• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are Tweets Witness Tampering? (1 Viewer)

Are Tweets Witness Tampering


  • Total voters
    38

NeverTrump

Exposing GOP since 2015
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2013
Messages
25,357
Reaction score
11,557
Location
Post-Trump America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I do not think tweets have that much impact in criminal cases, but this is case is shall we say, special...
 
Are you kidding? The very fact that Donald Trump has ever existed is probably witness tampering. You guys are going to have to find a way to completely erase him from history before your world will ever be same again.
 
Are you kidding? The very fact that Donald Trump has ever existed is probably witness tampering. You guys are going to have to find a way to completely erase him from history before your world will ever be same again.

So do you think Trump's pleading to Cohen, Manafort, Flynn had any effect on the trial outcomes??? B/c I do not, but IDK if it could be considered witness tampering... Sounds like I got you pretty triggered though.
 
The Trump Administration declared its Tweets to be official communication almost 2 years ago. As stupid and shortsighted as the communication policy is it characterizes the impulsive, slap dash, half-assed, arrogance and ironic cluelessness of the Trump Administration. If Tweets have been and are a problem for the Administration it is the President’s own doing and will ultimately contribute to his undoing.
 
The Trump Administration declared its Tweets to be official communication almost 2 years ago. As stupid and shortsighted as the communication policy is it characterizes the impulsive, slap dash, half-assed, arrogance and ironic cluelessness of the Trump Administration. If Tweets have been and are a problem for the Administration it is the President’s own doing and will ultimately contribute to his undoing.

That's true the WH often transcribes Trump Tweets after he tweets them and send it out as official policy or stances.
 
Are you kidding? The very fact that Donald Trump has ever existed is probably witness tampering. You guys are going to have to find a way to completely erase him from history before your world will ever be same again.

Nobody who relentlessly posts blindingly dishonest rants about how Mueller's investigation is a "witch hunt" has the slightest bit of standing to make a "you guys" statement.
 
"Can they be_______" is the question, and I suspect the answer is "most definitely they can but it really depends".
 
are you kidding? The very fact that donald trump has ever existed is probably witness tampering. You guys are going to have to find a way to completely erase him from history before your world will ever be same again.

Lock her up!

Lock her up!

Lock her up!










Oh but she's the real criminal, right luther? The Republican AG under "Republican" Trump didn't try to convene a grand jury - or did, failed, and thus we don't know about it .... but you don't want to go there because if it failed there wasn't even probable cause - but she was obviously guilty anyway, right?

Deep State stopped Sessions from doing that?

Exactly. You want to complain about people leaping to conclusions, well holy hell you've got far worse to confront on the sides you line up with, on multiple fronts.






Edit: Your conspiracy-theory defense of Trump, splattered across however many threads at this point, is just as absurd as those of a 9/11 truther. It may be comforting to repeat it to like-minded people, but it's beyond absurd. Flynn and his buddy are pleading guilty because they are guilty. They aren't some borderline-retarded poor defendant being threatened/beaten by the police. They aren't even a poor defendant who has to choose between pleading guilty to a fradulent drug charge or spending 9 months in jail to prove their innocence and losing everything in the process despite ultimately clearing their name with, perhaps, a drug test taken within a day after arrest.

They aren't the people who might just plead guilty despite innocence.






It's so ****ING insulting to watch people go to bat for Trump by suddenly pretending to care about the criminal justice system when the real abuse is so much more banal and so much more evil and happens every single day.

Just...don't pretend to care. Find some other angle.
 
Last edited:
"Can they be_______" is the question, and I suspect the answer is "most definitely they can but it really depends".

That is my view as well, but I mean. If you are part of a case that has all evidence against you, and you know more about it than the President. Is a tweet really going to affect your decision of what you say??? So far...None have remained loyal to Trump while under oath. I even suspect Trump and Giuliani won't. Regardless of any tweets. Now I suspect Mueller is letting Flynn out to see what Trump will do.
 
