Are Tweets Witness Tampering?

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Fake news is composed of more than just one person Tweeting. Fake news uses its position as a multitude to tamper in the opposite direction. You don't think Trump hating, by CNN does not intimidate some jurors?

Trump is one person fighting the Democrat lynch mob. Most people can do the math and see the balance. This topic is about David versus Goliath, with Goliath complaining that David needs to use only one arm, sine he kicks butt with two. I hope the older black citizens remember when they were in Trump's shoes, at the hands of the Democratic party KKK. If a black did well for himself, in the Democrat south, they would be singled out, intimidated, and even destroyed, if they did not stop. The old Democrat play book is still being used. We need a book burning.

The question raised is, is fake news an illegal campaign donation? Normally candidates and political parties need to pay for mud slinging out of their campaign contributions. Is biased fake news a way to money launder campaign funds, that would otherwise violate campaign laws?

If you think of it logically, most of a campaign's funds will be spent on some form of media. So is "free" media time really a guise for a hidden donation that would violate election laws, if it was done in the open?

How much would it cost; market price, to rent CNN for 8 hours straight in one day to run a continuous negative campaign add?

A 30 second add costs about $10,000 on CNN, so the answer is $9.6 Million. Is this legal or a loophole?

One way to determine the difference between news and campaign propaganda is look back one year to see if the so-called "news" panned out or was nothing but wishful thinking and/or propaganda programming, like a campaign add one would normally buy. If it was nothing but hype, based on water under the bridge, it was propaganda and needs to be reported as a contribution.

Now extrapolate that with Fox News, Sinclair, InfoWars, NewsMax, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Townhall, etc.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Lots of criminals are billionaires, or even millionaires many times over, and some are millionaires.
Being a good crook is a standard but I'm not sure it's a good yardstick to measure with if you're looking for someone to lead the country.

 

[Felis Leo]

I do not think tweets have that much impact in criminal cases, but this is case is shall we say, special...

If a person being investigated says "I will kill John Smith if he testifies against me." via Twitter, I would say that it is a pretty open and shut case, wouldn't you?

As Xelor pointed out, Tweets are merely a means of communication. What matters is the content and the intent behind the communication. So yes, Tweets can be used to engage for witness tampering.

 

[apdst]

I do not think tweets have that much impact in criminal cases, but this is case is shall we say, special...

Are you for real? :lamo

 

[Felis Leo]

Has anybody ever been convicted of witness tampering in which the alleged “tampering” was done publicly, like on TV or radio or such?

Well, very rarely does someone who wish to do that advertise it in such an open and notorious manner. In the same way that your average bank robber generally doesn't announce on Twitter, "Hey, I am going to hit the Bank of America on Main Street next Tuesday. Can anyone recommend a good getaway driver?"

 

[Felis Leo]

Sure but as Obama was a lawyer. I would assume he would be smart enough not to.

You would be surprised the sheer number of attorneys who, even if academically gifted, seem to lack any common sense whatsoever.

 

[Moderate Right]

I do not think tweets have that much impact in criminal cases, but this is case is shall we say, special...

I agree it is special because the left are out to get Trump at all costs, no matter what it takes. If you don't think it is witness tampering for anyone else you will find that it is for Trump. Case closed.

 

[Oborosen]

Absolutely. The problem for you is that he wouldn't, and neither would any of his predecessors other than possibly Richard Nixon. Of course, even Richard Nixon was competent enough to keep his dirty dealings in private.

BTW, this standard was in place during the Obama years and for that matter during the Bush years. They just weren't scumbags like the current president so it wasn't a problem for them.

Then would you be so kind as to show me where tweets count as witness tampering?

 

[Oborosen]

Please, by all means, go through every tweet by Barack Obama. If he has ever encouraged anyone to withhold testimony to federal prosecutors in a felony case, charge him with witness tampering.

Just because your guy is a total scumbag and the most despicable human being ever to sit in the White House, does not mean that holding someone to account for their public statements is a "dangerous standard". It's only a dangerous standard for someone as stupid as Trump.

Willfully forgetting about Bill, isn't going to help you here.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Willfully forgetting about Bill, isn't going to help you here.

Quote him.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Then would you be so kind as to show me where tweets count as witness tampering?

Witness Tampering is an attempt to alter or prevent the testimony of witness in a criminal proceeding. Is twitter a form of communication? Yes. Can a form of communication be used to coerce a witness not to testify in a criminal proceeding? Yes.

 

[Oborosen]

Quote him.

Quote him for what?

