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

Former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) on Sunday pushed back against Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.)'s claim she considered signing an amicus brief on overturning the 2020 election results, noting she was only in communication with Johnson about the brief.

Johnson, who was serving as the Republican Study Committee chair at the time, helped lead efforts to garner support among GOP members for an amicus brief that supported a Texas lawsuit aimed at overturning the 2020 election results in four swing states — Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. More than House 100 Republicans eventually signed the brief.

In an interview that aired earlier Sunday with CBS News's "Face the Nation," Johnson told moderator Margaret Brennan he was surprised to see Cheney's criticism of the brief because she, "at one point," "even considered signing on to that bill."

"I'll tell you that that is a fact, to that amicus brief." Johnson said. "And we talked about that at great length, and we had a difference of opinion on the law, and people can agree to disagree on that. But I'm telling you that the plain language of the Constitution has never changed."

Asked if his remarks are factual later on "Face the Nation," Cheney said, "It is not."

"We were, as Mike said, in constant contact throughout that period," Cheney continued. "I actually know precisely when he sent me the brief and precisely when less than 30 minutes later, I told him my concerns with the brief. Mike knows that as well."

Cheney said she made clear to Johnson the brief itself was "legally and constitutionally infirm," and that Johnson was misrepresenting the brief to the members of conference.

Speaking on Sunday, Cheney also pushed back on Johnson's claims that he "has the right to reject or ignore the rulings of the court."

"We have dozens of state and federal courts that assessed the claims, asserted the constitutionality and rejected them. And Mike's position — which people really need to think about because it's so chilling — is that somehow as a member of Congress, he has the right to ignore the ones of those courts, to assert — absent any fact finding — a fact that somehow he feels that something that happened was unconstitutional and therefore he can throw out the votes of millions of Americans. That's tyranny, it's not the rule of law."

In his interview with "Face the Nation," Johnson touched upon his belief that the change in election laws without ratification violated the Constitution.

"But I'm telling you that the plain language of the Constitution has never changed. And what happened in many states by changing the election laws without ratification by the state legislatures is a violation of the Constitution. That's a- that's a plain fact that no one can dispute," Johnson said.

Cheney used Johnson's argument to reiterate her belief that House Republicans "can't be counted on" to defend the Constitution.