Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Dick Cheney’

Inside Liz Cheney’s Coordinated Effort to Prevent Troop Deployment Before Jan. 6



Liz Cheney on Fox News

Author Tristan Justice profile




Days before the Capitol riot provoked a years-long effort to impeach, prosecute, and politically malign former President Donald Trump, Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney coordinated efforts to deter the very actions she now claims haunt the former president.

Cheney has blamed Trump for not ordering the National Guard to defend the Capitol complex, even though multiple sources confirm that he authorized their deployment days prior to the Jan. 6 rally at the White House and riot at the Capitol. Security officials in charge of the Capitol declined to call up troops to protect it, government records show. Yet Cheney herself seems to have orchestrated opposition to use of the military to quell election-related unrest, allegedly organizing a Washington Post op-ed on Jan. 3, 2021, signed by every living former defense secretary.

“All 10 living former defense secretaries: Involving the military in election disputes would cross into dangerous territory,” the headline read. It went on to threaten any military official who thought any use of the military might be a good idea. “Civilian and military officials who direct or carry out such measures would be accountable, including potentially facing criminal penalties, for the grave consequences of their actions on our republic,” the op-ed warned.

The op-ed was allegedly organized by Cheney, whose father was secretary of defense under President George H.W. Bush before serving as President George W. Bush’s vice president. Eric Edelman, a national security adviser to Dick Cheney, told the New Yorker the Wyoming lawmaker “was the one who generated” the piece for the Post.

Now Rep. Cheney has adopted Trump’s supposed inaction on the National Guard as a primary line of attack. On “Fox News Sunday,” Cheney again depicted Trump as an apathetic leader who dismissed pleas to deploy the National Guard while the Capitol was under siege.

“There are several witnesses who say they met with President Trump on January 4th,” said Bret Baier, “and he offered some 20,000 National Guardsmen to protect the Capitol building on January 6th but the offer was rejected. Is that true?”

“His own acting secretary of defense says that’s not true,” Cheney said, highlighting committee testimony from former Acting Secretary Christopher Miller who told the panel Trump made no order to deploy the National Guard. “So, the notion that somehow he issued an order is not consistent with the facts.”

Except the president did issue authorization for D.C. leaders to call up the National Guard for pre-emptive reinforcements days before the Capitol riot. While Mayor Muriel Bowser took limited advantage of the extra troops, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s sergeant at arms rejected or stonewalled the offer six timesaccording to former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund. Pelosi’s office was reportedly concerned the guard’s deployment was bad “optics” after having spent the prior summer decrying the use of federal law enforcement to put down left-wing insurrections.

When Trump sent reinforcements to secure federal buildings under attack in Portland, Pelosi condemned the extra law enforcement as “stormtroopers.” After days of sustained riots wreaked havoc across Washington D.C., Pelosi called the sight of uniformed troops protecting the Lincoln Memorial “stunning” and “scary.”

The campaign to fight any use of troops to restore order during the left’s widespread and coordinated summer of rage was so effective that Gen. Mark Milley issued an abject apology for merely appearing in uniform at a site that had been ravaged by leftist arsonists.

“My presence in that moment, and in that environment, created a perception of the military involved in domestic politics,” Milley said about appearing in front of a historic church across the street from the White House. The night before, left-wing arsonists had targeted the church as part of a riot that besieged the White House and led to the injuring of dozens of Park Police and Secret Service officers.

Bowser’s use of guard troops on Jan. 6 extended to unarmed troops restricted to traffic control and removed from protests.

“[N]o DCNG personnel shall be armed during this mission, and at no time, will DCNG personnel or assets be engaged in domestic surveillance, searches, or seizures of [U.S.] persons,” she directed to law enforcement.

Although Cheney and her colleagues with the Select Committee have sought to indict Trump as responsible for a slow response from the National Guard on Jan. 6, the panel’s own findings have undermined the probe’s point. In December, the committee released a trove of private communications from former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, who pledged the National Guard would be ready to maintain order.

“Mr. Meadows sent an email to an individual about the events on January 6 and said that the National Guard would be present to ‘protect pro Trump people’ and that many more would be available on standby,” the committee wrote, as if revealing some grand scandal to help their case.

