Trump’s showing of witness tampering on January 6th would be very difficult to prove

Cassidy Hutchinson was not intimidated. It was revealed this week that former assistant to then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows is now Cooperation with the Ministry of Justice though she received a thinly veiled threat from an anonymous caller just before she testified before the House committee examining the Jan. 6 riot earlier this month – a threat she shrugged off.

The caller informed her that he was aware of her upcoming testimony, which has not yet been released, and ominously urged her to “do the right thing” as she spoke to the committee about President Donald Trump’s actions in relation to the storm of the mob on the Capitol. However, the warning to Hutchinson failed to divert the investigation. She still told the committee that Trump was aware that some of the protesters were armed but still tried to join them in the Capitol, only to be thwarted by the intervention of Secret Service agents.

It may have been lucky for Trump that the January 6 committee witness declined his call.

This wasn’t the only such call. It emerged that the former president had tried to reach a potential witness himself, with a source telling NBC News earlier this month that he had placed one Phone call to a White House staffer negotiating with the committee.

There is little reason to wonder why Trump did this. When what was, and may be, the most powerful person in the world reaches out to a low-level White House aide with whom CNN reports he has been in contact Rare even during his tenure, it’s safe to assume he didn’t inquire about the person’s health or weather.

As virtually everyone is well aware, the only likely purpose of such a phone call was to sway the witness’ testimony in a favorable direction, perhaps with an implicit reminder of the good or bad things that might follow from appearing before the committee.

To her credit, the anonymous employee recognized the caller ID, refused to answer, and notified his attorney – who then alerted the committee. As Committee Vice Chair Liz Cheney explainedthe incident was so disturbing that it was referred to the Justice Department, presumably to open an investigation into witness tampering.

Nonetheless, there’s a lot of terrain between what everyone naturally assumes — that Trump attempted to tamper with a witness — and filing a criminal complaint, let alone a conviction. A successful prosecution would require more information than Cheney has provided so far.

Federal conditions Witness Manipulation Act are strict. They apply to those who “corruptly” try to persuade someone to remain silent or refuse to appear at an “official hearing”. The requirement that an accused must have “corruptly” intended to influence the testimony of the witness is necessary to protect otherwise innocent conduct, such as

Furthermore, a witness’s own interpretation of ambiguous circumstances – “I felt intimidated” – is inconclusive unless there is additional evidence to support it actual intention. Although it can be intentional concluded Given the circumstances, an unanswered phone call gives prosecutors precious little to work with, despite the obvious implication that Trump was up to no good.

Attorney General Merrick Garland has been characteristically reluctant to accuse a former president of corrupt intentions, which in itself is another hurdle in a case against Trump. The broader political environment, in which Republicans are likely to oppose such allegations, only complicates the effort.

This represents a shift for the GOP. Back in 1999, Republicans were quick to accuse a president of witness tampering. That second charge against President Bill Clinton, for obstruction of justice, included a charge accusing him of making “false and misleading statements.” helpers and employees, some of whom were “potential witnesses in a federal grand jury” proceeding. Clinton’s evasions were repeated by the unsuspecting witnesses, “resulting in the grand jury receiving false and misleading information.”

Clinton always claimed he was just lying protect his family and save himself the embarrassment admitting adultery, but House impeachment executives insisted it was all part of one corrupt “Plan to delay, obstruct, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence.” An overwhelming majority of Republicans voted in favor of the second Clinton impeachment article House of Representatives and judge him im senate (but they fell short of the required two-thirds majority to remove him from office).

Now the political dynamic among Conservatives is so opposed to deriving indirect influence from other parties that they don’t even want to extend that standard to a football coach. The six Supreme Court justices recently appointed by the Republicans decided in favor an assistant football coach in Bremerton, Washington, who refused to kneel and pray in midfield, which was against school board guidelines.

The coach’s very public commitment to Christianity was joined by students and spectators, some of whom flocked to the field, including members of opposing teams who accepted invitations to attend. Other students – in a diverse community This includes Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, Baha’i and atheists – who either felt pressured or excludedfor fear they might lose playing time or college scholarship opportunities.

It doesn’t matter, the Supreme Court majority said, because there was “no evidence that students were directly coerced into praying,” with the coach denying any intent to pressure his students to “participate in any religious activity.” . The factual certainty that teenagers would see public prayer as something “expected” of them, as one of the students put it in an amicus letter, was irrelevant as long as the trainer’s implied message remained unspoken.

It may have been lucky for Trump that the January 6 committee witness declined his call. Without evidence of overt coercion, the Justice Department will likely be unable to pursue an indictment of witness tampering.

But as any New York gangster knows, silent messages can be the most powerful, with the least amount of legal accountability, as long as the godfather’s importance is unmistakable. We may never know what Trump intended to say to the committee witness. Maybe he thought the caller ID would be enough to say it all. Trump’s showing of witness tampering on January 6th would be very difficult to prove

Fry Electronics Team

Fry is an automatic aggregator of the all world’s media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, all materials to their authors. If you are the owner of the content and do not want us to publish your materials, please contact us by email – The content will be deleted within 24 hours.

Related Articles

Back to top button