Liz Cheney D- Wyoming

[BowlBrother85]

That wasn't what I was laughing at. Try again.

I don't care enough to try again.

 

[volfanhill]

I don't care enough to try again.

Ok I will help. The nonsense you posted about being for tax cuts "especially for the rich." Dumb dumb dumb. You are falling for Dem propaganda

 

[BowlBrother85]

Ok I will help. The nonsense you posted about being for tax cuts "especially for the rich." Dumb dumb dumb. You are falling for Dem propaganda

Supply side economics... and no, it's not propaganda.

 

[NCFisher]

She was wrong to think any other Republicans would ever show some semblance of a spine, and stand up to the abuses of power, of Donald Trump. He went too far in his attempts to retain the presidency in January. No other Republican seems to care.

Her electoral history demonstrates that she was popular among her constituents before she opposed Trump. She has fallen out favor, not over matters concerning policy, but because the Republican Party has morphed into a cult, where subservience and fealty to one person is the only criteria for membership.

Your timeline is scat; her tumble began in mid-2020 upon becoming a purveyor of the Russia bounty propaganda:


- at the same time introducing a bill to prevent Trump from reducing Afghanistan troop levels from 8600 to 4500, and troop presence in Germany from 34,500 to 25,000. Even as Germany refuses to meet its paltry NATO defense spending obligations.

Her argument for not reducing presence in Germany? That it would be in the best interest of Russia, not the U.S. Gee, I sense a theme....

Her piling onto the 2nd unconstitutional impeachment of a man - who was NO LONGER PRESIDENT - with the radical House, cemented her demise and ended any hopes of being a Republican leader in WY, Congress, or a presidential candidate. Her proposed party purge of Trumpism means a return to daddy's GOP, which isn't happening.
Bye LIz!

 

[BowlBrother85]

Your timeline is scat; her tumble began in mid-2020 upon becoming a purveyor of the Russia bounty propaganda:


- at the same time introducing a bill to prevent Trump from reducing Afghanistan troop levels from 8600 to 4500, and troop presence in Germany from 34,500 to 25,000. Even as Germany refuses to meet its paltry NATO defense spending obligations.
Her argument for not reducing presence in Germany? That it would be in the best interest of Russia, not the U.S. Gee, I sense a theme....

Her piling onto the 2nd unconstitutional impeachment of a man - who was NO LONGER PRESIDENT - with the radical House, cemented her demise and ended any hopes of being a Republican leader in WY, Congress, or a presidential candidate.

You are downplaying the significance of her voting record and over-selling the Russian bounty thing.... and several Pentagon officials voiced concerns over those troop withdrawals.

That did not move the proverbial needle as much as you want to believe. She fell out of favor within her party because of her vote to impeach Trump and her participation on the January 6th committee. She has also declined to go along with the party narrative that Trump was robbed of the election. Again, those are positions she took concerning unprofessional conduct, not policy.

When it comes to policy, she is not a RINO. Policy is what should matter.

 

[RockyTop85]

Your timeline is scat; her tumble began in mid-2020 upon becoming a purveyor of the Russia bounty propaganda:


- at the same time introducing a bill to prevent Trump from reducing Afghanistan troop levels from 8600 to 4500, and troop presence in Germany from 34,500 to 25,000. Even as Germany refuses to meet its paltry NATO defense spending obligations.

Her argument for not reducing presence in Germany? That it would be in the best interest of Russia, not the U.S. Gee, I sense a theme....

Her piling onto the 2nd unconstitutional impeachment of a man - who was NO LONGER PRESIDENT - with the radical House, cemented her demise and ended any hopes of being a Republican leader in WY, Congress, or a presidential candidate. Her proposed party purge of Trumpism means a return to daddy's GOP, which isn't happening.
Bye LIz!

“If true…” is purveying?

 

[NCFisher]

“If true…” is purveying?

View attachment 412822

Valid critique of the term used (and I will use that gif); she did not forward the idea that bounties were real or insinuate that Trump knew and did nothing. She forwarded the possibility that the bounties might be true and that the president wasn't briefed and that an alarming dysfunction existed there. That was used roundly in media and Dem talking points to forward the former idea. She was a GOP Chair and on the Armed Service Comm. NYT reported on a Friday and she's making irresponsible statements on Sunday re: anonymous sourced reporting, in some rush to make a statement rather than objectively consider "Hmmm, this sounds implausible. I'll refrain from comment until actually knowing something".

