Only the guilty attempt to tamper with witnesses

F

floridafan

Verified User
Legal experts were stunned on Tuesday when GOP Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming once again dropped a bombshell on witness tampering during her closing statement as vice-chair of the House Select Committee Investigating the Jan. 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol.

"After our last hearing, President Trump tried to call a witness in our investigation," she said.

"A witness you have not yet seen in these hearings," Cheney continued. "That person declined to answer or respond to President Trump's call and, instead, alerted their lawyer to the call. Their lawyer alerted us and this committee has supplied that information to the Department of Justice."

"Let me say one more time, we will take any effort to influence witness testimony very seriously," she added.
He said, “this has been an ongoing pattern, and we're trying to send the message that witness tampering is a crime in the United States of America."

Prof. Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law, who has argued three dozen cases before the Supreme Court, posted "WOW" on Twitter.
 
floridafan said:
Legal experts were stunned on Tuesday when GOP Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming once again dropped a bombshell on witness tampering during her closing statement as vice-chair of the House Select Committee Investigating the Jan. 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol.

"After our last hearing, President Trump tried to call a witness in our investigation," she said.

"A witness you have not yet seen in these hearings," Cheney continued. "That person declined to answer or respond to President Trump's call and, instead, alerted their lawyer to the call. Their lawyer alerted us and this committee has supplied that information to the Department of Justice."

"Let me say one more time, we will take any effort to influence witness testimony very seriously," she added.
He said, “this has been an ongoing pattern, and we're trying to send the message that witness tampering is a crime in the United States of America."

Prof. Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law, who has argued three dozen cases before the Supreme Court, posted "WOW" on Twitter.
Click to expand...

So we have Liz Cheney making a claim without evidence, about some person that she won't identify.:laugh:
 
So? According to the 'True Believers' in the Jan 6 committee, it's just a hearing not a trial and the rules of evidence don't apply... So, what difference does it make if Trump calls someone scheduled to make an appearance before the committee?
 
T. A. Gardner said:
So? According to the 'True Believers' in the Jan 6 committee, it's just a hearing not a trial and the rules of evidence don't apply... So, what difference does it make if Trump calls someone scheduled to make an appearance before the committee?
Click to expand...

Attempting to influence a witness!
 
Gondwanaland said:
She made a claim that Trump 'is the instigator'. She provided no evidence, and said it happened to someone she won't identify. Try reading.
Click to expand...

She doesn't owe you shit, so long as the details are turned over to the Justice dept, which they were. Surely when this particular witness testifies, the information about the call will be made public.
Is there any crime, handjob, that you will not defend trump?
 
Hello floridafan,

floridafan said:
Legal experts were stunned on Tuesday when GOP Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming once again dropped a bombshell on witness tampering during her closing statement as vice-chair of the House Select Committee Investigating the Jan. 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol.

"After our last hearing, President Trump tried to call a witness in our investigation," she said.

"A witness you have not yet seen in these hearings," Cheney continued. "That person declined to answer or respond to President Trump's call and, instead, alerted their lawyer to the call. Their lawyer alerted us and this committee has supplied that information to the Department of Justice."

"Let me say one more time, we will take any effort to influence witness testimony very seriously," she added.
He said, “this has been an ongoing pattern, and we're trying to send the message that witness tampering is a crime in the United States of America."

Prof. Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law, who has argued three dozen cases before the Supreme Court, posted "WOW" on Twitter.
Click to expand...

It just seems amazing that Donald Trump is still a free man. Privilege.

The man has zero concept of what average American lives are like.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
To be a witness means you witnessed stuff. The Jan 6 committee allows hearsay, gossip, opinion, and even conjecture as testimony. The persons called before them are hardly "witnesses."
Click to expand...

Almost everyone of these witnesses are Republicans with first hand knowledge. Possibly if you took the time to watch a hearing, you would have a different opinion. Sorry, that was a mistake, you job, your only job, is to defend DJT for everything. If he admitted to any lies, deceit or criminal wrong doing, you would still defend his every action. In short anything you say, my dear, means shit.
 
floridafan said:
She doesn't owe you shit, so long as the details are turned over to the Justice dept, which they were. Surely when this particular witness testifies, the information about the call will be made public.
Is there any crime, handjob, that you will not defend trump?
Click to expand...

1. she owes everyone the fucking details, bitch.
2. Even if he did it, it's not a crime, as this isn't a fucking trial, you dillweed.
3. I despise Trump and did not vote for the fucktard either election.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello floridafan,



It just seems amazing that Donald Trump is still a free man. Privilege.

The man has zero concept of what average American lives are like.
Click to expand...
Oh, he's going to get a concept in the next year or two for sure.

The witness blew it. He/She should have answered and recorded the call. Probably not set up to do it at the time.

Hard to make this one stick due to lack of specific discussion
 
Althea said:
Oh, he's going to get a concept in the next year or two for sure.

The witness blew it. He/She should have answered and recorded the call. Probably not set up to do it at the time.

Hard to make this one stick due to lack of specific discussion
Click to expand...

Playing devil's advocate... if the witness knew it was from trump, wouldn't a number have shown up that he recognized as trump's number? And couldn't the phone company records show that a call went from trump number to witness's number? I think that would count for something.
 
Hello Althea,

Althea said:
Oh, he's going to get a concept in the next year or two for sure.

The witness blew it. He/She should have answered and recorded the call. Probably not set up to do it at the time.

Hard to make this one stick due to lack of specific discussion
Click to expand...

Woulda coulda.

So many times, 'if only' saved Donald Trump.

If only the Secret Service had let Donald actually attend the Capitol Attack then there would be no way he could claim he was not leading it.
 
floridafan said:
Only the guilty attempt to tamper with witnesses

Legal experts were stunned on Tuesday when GOP Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming once again dropped a bombshell on witness tampering during her closing statement as vice-chair of the House Select Committee Investigating the Jan. 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol.

"After our last hearing, President Trump tried to call a witness in our investigation," she said.

"A witness you have not yet seen in these hearings," Cheney continued. "That person declined to answer or respond to President Trump's call and, instead, alerted their lawyer to the call. Their lawyer alerted us and this committee has supplied that information to the Department of Justice."

"Let me say one more time, we will take any effort to influence witness testimony very seriously," she added.
He said, “this has been an ongoing pattern, and we're trying to send the message that witness tampering is a crime in the United States of America."

Prof. Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law, who has argued three dozen cases before the Supreme Court, posted "WOW" on Twitter.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Same for pleading the Fifth Amendment.

2h1bqc.jpg
 
T. A. Gardner said:
So? According to the 'True Believers' in the Jan 6 committee, it's just a hearing not a trial and the rules of evidence don't apply... So, what difference does it make if Trump calls someone scheduled to make an appearance before the committee?
Click to expand...

It's also according to all the sane, intelligent and educated people who know how both Congress and the DOJ work.

All Pedo Don cocksuckers, Qless and other idiots don't have a fucking clue about what is truth and what is fiction.

5qmybb.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top