EX-PRESIDENT INDICTED

C

chrysler82000

Full Audioholic
Nope. Trump was the only one yelling in the mic going on 8 years, and he was the only one escalating hate.
"I think the key there is they're calling for a session without specifying what the wrongdoing is. Therefore it's likely political on the right to portray this as an unfair attack against Trump. Sort of like the weaponization committee. "

so you actually do posses the slightest amount of common sense.

You keep mentioning trumps hate speach yet have produced nothing to support it. So, back to, you have no common sense. For a moment I thought just maybe.....
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Spartan
"I think the key there is they're calling for a session without specifying what the wrongdoing is. Therefore it's likely political on the right to portray this as an unfair attack against Trump. Sort of like the weaponization committee. "

so you actually do posses the slightest amount of common sense.

You keep mentioning trumps hate speach yet have produced nothing to support it. So, back to, you have no common sense. For a moment I thought just maybe.....
I've seen probably at least 1000 news clips related to Trump and his behavior in front of the mic. The conclusion is still anger and hate. Even Hannity asked recently: when are you going to be nice???
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
@Mr._Clark

It looks like a repeated practice that Trump indirectly pays legal fees of co-defendants, or allows them to use his own legal team for their own defense. Of course, he uses PAC money, never his own. This comes with the implied threat of loosing that support if the co-defendant testifies against Trump.

I also remember during the January 6 Committee hearings, one witness, Cassidy Hutchinson, told the Committee about how she was given promises of jobs with Trump, after leaving the White House, if she remained loyal to him. Her attorney at the time, Stefan Passantino, delivered these messages. I had to refresh my memory of this story. If you also must refresh your memory of those details, see these two Wikipedia links below.
Under subpoena Hutchinson gave four depositions to the committee, totaling more than two dozen hours, testifying on live television on June 28, 2022. Prior to her March 7 deposition, she received multiple messages from Trump allies suggesting she demonstrate loyalty to Trump in her testimony. Days before her testimony, she dismissed her attorney, Stefan Passantino, who had deep connections with Trump associates, replacing him with Jody Hunt, a former longtime Justice Department official and chief of staff for Trump's first attorney general, Jeff Sessions.
An interview transcript released on December 22, 2022 revealed that Hutchinson gave additional testimony on September 14 and September 15, 2022. During part of this testimony, Hutchinson stated that she was pressured by Trump allies not to talk to the committee. She also claimed that with former White House aide Alyssa Farah Griffin acting as her backchannel, she was able to conduct the interview without Passantino's knowledge, and that Passantino in fact wanted her to skirt around the committee questions. Hutchinson testified to the committee that Passantino told her, "We just want to focus on protecting the president" and "We all know you're loyal" and he would help her get "a really good job in Trump world" because "We want to keep you in the family."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Passantino
Passantino was the lawyer for Cassidy Hutchinson, a former White House aide who was unemployed at the time, who under subpoena testified before the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack. Trump’s Save America political action committee paid Passantino for his representation of Hutchinson, and the committee reported that he did not tell her who was paying him. After she was deposed, Hutchinson received a call from a top aide to Mark Meadows saying: "Mark wants me to let you know that he knows you’re loyal, and he knows you’ll do the right thing tomorrow and that you’re going to protect him and the boss." Concerned that her testimony was being conveyed to Trump, and suspecting Passantino's legal team of leaking it to him, she terminated Passantino's representation of her.
Hutchinson testified that White House officials anticipated violence days in advance of January 6, that Trump knew supporters at the Ellipse rally were armed with weapons including AR-15s, yet asked to relax security checks at his speech, and that Trump planned to join the crowd at the Capitol and became irate when the Secret Service refused his request. She said that she was encouraged to claim "I do not recall" for events she remembered which might make the president look bad. Hutchinson's testified that Passantino assured her that "Trump world" would find her a job and keep her in the family. On December 20, 2022, CNN identified Passantino as the lawyer who urged a key witness to mislead the committee. On December 22, 2022, the committee released the transcript of Hutchinson's interview, describing her interactions with Passantino. Days before her testimony, she dismissed Passantino, replacing him with attorney Jody Hunt. Passantino denied urging her to mislead the panel.
Finally, my question for you:

If this pattern of witness payoffs and/or threats, depending on loyal [false] testimony, is repeated enough, when does it become evidence of criminal witness tampering or coercion? If not direct criminal evidence, is it enough to alert prosecutors or judges of possible witness tampering?
 
Last edited:
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
Finally, my question for you:

If this pattern of witness payoffs and/or threats, depending on loyal [false] testimony, is repeated enough, when does it become evidence of criminal witness tampering or coercion? If not direct criminal evidence, is it enough to alert prosecutors or judges of possible witness tampering?
I'm not sure if there's a simple answer to that. Also, take the following with a grain of salt because this is not something I run into in my day to day practice.

Getting evidence that witness tampering has occurred is probably the major hurdle in most cases.