That is my view as well, but I mean. If you are part of a case that has all evidence against you, and you know more about it than the President. Is a tweet really going to affect your decision of what you say??? So far...None have remained loyal to Trump while under oath. I even suspect Trump and Giuliani won't. Regardless of any tweets. Now I suspect Mueller is letting Flynn out to see what Trump will do.

Hell, I dunno without starting to comb through federal cases (really). Some of Trump's tweets struck me as quite troubling but if I've learned anything it's that one should never assume what the law is on a given question.
 
Hell, I dunno without starting to comb through federal cases (really). Some of Trump's tweets struck me as quite troubling but if I've learned anything it's that one should never assume what the law is on a given question.

Are there examples of this in current cases??? Mob bosses generally don't use twitter, unless you count Kingpin's social media accounts..
 
I do not think tweets have that much impact in criminal cases, but this is case is shall we say, special...

I believe it depends on the nature, and intended audience, of the tweets.

Twitter is a valid form of communication, and any communication that is threatening or intimidating in nature could be considered witness tampering.
 
~ No. Tweets are merely opinions. In the case of Trump he also "reports" his daily activities.
However I believe they do not help and eventually may even hurt do to 'Trump Hate Fever' . :3oops:
 
Has anybody ever been convicted of witness tampering in which the alleged “tampering” was done publicly, like on TV or radio or such?
 
Are there examples of this in current cases??? Mob bosses generally don't use twitter, unless you count Kingpin's social media accounts..

Mob bosses, racketeers, spies, etc. also aren't immune from federal prosecution on account of a DoJ policy, nor have they any plausible reason to expect to be pardoned by their successor. Accordingly, they have better sense than to run their mouths about what is and isn't, and about what they did or didn't do.

On the other hand, Trump would have a hard time getting away with ordering one of his lieutenants to "neutralize" his opponents.
 
Has anybody ever been convicted of witness tampering in which the alleged “tampering” was done publicly, like on TV or radio or such?

Mob bosses, racketeers, spies, etc. also aren't immune from federal prosecution on account of a DoJ policy, nor have they any plausible reason to expect to be pardoned by their successor. Accordingly, they have better sense than to run their mouths about what is and isn't, and about what they did or didn't do.

Safe to say that this is a new ball game. Let's see if Giuiliani's thinking, that they can spout all the lies they want on TV, but only as long as they tell the truth in court, turns out to be correct.
 
Are there examples of this in current cases??? Mob bosses generally don't use twitter, unless you count Kingpin's social media accounts..

That's the thing. I don't know. I haven't glanced at witness tampering since something in MA 8ish years ago so it wasn't federal witness tampering, and I don't really remember....wasn't my case.

I suspect that the nub of the thing would be the intent of the tweeter. The fact that was a tweet strikes me as very likely to be irrelevant, especially in today's environment when the tweeter in question immediately gets quoted in every last media source in the country. That is, I suspect the main question would be whether Trump intended to influence the target's interactions with the police by praising people who don't talk, cursing "rat", yadda yadda.

But those are probably just good bets. I would further bet that if this was researched in the normal way, you won't get much in the way of an estimate about the likelihood of his being convicted. You could easily find out the bare minimum required to send a case to the jury and you might extrapolate a bit from what you read, but collecting a statistic like the probability of being convicted if charged is something I wouldn't know how to do and would suspect would take quite an expensive effort given how clunky the country's overall court system(s) are. (You'd have to investigate cases resulting in acquittal, which aren't appealed. That means a lot of investigation and digging all around the country).




Do we have any lawyers that have done a meaningful amount of recent-ish federal witness tampering cases involving a communication that goes out to the public and involving a communicator whose statements are particularly likely to be reported, especially as that discuss these facts in relation to intent?
 