If she had done that, she needn't have had to make this scarcely better CYA comment on that Monday:
“After today’s briefing with senior White House officials, we remain concerned about Russian activity in Afghanistan, including reports that they have targeted U.S. forces. It has been clear for some time that Russia does not wish us well in Afghanistan. We believe it is important to vigorously pursue any information related to Russia or any other country targeting our forces. Congress has no more important obligation than providing for the security of our nation and ensuring our forces have the resources they need. We anticipate further briefings on this issue in the coming days.”

There was nothing to "remain concerned" about had she simply held her water. She tripled down the next day, reiterating but directly issuing the threat “any targeting of U.S. forces by Russians, by anyone else, will face a very swift and deadly response” and recalled the Syrian strike against Russian mercenaries in 2018.

Neither of those statements contained the "If true..." qualifier, in contrast to a Fox interview in which she stated every time she talked about it, she qualified it. Cheney justifiably caught flak from fellow Republicans.

 

[NCFisher]

You are downplaying the significance of her voting record and over-selling the Russian bounty thing.... and several Pentagon officials voiced concerns over those troop withdrawals.

That did not move the proverbial needle as much as you want to believe. She fell out of favor within her party because of her vote to impeach Trump and her participation on the January 6th committee. She has also declined to go along with the party narrative that Trump was robbed of the election. Again, those are positions she took concerning unprofessional conduct, not policy.

When it comes to policy, she is not a RINO. Policy is what should matter.

How can I downplay her voting record when I noted prior that hers is "standard-issue GOP" - ? I don't care what officials voiced concerns over the troop withdrawals, I do care that - for lack of a better explanation - Cheney let her neocon bill override her discretion as a GOP chair and member on the Armed Services Committee. You don't run with unsubstantiated claims on a Sunday and then begin CYA on Monday and Tuesday.

Even then, she might have survived had she not - I repeat, not - voted for unconstitutional impeachment and driven the insurrection narrative alongside other Bush-era leftovers and clones, and radical House Dems.

Your RINO argument is meant for someone else. Perhaps CINO - conservative in name only - is a better term, since many Repubs have forgotten the "tax less, spend less" principle. I know - CRINO. I consider anyone - regardless of record - who stands for an unconstitutional impeachment to have abandoned rule of law, and dub them CRINOs.

 

[BowlBrother85]

How can I downplay her voting record when I noted prior that hers is "standard-issue GOP" - ? I don't care what officials voiced concerns over the troop withdrawals, I do care that - for lack of a better explanation - Cheney let her neocon bill override her discretion as a GOP chair and member on the Armed Services Committee. You don't run with unsubstantiated claims on a Sunday and then begin CYA on Monday and Tuesday.

Even then, she might have survived had she not - I repeat, not - voted for unconstitutional impeachment and driven the insurrection narrative alongside other Bush-era leftovers and clones, and radical House Dems.

Your RINO argument is meant for someone else. Perhaps CINO - conservative in name only - is a better term, since many Repubs have forgotten the "tax less, spend less" principle. I know - CRINO. I consider anyone - regardless of record - who stands for an unconstitutional impeachment to have abandoned rule of law, and dub them CRINOs.

She is not a RINO. Period. Her voting record adheres too closely to too many core Republican values, as I've already laid out. That matters.

What was "unconstitutional" about the 2nd impeachment? Donald Trump still had one more week left in office when the House voted to impeach him for a 2nd time on January 13, 2021. The text of the United States Constitution does not directly address whether a president who was impeached by the House while still in office can be tried, convicted, and sanctioned by the Senate after leaving office.... but even if it did, that would not make the impeachment itself unconstitutional. Trump was, after all, still in office on the day he was impeached (1/13/2021).

However, an unconstitutional act would be occurring if a sitting Vice President were to unilaterally set aside votes from legally chosen electors during the procedural formality of certification. That is exactly what Donald Trump wanted Mike Pence to do on January 6th. Trump even went as far as saying that Pence only needed to summon the "courage" in order to do it. Wrong!

 

[volfanhill]

She is not a RINO. Period. Her voting record adheres too closely to too many core Republican values, as I've already laid out. That matters.

