Wouldn't the "tape" threat be considered witness intimidation?

[shraby]

Comey was going to testify about his meeting with trump.

[tblue37]

1. Gingrich even said that Trump was bluffing to try to intimidate Comey.

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/06/newt-gingrich-admits-trump-probably-lied-about-comey-tapes/

****************
In a story published Thursday by the Associated Press, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich all but confirmed Trump was lying about the existence of tapes. "I think he was in his way instinctively trying to rattle Comey," Gingrich said. "He's not a professional politician. He doesn't come back and think about Nixon and Watergate. His instinct is: 'I'll outbluff you.'"
****************

[unblock]

2. only if comey had said something embarrassing.

if everything comey said was proper, then it would only give him an incentive to telling the truth as a tape would refute any lie.

it's only intimidating if comey had admitted something embarrassing. which we'll never know for sure, but seems highly unlikely. it's far more likely that comey was being extremely careful with his words.


i think donnie's implication that he had tapes was not directed at comey, it was directed to the masses as a way to bolster his claim that comey was lying.


typical donnie. in order to project an image of someone telling the truth, he lies.

[WillowTree]

3. If he was going to tell the truth, tapes would only confirm what he said.

That would be the opposite of intimidation.

[shraby]

4. He was telling Comey if he testified, there might be tapes. Certainly looks like intimidation to me.

[WillowTree]

5. Again, if Comey was going to tell the truth, why would tapes be intimidating?

[spanone]

12. i don't think you're allowed to intimidate a witness regardless of what they might say...

but i'm no lawyer

[WillowTree]

13. That doesn't answer my question. Why would such tapes be intimidating?

I know I wouldn't be intimidated by someone "threatening" to release tapes that confirm what I'm saying is true. Would you? Really?

[shraby]

14. That's what they are saying on the t.v. intimidation of a witness and obstruction of justice

another component.

[LOL Lib]

6. The tweet sounded like a vicious threat to me.

The wording, "James Comey better hope," sounds pretty much like a threat indicating that something harmful would befall Comey.

Just my opinion, and it really doesn't matter. Trump could threaten to beat or kill Comey and not one goddamned thing would be done about it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. No. Especially since Comey has said he'd welcome the release of tapes.

If Trump's remark was aimed at Comey, then it came from Trump not remembering what was said, and assuming (or hoping) that Comey was hazy too, or that Comey is as brazen a liar as Trump is.

But it's more likely that Trump was just trying to rally his support. Get them to believe that Trump has something up his sleeve, and they'll lie, troll, and vote for Trump all the more eagerly. Because they're morons who look to shows of power to tell them what is real and what they should do.

[jpljr77]

8. Technically, it's witness tampering, but yes. Add to the indictment n/t

[Lee-Lee]

9. Probably not

Tapes would reveal a true and accurate account of the conversation.

A threat to release a true and accurate version of events couldn't be considered tampering or intimidation because the assumption is that the witness will tell the truth anyway. It wouldn't be a threat to cause harm or embarrassment or loss to the witness.

I don't think you could make it stick.

[jmg257]

10. What witness? As far as trump knows, he wasn't being investigated (per the witness).

[Joe941]

11. Trump chose his words very carefully...

He didn't say definitively the tapes existed or that he recorded anything only that you better hope they don't exist. That's how these guys operate - always with plausible deniability.