In her closing remarks, the co-chairwoman of the House investigation committee said the committee had learned that former President Donald Trump recently tried to contact a witness who “you haven’t seen yet in these hearings.” The witness apparently recognized the caller ID and did not answer the phone, contacting an attorney, who then told the committee. The committee in turn referred the matter to the Ministry of Justice. While much remains uncertain about the call, including its purpose and intended recipient, the way it was described Tuesday raised the prospect that Trump or someone close to him was hoping to shape witness testimony at ongoing congressional hearings on the 6 January 2021, attack on the US Capitol. While the committee has largely focused on compiling a historical record of the attack and Trump’s role in it, Cheney’s claims about the former president’s phone call added another layer to the investigation. It was not the first time the committee raised the possibility of witness tampering. Among the revelations in this matter, last month the commission revealed that a witness contacted someone he did not identify, reminding the person that he was considered “loyal” and that he would “do the right thing” when testifying the next day. . The Justice Department declined to comment on Cheney’s disclosure, and it was unclear whether prosecutors attending the hearings might pursue witness approaches. Even so, such contact is problematic given how easy it is for prosecutors to read lewd intent into it, and it can be illegal in cases where someone instructs a witness in any official proceeding to lie, not cooperate, or obstruct otherwise an investigation. “From a legal standpoint, I advise my client, ‘Don’t call, don’t tell someone to call, don’t do anything where it looks like you’re trying to influence a witness,’” said Michael Weinstein, a former Justice Department prosecutor and criminal defense attorney at New Jersey. Witness tampering prosecutions are relatively rare and when pursued are hardly a slam dunk, Weinstein said, with prosecutors and defense attorneys often diverging on the meaning and intent of specific language to a witness. The federal statute even says that defendants accused of witness tampering can raise as an affirmative defense that their only intent was to encourage or induce a witness to testify truthfully. “It’s a very difficult case because unless someone is explicit — e.g. “Do not deposit.” If you testify, I will kill you’ — there are many nuances,” Weinstein said. The cases cited by the January 6 committee appear to contain details. In one, a witness said they were told that “as long as I’m still on the team, they know I’m on the right team. I’m doing the right thing. I protect those I have to protect, you know, I’ll continue to stay in good graces in Trump’s world.” The witness was reminded that Trump reads transcripts. Another message described by the commission involved a witness who was contacted by a person who allegedly relayed a message from someone “who wants to let you know he’s thinking of you. He knows you’re loyal and will do the right thing when you come in for your deposition.” None of the people were identified by the committee, but some media reports identified the person who received such a message as Cassidy Hutchinson, an aide to former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows. The main law governing witness tampering applies to federal proceedings, whether congressional, executive, or judicial, and prosecutors generally must establish that the perpetrator knowingly attempted to influence, delay, or prevent a witness from testifying. A separate statute makes it a crime to willfully obstruct a pending congressional proceeding. That the witnesses described coming into contact with Trump, or that Trump allegedly has a strong interest in testifying or cooperating that could harm him, is perhaps not surprising. Special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation documented numerous instances in which Trump or his associates contacted people they feared could harm them. Longtime Trump confidant Roger Stone was indicted and later convicted on witness tampering charges that accused him of inciting a witness in a congressional investigation to make a “Frank Pentangeli” — a reference to a character in “The Godfather: Part II ” that lies to the legislator. Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort also faced accusations that he tried to tamper with witness statements. In addition, Mueller’s report cites an account by Trump’s former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, that Trump called him days after the FBI issued search warrants to Cohen and told the lawyer to “hang in there” and “stay strong.” Trump’s friends told Cohen that the president loved him and had his back. At the time, Trump’s business, the Trump Organization, was paying Cohen’s legal fees, but Cohen said that stopped after he began discussing with family and friends that he was considering cooperating with Mueller’s investigation. The Jan. 6 panel is also investigating payments and fees from Trump that have gone to people subpoenaed to appear before the panel. Trump’s sprawling fundraising operation paid at least $4.8 million in “legal fees” to more than 30 different companies between February 2021 and May of this year, according to campaign finance disclosures. This includes a $50,000 payment to a law firm where one of Steve Bannon’s lawyers is a partner. Bannon, a former White House general and Trump ally, faces trial next week on charges that he defied the committee’s Jan. 6 subpoena. His attorney, M. Evan Corcoran, did not return an email seeking comment. Separately, the committee noted that Trump’s political action committee has made a $1 million charitable contribution to a foundation, the Conservative Partnership Institute, where Meadows is a senior partner. That contribution was made in July 2021, months before Meadows ended his association with the committee. An attorney for Meadows declined to comment Wednesday. The money was reported last month by a committee investigator who alleged that large sums Trump raised from supporters to promote the lie that the election was stolen went to his PAC. But proving that the payment to Meadows’ foundation was in any way improper or intended to influence his testimony would be a significant challenge, said Steven Lubet, a law professor at Northwestern University. “You have to prove that it’s a corrupt motive, and you have to prove that the intent is to hinder, delay, prevent or influence testimony,” Lubet said. “And the transfer of the money does not establish any of those requirements, so there would have to be some additional proof that these things have happened.” The Morning Update and Afternoon Update newsletters are written by Globe editors, giving you a concise summary of the day’s most important headlines. Sign up today.
