[ad_1]
The details, presented by Vice Chairman Liz Cheney, Republican of Wyoming, were perhaps the most unexpected moment of Tuesday’s hearing. And for the second time, the committee’s public hearings have raised the possibility of a witness tampering investigation, a quick move to bring in the Justice Department even before the committee’s investigation has concluded.
“This individual refused to answer or respond to President Trump’s call and instead alerted his attorney about the call. Their attorney alerted us,” Cheney said. “And that committee has provided that information to the Department of Justice.”
A spokesman for the District of Columbia prosecutor’s office, which has been handling the prosecution since Jan. 6, declined to comment.
After the hearing, Congressman Jamie Raskin said on CNN that the committee was unclear whether the incident constituted witness tampering, which is a federal crime.
“We need to know a lot more about this,” the Maryland Democrat told CNN’s Jake Tapper. “The point is that the commission takes really seriously the ability of witnesses like Cassidy Hutchinson to come forward and tell us everything they know without fear of retaliation or coercion… There was a pattern of this happening. And we don’t accept that.”
Raskin added that he believes Trump’s political circles have shown “a more sophisticated way of controlling these witnesses,” including by paying defense lawyers.
DOJ Expression of Interest
After the committee sent the information to the Department of Justice, the incident could spark interest from prosecutors and the FBI.
However, this was not the commission’s first public suggestion of witness tampering. The committee previously noted two incidents in which Hutchinson, a former White House aide, received reports that he was loyal to Trump.
Cheney did not disclose the content of the conversation with Trump, and communicating only with a witness does not necessarily constitute witness tampering. Generally, under federal law, a person who communicates with a witness must know that his approach is wrong and that it could affect the proceedings.
Critics of these types of charges sometimes refer to them as “trial crimes,” but legal experts often side with prosecutors pursuing witness tampering claims because of how damaging tampering can be in investigations.
Cheney has already tried to emphasize how serious attempts to influence witnesses can be taken. “Let me say that again: We will take any effort to influence testimony very seriously,” she said at Tuesday’s hearing.
But the conduct she described does not in itself prove that the Justice Department has what it would need to prosecute, even if witness tampering is in some ways a simpler crime than seditious conspiracy, and the obstruction cases the Justice Department is pursuing against insurgents until Jan. 6.
“The elements of witness tampering — there aren’t many elements, did you try to influence a witness who was going to testify?” Boston College law professor Robert Blum told CNN. “Proving it is another matter. Don’t take a call…[we] I don’t know why he called. It’s not clear to me that they have proof.”
The committee says Trump is deeply involved
At Tuesday’s hearing, the committee made clear that it sees both Trump’s inner circle and the former president as deeply involved in every aspect of the plot to thwart congressional certification of his defeat.
Yet so far, in the Justice Department’s investigation, almost all of the charges have been brought against those on Capitol grounds — with the criminal investigation now being kept several layers away from the Trump White House. Criminal investigations traditionally work from the lower levels up, while the House select committee has taken direct aim at Trump in each of its seven public hearings.
“Every one of these elements of planning for Jan. 6 is a serious matter,” Cheney said. “All of them were ultimately focused on overturning the election, and they all have one more thing in common: Donald Trump was heavily and personally involved in each of them. He supervised or directed the activities of those involved.’
Among the key themes raised by the committee on Tuesday were that Trump had been made aware of the “crazies,” as committee witness Katrina Pearson called them in her testimony, and their potential for danger, and that he expected a march on the Capitol in January 6 after his rally. Trump was also told by members of his White House staff, according to testimony taken by the committee, that by mid-December it was time for him to continue his efforts to reverse his election loss.
Tuesday’s committee hearing also sought to tie Trump to the alleged plot to the violence itself — including attempts to obtain weapons from far-right groups before the break-in at the Capitol. Committee members said much of the extremist activity was sparked by Trump’s public statements about the election.
Raskin claims that on January 6, 2021, for the first time, a president who lost an election “deployed a mob that included dangerous extremists who attack the constitutional system of elections and the peaceful transfer of power.”
This story and headline were updated with additional developments on Tuesday.
CNN’s Alex Rogers and Evan Perez contributed to this report.
[ad_2]
Source link