What was "unconstitutional" about the 2nd impeachment? Donald Trump still had one more week left in office when the House voted to impeach him for a 2nd time on January 13, 2021. The text of the United States Constitution does not directly address whether a president who was impeached by the House while still in office can be tried, convicted, and sanctioned by the Senate after leaving office.... but even if it did, that would not make the impeachment itself unconstitutional. Trump was, after all, still in office on the day he was impeached (1/13/2021).

However, an unconstitutional act would be occurring if a sitting Vice President were to unilaterally set aside votes from legally chosen electors during the procedural formality of certification. That is exactly what Donald Trump wanted Mike Pence to do on January 6th. Trump even went as far as saying that Pence only needed to summon the "courage" in order to do it. Wrong!

You are wasting your time. Trump is a RINO. Many won't admit that.

 

[NCFisher]

She is not a RINO. Period. Her voting record adheres too closely to too many core Republican values, as I've already laid out. That matters.

What was "unconstitutional" about the 2nd impeachment? Donald Trump still had one more week left in office when the House voted to impeach him for a 2nd time on January 13, 2021. The text of the United States Constitution does not directly address whether a president who was impeached by the House while still in office can be tried, convicted, and sanctioned by the Senate after leaving office.... but even if it did, that would not make the impeachment itself unconstitutional. Trump was, after all, still in office on the day he was impeached (1/13/2021).

However, an unconstitutional act would be occurring if a sitting Vice President were to unilaterally set aside votes from legally chosen electors during the procedural formality of certification. That is exactly what Donald Trump wanted Mike Pence to do on January 6th. Trump even went as far as saying that Pence only needed to summon the "courage" in order to do it. Wrong!

Good grief, you're a monotonous mess...

Constitutional obstacle #1: Impeachment is indictment - for a trial - to remove a president from office, period. An impeachment has no purpose without a trial since a president cannot be removed without a conviction. Trump was not going to be in office for the trial, understand?

Constitutional obstacle #2: It's the reason the Senate is a constitutional barrier on the House, to prevent House radicalism from maliciously removing presidents. The House impeached to prevent him from being able to run again, since it was physically impossible to remove a president who is no longer in office.

The Senate should have rejected the House, rather than mechanically follow through.

Your last statement is immaterial; Trump was wrong to think Pence had constitutional authority to reject electors and wrong to throw him under the bus when he didn't. Happy? However, it is immaterial to whether the impeachment was constitutional.

 

[norrislakevol]

Who gets to define what a "true" Republican or Democrat is then? You? If not, then who?

... and while we're at it, what is your definition of a Republican? What policies do they espouse? What are their objectives?

I would be willing to bet, that like most people, you would define a Republican by their adherence to these 8 core values :

1) Pro Life ... with no exceptions.

2) Pro 2nd Amendment. Strictly opposed to all forms of anti-gun legislation.

3) Pro de-regulation. Fewer government agencies, with as limited intrusion as possible.

4) Pro tax cuts, especially for the rich, and small business owners. Pro Arthur Laffer's supply side economics.

5) In favor of entitlement reform. Government should not provide a mechanism for social engineering, or income / wealth re-distribution.

6) Pro military. Strong on defense.

7) Not necessarily fiscally conservative in practice, but raise hell at the irresponsible federal spending of Democrats.

8) The belief in having as close to a free market economy as the country can sustain.

I would point out, that Rep. Liz Cheney has been a strong advocate and supporter of every single one of these values. Her voting record demonstrates that. You are dead wrong to call her a "RINO".

You have some values on here correct, but I will go through each one.

1) Pro life, yes.....but in my opinion there are always exceptions. In the extremely rare cases of rape or because of certain medical exceptions such as the health of the mother, baby will be still born....ect. There are others of course and this is a nasty gray area anyways. As I have argues before you cannot effectively regulate morality. As for the Republicans in general almost all are "pro life".

2) Once again, yes. This is one of the main reasons I would vote for a RINO like Haggerty (unless he really has changed...time will tell) every time over ANYONE with a "D" beside their name.

3) Here is where people begin to earn the RINO name. Spend, Spend......keep all federal agencies afloat. A lot of talk and little action.

4) "Especially the rich" Lol

5) Once again, many republicans begin to ear the name RINO here. You can't just look at voting records, and I know you are obsessing over that. Many will give a token vote and never really work to get something that needs to be done accomplished. Entitlements need to be gone. Not the Feds job to give away free stuff.