title: “Witness Tampering At The January 6 Hearing Cheney Ups The Ante " ShowToc: true date: “2022-11-26” author: “Dolly Dickie”
Comment WASHINGTON — In the final hearing on Jan. 6, already notable for its notable moments, Rep. Liz Cheney saved the most spectacular for last. In her closing remarks, the co-chairwoman of the House investigation committee said the committee had learned that former President Donald Trump recently tried to contact a witness who “you haven’t seen yet in these hearings.” The witness apparently recognized the caller ID and did not answer the phone, contacting an attorney, who then told the committee. The committee in turn referred the matter to the Ministry of Justice. While much remains uncertain about the call, including its purpose and intended recipient, the way it was described Tuesday raised the prospect that Trump or someone close to him was hoping to shape witness testimony at ongoing congressional hearings on the 6 January 2021, attack on the US Capitol. While the committee has largely focused on compiling a historical record of the attack and Trump’s role in it, Cheney’s claims about the former president’s phone call added another layer to the investigation. It was not the first time the committee raised the possibility of witness tampering. Among the revelations in this matter, last month the commission revealed that a witness contacted someone he did not identify, reminding the person that he was considered “loyal” and that he would “do the right thing” when testifying the next day. . The Justice Department declined to comment on Cheney’s disclosure, and it was unclear whether prosecutors attending the hearings might pursue witness approaches. Even so, such contact is problematic given how easy it is for prosecutors to read lewd intent into it, and it can be illegal in cases where someone instructs a witness in any official proceeding to lie, not cooperate, or obstruct otherwise an investigation. “From a legal standpoint, I advise my client, ‘Don’t call, don’t tell someone to call, don’t do anything where it looks like you’re trying to influence a witness,’” said Michael Weinstein, a former Justice Department prosecutor and criminal defense attorney at New Jersey. Witness tampering prosecutions are relatively rare and when pursued are hardly a slam dunk, Weinstein said, with prosecutors and defense attorneys often diverging on the meaning and intent of specific language to a witness. The federal statute even says that defendants accused of witness tampering can raise as an affirmative defense that their only intent was to encourage or induce a witness to testify truthfully. “It’s a very difficult case because unless someone is explicit — e.g. “Don’t deposit.” If you testify, I will kill you’ — there are many nuances,” Weinstein said. The cases cited by the January 6 committee appear to contain details. In one, a witness said they were told that “as long as I’m still on the team, they know I’m on the right team. I’m doing the right thing. I protect those I have to protect, you know, I’ll continue to stay in good graces in Trump’s world.” The witness was reminded that Trump reads transcripts. Another message described by the commission involved a witness who was contacted by a person who allegedly relayed a message from someone “who wants to let you know he’s thinking of you. He knows you’re loyal and will do the right thing when you come in for your deposition.” None of the people were identified by the committee, but some media reports identified the person who received such a message as Cassidy Hutchinson, an aide to former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows. The main law governing witness tampering applies to federal proceedings, whether congressional, executive, or judicial, and prosecutors generally must establish that the perpetrator knowingly attempted to influence, delay, or prevent a witness from testifying. A separate statute makes it a crime to willfully obstruct a pending congressional proceeding. That the witnesses described coming into contact with Trump, or that Trump allegedly has a strong interest in testifying or cooperating that could harm him, is perhaps not surprising. Special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation documented numerous instances in which Trump or his associates contacted people they feared could harm them. Longtime Trump confidant Roger Stone was indicted and later convicted on witness tampering charges that accused him of inciting a witness in a congressional investigation to make a “Frank Pentangeli” — a reference to a character in “The Godfather: Part II ” that lies to the legislator. Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort also faced accusations that he tried to tamper with witness statements. In addition, Mueller’s report cites an account by Trump’s former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, that Trump called him days after the FBI issued search warrants to Cohen and told the lawyer to “hang in there” and “stay strong.” Trump’s friends told Cohen that the president loved him and had his back. At the time, Trump’s business, the Trump Organization, was paying Cohen’s legal fees, but Cohen said that stopped after he began discussing with family and friends that he was considering cooperating with Mueller’s investigation. The Jan. 6 panel is also investigating payments and fees from Trump that have gone to people subpoenaed to appear before the panel. Trump’s sprawling fundraising operation paid at least $4.8 million in “legal fees” to more than 30 different companies between February 2021 and May of this year, campaign finance disclosures show. This includes a $50,000 payment to a law firm where one of Steve Bannon’s lawyers is a partner. Bannon, a former White House general and Trump ally, faces trial next week on charges that he defied the committee’s Jan. 6 subpoena. His attorney, M. Evan Corcoran, did not return an email seeking comment. Separately, the committee noted that Trump’s political action committee has made a $1 million charitable contribution to a foundation, the Conservative Partnership Institute, where Meadows is a senior partner. That contribution was made in July 2021, months before Meadows ended his association with the committee. An attorney for Meadows declined to comment Wednesday. The money was reported last month by a committee investigator who alleged that large sums Trump raised from supporters to promote the lie that the election was stolen went to his PAC. But proving that the payment to Meadows’ foundation was in any way improper or intended to influence his testimony would be a significant challenge, said Steven Lubet, a law professor at Northwestern University. “You have to prove that it’s a corrupt motive, and you have to prove that the intent is to hinder, delay, prevent or influence testimony,” Lubet said. “And the transfer of the money does not establish any of those requirements, so there would have to be some additional proof that these things have happened.” Associated Press writers Lisa Mascaro and Brian Slodysko in Washington contributed to this report. For full coverage of the January 6 hearings, go to
title: “Witness Tampering At The January 6 Hearing Cheney Ups The Ante " ShowToc: true date: “2022-10-27” author: “Jennifer Devine”
In her closing remarks, the co-chairwoman of the House investigation committee said the committee had learned that former President Donald Trump recently tried to contact a witness who “you haven’t seen yet in these hearings.” The witness apparently recognized the caller ID and did not answer the phone, contacting an attorney, who then told the committee. The committee in turn referred the matter to the Ministry of Justice. While much remains uncertain about the call, including its purpose and intended recipient, the way it was described Tuesday raised the prospect that Trump or someone close to him was hoping to shape witness testimony at ongoing congressional hearings on the 6 January 2021, attack on the US Capitol. While the committee has largely focused on compiling a historical record of the attack and Trump’s role in it, Cheney’s claims about the former president’s phone call added another layer to the investigation. It was not the first time the committee raised the possibility of witness tampering. Among the revelations in this matter, last month the commission revealed that a witness contacted someone he did not identify, reminding the person that he was considered “loyal” and that he would “do the right thing” when testifying the next day. . The Justice Department declined to comment on Cheney’s disclosure, and it was unclear whether prosecutors attending the hearings might pursue witness approaches. Even so, such contact is problematic given how easy it is for prosecutors to read lewd intent into it, and it can be illegal in cases where someone instructs a witness in any official proceeding to lie, not cooperate, or obstruct otherwise an investigation. “From a legal standpoint, I advise my client, ‘Don’t call, don’t tell someone to call, don’t do anything where it looks like you’re trying to influence a witness,’” said Michael Weinstein, a former Justice Department prosecutor and criminal defense attorney at New Jersey. Witness tampering prosecutions are relatively rare and when pursued are hardly a slam dunk, Weinstein said, with prosecutors and defense attorneys often diverging on the meaning and intent of specific language to a