Liz Cheney going down

Rep. Liz Cheney (RINO-Wyo.) is on her last stretch before her primary on August 16. By every reasonable indication, she’s going to lose. So why doesn’t she just drop out of the race and announce her retirement from the House of Representatives? Because she is on assignment. Furthermore, her assignment came from the globalists of whom her father was once a prominent member.

Where Liz Cheney stands

KTVQ-TV (Channel 2, Billings, Mont.) has the latest poll, which they got from the Casper Star-Tribune. In a head-to-head matchup, Harriet Hageman, her most powerful challenger, leads with 52 percent of the vote. Against that, Liz Cheney has 30 percent, with 11 percent undecided.

Harriet Hageman has the endorsement of Donald J. Trump. But almost as many voters said that makes them less likely to vote for Hageman as more likely. Even so, a plurality of voters said it made no difference.

Perhaps a Donald Trump endorsement does make a difference – in helping decide for whom to vote instead of Liz Cheney. In fact, 66 percent of Republican voters disapprove of Liz Cheney’s performance in office.

Liz Cheney knows how much trouble she’s in. A month ago she was openly asking Democrats to cross over to vote for her in the Republican primary. We don’t hear about that anymore – maybe because Senator John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said she couldn’t recruit enough Democratic crossovers.

So now she’s brought her campaign to the real issue: her service on a kangaroo court that exists to write bills of attainder and an ex post facto law against American patriots. She started touting her “service” on July 7. Now she says: win or lose, it was worth it. She said this to Axios and Business Insider. That she would say such a thing at all, tells us she knows: she’s going to lose.

Definitions

A bill of attainder is a law declaring a particular person to be an outlaw. Literally it’s what happens when the legislature singles out a person or persons for punishment. Trial in a bill of attainder case, if one can call it that, takes place in the legislature itself. A committee holds preliminary hearings and returns the equivalent of a true bill of indictment. Then a full chamber would take up the bill, as with other bills.

An ex post facto law prescribes punishment for conduct prior to its passage. By definition it is retroactive. Under any regime that allows that, one cannot be sure that the legislature will not hold him guilty for conduct that the legislature might even have favored at the time.

The Supreme Court has in fact weighed in on bills of attainder and ex post facto lawsin five cases:

• Ex parte Garland, 4 Wallace 333 (1866)
• Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wallace 277 (1866)
• U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965)
• Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977)
• Selective Service Administration v. Minnesota Public Interest Research Group, 468 U.S. 841 (1984).

The Garland, Cummings, and Brown cases are most relevant here. In each, the Court held that Congress, or a State legislature, had passed either a bill of attainder or an ex post facto law. The Constitution forbids Congress and the States to do either thing.

Liz Cheney plumps for bills of attainder and ex post facto

Turn now to Liz Cheney and the conduct that she defends, which is what Wyoming voters hold against her. Everything she has said in public is to the effect that Donald J. Trump must be disqualified from ever again holding office of honor, trust or profit under the United States. (Or, presumably, any of them.) She voted – twice – to send Articles of Impeachment against Trump to the Senate. The Senate, for its part, did not convict the President on either set of Articles.

But that does not satisfy Liz Cheney. Follow what she says:

I’m not going to lie. I’m not going to say things that aren’t true about the election. My opponents are doing that, certainly, simply for the purpose of getting elected.

False. As a sworn Officer of Election, your editor can tell you that certain OOEs in at least six States ran the Election of 2020 in a highly irregular manner. The “January 6 committee” has refused to consider evidence of this.

If I have to choose between maintaining a seat in the House of Representatives or protecting the constitutional republic and ensuring the American people know the truth about Donald Trump, I’m going to choose the Constitution and the truth every single day.

But she has chosen to threaten the Constitutional republic, and is trying to have that Committee deem Trump an outlaw. Why else did she say she wanted to

ensure Donald Trump is never anywhere close to the Oval Office ever again.

About more than Trump

Nor is Donald Trump her only target. Note this:

Individuals like those who are running the Republican conference, who are the leadership of the Republicans in the House, need to be held accountable for their actions and they need to understand how serious this situation is.

What can “individuals like those who are running the Republican conference” include, if not every single supporter of Trump? How is this not a declaration that she considers all Trump supporters outlaws?

Monica Hesse, who normally writes for The Washington Post, came out from behind their paywall to publish an opinion piece in the Anchorage Daily News. Said she, “Liz Cheney understood the assignment.” And the assignment is to say to all Trump supporters a screed to this effect:

Poor deluded fools. You voted for treason. Turn yourselves in and submit yourselves for judgment. You should never vote again.

How else can anyone interpret these exact words from Liz Cheney?

There will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain.

Catfight of the century?

As if that weren’t enough, Liz Cheney has selected another target: the wife of the senior Supreme Court Justice. We’ve known for two months that Virginia Lamp Thomas called on the Arizona legislature to exercise their Article II powers. And we know something else. The Supreme Court is going to take up a case arising out of legislative powers over elections. (Moore v. Harper, Docket No. 21-1271.) This is exactly what the American political left does not want. And this very likely is what Liz Cheney does not want.

And so, according to Fox News and The New York Post, she is threatening “Ginni” Thomas with a subpoena. The timing of this threat cannot be more suspicious. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the Moore case on June 30. Six days before then, the Court shocked the Left with its ruling in the Dobbs case. And the very day before that ruling, came its ruling in the New York Gun Case. Clarence Thomas delivered the Opinion of the Court in that matter, and a withering concurrence in Dobbs.

So Liz Cheney is doing what women often do: take her revenge on another woman allied with her enemies. Get ready for the Catfight of the Century.

The voters of Wyoming have the job of protecting the Constitution against one who would violate it wholesale. By every indication that is exactly what they are going to do.