In terms of what actions constitute witness tampering, it comes down to the criminal laws in the jurisdiction in question. Here's a link to the DOJ web page discussing federal law:

>>>Section 1512 of Title 18 constitutes a broad prohibition against tampering with a witness, victim or informant. It proscribes conduct intended to illegitimately affect the presentation of evidence in Federal proceedings or the communication of information to Federal law enforcement officers. It applies to proceedings before Congress, executive departments, and administrative agencies, and to civil and criminal judicial proceedings, including grand jury proceedings. See 18 U.S.C. § 1515(a)(1). In addition, the section provides extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over the offenses created therein. See 18 U.S.C. § 1512(g); 128 Cong. Rec. H8469 (daily ed. Oct. 1, 1980); H. R. Rep. No. 1369, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 20-22 (1980).<<<(emphasis added)


Here's a link to the law.


The federal law has numerous sections. The following section appears to be a decent candidate for the situation you described:

>>>(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to—
(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;

(2) cause or induceany person to—
(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
(B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;
(C) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
(D) be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process<<<(emphasis added)

If a third party (We'll call him "Fat Baloney" or "FB") pays a lawyer to represent a potential witness who might testify against FB, the lawyer can probably wield a great deal of influence without crossing the line. For example, a lawyer could say to the client "If you take the 5th, it would be difficult for the prosecutor to prove that you had knowledge of the crime." This might be technically true, but the lawyer might not say "However, if you take a plea deal there's no risk of a conviction and you can probably walk away with just a modest fine." This hypothetical is just food for thought to illustrate potential issues. In general, most lawyers would be quite careful to avoid crossing the line.

As a practical matter, getting evidence of witness tampering might be difficult because the communications would probably be covered by attorney-client privilege unless the client waives it or the prosecutor is able to demonstrate that the crime-fraud exception applies.


If the person who did the tampering is not a lawyer, the AC privilege issues would of course not apply so it might be easier to gather evidence.

In general, it is difficult to know if a particular witness has been influenced in a manner that would cross the line with regards to witness tampering, especially if the influence has come from a lawyer.

In theory it might be possible to get a wiretap:

>>>Like Mr. Trump, most of Mr. Cohn’s best-known clients do not appear in the just-released documents. Mr. Salerno, known as Fat Tony, is an exception. . . .

Mr. Webster [the F.B.I. director] denies in a letter to Mr. Cohn that the F.B.I. fed information to reporters, but a separate memo by a different official acknowledged that agents had conducted surveillance of Mr. Cohn’s office “to ascertain the feasibility of installing a monitoring device to intercept the conversations of Genovese boss Anthony Salerno” and a Teamsters contact.<<< (any similarities between Fat Tony and Fat Baloney are purely intentional)


Going back to Fat Baloney and the lawyer he's paying, the prosecutor would need to show that FB conspired or caused the other person (e.g the lawyer) to tamper with a witness, and FB's communications with the lawyer are also probably protected by AC privilege unless the prosecutor can meet the bar to show a crime fraud exception.

Yet another aspect of this is attorney ethics. You didn't ask, but the third party payer scenario can raise numerous ethical issues for the attorney. This is not a criminal law issue, but attorneys need to be very careful in this situation to avoid getting in hot water with the state bar where they are licensed.

I'm not sure what the Georgia and NY laws are with regards to witness tampering. There could be some crossover in the sense that pressuring a person who is a witness in both cases could lead to a violation of both state and federal law.

Again, take the above with a grain of salt. I'm sure it is far from complete or perfect.
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
@Mr._Clark

...

I also remember during the January 6 Committee hearings, one witness, Cassidy Hutchinson, told the Committee about how she was given promises of jobs with Trump, after leaving the White House, if she remained loyal to him. Her attorney at the time, Stefan Passantino, delivered these messages. I had to refresh my memory of this story. If you also must refresh your memory of those details, see these two Wikipedia links below.
...
Too bad she didn't ask for that in writing, signed by the Trumpster. :D
 
C

chrysler82000

Full Audioholic
I've seen probably at least 1000 news clips related to Trump and his behavior in front of the mic. The conclusion is still anger and hate. Even Hannity asked recently: when are you going to be nice???
You've seen thousands but produced ZERO. Sounds like you are living in an alternative reality. I see this all the time with libs. The mirror lies.
 
C

chrysler82000

Full Audioholic
The over/under on Trump's weight was 273.5 lbs, but it was increased by 8 lbs because 77% had taken the over bet. I'd be tempted to take the under on this one. He's not exactly ripped, but even if he really is 6'3," 280+ lbs is huge.

Either way, it's safe to say he won't be leading a charge of the light brigade any time soon.

>>>One bookmaker site, Antigua-based BetOnline, on Friday offered an over/under of 273.5 pounds for Trump's weight upon his surrender to authorities in Fulton County, noted gambling news Instagram account TheJuice. . . . According to BetOnline employee Dave Mason, 77 percent of gamblers have taken the over bet on Trump's weight so far, spurring the sportsbook to increase the total by eight pounds. <<<

dumb ass

 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
Of drumphy's creepiness? Few men get that creepy....you might. What kind of policy were drumphy's....he's basically a buffoon, can barely operate a business.

This is going way off track from the indictment discussion...pure discussion of the orange turd better here https://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/on-trump.124983/page-22#post-1611996
For creepy, Biden is a strong competitor with his habit of putting his hands on the shoulders of young-ish girls and several women (& Hillary) and sniffing their hair.

Start at :40 in-

 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
For creepy, Biden is a strong competitor with his habit of putting his hands on the shoulders of young-ish girls and several women (& Hillary) and sniffing their hair.

Start at :40 in-

As far as I know, Biden has never raped anyone though...
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top