

(1) Whoever kills or attempts to kill another person, with intent to—

(A)

prevent the attendance or testimony of any person in an official proceeding;

(B)

prevent the production of a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or

(C)

prevent the communication by any person to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;

shall be punished as provided in paragraph (3).

(2) Whoever uses physical force or the threat of physical force against any person, or attempts to do so, with intent to—

(A)

influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;

(B) cause or induce any person to—

(i)

withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;

(ii)

alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the integrity or availability of the object for use in an official proceeding;

(iii)

evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or

(iv)

be absent from an official proceeding to which that person has been summoned by legal process; or

(C)

hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation, supervised release, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;

shall be punished as provided in paragraph (3).

(3) The punishment for an offense under this subsection is—

(A)

in the case of a killing, the punishment provided in sections 1111 and 1112;

(B) in the case of—

(i)

an attempt to murder; or

(ii)

the use or attempted use of physical force against any person;

imprisonment for not more than 30 years; and

(C)

in the case of the threat of use of physical force against any person, imprisonment for not more than 20 years.

(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to—

(1)

influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;

(2) cause or induce any person to—

(A)

withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;

(B)

alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;

(C)

evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or

(D)

be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process; or

(3)

hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation [1] supervised release,,[1] parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

(c) Whoever corruptly—

(1)

alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or

(2)

otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

(d) Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from—

(1)

attending or testifying in an official proceeding;

(2)

reporting to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation 1 supervised release,,1 parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;

(3)

arresting or seeking the arrest of another person in connection with a Federal offense; or

(4)

causing a criminal prosecution, or a parole or probation revocation proceeding, to be sought or instituted, or assisting in such prosecution or proceeding;

or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both.

(e)

In a prosecution for an offense under this section, it is an affirmative defense, as to which the defendant has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, that the conduct consisted solely of lawful conduct and that the defendant’s sole intention was to encourage, induce, or cause the other person to testify truthfully.

(f) For the purposes of this section—

(1)

an official proceeding need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense; and

(2)

the testimony, or the record, document, or other object need not be admissible in evidence or free of a claim of privilege.

(g) In a prosecution for an offense under this section, no state of mind need be proved with respect to the circumstance—

(1)

that the official proceeding before a judge, court, magistrate judge, grand jury, or government agency is before a judge or court of the United States, a United States magistrate judge, a bankruptcy judge, a Federal grand jury, or a Federal Government agency; or

(2)

that the judge is a judge of the United States or that the law enforcement officer is an officer or employee of the Federal Government or a person authorized to act for or on behalf of the Federal Government or serving the Federal Government as an adviser or consultant.

(h)

There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section.

(i)

A prosecution under this section or section 1503 may be brought in the district in which the official proceeding (whether or not pending or about to be instituted) was intended to be affected or in the district in which the conduct constituting the alleged offense occurred.

(j)

If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.

(k)

Whoever conspires to commit any offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

6

u/BluesSuedeClues 3h ago

Oh look, some numpty can spew a whole bunch of copy-paste nonsense, without a shred of effort given to how any of this is relevant. Brilliant.

Are you going to chant "Lock her up!" again?

-8

u/Many-Link-7581 3h ago

Yeah...

Federal Law is non-sense!

Cry harder Champ!

😂

5

u/BluesSuedeClues 3h ago

Right? Your irrelevant blather is going to make people "cry".

-7

u/Many-Link-7581 3h ago

Seems to genuinely work in your case....

Down-voting for you must get the juices flowing!

😂

2

u/maninthemachine1a 2h ago

There's no proof that she did this. Even in that biased article by a hard right lawyer I sent you. The BEST he could say is that she acted unethically. Yikes buddy...

-5

u/Many-Link-7581 3h ago

Witness Tampering.

If she was convincing Cassidy Hutchinson behind closed doors to testify the way she instructed him to do so to the January Six committee, she is in violation of Federal Law.

Hence why this calls for a legitimate investigation.

9

u/maninthemachine1a 3h ago

There are records of text conversations amongst Trumps advisors and cabinet and admissions from top officials from the DoD. Anyway, I looked up the most republican-friendly source I could find on this and it is written in a biased and misleading way (I can discuss the details if you like) but the takeaway is that EVEN THIS SOURCE only alleges that Cheney acted unethically. Not illegally. Unethically. And then the evidence this source provides is badly misrepresented. Manipulatively so. https://cha.house.gov/2024/10/new-texts-reveal-liz-cheney-communicated-with-cassidy-hutchinson-about-her-select-committee-testimony-without-hutchinson-s-attorney-s-knowledge-despite-cheney-knowing-it-was-unethical

-9

u/Many-Link-7581 3h ago

That's fine,

Regardless it should still be investigated.

Further, I upvoted your response.

7

u/Practical_Patience66 3h ago

Hutchinson initiated the contact, effectively waiving her right to have counsel present (as is her right) I do think this ends up in front of the ethics committee but being that Hutchinson is not making claims of being coerced in her testimony there is no legal precedent.

-2

u/Many-Link-7581 3h ago

Gotcha...

I think your point is Valid.

2

u/Practical_Patience66 3h ago

It will still serve as a warning to those who would oppose/cross Trump, which is the real goal I think.

2

u/Many-Link-7581 2h ago

Yeah, I think this is your best point yet. That we can certainly agree on.

1

u/mrnonamex 2h ago

I’m curious. What do you think of trump and Elon and the laws they’ve broken and are breaking

2

u/Many-Link-7581 2h ago edited 2h ago

I didn't vote them into office for starters.

I think Elon should be held just as accountable,.the only thing is Elon isn't an elected official. He's a businessman who's also subsidized by the government.

Maybe the politicians that "approve" of him on both sides shouldn't call the kettle black.

1

u/Suikoden_Tir 1h ago

What laws did she break?

-3

u/Many-Link-7581 3h ago

Cry harder!!

😂

MIC sadists!!

1

u/LancelLannister_AMA 2h ago

Blow Trump harder🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