Could Trumps White House tapes ruse actually get him in legal trouble?

[TomCADem]

Trump told an obvious lie threatening James Comey admitting it was designed to influence Comey's testimony. How is this not witness tampering?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/analysis-could-trump%E2%80%99s-white-house-tapes-ruse-actually-get-him-in-legal-trouble/ar-BBD6HDI

President Trump and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich have both now admitted, for all intents and purposes, that Trump's ruse about possible White House tapes was meant to influence James B. Comey's public comments. In an interview on Friday with Fox News, Trump congratulated himself for the ploy.

“Who knows, I think his story may have changed,” Trump said. Asked whether his strategy was smart, Trump said, “It wasn't very stupid; I can tell you that.”

Added Gingrich in an interview with AP: “I think he was, in his way, instinctively trying to rattle Comey. … His instinct is: 'I'll outbluff you.'"

But was it just political subterfuge, or was it something that could haunt Trump in his ongoing obstruction of justice investigation? Some have even suggested it could amount to witness tampering.

[Lee-Lee]

1. No.

It's nice to think about, but read the actual statue.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512

You will note that it is an affirmative defense that the person intended to make the person testify honestly. Since tapes would reflect a true and honest account of what happened it would be almost impossible to argue that he was trying to influence Comey to be dishonest in his testimony by claiming He had tapes of the actual conversation.

To convict you would have to convict a jury that claiming to have tapes was intended to get a person to lie about what was on the tapes. So it wouldn't fly.

[TomCADem]

2. So, if the intent is to cause a witness to be gun-shy....

...perhaps to testify and offer a bunch of "I do not recalls...," like Jeff Sessions, then this is okay?

I think the ploy was not to make Comey testify truthfully, but to cause him to be much more conservative in what he testified to with respect to conversations that took place months ago. Of course, Comey took contemporaneous notes, which limited the impact of such a strategy.

Finally, Trump has a history of threatening that he had recorded conversations as a means on intimidating folks who he was dealing with, so you could make the case that Trump knew what he was doing when he made the threat.

[moonscape]

3. I don't think 45's statement was directed towards Comey at all. He

couldn't rattle Comey because he knew Comey had truth on his side.

It was directed at his base, implying he had something on Comey (which he didn't) - a redirect at the time of Comey's leak.

[Lee-Lee]

4. That would be a huge stretch and I don't think

Any prosecutor would try it absent anything else to back up that claim of intent.

It could be exactly what happened. But it would be impossible to convict on because of the affirmative defense that allows a person to say they were doing it to convince the witness to be honest.

[kentuck]

5. But if he succeeded in making Comey testify "honestly"...

Then it makes Trump look very guilty. If what Comey said was honest and truthful, it does not clear Donald Trump.