Is Witness Tampering The Act of an Innocent Person?

[Anonymous]

Yes. An innocent person threatens a witness not to testify.

No. Witness tampering means they're guilty as hell.

[DaveJord]

Its the act of someone who has a weak case, Innocent or guilty. As I have been reminded a lot recently being a bad person, void of values and integrity is not a crime.

But witness tampering is crime and the actions of a criminal. But they could be innocent of crime they are charged with.

[RationalMale]

The Justice Department already refused to press charges against Hillary for mass deleting documents and having her private server on basis of "she didn't know better, it wouldn't be reasonable to charge her" despite it carrying a hefty sentence. The Left also cheered with joy when mobs literally attacked the White House, not to mention Kamala herself raising money to bail out terrorists who were rioting, looting, arson, and attacking people during the 2020 riots.

At this point I don't care if Trump wins the White House 2024 by publicly having Clinton, Biden, and Obama all assassinated. The "Law" only applies to the Right these days and the Left counts themselves above the law.

[Asker]

Oh, are we still worried about Hillary's emails? Simpler times.

[RationalMale]

It's simple. The law already stopped applying to the Left. So why should any of us on the Right care about it either?
It's same as how the Left cheered when mobs were destroying monuments and trying to physically storm the White House, but we're supposed to gasp in horror at Jan 6.

[Anonymous]

You're obviously not following this "investigation." Every single person on the panel voted to impeach Trump. The "panel" refused to let anyone cross examine any of the witnesses against Trump. The panel refused to put Pelosi on the stand to ask her why she refused the 20,000 national guard troops that Trump offered to protect the capitol.
The panel refused to play the video of Trump telling his fans to march peaceably to the capitol.

[legalboxers]

how did your 1/6 stunt go? who paid for the wall? who got locked up?

[AviatorTom]

Maybe, and I'm not referring to anyone in particular here, just a theoretical situation. If the person is innocent and knows that the witness has a vendetta against them, wants to see them found guilty or maybe is trying to save their own skin, the innocent person might try to get them to not testify or change their testimony by pressuring them or paying them off.

[Chazmatazz269]

The question is inherently paradoxical. Witness tampering IS a crime. So if a person does so, they are not “innocent”. Also, in terms of the law, we yield conclusions of “guilty” and “not guilty” with regard to specific charges. The underlying understanding is that no person who ends up on trial is “innocent”.

[Snakeyes7]

They are just going to keep making stuff up. It will be 2050 and we will *still* be squaking over this bullshit.

You had your chance to lock Trump up when you impeached him and you fucked up. The constitution doesn't give you a second chance...

oh wait, the left hates the constitution when it doesn't benefit them.

[goaded]

No, Republicans let him off. For a second time. And impeachment doesn't involve locking people up, it's just removing them from office. Indicted, tried, convicted and sent to prison is a separate issue that you should be ready to watch. Of course you only believe in the rule of law when it suits you.

[Snakeyes7]

@goaded Then why bother impeaching Trump after he was already voted out? That was an impeachment right? Why didn't we just do a criminal trial the first time?

[goaded]

To stop him from holding office again and to signal to other would-be dictators that America still has a functioning democracy. Of course, McConnell wanted nothing to do with that. (I'll remind you, a clear majority, 57 Senators, voted to convict.)

The criminal trial is yet to come. These things take time.

[Snakeyes7]

@goaded He was already out of office. There was no point to impeaching him as you cannot remove someone from a position they no longer hold. At that point he could have been tried as a regular citizen and actually been locked up but you had to have an "impeachment" trial to waste our tax dollars.

[goaded]

That's why I said "stop him from holding office *again*", and also that "The criminal trial is yet to come. These things take time." Impeachment, with 57 senators voting to convict was just 3 short of the deserved conviction and much quicker.

[Snakeyes7]

@goaded Pretty sure you can't run for president if you are in prison. If you really want him put of the race do the criminal trial now and get it over with. If he really was guilty of insurrection then I would imagine that he will be in prison for the remainder of his life anyway.

Just cut out the middle man and not waste everyone's time and money.

[goaded]

The impeachment took less time and probably cost less money than any one of the bogus Benghazi hearings, of which there were many, and they all said there was nothing for the government to answer for.

