i can’t believe that trump reads transcripts. i will believe he has people who read transcripts and tell him about them, but not that he reads them.
Intimidating a witness (or worse) is generally more effective when done before the witness testifies than after.
Of course not. I’m thinking of the overall impact of the allegations on the public. I was wondering if more people might pay attention if they didn’t think that this was just a rehash of what they heard before.
I don’t actually blame them. 6/1 was so shocking that they thought that striking fast they could use this as a “have you no dececency” moment and kill Trump’s. Heck it even looked like McConnell might vote for it.
Generally, when testifying in court or at depositions, you don’t get to pick-and-choose which questions you will answer. If you want to take the Fifth, you must take the Fifth for ALL questions, not just some of them. Once you answer a question, you waive the Fifth and cannot use it again.
That’s why you hear of witnesses taking the Fifth over and over again, for hours on end, for hundreds of questions.
So why do the investigators keep asking questions once the witness has taken the Fifth? I think it’s performance art. They want the headlines to say “Witness takes the Fifth three hundred times!!!” Maybe it’s also a sort of pro forma thing, to get it into the official transcript that all those questions were asked and the witness would not answer.
Does this general rule apply also when testifying or deposing before a Congressional committee?
This wouldn’t be intimidation. It would be revenge. And an object lesson for others who might be thinking of coming forward.
Trump wouldn’t even have to order it. One of his Proud Boys or some armed bozo could take care of it.
I’m at work so haven’t been able to watch. Can someone please elaborate – who intimidated whom, and how?
At the very end, the Chair said many folk testified honestly, but not all. Then Cheney read a couple of emails/texts prospective witnesses had received saying Trump would take care of people who protected him. Had to step away right then - not sure what - if anything - followed.
This. Seems like a lot of her testimony is second- or third-party talk – things she heard someone say that someone said. Cassidy says that Ornato said that Meadows said that Trump said . . .
Did they ever directly interview Engel or Ornato? Could they have brought them in to testify in these hearings?
How about Ratcliffe? Cassidy says Ratcliffe said in December 2020 that he didn’t want to get into all this. Did they ever directly interview Ratcliffe?
Of course it would be “intimidation”, of those later possible witnesses. “Snitches get stitches” and all that.
From this WaPo article; she didn’t name names.
What information that was revealed today was “recently obtained” (by the Committee)?
And that sounds like a shot across the bow to someone they know lied to them. Not naming names just yet, so they all wonder “Am I the one they caught?”
We might just see a stampede of witnesses to the committee’s door, looking to “correct a mistake” in their testimony.
While it is true you can’t answer on a particular topic and then claim a right to testify further on the same topic, the “rule” is not so broad that you’d have to take the fifth on every question.
As one website explains:
Additionally, a witness can begin testifying but invoke the privilege when answers to later questions would be incriminating. If the prosecutor commences by asking benign questions that the witness answers (“What were you wearing that night?”) but moves into questions that go to the heart of the matter (“How many times did you meet with the defendant?”), the witness may claim the privilege.
Nitpick: It’s 1/6, not 6/1. Much like how the terrorist attacks 20 years ago are known as 9/11, not 11/9.
I’ve heard this before. Do you have a citation? The Fifth Amendment says ‘nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.’ If the witness answers ‘Yes’ to ‘Do you like ice cream?’ it doesn’t follow that he would now be forced to answer ‘What were you doing in the room where the decedent was killed?’
That’s how Dave Chapelle did it 
Holy shit, that’s straight out of the mob playbook – right down to Trump creating plausible deniability by not making the calls himself.
Please please please let someone have recorded one of those calls!
I think Margaret was more of a secretary than an assistant.
And a very good secretary.
My excuse is that I watch too much BBC.
Procrustus has a better explanation, with a cite, a few posts above.