In June, Miller and former Chief of Staff of the Department of Defense Kash Patel went on Sean Hannity’s program to dispel committee accusations that the president was indifferent to the National Guard.

“Mr. Trump unequivocally authorized up to 20,000 National Guardsmen and women for us to utilize,” Patel said.

Miller, whom Cheney cited as evidence of Trump’s negligence, corroborated Patel’s testimony on air.

“To be clear,” Miller said, “the president was doing exactly what I expect the commander in chief to do, any commander in chief to do. He was looking at the broad threats against the United States and he brought this up on his own. We did not bring it up.”

Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at

Disgrace: Clearly the FBI Intended to Let Hillary Get Away With Breaking National Security Laws

waving flagBy Warner Todd Huston September 9, 2016

Disgracing himself at the end of a long career of public service, it now seems fairly evident that F.B.I. Director James Comey had a political agenda, not one of serving justice, with his investigation into Hillary Clinton’s illegal use of a private email server. It is nearly impossible not to conclude that from the beginning Comey fully intending to let Hillary off the hook for what would be considered crimes if committed by someone — anyone — else.

Even the chain of events seems to show Comey had no intention of recommending Hillary be prosecuted. Take the timing of her F.B.I. interview, for instance.

  • Clinton was finally interviewed at the very end of the investigation, instead of the beginning like the F.B.I. does in literally every other case. This timing means that Hillary’s words were never in a position to be used against her. This is a complete breach of procedure as the agency normally tries to get a suspect on record early so they can use that testimony against them at a later date, not to mention to use it to try and wring out any details that may lead agents to more evidence.
  • Next, the interview came a scant 72 hours before the final report was delivered to the Obama administration which pretty much proves that Comey’s conclusions were already set in stone before Hillary said a single word to them. In other words, her appearance was a sham interview that never had any bearing on the case.
  • Then, to top it all off, Comey had his tarnished agency release the transcripts of the interview late on a Friday night before a long, three-day holiday weekend in hopes that it would all be forgotten by the time the media returned to its job of reporting the news the following Tuesday.
  • hillary-and-fbi-comeyWorse, in his announcement of why he wasn’t going to recommend that Hillary be prosecuted, Comey rambled on and on about how he determined that Clinton had no “intent” to break the nation’s secrecy laws by setting up her own, unsecure email server hidden in her own New York home when she was Obama’s Secretary of State. Yet, the released transcript shows that agents never once asked her about her “intent.”
  • Then the F.B.I.’s top man admitted that even though he judged Clinton on this mythic “intent” criteria, he would never let anyone else get away with such a defense insisting he would prosecute everyone else in any similar situation to the fullest extent of the law.

Hillary was even called on her get-out-of-jail-free fortune. At this week’s “Commander-In-Chief Forum” broadcast on MSNBC on September 7. During the forum a Navy Vet said, “Had I communicated this information not following prescribed protocols, I would have been prosecuted and imprisoned. Secretary Clinton, how can you expect those such as myself who were and are trusted with America’s most sensitive information to have any confidence in your leadership as president when you clearly corrupted our national security?”

That is quite an indictment. And in fact, since Hillary was let off Scot free by the F.B.I. a member of the military was convicted of breaching America’s national security laws despite trying to proffer a “Hillary defense” to stave off a prison sentence.

At the beginning of September a Navy Petty Officer was convicted of taking cell phone photos of the classified interior of a U.S. submarine despite that he only intended to keep the photos as a memento of his service. The sailor did break the laws, granted, but he had no “intention” of selling the photos to our enemy, so he and his lawyers wondered why he should be prosecuted when Hillary was let off the hook for her lack of “intention” to put the nation at risk.

Then there are the charges of obstruction of justice. The F.B.I. clearly found evidence that Hillary and her tech team raced to destroy evidence even after having the records subpoenaed.or a liar

Fox News’ Catherine Herridge reported this week that after Congress issued a subpoena and a preservation of evidence order that reach her folks on March 9, Hillary ordered her tech team to continue destroying emails.picture1

“By the 25th of that month, there was a conference call with Clinton’s lawyers and then shortly after that, the records were deleted by Platte River Networks using that Bleach Bit technology,“ Herridge said referring to a computer program that irretrievably destroys computer data. “So what you can see here, at least is lining up with the timeline to suggest that there was a deliberate deletion of records when there was an order to preserve.”