[Snakeyes7]

@goaded They were both pointless. Do the criminal trial already and stop wasting everyone's time.

[goaded]

Neither was pointless. The impeachment was only 3 (Republican) votes short of the clearly deserved conviction, and the investigation has turned up plenty of worthwhile evidence against Trump. Making it public has encouraged people to come forward, if only to avoid implication in the crimes.

[Snakeyes7]

@goaded If you aren't going to imprison him for the first trial then you are wasting your time, you can't run for office when you are in prison so why are we doing this borderline political theater and go to the criminal trial already?

[goaded]

Look, don't ask me why the US justice system works this way or so slowly. There hasn't been a proper trial yet, the House committee is undertaking an investigation to get to the truth, it's up to the DoJ to indict.

Maybe the DoJ is worried that there will be one Trump nut on the jury and nullify it despite all the evidence, much like 43 Republican senators did with the impeachment trial. Rule of law only really works when there's consent and honesty.

[Snakeyes7]

@goaded OK, I don't know why it has taken a year and a half to get the trial going so let's wait until the criminal trial goes before we make any judgements.

There are pro-Trump nuts as you described and there are anti-Trump nuts that hate him no matter what he does as well. Maybe there are measures that a jury can undergo to make sure they are truly neutral.

[goaded]

No, I think normal people can already make a judgement about Trump. At least if they've seen or heard the evidence.

You need 12 people on a jury to convict, just one to acquit.

[Snakeyes7]

@goaded At the point of the criminal trial, they will see and hear evidence that the media may or may not want the rest of the world to hear. I'm not saying that there will be evidence like that but if the Rittenhouse trial has told me anything, the media are not afraid to lie to the faces of the people.

[DARKCLOUD1945X]

the kangaroo impeachment could not do now we have the kangaroo Jan 6th frame up with mostly the same people sitting in judgement that were on the impeachment planel with the exception of two turncoat Republicans in additing and a new sets of lying witnesses.

[goaded]

@DARKCLOUD1945X They're not lying, and 57 senators voted to impeach on the second one, including 7 Republicans, but not, of course, McConnell, who'd reportedly supported it, to rid the Republican party of Trump. www.foxnews.com/.../mcconnell-believes-trump-committed-impeachable-offenses-supports-democrats-impeachment-efforts-report

[Jamie05rhs]

I know this doesn't have anything to do with the question, but I just want to point out the fact that Liz Cheney is very attractive. What is she- like, 55? She takes very good care of herself.

I just want everyone to know that YES, older women CAN be sexy!

[Slartybartfast]

Ask lt col vindmans twin brother.

Trump illegally retaliated against a wittiness FAMILY.

The act of a monster. Even mob bosses usually have more restraint.

[monorprise]

Saying mean things to people you say mean stuff to all the time isn't tampering. Also you have to have a real trial to witness tamping. There is no trial period.

[genericname85]

that's just the very normal cuthroat shit that happens at the top of the political/economical food chain. only some naive children would be shocked by this and only complete fools would believe that only trump does this.

[HazyDaze63]

It could also be the act of a person with an inflated ego that is more worried about his butt hurt feelings than innocence or guilt

[Dargil]

He will run again and he will win if he does. Get used to it.

[Quigly]

All B. S.

They are scared of Hunter Biden's laptop and Joe Biden's voice mail.

Putin style trials to give themselves credibility when they have none.

[Surely]

So is protesting in front of a judge’s house and threatening their family!
How far did that go?

[Jamesshinobi]

its usually a charge thrown at people they have nothing on.

[supercutebutt]

Trump encouraged his army of trash to murder people over a lie.

[GrapeApe98]

Will someone PLEASE just throw this guy in a cell and leave him to rot already?

[legalboxers]

*yawn* *watches all the trumplets cry for their leader*
It is WITNESS TAMPERING and INTIMIDATION

[lofii]

What's it like being you? Seems you live a sad life

[CaptainSmartass]

Nope. Witness tampering is very illegal.

Simples...

[snowboarder720]

Just throw his orange ass in prison already.

[Skyros]

The first thing you have to remember is NO one is innocent.

[Bratsondanielle]

Some people do that. I'm just happy Trump didn't

[Maddy5]

Well it’s a literal crime😂