Yet another pathway to nailing Trump. Surely one of these potential charges in one of these jurisdictions has to stick. Who gets first dibs if there are multiple indictments? (A girl can dream.) BTW - I was glad to hear Pat Cipollone testify yesterday that everyone has to obey the courts. (Did anyone pronounce his name the same way twice?)
Thank you. I strikes me, that in bringing this forward, it sets another warning for those who try to defy or decieve the Committee, that they are willing to hold people to account in real time. Again, this is something DOJ is familiar with prosecuting and allows them to think of the former guy like any other person who tried to intimidate a witness. That, indeed, to your point, he has boasted of doing that. If we are to continue to be a country with a rule of law, this would be a great one to use to make that point. Much appreciated.
Hi Joyce. New subscriber. Please know your thoughtful analysis, and clear and precise explanations are deeply appreciated. Your TV presence is always a benefit to viewers, and your written work is equally important. Thanks for your efforts.
Joyce, I appreciate your "primer", paring the statute down to the sections that may apply to this bit of witness intimidation. Thank you for this blog.
Thank you for this clarification. I am of the mind that Trump needs to be prosecuted for seditious conspiracy first and foremost, and if there are other laws he broke (many), then those also. His real danger is to the Republic. BTW, I love love love this blog!
It was very hard to watch yesterday’s hearing. I am so angry that they all knew, but not one person stood up to let people know or even authorities know what was going on. I stopped working on my “hope” quilt. This morning I realized we can’t lose hope. We have to carry on . It’s like carrying our country out of this nightmare back into the light. We need to stay together to do this work
I really agree with what you say here. What is the distressing to me is that these people did not speak up in the moment, when they could've really had an impact. None of them are heroes.
Per Cipollone, Pence doing the job as required, and not succumbing to pressure to act illegally, warrants the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Then again, they gave one to Limbaugh, so that pretty much explains it all.
The breadth and depth at which Trump violates the law and bends all legal parameters is beyond mind-blowing. The man is a walking criminal flipping his middle finger at all that is right, moral and honorable. It is all but unbelievable that one human being can house so much dishonor, disloyalty, disgrace and dishonesty in one human structure. Worse is the damage Trump and his minons have done to our constitutional democracy. I doubt our country will ever recover entirely from this tyranny. A growing concern among many of us is that Trump will not be punished or penalized. Where is Merrick Garland, U.S. AG in all this? Is Garland so weak and too afraid that he will give a pass to Trump? If so, the damage to our Republic will be widespread and permanent.
Thank you for the clear, and interesting, review. It was also good to read your point there had to be more to this than a simple "missedcall" incident. My gut tells me you've got to be right
Too bad the statute includes only active interference. I would argue Bannon's seeking Trump's [unnecessary] clearance to testify, and Trump's delay, constitutes a passive form of interference.
This is very helpful information as discussion and speculation goes forward. It will help discernment. Because I live and vote in Wyoming and Rep. Liz Cheney spoke of this DOJ referral, I am asking a question of folx here. I have the option in the primary of shifting party affiliation and voting for her because the leading competitor is pure Trumpian. Cheney’s leadership with Rep. Benny Thompson has been very important, I am grateful to both of the them and the full committee. Yet, friends, there is nothing else I can support from Cheney. She likely will continue to be a powerful opposition leader in federal law and budgets, including anti-abortion, bodily autonomy, queer rights, full women’s rights, climate response, and so much more. Chat with me about how you would weigh this critical voter decision point. I want to hear from people as though we were conversing here on the porch. Thanks!
I don’t envy the position you are in. Yet, you have an opportunity to help keep a democracy-defending representative in the House and perhaps help thwart the empowering of the fascistic Right. I know it must feel terrible to even consider casting a ballot for someone who is so opposed to so many issues that you value. At the same time, those issues pale in comparison to keeping our democracy out of the hands of autocrats. A vote for Cheney is a vote for democracy at this point- all other issues aside. I’m thankful that thoughtful people like you are there to make a difference. Strength and courage to you as you work through the best course of action!
It does feel terrible to vote for Cheney. I had experience with her male parental unit when I was a young environmental, then women’s rights, then queer activist (now I am all that); he was a dismissive, self-serving person. I will have to separate the vote from his many other failings and lies of his own. Agreed, Joy, that without democracy we are stymied in all. I hold a hope that she may have learned more in collaboration from the committee. Thank you for the sincere wishes of strength and courage, good porch chat.
You can switch, vote, then switch back. I did that once. But fair warning - when I was a "temporary" Republican I was deluged by right to life phone calls and assorted right-wing propaganda.
