I don't understand the legal parameters to prove Trump's culpability in witness tampering.

[Baitball Blogger]

For example, his attorney, McGahn, said that he declined Trump's request on several occasions to claim that Trump was clear of obstruction. So, I'm thinking, isn't that enough? How far is this supposed to go before the evidence is legally actionable? Because, the next level is for McGahn to have actually gone through with it and stated that Trump was not guilty of obstruction and then he calls back his claim, which of course, Trump would say that it was hogwash coming from a ex-employee.

Does anyone else see how this weird set of circumstance is allowing Trump to "get away with it."

[spanone]

1. I'm with you.

[rzemanfl]

2. It all goes back to Spiro Agnew. n/t

[stopdiggin]

3. a thicket of lies, but to whom, and who brings charges?

I think "tampering" and obstruction have been fairly clearly established/demonstrated. The issue (I believe) is in the "sitting president" principal. Another point here .. who brings charges? The DOJ? Barr? I think you can see the problem. There are things going on at a state level (still having to account for "sitting president). But the McGahn thing almost certainly a federal consideration.