Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
How Twitler's tweets can be used to prove obstruction/witness tampering
Link to tweet
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1069671987918835713.html
THREAD: Did Trump engage in witness tampering this morning when he tweeted in praise of Roger Stone’s refusal to cooperate with prosecutors?
1/ This morning Trump tweeted the following in praise of Roger Stone’s refusal to cooperate with Mueller:
2/ @gtconway3d, @neal_katyal and other highly respected attorneys quickly noted that Trump’s tweet looks a lot like witness tampering. They’re right—it does. But proving beyond a reasonable doubt that it’s witness tampering is more challenging than it might seem at first glance.
3/ I’ve included the relevant jury instruction below. Mueller would need to prove, among other things, that Trump had “corrupt” intent and acted with the intent to cause Stone to withhold testimony.
4/ Trump has said and done many things over the last two years that suggest that he often acts with the intent to impede the Mueller investigation—I collected many of them in the piece I wrote in January (below).
5/ But for purposes of a stand-alone witness tampering charge, what matters is Trump’s intent when he wrote this specific tweet. Evidence of his other acts would be very relevant but not dispositive.
6/ Trump’s lawyers would argue that the purpose of his tweet was to influence the public, not Stone, and that they could have spoken to Stone’s attorney privately if Trump actually wanted to influence him.
7/ Trump says a great many things on Twitter and isn’t careful with his words, so some courts have concluded that his words can’t be taken literally or seriously. Here is a short thread discussing those cases (which of course were in a different context):
8/ Prosecutors would likely respond that by speaking broadly to the public instead of privately to Stone, Trump was trying to influence Stone in a manner that gave him plausible deniability.
9/ They would point to Michael Cohen’s recent sentencing memorandum, in which his attorney said that Cohen lied in part due to Trump’s messaging. My thread discussing that is below:
10/ Because of the challenges of proving “corrupt” intent, and the legal challenges Trump could bring, I think the best way for a prosecutor to charge today’s tweet would be as part of a larger conspiracy to obstruct justice, instead of as a stand-alone crime.
1/ This morning Trump tweeted the following in praise of Roger Stone’s refusal to cooperate with Mueller:
2/ @gtconway3d, @neal_katyal and other highly respected attorneys quickly noted that Trump’s tweet looks a lot like witness tampering. They’re right—it does. But proving beyond a reasonable doubt that it’s witness tampering is more challenging than it might seem at first glance.
3/ I’ve included the relevant jury instruction below. Mueller would need to prove, among other things, that Trump had “corrupt” intent and acted with the intent to cause Stone to withhold testimony.
4/ Trump has said and done many things over the last two years that suggest that he often acts with the intent to impede the Mueller investigation—I collected many of them in the piece I wrote in January (below).
5/ But for purposes of a stand-alone witness tampering charge, what matters is Trump’s intent when he wrote this specific tweet. Evidence of his other acts would be very relevant but not dispositive.
6/ Trump’s lawyers would argue that the purpose of his tweet was to influence the public, not Stone, and that they could have spoken to Stone’s attorney privately if Trump actually wanted to influence him.
7/ Trump says a great many things on Twitter and isn’t careful with his words, so some courts have concluded that his words can’t be taken literally or seriously. Here is a short thread discussing those cases (which of course were in a different context):
8/ Prosecutors would likely respond that by speaking broadly to the public instead of privately to Stone, Trump was trying to influence Stone in a manner that gave him plausible deniability.
9/ They would point to Michael Cohen’s recent sentencing memorandum, in which his attorney said that Cohen lied in part due to Trump’s messaging. My thread discussing that is below:
10/ Because of the challenges of proving “corrupt” intent, and the legal challenges Trump could bring, I think the best way for a prosecutor to charge today’s tweet would be as part of a larger conspiracy to obstruct justice, instead of as a stand-alone crime.
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
