Were Trump's tweets today criminal witness tampering?
Many made this claim, as did some in this @vox round-up.
In my contribution, I say this is a legal & political mistake.
Today's tweets are part of an impeachable pattern of abuse, but not criminal. 1/
vox.com/2019/11/15/209…
Many made this claim, as did some in this @vox round-up.
In my contribution, I say this is a legal & political mistake.
Today's tweets are part of an impeachable pattern of abuse, but not criminal. 1/
vox.com/2019/11/15/209…
@vox 2/ My contribution was too long, so they understandably cut my last point, but I can add it here:
"There is another valid concern that a president's harsh speech is far more dangerous than anyone else's in putting a target on the back of witness...
"There is another valid concern that a president's harsh speech is far more dangerous than anyone else's in putting a target on the back of witness...
@vox 3/ On the other hand, think about one of Mueller's worst mistakes.
Mueller explained that he avoided any clear conclusions about Trump's crimes because of (an overwrought) concern about fairness if a president couldn't be indicted & get his day in court to defend himself...
Mueller explained that he avoided any clear conclusions about Trump's crimes because of (an overwrought) concern about fairness if a president couldn't be indicted & get his day in court to defend himself...
@vox 4/ As @Susan_Hennessey observed rightly and wisely today, Trump showed today why Mueller was wrong:
Presidents have plenty of ways to defend themselves without needing a day in court. They have a bully pulpit and twitter, etc...
Presidents have plenty of ways to defend themselves without needing a day in court. They have a bully pulpit and twitter, etc...
@vox @Susan_Hennessey 5/ I've argued a sitting president can be indicted.
Either way, prosecutors should be able to accuse a president clearly.
But that argument also depends on giving presidents their free speech to defend themselves, including criticizing witnesses (as long as there is no threat).
Either way, prosecutors should be able to accuse a president clearly.
But that argument also depends on giving presidents their free speech to defend themselves, including criticizing witnesses (as long as there is no threat).