~ No. Tweets are merely opinions. In the case of Trump he also "reports" his daily activities.
However I believe they do not help and eventually may even hurt do to 'Trump Hate Fever' . :3oops:

Your tweets may be opinions. A whole lotta folks' tweets may be opinions.....

Donald Trump's tweets are "official statements of the president of the United States." That is the clarification the DoJ provided when U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta of the District of Columbia asked it to provide insight on how the government views the president’s tweets, and "how official they are."
 
I believe it depends on the nature, and intended audience, of the tweets.

Twitter is a valid form of communication, and any communication that is threatening or intimidating in nature could be considered witness tampering.
Any form of communication with a government witness, where a witnesses testimony could be influenced, is in fact witness tampering.
 
That's the thing. I don't know. I haven't glanced at witness tampering since something in MA 8ish years ago so it wasn't federal witness tampering, and I don't really remember....wasn't my case.

I suspect that the nub of the thing would be the intent of the tweeter. The fact that was a tweet strikes me as very likely to be irrelevant, especially in today's environment when the tweeter in question immediately gets quoted in every last media source in the country. That is, I suspect the main question would be whether Trump intended to influence the target's interactions with the police by praising people who don't talk, cursing "rat", yadda yadda.

But those are probably just good bets. I would further bet that if this was researched in the normal way, you won't get much in the way of an estimate about the likelihood of his being convicted. You could easily find out the bare minimum required to send a case to the jury and you might extrapolate a bit from what you read, but collecting a statistic like the probability of being convicted if charged is something I wouldn't know how to do and would suspect would take quite an expensive effort given how clunky the country's overall court system(s) are. (You'd have to investigate cases resulting in acquittal, which aren't appealed. That means a lot of investigation and digging all around the country).




Do we have any lawyers that have done a meaningful amount of recent-ish federal witness tampering cases involving a communication that goes out to the public and involving a communicator whose statements are particularly likely to be reported, especially as that discuss these facts in relation to intent?


If so I would bet Mueller has them on his team. Trump has the guy who lied about his cybersecurity expertise and doesn't know that normal people can buy websites to troll the President. It's a winning team for sure!!!!!!!!
 
That's the thing. I don't know. I haven't glanced at witness tampering since something in MA 8ish years ago so it wasn't federal witness tampering, and I don't really remember....wasn't my case.

I suspect that the nub of the thing would be the intent of the tweeter. The fact that was a tweet strikes me as very likely to be irrelevant, especially in today's environment when the tweeter in question immediately gets quoted in every last media source in the country. That is, I suspect the main question would be whether Trump intended to influence the target's interactions with the police by praising people who don't talk, cursing "rat", yadda yadda.

But those are probably just good bets. I would further bet that if this was researched in the normal way, you won't get much in the way of an estimate about the likelihood of his being convicted. You could easily find out the bare minimum required to send a case to the jury and you might extrapolate a bit from what you read, but collecting a statistic like the probability of being convicted if charged is something I wouldn't know how to do and would suspect would take quite an expensive effort given how clunky the country's overall court system(s) are. (You'd have to investigate cases resulting in acquittal, which aren't appealed. That means a lot of investigation and digging all around the country).




Do we have any lawyers that have done a meaningful amount of recent-ish federal witness tampering cases involving a communication that goes out to the public and involving a communicator whose statements are particularly likely to be reported, especially as that discuss these facts in relation to intent?

Trump has crossed the line several times on federal witness tampering, no doubt about it.
 
~ No. Tweets are merely opinions. In the case of Trump he also "reports" his daily activities.
However I believe they do not help and eventually may even hurt do to 'Trump Hate Fever' . :3oops:

According to the White House, Trump considers what he tweets as "official White House statements."

Not "merely opinions."

Edited to add: Sorry Xelor - posted this before I saw your post.
 
I do not think tweets have that much impact in criminal cases, but this is case is shall we say, special...

Surely the program to destroy Trump is not so desperate as to need to resort to this.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom