Help me understand?

[josephinelcajon]

Maybe I am an idiot? Please help me understand. The January 6th Committee said that Trump contacted a witness. And this is a violation. We have not been told who this witness is so how was Trump supposed to know they were a witness that was going to testify? What am I missing? I do not want to take sides here I just want to understand. THANKS!

[WhiteSteve]

Well, they just aren’t announcing which witness it was, that doesn’t mean it wasn’t an expected witness. Like the Pat Cipollone guy who they had all the video from Tuesday, he had his testimony (not in front of the live broadcast) last week, and I remembered hearing just a couple days after that Cassidy Hutchinson gal testified that Cipollone had then agreed to come in. So there were at least a couple days where, say, Cipollone could’ve been contacted by Trump, and if he had, it might’ve been reported, and if there had been a hearing in between, they could’ve publicly referenced that it happened but not said Cipollone by name. That’s all last week’s stuff, I’m just illustrating an example. But consistent with that example, I’m pretty sure I heard Steve Bannon is coming in to testify, and I wouldn’t surprise me if Trump had tried to call him, and Bannon is just under so much legal pressure he’s just not fucking around, and had to report it. So there is an announced upcoming witness who it could be, or maybe someone else I just didn’t hear announced, but they don’t want to name the name for whatever reason.

[josephinelcajon]

THANK YOU! I understand your example.

[monorprise]

Contacting a witness to a political hearing is not a crime. Trump could even have paid them to not show up and it would have been legitimate.

Theses people have no legal authority to compel anyone to help them in their political campaign.

Their media friends are pretending like this is some kind of investigation but its nothing more than a political show. They are not even attempting a serous investigation the nature of their slanderous questions and assumptions kind of prove that.

[josephinelcajon]

Yes but the part I do not understand is how do they expect trump to know that person is a witness without telling him. This and only this part is what is so mind boggling to me and why others are not asking!

[monorprise]

@josephinelcajon The same reason they believe all sorts of other crazy things about trump. Its a political show not a trial. They don't have real cross examinations with actual witnesses and rules of evidence.

Everything is just designed to push a political message, they don't care about the truth.

[josephinelcajon]

I was trying to stay very neutral, but the lack of response makes me not care about it now. The fact its a primetime TV show produced by a movie studio with so called "witnesses" who are literarily threatened into testifying should have sparked a civil war! And yet here we are.

[monorprise]

@josephinelcajon Few people are shocked by the fact that New Media and politicians are lying and putting on a political show for political ends.

They do this all the time, and have been doing it in every more desperate and delusional ways for years. Its the people who still take them seriously after soo many such lies that are the delusional ones.

That their delusions may make them a threat to their neighbors down the line does not mean they are a threat now, will ever be, nor that said threat need to be addressed in any particular way. Indeed their willingness to be fooled by the same people over and over again makes it really clear how to control them in the future if we ever did need them to do anything in particular.

Right now the delusional ones are too ignorant to see where they are standing. If their end game is to again attempt a burning of the reichstag moment to shut down political opposition.

This will lead to a civil war they can't win, but not before they take such tangible actions eroding their own legitimacy and clearly making them and the LEO's they control into a real threat.

If they simply want to demonize particular opponents politically as they normally do, then that would depend upon the merits of their political charges.

[goaded]

The witnesses (no quotes, because that's exactly what they are) are in the most part loyal Republicans who worked for Trump. Why would they testify against him unless they were pressured to appear?

They're not being pressured to lie, or to "be loyal" to Trump, they're under pressure to tell the truth. They can even take the fifth, like Flynn did when asked if he believes in the peaceful transition of power in the United States.

How would we find the truth unless they testified under oath? Every statement made to the media by people claiming to refute anything that's said is meaningless (and most of the examples I've seen were about some minor detail, not the overall picture). They can volunteer to testify in the knowledge that they'd be in legal trouble if they perjure themselves.

[monorprise]

@goaded The fact that they are illegally forced to participate in this political campaign is reason enough to not cooperate.
The truth regardless of what is not relevant. Nothing of consequence happened, nor could it have happened.

[goaded]

There's nothing illegal about it. Congress is entitled to hold investigations and hearings. You should know that.

[goaded]

"Next, and when [Trump] could not stop the counting, he tried to stop state legislatures and governors from certifying the results of the election. He went to court and filed dozens of frivolous lawsuits making unsubstantiated claims of fraud. When that too failed, he mounted a pressure campaign directed at individual state legislators to try to get them to go back into session and either declare him the winner, decertify Joe Biden as the winner, or send two slates of electors to Congress, one for Biden and one for him and pressure Vice President Pence to choose him as the winner. But the state legislatures wouldn't go along with this scheme and neither would the Vice President.

None of the legislatures agreed to go back in the special session and declare him the winner. No legitimate state authority in the states Donald Trump lost would agree to appoint fake Trump electors and send them to Congress. But this didn't stop the Trump campaign either. They assembled groups of individuals in key battleground states and got them to call themselves electors, created phony certificates associated with these fake electors, and then transmitted these certificates to Washington and to the Congress to be counted during the joint session of Congress on January 6th. None of this worked, but according to federal District Judge David Carter, former President Trump and others likely violated multiple federal laws by engaging in this scheme, including conspiracy to defraud the United States."

[Anonymous]

It’s safe to assume that Trump was aware of who was around him on Jan. 6th, so I don’t imagine it’s too difficult to figure out who may be called to testify.
Plus, nothing is secret in Washington. I’m sure the list is potential witnesses isn’t impossible to get ahold of for those who are keen to see it.

[josephinelcajon]

So If I am ever accused of something I should assume I cannot talk to anyone I know?

[RolandCuthbert]

You are kidding right? Trump knows who is being called. WTF? And he only contacted this person personally because he is paranoid. He doesn't feel he can trust anyone since so many aides, assistances, staffers, lawyers, etc. have testified against him. Before earlier in the hearings, he would just have other staff contact the people testifying.

But this is nothing new. He did it to Michael Cohen, Rick Gates, and many other times during the Mueller probe.

So stop pretending that just because you don't know the witness list, that trump doesn't have turncoats in Congress who know who the January 6th commission is calling.

[Anonymous]

It may be a violation, we’ll see. Witness tampering is not hard to understand.

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

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/donald-trump-jan-6-committee-witness-tampering-phone-call-1383029/

https://www.youtube.com/embed/9P8DOduWPxU

[josephinelcajon]

My question was if no one knew who the witness was how it can be witness tampering? Does my question make sense now? I fully agree IF Trump knew that person was a witness then it might be witness tampering. I say might because he never actually spoke to that person.

[Opinion Owner]

Don't you think the people on the January 6th committee you know who the witness is and what was said? Do you really think they'd just throw that out there without knowing this?

We'll find out who it is at one of the next January 6th committee meetings.

[Opinion Owner]

Until that time …

[josephinelcajon]

Certainly the committee does but again how did Trump? It was not released who the witness is. So how was he supposed to know not to talk to them?

[goaded]

You can't imagine Trump calling around everyone who might have dirt on him about Jan 6th? There can't be that many who haven't already testified, or whose names have come up recently in connection to it. Maybe the guys who were in the car with him?

He should be avoiding contact with anyone who might be called to testify, just like he should have been avoiding contact with election officials in 2020.

[jimmy2]

It's🥳all Democrats nonsense to get rid of trump due to they know they can't beat him

[Dinosaursandanime65]

I don’t understand either

[Anonymous]

The whole thing is all such a sham.

[joeldalton]

Just trust them, mkay?