witness. The federal statute even says that defendants accused of witness tampering can raise as an affirmative defense that their only intent was to encourage or induce a witness to testify truthfully. “It’s a very difficult case because unless someone is explicit — e.g. “Don’t deposit.” If you testify, I will kill you’ — there are many nuances,” Weinstein said. The cases cited by the January 6 committee appear to contain details. In one, a witness said they were told that “as long as I’m still on the team, they know I’m on the right team. I’m doing the right thing. I protect those I have to protect, you know, I’ll continue to stay in good graces in Trump’s world.” The witness was reminded that Trump reads transcripts. Another message described by the commission involved a witness who was contacted by a person who allegedly relayed a message from someone “who wants to let you know he’s thinking of you. He knows you’re loyal and will do the right thing when you come in for your deposition.” None of the people were identified by the committee, but some media reports identified the person who received such a message as Cassidy Hutchinson, an aide to former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows. The main law governing witness tampering applies to federal proceedings, whether congressional, executive, or judicial, and prosecutors generally must establish that the perpetrator knowingly attempted to influence, delay, or prevent a witness from testifying. A separate statute makes it a crime to willfully obstruct a pending congressional proceeding. That the witnesses described coming into contact with Trump, or that Trump allegedly has a strong interest in testifying or cooperating that could harm him, is perhaps not surprising. Special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation documented numerous instances in which Trump or his associates contacted people they feared could harm them. Longtime Trump confidant Roger Stone was indicted and later convicted on witness tampering charges that accused him of inciting a witness in a congressional investigation to make a “Frank Pentangeli” — a reference to a character in “The Godfather: Part II ” that lies to the legislator. Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort also faced accusations that he tried to tamper with witness statements. In addition, Mueller’s report cites an account by Trump’s former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, that Trump called him days after the FBI issued search warrants to Cohen and told the lawyer to “hang in there” and “stay strong.” Trump’s friends told Cohen that the president loved him and had his back. At the time, Trump’s business, the Trump Organization, was paying Cohen’s legal fees, but Cohen said that stopped after he began discussing with family and friends that he was considering cooperating with Mueller’s investigation. The Jan. 6 panel is also investigating payments and fees from Trump that have gone to people subpoenaed to appear before the panel. Trump’s sprawling fundraising operation paid at least $4.8 million in “legal fees” to more than 30 different companies between February 2021 and May of this year, campaign finance disclosures show. This includes a $50,000 payment to a law firm where one of Steve Bannon’s lawyers is a partner. Bannon, a former White House general and Trump ally, faces trial next week on charges that he defied the committee’s Jan. 6 subpoena. His attorney, M. Evan Corcoran, did not return an email seeking comment. Separately, the committee noted that Trump’s political action committee has made a $1 million charitable contribution to a foundation, the Conservative Partnership Institute, where Meadows is a senior partner. That contribution was made in July 2021, months before Meadows ended his association with the committee. An attorney for Meadows declined to comment Wednesday. The money was reported last month by a committee investigator who alleged that large sums Trump raised from supporters to promote the lie that the election was stolen went to his PAC. But proving that the payment to Meadows’ foundation was in any way improper or intended to influence his testimony would be a significant challenge, said Steven Lubet, a law professor at Northwestern University. “You have to prove that it’s a corrupt motive, and you have to prove that the intent is to hinder, delay, prevent or influence testimony,” Lubet said. “And the transfer of the money does not establish any of those requirements, so there would have to be some additional proof that these things have happened.”
Associated Press writers Lisa Mascaro and Brian Slodysko in Washington contributed to this report.
For full coverage of the January 6 hearings, go to