I already receive this from Senator John Barrasso, the servant always over McConnell’s right shoulder. Yep, I need to make the switch decision for personal logistical purposes by July 31 to receive a mail in ballot. I have to show up at the county courthouse in person.
Joyce Vance, I have a question for you on how DOJ is being critiqued by Rep Liz Cheney for taking action or not taking action yet within the strictures of DOJ policy related to Trump. The point I am asking about it her adroitness and specificity are skillful, does this undermine DOJ in a long run? I know that Rep Jamie Raskin has developed regard for her in the committee and that he will fervently argue with her on all other issues upon which they do not agree. If she is going to run for President in 2024, which I do not find far fetched, how do we work with an adversary who is frankly this smart when we have had to deal with lesser intellects in the Republican Tyranny. Wyoming only knows Republican Tyranny, now so does the country.
We are aware that Trump has been intimidating witness during his long criminal history. I am not as sure as Barb McQuade that Merrick Garland will pull the trigger to go after Trump. I realize the DOJ does not communicate their plans to investigate wrongdoing. I also realize they are very slow and methodical in their gathering evidence.
Barr weighed in and muddied everything possible (Mueller report, etc.). As I recall--NO COLLUSION...
NO ONE is above the law.
NO ONE in the TRUMP administration deserves a Medal of Freedom.
NO ONE stopped it before people were deliberately maimed and killed. (And hiding in the underground garage obviously did not bring the violence to a halt. )
Joyce, then I heard that because nobody picked up (that specific call), essentially witness tampering is not on the table. This seems right. So how does an unanswered call fit into "witness tampering". I feel like it cannot.
Whether or not it's a case DOJ can/will prosecute depends on the strength of the facts. But the statute explicitly contemplates a prosecution for attempted witness tampering.
Newsmax host, Greg Kelly, suggests that Trump butt dialed a January 6th Committee witness, not that it was witness intimidation. So if that's true, he couldn't have left a voice mail unless he was talking out of his ...........
Yet another pathway to nailing Trump. Surely one of these potential charges in one of these jurisdictions has to stick. Who gets first dibs if there are multiple indictments? (A girl can dream.) BTW - I was glad to hear Pat Cipollone testify yesterday that everyone has to obey the courts. (Did anyone pronounce his name the same way twice?)
Thank you. I strikes me, that in bringing this forward, it sets another warning for those who try to defy or decieve the Committee, that they are willing to hold people to account in real time. Again, this is something DOJ is familiar with prosecuting and allows them to think of the former guy like any other person who tried to intimidate a witness. That, indeed, to your point, he has boasted of doing that. If we are to continue to be a country with a rule of law, this would be a great one to use to make that point. Much appreciated.
Hi Joyce. New subscriber. Please know your thoughtful analysis, and clear and precise explanations are deeply appreciated. Your TV presence is always a benefit to viewers, and your written work is equally important. Thanks for your efforts.
Joyce, I appreciate your "primer", paring the statute down to the sections that may apply to this bit of witness intimidation. Thank you for this blog.
Thank you for this clarification. I am of the mind that Trump needs to be prosecuted for seditious conspiracy first and foremost, and if there are other laws he broke (many), then those also. His real danger is to the Republic. BTW, I love love love this blog!
It was very hard to watch yesterday’s hearing. I am so angry that they all knew, but not one person stood up to let people know or even authorities know what was going on. I stopped working on my “hope” quilt. This morning I realized we can’t lose hope. We have to carry on . It’s like carrying our country out of this nightmare back into the light. We need to stay together to do this work
I really agree with what you say here. What is the distressing to me is that these people did not speak up in the moment, when they could've really had an impact. None of them are heroes.
Per Cipollone, Pence doing the job as required, and not succumbing to pressure to act illegally, warrants the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Then again, they gave one to Limbaugh, so that pretty much explains it all.
Lives and careers could have been saved. It’s a new day, time to move forward. Now where did I put my H is for Hope quilt
I'm expecting Sydney Powell to contact me, via my thermostat, with a simple wholesome explanation for her and her friends' behavior.
I've long referred to DJT as "Agent Orange". My greatest hope is that an orange jumpsuit may be included in that descriptor.
The breadth and depth at which Trump violates the law and bends all legal parameters is beyond mind-blowing. The man is a walking criminal flipping his middle finger at all that is right, moral and honorable. It is all but unbelievable that one human being can house so much dishonor, disloyalty, disgrace and dishonesty in one human structure. Worse is the damage Trump and his minons have done to our constitutional democracy. I doubt our country will ever recover entirely from this tyranny. A growing concern among many of us is that Trump will not be punished or penalized. Where is Merrick Garland, U.S. AG in all this? Is Garland so weak and too afraid that he will give a pass to Trump? If so, the damage to our Republic will be widespread and permanent.