6) Yep.

7) Very few are fiscally conservative, that is one of the main reasons they get the title RINO. We desperately need the real Republican party back here. Rand Paul tries to be a real Republican at least.

8) Yes, with the exception of monopolies.

 

[RockyTop85]

Valid critique of the term used (and I will use that gif); she did not forward the idea that bounties were real or insinuate that Trump knew and did nothing. She forwarded the possibility that the bounties might be true and that the president wasn't briefed and that an alarming dysfunction existed there. That was used roundly in media and Dem talking points to forward the former idea. She was a GOP Chair and on the Armed Service Comm. NYT reported on a Friday and she's making irresponsible statements on Sunday re: anonymous sourced reporting, in some rush to make a statement rather than objectively consider "Hmmm, this sounds implausible. I'll refrain from comment until actually knowing something".

If she had done that, she needn't have had to make this scarcely better CYA comment on that Monday:
“After today’s briefing with senior White House officials, we remain concerned about Russian activity in Afghanistan, including reports that they have targeted U.S. forces. It has been clear for some time that Russia does not wish us well in Afghanistan. We believe it is important to vigorously pursue any information related to Russia or any other country targeting our forces. Congress has no more important obligation than providing for the security of our nation and ensuring our forces have the resources they need. We anticipate further briefings on this issue in the coming days.”

There was nothing to "remain concerned" about had she simply held her water. She tripled down the next day, reiterating but directly issuing the threat “any targeting of U.S. forces by Russians, by anyone else, will face a very swift and deadly response” and recalled the Syrian strike against Russian mercenaries in 2018.

Neither of those statements contained the "If true..." qualifier, in contrast to a Fox interview in which she stated every time she talked about it, she qualified it. Cheney justifiably caught flak from fellow Republicans.

I don’t see anything wrong with those either, but I understand your point.

The conclusion that it was a nothing burger was a self-serving report issued by the Biden admin, almost a year later. The only reason anybody buys that is because it is politically convenient to everyone. It lets Trump off the hook and it resolves a messy potential issue for Biden.

I’m not sure making it a congressional issue addresses that, under these circumstances and in the current climate because even if it was legit it’s still in everyone’s interest to sit on it.

Still, everybody on the armed services committee better have had something to say about it before the election, and her comments seem pretty measured and rational.

IMO, only thing she’s ever done to step out of line with the Republican party was go against Trump. If more elected Republicans had been allowed to criticize Trump, maybe he would have had some incentive to try to be a more competent president instead of one that lets this story fester for 5 months during an election year when, supposedly, it wasn’t even good intel. It’s not like everybody outside online right wing echo chambers couldn’t see that he was a flawed president. Pretending like he was some kind of infallible messiah didn’t hurt as much as I expected, but I don’t think it helped him or Republicans, either.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Good grief, you're a monotonous mess...

Constitutional obstacle #1: Impeachment is indictment - for a trial - to remove a president from office, period. An impeachment has no purpose without a trial since a president cannot be removed without a conviction. Trump was not going to be in office for the trial, understand?

Constitutional obstacle #2: It's the reason the Senate is a constitutional barrier on the House, to prevent House radicalism from maliciously removing presidents. The House impeached to prevent him from being able to run again, since it was physically impossible to remove a president who is no longer in office.

The Senate should have rejected the House, rather than mechanically follow through.

Your last statement is immaterial; Trump was wrong to think Pence had constitutional authority to reject electors and wrong to throw him under the bus when he didn't. Happy? However, it is immaterial to whether the impeachment was constitutional.

I understand what you're saying, but you are wrong.

An impeachment in the House, followed by a conviction in the Senate, has other consequences besides removal from office. It can also render the convicted party ineligible to hold federal office again. You acknowledge this yourself. So, you agree that removal from office is not the only purpose behind an impeachment. It was not a pointless exercise.

There is nothing in the text of the United States Constitution which prohibits the impeachment of a sitting federal official, just because the trial in the Senate would have to take place after the impeached federal official had already left office. That is something you are coming up with on your own, because the Constitution does not address the issue.

There is even historical precedent for it. In 1876, Secretary of War (Defense), William Belknap, was impeached by the House, and then tried in the Senate after he had resigned.

 

[NCFisher]

I don’t see anything wrong with those either, but I understand your point.

