Key Takeaways:
– Ex-prosecutor Elie Honig dismisses the claims that Liz Cheney possibly broke the law through her involvement in January’s 6 committee.
– Joyce Vance, another former prosecutor, has expressed deep concern about the related report and dubbed the prosecution as far from normal.
– According to Vance, Liz Cheney is protected by the speech and debate clause immunity, meaning a successful prosecution is unlikely.
– Vance categorically stated that the Justice Department usually overlooks such criminal referral due to immunity.
Attempting to Prosecute Liz Cheney: An Uphill Battle
Speculations have been rife about the possible political prosecution of Liz Cheney, a former Republican Representative from Wyoming. But some experts are doubtful. Elie Honig, a former federal prosecutor, is one of the skeptics. He believes accusations that Cheney broke the law with her work on the controversial Jan. 6 committee may not hold water.
Said GOP Report ‘Crosses the Line’
On a different note, Honig suggests that a recent report by the GOP doesn’t bode well for Cheney. This report, according to him, seems to overstep boundaries and could potentially be problematic. Regardless of these assumptions, the question of whether Cheney was outside of the law with her activities remains unanswered.
Vance Sounds the Alarm
Adding her voice to the fray is Joyce Vance, a former federal prosecutor with MSNBC. She has expressed alarm over the report, citing it as a potential starting point for revenge prosecutions. This notion of revenge prosecutions isn’t normal she notes, yet it could be incorrectly presented that way to unwary Trump supporters and the general public.
Special Clause Immunity: A Protective Shield for Cheney?
In her analysis, Vance suggests that Cheney is likely protected by what is known as speech and debate clause immunity. This immunity, applicable to all official actions taken by Cheney, may render any prosecution unsuccessful. Vance equates this to the presidential immunity that Trump used as a defense, with the difference being that the Constitution actually provides the speech and debate immunity for senators and representatives.
However, according to Vance, this immunity clause could be used as a safe haven to avoid prosecution. Trump’s immunity was specifically tailored by the Supreme Court, making Cheney’s case comparatively straight forward.
The Unusual Criminal Referral: A Red Flag?
Vance goes on to remark upon the unusualness of the criminal referral in Cheney’s case. According to her, the Department of Justice (DOJ) usually overlooks such referrals when immunity is in play. She adds that an indictment can only move forward if prosecutors are convinced that they can secure and sustain a conviction on appeal.
In essence, this indicates the low chances of the prosecution materializing into a conviction given the immunity at the outset. However, Vance warns that this should not be overlooked as she views it as an explicit call by Trump for revenge prosecutions.
Last Stance on the Matter
To contextualize this scenario, House Republicans seem to have agreed to this directive, which is considered as an intense allegiance to Trump’s demands. This, as Vance puts it, is far from normal, and a point of serious concern. Ultimately, the crux of the matter is an analysis of whether genuine legal lines have been crossed or if we’re witnessing a highly politicized sequence of events. Regardless, the implications merit close attention and vigilance.