Trump Tries To Call Witness To Jan 6th Hearings

[Lesh]

A missed phone call, with no voicemail, would be a REAL stretch to prove witness tampering. You going with Trump was intimidating the witness with a single, missed phone call?

Sure if you can show a pattern of that person calling this witness previously for business or social purposes.

A year and a half after they no longer work together and just prior to testifying about YOU?

Not so big a stretch

 

[Godboy]

It could be.

Nope. Not going to happen and its never happened before.

 

[Lesh]

The Trumpers are really scrambling to defend this

You can tell it hurts

 

[surada]

How does a missed phone call qualify?

They have a tape of Trump's phone call to Raffenburger in Georgia.

 

[scruffy]

Wrong. The law ONLY states that you can not protest outside a Justice's home. That is a violation of the First Amendment and SHOULD be overturned by a Court if challenged

You are entirely ignorant.

You might want to actually read the law

Hint: it's on line

THIS Court? HAHAHAHAHA

Yeah. You know, the one whose house you're protesting in front of.

One supposed crime does not excuse another. That is a childish claim (also known as the PeeWee Herman Defense)

It IS irrelevant to this discussion

Not likely.

There are millions of people that are going to MAKE it relevant.

The Stalinists are getting shut down. One way or the other. Bank on it

 

[Godboy]

Witness tampering is not limited to bribery.

Yep, threats, cohersion and intimidation also qualify, but none of those things happened.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Fine.

Then Trump can talk to whoever he wants

Not really. Just the act of attempting to communicate with a witness can be seen as an effort to influence that witness. That is a federal felony.

1729. Protection Of Government Processes -- Tampering With Victims, Witnesses, Or Informants -- 18 U.S.C. 1512

This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function. Please contact webmaster@usdoj.gov if you have any questions about the archive site.

www.justice.gov

“Section 1512 of Title 18 constitutes a broad prohibition against tampering with a witness, victim or informant. It proscribes conduct intended to illegitimately affect the presentation of evidence in Federal proceedings or the communication of information to Federal law enforcement officers. It applies to proceedings before Congress, executive departments, and administrative agencies, and to civil and criminal judicial proceedings, including grand jury proceedings. See 18 U.S.C. § 1515(a)(1). In addition, the section provides extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over the offenses created therein. See 18 U.S.C. § 1512(g); 128 Cong. Rec. H8469 (daily ed. Oct. 1, 1980); H. R. Rep. No. 1369, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 20-22 (1980).”

 

[scruffy]

Sure if you can show a pattern of that person calling this witness previously for business or social purposes.

A year and a half after they no longer work together and just prior to testifying about YOU?

Not so big a stretch

You have nothing.

 

[scruffy]

Not really. Just the act of attempting to communicate with a witness can be seen as an effort to influence that witness. That is a federal felony.

1729. Protection Of Government Processes -- Tampering With Victims, Witnesses, Or Informants -- 18 U.S.C. 1512

This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function. Please contact webmaster@usdoj.gov if you have any questions about the archive site.

www.justice.gov

“Section 1512 of Title 18 constitutes a broad prohibition against tampering with a witness, victim or informant. It proscribes conduct intended to illegitimately affect the presentation of evidence in Federal proceedings or the communication of information to Federal law enforcement officers. It applies to proceedings before Congress, executive departments, and administrative agencies, and to civil and criminal judicial proceedings, including grand jury proceedings. See 18 U.S.C. § 1515(a)(1). In addition, the section provides extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over the offenses created therein. See 18 U.S.C. § 1512(g); 128 Cong. Rec. H8469 (daily ed. Oct. 1, 1980); H. R. Rep. No. 1369, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 20-22 (1980).”

Fine. Then Adam Schiff is guilty as hell, of this exact offense.

 

[Care4all]

If it occurred, it would be a process crime, regardless of how serious it may or may not be.

How many times are they going to use some lame excuse to throughly investigate Trump only to end up with crimes that would not have ever occurred if he would not have been falsely investigated to start with? Those of us with more than 2 brain cells have figured out their schtick. .

Those process crimes, are FELONIES, as they should be, because they obstruct, getting to the TRUTH.....

these so called process crimes are NOT Misdemeanors, they are a serious part of our entire legal system.....

 

[Godboy]

Sure if you can show a pattern of that person calling this witness previously for business or social purposes.

A year and a half after they no longer work together and just prior to testifying about YOU?

Not so big a stretch

Its a stretch that will be accepted as evidence in a court of law. Do you really think "Trump was probably calling him to make him not talk" will fly in a court of law? Please tell me you arent this ignorant.

 

[SweetTea]

Sure if you can show a pattern of that person calling this witness previously for business or social purposes.

A year and a half after they no longer work together and just prior to testifying about YOU?

Not so big a stretch

Contacting a witness is NOT a crime. There is absolutely no way of proving what the purpose of the call was nor what the conversation would have been had it taken place.

 

[scruffy]

Those process crimes, are FELONIES, as they should be, because they obstruct, getting to the TRUTH.....

these so called process crimes are NOT Misdemeanors, they are a serious part of our entire legal system.....

This committee is not interested in the truth.

And it's not a legal proceeding.

 

[SweetTea]

Trump wasn't calling a prospective witness to see how his family was doing

Quite a bit of speculation there. No conversation took place. This would be laughed out of court is this is the “evidence” they have.

 

[Lesh]

You are entirely ignorant.

You might want to actually read the law

Hint: it's on line

I did

The federal law O’Reilly claims these protestors have violated is Title 18, Section 1507 of the U.S. Code, which was enacted in 1950. Under this law, it is illegal to picket or parade in front of a courthouse or a judge’s home "with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge."

Covers Justice's home (and ridiculously Courthouses). Does not put a 500ft exclusion zone around a Justice

There are millions of people that are going to MAKE it relevant.

It sure as hell is irrelevant to THIS discussion or in a court of law

 

[Lesh]

This committee is not interested in the truth.

And it's not a legal proceeding.

It is a FEDERAL proceeding and it IS legal

 

[Hutch Starskey]

This isn’t the “Normal World”. These hearings don’t follow “normal“ rules and are heavily skewed in the Democrats(TDS) favor. I guess you haven’t figured that out yet, or maybe you just don’t care as long as your deep seated hatred for Trump is pacified.

Can you cite these “normal rules” of yours?

 

[scruffy]

Quite a bit of speculation there. No conversation took place. This would be laughed out of court is this is the “evidence” they have.

The Stalinist fucktards are still trying to intimidate the patriots.

Nothing new here.

 

[scruffy]

It is a FEDERAL proceeding and it IS legal

It's a Stalinist dog and pony show.

 

[Lesh]

The Stalinist fucktards are still trying to intimidate the patriots.

Nothing new here.

When you namecall the opposition "Stalinists" you might as well be saying "poopyhead" for all the accuracy in that stupid ad hominem attack