The conclusion that it was a nothing burger was a self-serving report issued by the Biden admin, almost a year later. The only reason anybody buys that is because it is politically convenient to everyone. It lets Trump off the hook and it resolves a messy potential issue for Biden.

I’m not sure making it a congressional issue addresses that, under these circumstances and in the current climate because even if it was legit it’s still in everyone’s interest to sit on it.

Still, everybody on the armed services committee better have had something to say about it before the election, and her comments seem pretty measured and rational.

IMO, only thing she’s ever done to step out of line with the Republican party was go against Trump. If more elected Republicans had been allowed to criticize Trump, maybe he would have had some incentive to try to be a more competent president instead of one that lets this story fester for 5 months during an election year when, supposedly, it wasn’t even good intel. It’s not like everybody outside online right wing echo chambers couldn’t see that he was a flawed president. Pretending like he was some kind of infallible messiah didn’t hurt as much as I expected, but I don’t think it helped him or Republicans, either.

About that: I don't disagree and stated in forums several times there are numerous valid criticisms of Trump's frenetic and sometimes volatile character. My problem is the valid criticisms were leapt over for preposterous memes. L. Graham going well into Trump's 2nd year before the light came on and he realized that something rotten was going on regarding the collusion narrative. I wondered how he could not be more circumspect from the outset and asked himself and the public "Whoa...what is the probability that a wealthy billionaire who's taking no salary and losing money to be president, is betraying the country to one of our greatest geopolitical enemies?" No extreme was a grasp too far.

I didn't vote for him in 2016, nor Clinton, because I considered him unfit for the office due to temperament displayed campaigning. But by Feb 2017, I'm beginning to think if this isn't 'deep state' subterfuge to undercut him, if's the twin brother. So, I'm glad he was president. I think we needed a guy with a bit of thug in him to bring them into daylight, punch back, and see what many have long suspected re: the bureaucratic state. I don't think another Repub president in my lifetime would have held up.

I was very disappointed in his insistence of 'not losing unless they cheat' messaging, his thinking that Pence could constitutionally & unilaterally reject the state electors and tossing him under the bus, and not issuing immediate, forceful message to the capitol mob to stand down. Hell, demand a secret service detail take you there with a bullhorn and do it.

Breaking the party from the neocon-era was long overdue, but I don't want to see him run again. He should be content with establishing what I think is a good formula for the party but needing a more focused, tempered candidate who can communicate without everyone having to divine what he's saying. Less Faulknerian and more Twain, I guess. That man or woman is still going to need a spine and pair of brass knuckles.

Appreciate the civility. In spite of our clashes, I don't consider you an unreasonable person who lacks a considered perspective. Besides, I'm getting tired of forum fighting and ready to withdraw for a while.

 

[NCFisher]

I understand what you're saying, but you are wrong.

An impeachment in the House, followed by a conviction in the Senate, has other consequences besides removal from office. It can also render the convicted party ineligible to hold federal office again. You acknowledge this yourself. So, you agree that removal from office is not the only purpose behind an impeachment. It was not a pointless exercise.

There is nothing in the text of the United States Constitution which prohibits the impeachment of a sitting federal official, just because the trial in the Senate would have to take place after the impeached federal official had already left office. That is something you are coming up with on your own, because the Constitution does not address the issue.

There is even historical precedent for it. In 1876, Secretary of War (Defense), William Belknap, was impeached by the House, and then tried in the Senate after he had resigned.

I've already voiced my disagreement and don't see us bearing fruit here. I'll let this post of yours be the final word.

 

[Vol8188]

Republicanism isn't fiscally conservative at its core. Root Republicanism is simply the belief in the primacy of rei publicae - rule of law.

It is possible (and has been so in the past, before party shifts) that both primary parties had fiscally liberal and fiscally conservative branches. It's only really been a historically recent idea that Republicanism is tied to conservative financial policy.

It’s also only a recent idea that the DNC opposes liberalism. I honestly never thought I’d see the day. Granted in a pure sense of the way, it does make sense that the “democrats” would prefer the totalitarianism of the majority over the freedom of liberalism.

 

[Franklin Pierce]

Liz Cheney Aided in GOP Primary by Ad Agency Linked to Biden, BLM, Planned Parenthood

A left-wing political advertising agency has reportedly begun promoting Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) to Democrats in the Wyoming Republican primary.