Oh that's right, just so long as they are fighting against the bad orange man. People like you would willingly stand shoulder to shoulder with the likes of pedophiles and other sexual deviants.

I forgot how TDS affects the lot of you.

 

[Oborosen]

Witness Tampering is an attempt to alter or prevent the testimony of witness in a criminal proceeding. Is twitter a form of communication? Yes. Can a form of communication be used to coerce a witness not to testify in a criminal proceeding? Yes.

Which at this point is being used from such a subjective standpoint, that I could be judged for doing just that. By merely pointing at such a witness and giving them a slightly stern look.

So does that mean anyone on twitter, who even remotely voices such a stance. Is immediately guilty of such a crime?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Quote him for what?

Oh that's right, just so long as they are fighting against the bad orange man. People like you would willingly stand shoulder to shoulder with the likes of pedophiles and other sexual deviants.

I forgot how TDS affects the lot of you.

You inferred that Clinton committed witness tampering. I said quote your example.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Which at this point is being used from such a subjective standpoint, that I could be judged for doing just that. By merely pointing at such a witness and giving them a slightly stern look.

So does that mean anyone on twitter, who even remotely voices such a stance. Is immediately guilty of such a crime?

If someone in a position of power gets on twitter and tells someone who is under investigation for serious crimes, not to talk to or cooperate with the investigating authorities, then they committing tampering. The only reason why Trump did not find himself immediately in handcuffs is he is the president.

 

[Oborosen]

You inferred that Clinton committed witness tampering. I said quote your example.

No, inference began when you said Trump was the most despicable person to sit as president.

I said nothing about Bill committing witness tampering.

 

[Cardinal]

If witness tampering occurs through Twitter then it is still witness tampering. The medium is irrelevant.

 

[Oborosen]

If someone in a position of power gets on twitter and tells someone who is under investigation for serious crimes, not to talk to or cooperate with the investigating authorities, then they committing tampering. The only reason why Trump did not find himself immediately in handcuffs is he is the president.

So now you're just splitting hairs on where someone can and cannot be guilty of such a crime?

Besides, I don't recall him ordering such a thing.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

So now you're just splitting hairs on where someone can and cannot be guilty of such a crime?

Besides, I don't recall him ordering such a thing.

You don't have to order it. If it required an order to commit witness tampering, then the only people that could commit witness tampering would have to be in position with sufficient enough of power to do so. Your definition of witness tampering is so ludicrous from a legal standpoint that only a president, governor, or sitting judge could commit it.

Don't you get sick of defending the indefensible out of Trump?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

If witness tampering occurs through Twitter then it is still witness tampering. The medium is irrelevant.

I would imagine organized criminals tried to claim 100 years ago that you could not commit witness tampering via a telephone.

 

[Oborosen]

You don't have to order it. If it required an order to commit witness tampering, then the only people that could commit witness tampering would have to be in position with sufficient enough of power to do so. Your definition of witness tampering is so ludicrous from a legal standpoint that only a president, governor, or sitting judge could commit it.

Don't you get sick of defending the indefensible out of Trump?

Defending him for what? He would actually have to commit witness tampering, to need defending.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Defending him for what? He would actually have to commit witness tampering, to need defending.

I will give Trump one thing, he has made his dwindling cult of supporters into quite the rationalizers. The fact that you guys cannot see Trump for the utterly despicable human being that he is shows you are completely immune to reason on this. I assure you though, in a 100 years history textbooks will not be judging him and his defenders well. I am confident when I say that history will judge him as the most utterly incompetent and despicable human being ever to sit in the white house.

 

[Oborosen]

I will give Trump one thing, he has made his dwindling cult of supporters into quite the rationalizers. The fact that you guys cannot see Trump for the utterly despicable human being that he is shows you are completely immune to reason on this. I assure you though, in a 100 years history textbooks will not be judging him and his defenders well. I am confident when I say that history will judge him as the most utterly incompetent and despicable human being ever to sit in the white house.

Well I offered you the chance to actually prove something and you decided to bluster instead.

I am a Trump supporter, yes. Though I don't agree with everything he stands for, nor do I agree with all of his policies. Then again it's been a long, long time since I've remotely stood on an even level with any president. But if you want to sit there and tell me that he will most likely go down as the most despicable person to sit as president. Then you're obvious ignorant of recent history.

Because I don't see any information that shows Trump headed off with Jeffrey Epstein on his Lolita express, to diddle children out on a private island. A plane ride that Bill Clinton has flown on more than once and even ditched his secret service detail, multiple times to enjoy. Everything that he's done pales to this, in my opinion.