Liz Cheney's pious intonations about J6 smacked down as flamin' hot hypocrisy

Bitter failed former congresswoman Liz Cheney is at it again, piously tut-tutting what's probably presidential candidate Ron DeSantis for saying he would consider pardoning at least some January 6 defendents.

Since President Trump has also promised to pardon at least some in these politicized cases, it can only mean that the sole people she thinks are fit for the presidency are those who won't, which is to say, just leftists.

But hold on there, tiger. 

Her remarks drew smackdowns from the left in the comments section of her preposterous tweet.

The one that stood out is from my terrific former colleague from my days at Forbes, Mike Maiello, who stated the obvious:

Well, yeah.

On Cheney's watch, while she was at the State Department as the deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, she served alongside her pal John Bolton, the under secretary of state for arms control and international security, who took that office in 2001.  The pair of them worked side by side, and there was never any daylight in their Bush policy positions.

According to Wikipedia:

In this role, a key area of [Bolton's] responsibility was the prevention of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Bolton negotiated so-called "Article 98" agreements with countries to prohibit them from turning Americans over to the International Criminal Court, which is not recognized by the U.S. Bolton said the decision to pull out of the ICC was the "happiest moment" of his political career to date.

After that, then–U.N. Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, was most disappointed with this refusal to cooperate with these Hague tribunals, writing his very own stern warning in response.


So Liz, who worked very closely with Bolton at State as a downright partner in the big Bush-era neocon enterprise — and who has since remained a very good friend of Bolton — was all against what the left wanted, which was indictments in the ICC in The Hague of both President George W. Bush and her dad, Vice President Dick Cheney, for war crimes against humanity in Afghanistan.

There have been subsequent efforts to indict the pair — one case in Malaysia, and another that appeared to have been just started in Japan — but no word from Liz on the validity of those.

Yet at the same time, she's all in for the politicized justice against the J6 defendants, and what's more, she believes she's the arbiter of who's fit for office and who isn't, just based on this highly politicized kangaroo court justice and any effort to correct it, where we saw withheld evidence, draconian and disproportionate sentences, Abu Ghraib–like prison conditions (which Liz remains consistently in favor of, give her that), and one collapsing case of junk justice based on politics after another.  Just ask the QAnon Shaman.

While most of us would agree with that and don't want euro-chickens running our system of justice from The Hague based on their tendency to politicize their cases according to their establishment political winds, it does rather expose Cheney as a hypocrite.  After all, if politicized courts are bad in one place, where they might just entangle her, her dad, and George W. Bush, and somehow, they aren't bad in other places like Washington, D.C., then what does she stand for, other than the perpetuation of her own political machine's power?

Which is it, Liz?  Justice for all, or torture for the Trumpies?

The voters can decide on that one.

Image: Screen shot from CBS video via YouTube.

If you experience technical problems, please write to