Cheney rejects Johnson’s claim she considered signing amicus brief on overturning 2020 election

Former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) on Sunday argued that House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) was considering signing a court brief to overturn the 2020 election results. , and pointed out that he had only communicated with Mr. Johnson about: overview.

Johnson, who was chairman of the Republican Study Committee at the time, was the first court to support a Texas lawsuit aimed at overturning the 2020 election results in four swing states: Georgia, Michigan and Pennsylvania. He led efforts to garner Republican support for the brief. and Wisconsin. In the end, more than 100 House Republicans signed the brief.

In an interview with CBS News' “Face the Nation” that aired early Sunday, Johnson told host Margaret Brennan that he was surprised to see Cheney's criticism of the brief. Because “at one point” she “even considered signing the bill.”

“I will tell you in court briefs that that is true,” Johnson said. “And we talked about it at length, and I think we would agree that there are disagreements about the law and people disagree about that. But what I want to say is that the Constitution The plain language is that it has never changed.”

Cheney was later asked on “Face the Nation” if what he said was true, to which he replied, “It's not true.”

“Like Mike said, we were in constant contact throughout that period,” Cheney continued. “In fact, I know exactly when he sent me the brief, and I know exactly when I expressed my concerns about the brief to him less than 30 minutes later. Mike too. I understand that.”

Cheney told Johnson that the brief itself was “legally and constitutionally unconscionable” and that Johnson had made it clear that he had misrepresented the brief to members of the conference. Ta.

In a speech Sunday, Mr. Cheney also pushed back on claims that Mr. Johnson “has the right to reject or ignore the court's decision.”

“We have dozens of state and federal courts that have evaluated claims, asserted constitutionality, and dismissed claims. And Mike's position is — it's such a horrifying story that people What you really have to think about is that, as a member of Congress, somehow he has the right to ignore the decisions of these courts and claim, without any factual findings, that he has done one way or another. “We feel that what happened was unconstitutional, so we can waste the votes of millions of Americans. That's tyranny, not the rule of law.”

In an interview with Face the Nation, Prime Minister Boris Johnson mentioned his belief that changing electoral laws without ratification is unconstitutional.

“But my point is, the plain text of the Constitution has never changed. And what has happened in many states by changing election laws without the approval of state legislatures is unconstitutional. Yes. That's an obvious fact that no one can dispute,” Johnson said.

Cheney used Johnson's argument to reiterate her belief that House Republicans “cannot be counted on” to defend the Constitution.