Further, even a casual reading of Hillary’s released testimony shows repeated lies and prevarications. Not only that, but some of her staffers also lied to the G-Men. In any normal F.B.I. investigation, lying to the agency is often all one needs to be slammed with the iron boot heel of the federal government. One doesn’t have to directly break a law to be destroyed by the F.B.I. All one really need do is lie to them during the investigation.

You might remember Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, was convicted back in 2007 not so much for leaking the names of any C.I.A. operatives but for lying to the F.B.I. and a grand jury over the whole thing. By most accounts, Libby was innocent of the substance of the charges against him, but he did lie to investigators, apparently. Lying is what Libby was nailed for, but in Hillary’s case… crickets.

So, what were some of those Clinton lies?

Huma Abedin Hillary ClintonLet’s start with her staff;

  • Clinton’s aides told the F.B.I. that they didn’t know anything about the personal email server hidden away from America’s prying eyes in Secretary Clinton’s home in Chappaqua. Yet some of the emails already released reveals staffers actually asking Clinton if the email server is “okay.”
  • In another email a staffer is seen informing Clinton that their secret server had been hacked and need to be temporarily shut down. And in yet another case, even as Hillary’s top aide Huma Abedin claimed she knew nothing about the details of the server, the F.B.I.’s own report states that Abedin was the catalyst for the creation of the secret email system in the first place.

hillary-liar-633x450But in the lying department, her staff are pikers compared to Hillary herself. The released testimony shows so many lies, misdirections, and general obtuseness that it would have sent agents joyfully scurrying for an indictment were it anyone else.

Take her claims about what the “(C)” meant on her emails, for instance.

That marking means “classified,” as anyone with any sort of security clearance knows. But Hillary baldly claimed that she thought the classified marking meant “the alphabet.” She seriously tried to get agents to believe she thought the “c” meant that it was “clause c” or some such foolishness. And that is quite despite the fact that there was never included in any of the emails she sent or received a “clause a” or a “clause b” preceding that “c.”

Hillary’s guffaw-inducing claim is also easily debunked by looking at some of the emails released by Wikileaks.

In another case she told the F.B.I. she should be excused for emailing about classified drone information because in her opinion the info shouldn’t have been classified, anyway. So, her feelings about what is or isn’t classified — not the actual fact of what is classified — should be held up as an excuse for her actions. And apparently the agency bought this garbage.

Clinton also lied when she insisted that no one ever warned her that she was putting the nation at risk by using a private, unsecure email server that was not administered by the federal government. At least one news source has reported that a member of the State Department insisted they warned Hillary that her private email server was “not a good idea.” And that is only in addition to Hillary’s own admission that former Secretary of State Colin Powell also warned her against the email server. She went ahead and did it anyway.

Finally, we also discovered a very disconcerting thing buried in the F.B.I.’s document. Hillary said she couldn’t recall any thing she did as Obama’s Secretary of State because she was operating with a concussion. Seriously. A concussion!

That’s right, folks. Hillary admits that she had a head injury that not only kept her limited to a few hours of work a day, but one that damaged her ability to remember important briefings and the complicated information needed to be the nation’s main diplomatic representative.or a liar

In any case, it is clear that Hillary Clinton gave the F.B.I. ample reason to recommend she be indicted for her crimes. But the fact is, Comey had a political end in mind for his investigation. As far as Comey was concerned, Hillary’s criminal behavior was going to be papered over from the start.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Warner Todd Huston

Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago-based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as Andrew Breitbart’s and along with all Breitbart News sites,,, and many, many others. He has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs across the country to discuss his news stories and current events and has appeared on TV networks such as CNN, Fox News, Fox Business Network, and various Chicago-based news programs. He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the book “Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture” which can be purchased on He is the owner and operator of Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter @warnerthuston or email the author at

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: