Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-GA) explained his recommendation to the Department of Justice to investigate former Liz Cheney is simply a test of her “own standards.”

Years after Cheney lost her seat in the House, the Administration Oversight Subcommittee accused her of witness tampering while serving on the January 6 Committee. Loudermilk appeared on Life, Liberty, and Levin Saturday to point out Cheney’s hypocrisy.

BIDEN GAMBLES WITH PREEMPTIVE PARDONS TO SHIELD DEMOCRATS FROM TRUMP

“I am only using Liz’s own standards that she used. If you go back to July of 2022, in one of their televised hearings, Liz Cheney started talking about Donald Trump making a phone call to one of their witnesses. It wasn’t even successful; he just attempted to make a phone call to someone they interviewed. She then referred that to the Department of Justice of potential witness tampering just because he attempted to make a phone call,” Loudermilk said. “Now, compare that to what we have the evidence Liz Cheney actually did. She did communicate with Cassidy Hutchinson. She did acknowledge it was inappropriate communications. After she communicated with Cassidy Hutchinson, then Cassidy Hutchinson changed her testimony.”

At the time, Hutchinson was speaking as a former aide to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows when she gave over 24 hours of testimony about her final days on the job. Hutchinson would go on to take Cheney’s advice, firing her lawyer, Stefan Passantino, and soliciting help from the congresswoman in hiring a new one. Passatino was unaware that Cheney was contacting his client.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

“This is why we’re saying, ‘Look, I cannot make that determination, but the Department of Justice can,’” Loudermilk said.

In its report, the subcommittee cited 18 U.S.C. § 1512, a federal statute prohibiting tampering with witnesses. If Cheney is found to have violated this statute, she could be facing up to 20 years in prison. Since her actions did not affect the legislative process, the report suggests she is not protected by the Constitution’s speech and debate clause.