I don't see any reason to suppose Garland is giving Trump a pass. The 1/6 committee is set up to face the public. The Justice Dept. Isn't.
Thank you for the clear, and interesting, review. It was also good to read your point there had to be more to this than a simple "missedcall" incident. My gut tells me you've got to be right
Too bad the statute includes only active interference. I would argue Bannon's seeking Trump's [unnecessary] clearance to testify, and Trump's delay, constitutes a passive form of interference.
This is very helpful information as discussion and speculation goes forward. It will help discernment. Because I live and vote in Wyoming and Rep. Liz Cheney spoke of this DOJ referral, I am asking a question of folx here. I have the option in the primary of shifting party affiliation and voting for her because the leading competitor is pure Trumpian. Cheney’s leadership with Rep. Benny Thompson has been very important, I am grateful to both of the them and the full committee. Yet, friends, there is nothing else I can support from Cheney. She likely will continue to be a powerful opposition leader in federal law and budgets, including anti-abortion, bodily autonomy, queer rights, full women’s rights, climate response, and so much more. Chat with me about how you would weigh this critical voter decision point. I want to hear from people as though we were conversing here on the porch. Thanks!
I don’t envy the position you are in. Yet, you have an opportunity to help keep a democracy-defending representative in the House and perhaps help thwart the empowering of the fascistic Right. I know it must feel terrible to even consider casting a ballot for someone who is so opposed to so many issues that you value. At the same time, those issues pale in comparison to keeping our democracy out of the hands of autocrats. A vote for Cheney is a vote for democracy at this point- all other issues aside. I’m thankful that thoughtful people like you are there to make a difference. Strength and courage to you as you work through the best course of action!
It does feel terrible to vote for Cheney. I had experience with her male parental unit when I was a young environmental, then women’s rights, then queer activist (now I am all that); he was a dismissive, self-serving person. I will have to separate the vote from his many other failings and lies of his own. Agreed, Joy, that without democracy we are stymied in all. I hold a hope that she may have learned more in collaboration from the committee. Thank you for the sincere wishes of strength and courage, good porch chat.
You can switch, vote, then switch back. I did that once. But fair warning - when I was a "temporary" Republican I was deluged by right to life phone calls and assorted right-wing propaganda.
I already receive this from Senator John Barrasso, the servant always over McConnell’s right shoulder. Yep, I need to make the switch decision for personal logistical purposes by July 31 to receive a mail in ballot. I have to show up at the county courthouse in person.
Joyce Vance, I have a question for you on how DOJ is being critiqued by Rep Liz Cheney for taking action or not taking action yet within the strictures of DOJ policy related to Trump. The point I am asking about it her adroitness and specificity are skillful, does this undermine DOJ in a long run? I know that Rep Jamie Raskin has developed regard for her in the committee and that he will fervently argue with her on all other issues upon which they do not agree. If she is going to run for President in 2024, which I do not find far fetched, how do we work with an adversary who is frankly this smart when we have had to deal with lesser intellects in the Republican Tyranny. Wyoming only knows Republican Tyranny, now so does the country.
We are aware that Trump has been intimidating witness during his long criminal history. I am not as sure as Barb McQuade that Merrick Garland will pull the trigger to go after Trump. I realize the DOJ does not communicate their plans to investigate wrongdoing. I also realize they are very slow and methodical in their gathering evidence.
Barr weighed in and muddied everything possible (Mueller report, etc.). As I recall--NO COLLUSION...
NO ONE is above the law.
NO ONE in the TRUMP administration deserves a Medal of Freedom.
NO ONE stopped it before people were deliberately maimed and killed. (And hiding in the underground garage obviously did not bring the violence to a halt. )
Merrick Garland -- DO YOUR JOB!
Thank you. A good discussion.
Joyce, then I heard that because nobody picked up (that specific call), essentially witness tampering is not on the table. This seems right. So how does an unanswered call fit into "witness tampering". I feel like it cannot.
Whether or not it's a case DOJ can/will prosecute depends on the strength of the facts. But the statute explicitly contemplates a prosecution for attempted witness tampering.
It justifies a warning to "anyone" considering tampering.
We know nobody picked up that call?
I can see who has called my number even when I don't answer the call.
Newsmax host, Greg Kelly, suggests that Trump butt dialed a January 6th Committee witness, not that it was witness intimidation. So if that's true, he couldn't have left a voice mail unless he was talking out of his ...........
My thoughts too. Unless there is voicemail?
One possibility is that a spouse or housemate answered the call and the witness did not return it, instead notifying their attorney.