Trump’s Worry He Could Be Going Down For Witness Tampering

Did Bill Clinton go to prison or was removed from office for witness tampering?

 

Maybe I should. I am concerned with Trump's inclination to allow a Mueller interview (or maybe he is just saying that.) He does not have to, and, for example, no grand jury witness comes out better than when he went in. Clinton's big mistake.
Rudy runs hot and cold in my book, but mostly hot.

 

Except Trump doesn't know that they were witnesses. Maybe that judge in Washington who agreed with Mueller would rule as such, but I disagree with that ruling. The prosecution generally gives a list of witnesses and says "these are the witnesses". It's not for the defense to determine who is and who isn't okay to talk to lol.

 

Trump should not talk to anyone about this. He should also stop with the insane texts. Any good lawyer will tell you to keep your trap shut, especially if you are dirty. Don't make their case for them with your big mouth. Sadly for Trump, he may have already blown his case.

 

You tell us champ. You are the all out expert in things pertaining to old slick Willie.

 

You don't know if Clinton ever went to prison or was removed from office for his witness tampering? And what crime is he tampering with witnesses to?

 

No, and I don't really care. I enjoyed Watergate and Whitewater/Lewinsky, especially the cigar and the blue dress, but those games are long over. We got a brand new ballgame here that could end up being the dirtiest and juiciest of them all. I can not wait for Manafort's next trial about Russian collusion and then the salacious stories all of the paid off sluts with camerahound Avenatti narrating. Then maybe Cohen ratting Trump out like John Dean on steroids. This one here could be a real humdinger. I can't wait to wake up in the morning these days. I know how you must have felt when Clinton was getting skewered now. Pretty good, eh?

 

You really don't know if President Clinton went to prison or was removed from office. You really are pretty ignorant of history then aren't you?

If don't care that Clinton didn't go to jail or was removed why do you care if Trump tampered with a witness and what would you want done about it.

What witness did he tamper with and how and about what crime?

 

We all know what happened to Clinton. That's old news. We got a whole new ballgame now and you never know where it will go. Sit back and enjoy the show just like you did when Willy was getting waxed. This is what makes America Great. Even the President can get get slapped down and humiliated.

 

I never said Trump decided who they talk to. I said he knows who they DID talk to, and interrogates them after the fact to see what they said.

Since Trump is officially being investigated his lawyers are entitled to a wittness list, and are allowed to share that list with Trump. So he knows who is and who isn't being question, and he blatantly harrasses and interrogates them on what they were asked and what they told the investigators.

 

So his team has access to the list, and this brings the point: If a client takes an action that will undermine the client's case, the lawyer has the right and even personal interest at that point(Who'd take a losing case?) to withdraw his services from the client. So either Trump's lawyers are fiercely loyal, or he has in fact not interrogated Mueller's witnesses.

There simply isn't any evidence to date of Donald Trump committing a crime. A 'news report' masquerading as an opinion doesn't really change that.

 

Giuliani said in an interview that he personally "debriefed" all the witnesses who Mueller spoke to. In other words, he asked them what they were asked, and what their answers were, so he can come up with lies to tell about any issues their answers might raise. This is illegal. Neither Trump, nor any of his lawyers, are allowed to talk to witnesses prior to them being official under oath in a courtroom. They have to wait for the official transcripts of interviews to be entered into a court as evidence. What Giuliani is describing is textbook witness tampering.

 

Sorry that is perfectly legitimate and does not meet the definition of tampering and in fact is evidence that the prosecutor should furnish the defense. In fact witness tampering would be things like bribing witnesses to lie.

To the OP, in short Trumps fears over witness tampering charges like his supposed fears over the rest of these spurious accusations leveled by various news organizations are largely non existent

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512

We haven't heard of any attempt to intimidate, coerce or bribe any witness. Nor have we heard anything to the effect of preventing or altering their testimony. Like Obstruction of Justice, this is an incredibly weak case(at best.). And of course, under no provision of this law is it 'illegal' to talk to witnesses or otherwise.

Indeed, even in the Paul Manafort case, it wasn't that Manafort merely solicited to speak with Mueller's witnesses, but that he tried to tell them to say that a certain European company engaged in America when that wasn't the case.

I know this will shock Trump haters, but based on what we know, Mueller either has no case or such a weak circumstantial case that he probably wouldn't expect to win it, if it was brought to a court. Which might be one factor in not pursuing a grand jury against Trump. Given his weak hand, he'll probably finish his report at some juncture and say "it's up to politics now."

And if there were political action against Trump, solely for political purposes I will consider the 2020 seat to be vacant. High crimes and misdemeanors have to be proven, not merely accused.

 

Plus. simply asking a witness what they said is not tampering.

 

Talking to witnesses at all, just to get information, can be considered witness tampering. The defense is told who the witinesses are, but is NOT allowed to engage them in any way until they are in court, unless they are given special permission to do so, and they have to notify the prosecution before they can talk to them. END OF STORY.

The fact that Giuliani admits to having knowing engaged witnesses on and questioned them on what their testmony without notifying the DOJ constitutes witness tampering even if he made no attempt to bribe or intimidate.

 

Giuliani is in no way, shape or manner part of a defense counsel at trial. Unless one is a defense counsel, one can talk to a grand jury witness all they want. Witnesses can talk to anybody they want. And if the witness is for the defense, defense counsel can talk with them, maybe with notification, before trial.

 

Trump's administration has obstructed justice so many times, that I will be surprised and saddened if Articles of Impeachment aren't brought up in both houses of Congress by the time Trump "finishes' out histwo final years before his possible re-election in 2020.

 

Good luck getting a judge and jury to agree with that, considering it's not said anywhere in the stature that "talking to someone, who might be a witness is FORBIDDEN." It's seriously a weak case, and it's not one I'd pursue as a prosecutor. Mueller on the other hand doesn't care how strong or weak a case he has is(See: Russian ham sandwiches.) He just wants a publicity win.

 

Be sad then, because we're not about to turn the United States over its head due to TDS.

 

My solid guess is that you cannot describe one action of Trump that satisfies the federal statute on Obstruction or that satisfies the true requirement for impeachment.

 

Sorry wrong there is no evidence of any sort of obstruction of justice.

 

*That you know of

 

1; Giuliani is actually Trump's personal attorney and personal spokeman now.

2; A defense attorney isn't allowed to question witnesses on anything the prosecution talked to the witness about without notifying the prosecution first. The reason this is considered wittness tampering is because Giuliani, who IS Trump's person attorney now, didn't tell the DOJ that he was going to be questioning Meuller's witnesses. It's not the meetings themselves that are illegal, or even that they were asking about what was discussed in the interviews with Mueller, it's the fact that Giuliani didn't notify the DOJ first, and didn't record the meetings. Legally the defense can interview prosecution witnesses, but these interviewed must be disclosed to the DOJ/Prosecuters office, and must be recorded so that nothing can be hidden.

 

First, you are not talking about grand jury testimony (though some might be.) Second, you missed my point: Giuliani is not a defense attorney at trial. There is no trial, indictment, or subpoena.