The agency’s name is People First but was previously known as “Main Street One,” according to the agency CEO’s LinkedIn page. The agency’s website indicates it is affiliated with far-left Democrat organizations, such as President Biden’s campaign arm, Planned Parenthood, and Black Lives Matter.

Liz Cheney Aided in GOP Primary by Group Linked to Biden, BLM

 

[BreatheUT]

Liz Cheney Aided in GOP Primary by Ad Agency Linked to Biden, BLM, Planned Parenthood

A left-wing political advertising agency has reportedly begun promoting Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) to Democrats in the Wyoming Republican primary.

The agency’s name is People First but was previously known as “Main Street One,” according to the agency CEO’s LinkedIn page. The agency’s website indicates it is affiliated with far-left Democrat organizations, such as President Biden’s campaign arm, Planned Parenthood, and Black Lives Matter.

Liz Cheney Aided in GOP Primary by Group Linked to Biden, BLM

Lol

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Liz Cheney Aided in GOP Primary by Ad Agency Linked to Biden, BLM, Planned Parenthood

A left-wing political advertising agency has reportedly begun promoting Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) to Democrats in the Wyoming Republican primary.

The agency’s name is People First but was previously known as “Main Street One,” according to the agency CEO’s LinkedIn page. The agency’s website indicates it is affiliated with far-left Democrat organizations, such as President Biden’s campaign arm, Planned Parenthood, and Black Lives Matter.

Liz Cheney Aided in GOP Primary by Group Linked to Biden, BLM

She's got an (R) by her name... the dumb azz GOP sheep in Wyoming will vote for her. Just like the GOP voters in Ohio voted for JD Vance and Mike DeWine.

 

[volfanhill]

Liz Cheney Aided in GOP Primary by Ad Agency Linked to Biden, BLM, Planned Parenthood

A left-wing political advertising agency has reportedly begun promoting Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) to Democrats in the Wyoming Republican primary.

The agency’s name is People First but was previously known as “Main Street One,” according to the agency CEO’s LinkedIn page. The agency’s website indicates it is affiliated with far-left Democrat organizations, such as President Biden’s campaign arm, Planned Parenthood, and Black Lives Matter.

Liz Cheney Aided in GOP Primary by Group Linked to Biden, BLM

I see a ton of republicans on here claiming Tulsi is good stuff.

 

[EasternVol]

I see a ton of republicans on here claiming Tulsi is good stuff.

Tulsi comes across well on a lot of topics but it seems she has some serious intellectual issues.

 

[EasternVol]

She's got an (R) by her name... the dumb azz GOP sheep in Wyoming will vote for her. Just like the GOP voters in Ohio voted for JD Vance and Mike DeWine.

She does appear to have some character and principles, as opposed to the average Trump sycophant. If the Republicans want to take advantage of the Democrats' current fringe lunacy they need to get away from their own fringe.

 

[0nelilreb]

I see a ton of republicans on here claiming Tulsi is good stuff.

Nope , No and a it’s a hard No for me , because of her “ sensible gun control “ . I’ll give her +10 points for sticking to her principles , -20 if she drops the (D )picks up the (R ) and tries to go silent on them just to pander for votes . I can’t vote for anyone who is calling for a restriction on our rights and using the buzz word “ assault weapons “ while we hand them out like sweetarts to other countries to use for defending themselves with . Words matter when you are trying to restrict rights .

 

[Franklin Pierce]

Graduates Boo and Turn Their Chairs Away From former U.S Rep. Liz Cheney as she delivers commencement address at Liberal Colorado College - despite her blasting Trump's election-denying attorney

• The three-term congresswoman lost after voting to impeach Trump for the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection and her repeated criticisms of the former president

Graduates booed and turned their chairs away from former U.S Rep. Liz Cheney as she delivered the commencement address at Colorado College on Sunday.

Cheney repeated her fierce criticisms of former President Trump but steered clear of talking about his 2024 reelection campaign or her own political future.

While many students and parents in the audience applauded throughout Cheney's remarks, some opposing the choice of Cheney as speaker booed and turned their chairs away from the stage when she spoke.

While many students and parents in the audience applauded throughout Cheney's remarks, some opposing the choice of Cheney as speaker booed and turned their chairs away from her

Graduates boo and turn away from former U.S Rep. Liz Cheney as she delivers commencement address | Daily Mail Online