Cheney Called Out by Mark Levin Over J6 Committee

One of the more influential conservative pundits in the media today is Mark Levin.

He had a change of heart regarding Trump after the 2016 election, and now he is attacking Trump’s enemies.

This would include former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-MT), the daughter of former Vice President, Dick Cheney.

Sleazy

Levin is a bit of an enigma, as there was no louder voice against Trump in 2016 than Levin.

He was a full-blown member of the “never-Trump” squad, but now he is in Trump’s corner, using Trump’s playbook to call out his enemies.

To that point, after Trump’s former driver testified before committee, debunking the testimony of former Mark Meadows aide, Cassidy Hutchinson, Levin went off on Cheney for suppressing the testimony and putting Hutchinson in the spotlight on live TV.

In doing so, he even stole Trump’s trademark name-calling, stating, “Sleazy Liz Cheney needs to receive some of the Stalinist medicine she introduced into the body politick against scores of patriotic Americans.

“That is, she needs to be compelled to testify under oath about, among other things, what knowledge she may have about: possible witness tampering, censorship of exculpatory information and testimony, the destruction of committee evidence and data, etc. This is very, very important.”

Cheney pushed back, responding, “Hi Mark: I see you’re still spreading BS.

“You & the bozo who wrote this might want to actually read the 1/6 report (eg, Appendix 2, 741-2, 127-8, 587-92), SecDef Miller’s transcript (Trump never ordered 10k troops), Judge Wallace’s finding (Kash Patel is ‘not a credible witness’).”

The two exchanged a few more jabs, with Levin calling her a “moron” and Cheney calling Levin an “angry bozo.”

This is now the state of the GOP… name calling on social media.

Having said that, to Levin’s main point, Cheney and the rest of her J6 Committee have some serious questions to answer about information that was either omitted or buried in the report that could have exonerated Trump.

If you recall, when that committee was formed, I stated that the conclusion had been given to committee members out of the gate, and I believed they were told to create a breadcrumb path to get to that conclusion.

After the driver’s testimony was revealed, it would be hard to convince me that this is not exactly what took place.