General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPress secretary claims Trump tweet 'not witness intimidation' because it is 'not a trial'
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/11/press-secretary-claims-trump-tweet-not-witness-intimidation-because-it-is-not-a-trial-but-president-says-it-is/Press secretary claims Trump tweet not witness intimidation because it is not a trial but president says it is
White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham says President Donald Trump did not engage in witness intimidation Friday morning when he, in real time, posted tweets attacking his former Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovich, during her testimony before a House impeachment inquiry hearing. Trump is being accused by Democrats and Republicans alike of witness intimidation or witness tampering, with even Fox News anchors saying Trumps tweets constitute an additional article of impeachment.
The tweet was not witness intimidation, it was simply the Presidents opinion, which he is entitled to, Grisham said in a statement given to Fox News. This is not a trial, it is a partisan political process or to put it more accurately, a totally illegitimate, charade stacked against the President.
(Grisham is wrong on all counts. Impeachment is embedded in the U.S. Constitution.)
And yet, an 18-page memo of talking points distributed Tuesday evening to House Republicans argues differently, charging Chairman Schiff offered no due process protections for the President.
President Donald Trump has claimed he is on trial and repeatedly eight times, at least complained he is not being afforded due process. A few examples:
TruckFump
(5,812 posts)TeamPooka
(24,254 posts)SWBTATTReg
(22,166 posts)the stupid tweets and such. Rump is under an impeachment threat...I'm sure his lawyers are not exactly loving what's he's doing on a real time basis, commenting on everything imaginable and / or possible.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,836 posts)The witness tampering statute, 18 U.S. Code § 1512 says, in part:
(1)influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding....
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
Last I checked, a congressional hearing is an official proceeding.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1515#a_1
(a) As used in sections 1512 and 1513 of this title and in this section
(1) the term official proceeding means
(A) a proceeding before a judge or court of the United States, a United States magistrate judge, a bankruptcy judge, a judge of the United States Tax Court, a special trial judge of the Tax Court, a judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims, or a Federal grand jury;
(B) a proceeding before the Congress;
(C) a proceeding before a Federal Government agency which is authorized by law; or
(D) a proceeding involving the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce before any insurance regulatory official or agency or any agent or examiner appointed by such official or agency to examine the affairs of any person engaged in the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce;
Hermit-The-Prog
(33,414 posts)Just in case certain members of Congress try to argue that a mere committee is not Congress, it could be argued that said committee is "a Federal Government agency which is authorized by law".
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Since she was testifying at the time, she could have been reasonably understood not to have been aware of the tweet until Schiff read it to her.
One could say that the tweet was intended to be conveyed to her at some later point in time either today or in anticipation of some additional future testimony, but you still would have to address whether the tweet during her testimony can be understood to have influenced her testimony right then and there.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,836 posts)and even if Schiff hadn't read the tweet to her at the time, there was a break shortly after Trump tweeted and she could have seen it or been told about it during the break. This could have affected her subsequent testimony. I assume attempted witness tampering is a crime just as much as the completed crime.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Lol.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,836 posts)in blowing up any airplanes, so why are they now in prison?
onenote
(42,759 posts)who would feel threatened about how they might be attacked if they testify.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)elleng
(131,107 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Witness intimidation is not limited to trials. Good golly.
Mr. Ected
(9,670 posts)That's the only audience the GOP is playing to at the moment.
Oddly, though, I know lawyers who are Republicans who seem to also accept this alternative version of the law when applied to their politicians. There must be a firewall embedded in their brains that allows this sort of delusion.
onenote
(42,759 posts)And, in further reference to Grisham's characterization of Trump's statement as his "opinion" -- "state of mind" is irrelevant under the intimidation statute.
D_Master81
(1,822 posts)Then stop complaining about due process
beachbumbob
(9,263 posts)Trump keep digging his own demise in the history books
BumRushDaShow
(129,450 posts)struggle4progress
(118,338 posts)StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Y'all aren't exactly strategic geniuses, are you?