Trump Tries To Call Witness To Jan 6th Hearings

[Lesh]

It's a Stalinist dog and pony show.

Wahhhhhhhhh!

 

[Seymour Flops]

(b)Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to—
(1)
influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(2)cause or induce any person to—
(A)
withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;

You got all that from "tried to call?"

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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?

Just receiving the call alone could make the witness feel like it’s attempted intimidation. What need would Trump have to make such an awkward call if not to send some sort of message?

 

[Seymour Flops]

It could be.

So you've backed away from "the very definition?"

 

[Care4all]

This committee is not interested in the truth.

And it's not a legal proceeding.

Yes Scruffy, I know that it's not a trial, it is just an official congressional hearing.

No one is going to jail based on this hearing. Only if the DOJ has a case of illegality that they believe they will get a jury conviction on, will they do so.

And if just one of the 12 jurists decides a president should not be prosecuted, or one Trumper on the jury (as we would call them) then the whole trial would be a waste of time..... And cause more division and unrest amongst us Americans..... And a view the DOJ was partisan....is not something Garland wants either.

So in my ooinion, whatever charges the DOJ brings, if any, it will be based on solid evidence, even a trump supporter on the jury, can not refute.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Just receiving the call alone could make the witness feel like it’s attempted intimidation. What need would Trump have to make such an awkward call if not to send some sort of message?

Feelings. . . . nothing more than feelings . . .

 

[Canon Shooter]

Cool how he's on the committee and can call witnesses. When did that happen?

Who are you referring to?

 

[surada]

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

You cannot contact witnesses. Ask your lawyer.

 

[Lesh]

Yes Scruffy, I know that it's not a trial, it is just an official congressional hearing.

No one is going to jail based on this hearing. Only if the DOJ has a case of illegality that they believe they will get a jury conviction on, will they do so.

And if just one of the 12 jurists decides a president should not be prosecuted, or one Trumper on the jury (as we would call them) then the whole trial would be a waste of time..... And cause more division and unrest amongst us Americans..... And a view the DOJ was partisan....is not something Garland wants.

So in my ooinion, whatever charges the DOJ brings, if any, it will be based on solid evidence, even a trump supporter on the jury, can not refute.

As happened in the Manafort trial

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

Threats can be real or implied. Meaning Trump wouldn’t have to openly say anything threatening for the recipient to feel threatened.
The very fact that Trump attempted to contact the witness can be perceived as threatening or intimidating. Hence the call to the lawyer and the committee.

 

[Canon Shooter]

A congressional hearing relying on hearsay witnesses and taped confessions done in a small room? Demanding that a witness testify, pressing contempt of congress charges when they do not, and then refusing to let them because they want it to be public?

If these hearings once had any measurable level of legitimacy, those days are long gone.

The American people are tired of the antics from the left; most notably Schiff and Pelosi, and they will hold all democrats accountable for this nonsense come November...

 

[Canon Shooter]

It is a FEDERAL proceeding and it IS legal

No, it's not legal at all, as there's no impartial entity to adjudicate anything...

 

[Lesh]

The American people are tired of the antics from the left; most notably Schiff and Pelosi, and they will hold all democrats accountable for this nonsense come November...

Substitute "Trumpers" for the bolded and you are generally accurate

The American people however as a whole are listening to this and are generally outraged at the attack on women's reproductive rights

 

[Lesh]

No, it's not legal at all, as there's no impartial entity to adjudicate anything...

Beyond your (Trumper) opinion...on what basis do you make that statement?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Feelings. . . . nothing more than feelings . . .

Uh huh. Your point?
That’s what threats and intimidation is.
Making someone uncomfortable enough to not spill the beans.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So you've backed away from "the very definition?"

yeah, that was a bit over the top. a little too hyperbolic

 

[Canon Shooter]

Threats can be real or implied. Meaning Trump wouldn’t have to openly say anything threatening for the recipient to feel threatened.
The very fact that Trump attempted to contact the witness can be perceived as threatening or intimidating.

Nonsense...

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Was that before or after your troops shot down the plan for an independent, 9/11 style bipartisan commission?

Hahahahhahahaahahahahajhahahhhhahhahaahhaahhahahahahahaahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhaahahhahahahahaa

 

[Hutch Starskey]

If these hearings once had any measurable level of legitimacy, those days are long gone.

The American people are tired of the antics from the left; most notably Schiff and Pelosi, and they will hold all democrats accountable for this nonsense come November...

I don’t know what hearings you’re watching but Schiff has had no more involvement than any other member and Pelosi has had none.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Beyond your (Trumper) opinion...on what basis do you make that statement?

You're a dumbass.

I'm hardly a "Trumper", although I understand that idiot leftists are quick to label someone as such for having the audacity to disagree with you.

I already stated why it's not legal. The fact that you responded to that very post tells me that you're not sufficiently armed, intellectually, to continue this conversation...