Philip Bump Rebukes GOP Report Targeting Liz Cheney as Flimsy and Politically Motivated
(Photo by Greg Nash)
The Washington Post’s Philip Bump delivered a scathing critique of House Republicans’ report on Wednesday, which calls for a criminal investigation into former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) over her role in the January 6th investigation into President-elect Donald Trump. Bump dismissed the report as not only flimsy but also a transparent attempt to curry favor with Trump.
In promoting his analysis on Bluesky, Bump noted the report was “even weaker than I expected” and remarked it was “also pretty clearly an effort to curry favor with Trump.” At the heart of the GOP report is the accusation that Cheney engaged in illegal witness tampering by communicating with key witness Cassidy Hutchinson outside the presence of her attorney.
Bump, however, provided critical context that undermines the claim and reveals glaring omissions in the report. Bump explained that Hutchinson’s original Trump-affiliated attorney, Stefan Passantino, actively discouraged her from testifying further before the House Select Committee investigating the January 6 Capitol riot. Passantino even advised Hutchinson to stop cooperating with the committee entirely.
So I looked at the claim from House Republicans that Liz Cheney had broken the law and I was impressed that it was even weaker than I expected. It's also pretty clearly an effort to curry favor with Trump. www.washingtonpost.com/politics/202…
— Philip Bump (@pbump.com) December 19, 2024 at 12:09 AM
[image or embed]
“In early June, [attorney Stefan] Passantino recommended that Hutchinson stop complying with the committee’s efforts, including an anticipated fourth interview,” Bump wrote. “In her book, she writes that she expected but ‘dreaded’ Passantino forcing the issue, worried that she would be putting herself at risk of contempt charges. So, soon after, she contacted Cheney directly.”
Bump highlighted that this detail significantly weakens the GOP’s argument. Hutchinson reached out to Cheney of her own volition, fearing her Trump-aligned attorney was steering her toward non-compliance. “The report… twists Cheney’s role into criminal activity in two ways,” Bump wrote.
“The first is that her interactions with Hutchinson are described as ‘tampering,’ citing federal witness-tampering statutes. But those are focused on inhibiting testimony (particularly through force), not on enabling it.”
Additionally, the report omits key nuances. It claims Cheney recommended Hutchinson hire her eventual attorneys, Jody Hunt and William Jordan, while failing to acknowledge the broader context of Cheney simply supporting Hutchinson’s pursuit of independent legal counsel.
Bump concludes that the allegations are both overstretched and poorly substantiated. The report, he argues, is less about credible accusations and more about appeasing Trump and his allies.
With House Republicans framing Cheney’s actions as criminal, Bump’s analysis underscores how weak their claims are when placed under scrutiny, exposing the partisan nature of the report.
