Written by Caleb Whitaker.
The January 6 Committee’s investigation was always controversial, but a new report released by the House Administration’s Subcommittee on Oversight has thrown gasoline on the fire. Chaired by Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-GA), the subcommittee’s second interim report doesn’t just highlight failures—it names names and points fingers.
Loudermilk made it clear: “What happened at the Capitol wasn’t caused by just one thing. It was a domino effect—intelligence breakdowns, security lapses, and poor leadership, all working together in a toxic stew of chaos.” While that paints a messy picture, the real bombshell lies in what the report says about Liz Cheney, a former Vice Chair of the January 6 Committee.
The allegations are serious: Cheney allegedly coached “star witness” Cassidy Hutchinson into altering her testimony. And it gets worse—Hutchinson’s attorney wasn’t even present during this alleged coaching. That’s a big problem, legally speaking. In plain terms? Witness tampering. And tampering with a witness isn’t just unethical; it’s a federal crime.
Text Messages, Deleted Evidence, and Legal Questions
If you’re wondering how this came to light, it boils down to tech-savvy sleuthing. Loudermilk’s report references Hutchinson’s Signal messages, which were obtained and reviewed by the subcommittee. These messages show Cheney communicating with Hutchinson in ways that raise more than a few eyebrows.
Deleted communications? Check. Hutchinson allegedly working through The View co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin to stay in touch with Cheney? Double-check. If this is true, it not only makes the committee look shady but also opens up a legal can of worms. Farah Griffin acted as a go-between, apparently helping Cheney skirt the typical boundaries of attorney-client representation.
Farah Griffin and Hutchinson shared a mutual disdain for President Trump, a detail revealed in multiple text exchanges. Their animosity toward Trump is no secret, but the bigger issue is how this personal bias may have influenced what was supposed to be an impartial investigation.
Coaching Witnesses or Crossing the Line?
Let’s not gloss over the significance here: if the allegations hold, Liz Cheney’s actions aren’t just a matter of bad judgment. Coaching a witness without their lawyer present crosses a legal and ethical line. The report also points out that Hutchinson had six transcribed interviews with the committee, and her original attorney, Stefan Passantino, was only involved in the first three.
So, what changed? Why was Cheney suddenly stepping in? These are the questions that demand answers. The public deserves to know whether the committee prioritized politics over truth.
Our Take
This isn’t just about Liz Cheney or Cassidy Hutchinson—it’s about the credibility of an entire committee that was tasked with investigating one of the most chaotic days in recent history. If political motives drove the actions of key players, it undermines the entire process. Worse, it erodes public trust in government institutions at a time when faith in leadership is already paper-thin.
The idea that Cheney and others might have manipulated the process for personal or political gain is troubling. It paints a picture of a system where power and influence matter more than integrity and truth. For the public, that’s a raw deal. We’re left asking: If we can’t trust the people investigating corruption, who can we trust?
