Last Saturday’s Trump rally speech, his first since the SCOTUS 8-1 opinion, that tore apart any ability to hide behind executive privilege, changed everything. In Trump’s very first public speech after the opinion, his sudden proclamation that now it appears the January 6th defendants are being treated “just so unfairly” and the promise to look into pardons where necessary, was – quite obviously, a message. It was not a message to those people who fought for him on January 6, 2021. They are fodder, they served their purpose.
Now discussing their situation serves Trump a new purpose.
It was a message to those considering testifying against him now or perhaps fighting for him now, suffering legal consequences on his behalf now, people like Mark Meadows or even Pence himself, a promise that “when” he wins office again in 2024, people who kept their mouths shut and suffered consequence will be pardoned, too – if everyone just does right by him, he will make sure they don’t suffer any consequences. It may also be a promise to anyone who “demonstrates” on his behalf should they be called to do so if Trump is indicted, because he called for the biggest demonstrations in history should the racist, vicious, prosecutors “illegally” charge him.
BREAKING: President Trump promises to PARDON Jan. 6 prisoners if he runs and wins in 2024 pic.twitter.com/teYbYNBcuB
To get more stories like this, subscribe to our newsletter The Daily.
— RSBN 🇺🇸 (@RSBNetwork) January 30, 2022
Trump doubled down on the threat on Tuesday:
Trump: I would absolutely give them a pardon if things don’t work out fairly pic.twitter.com/JeTXJadoQY
— Acyn (@Acyn) February 2, 2022
Today, Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA) of the Select Committee, told CNN that Trump was absolutely tampering with witnesses by dangling pardons for Jan. 6 defendants.
“And I think the question is more from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, you know where — where are they? Do they support this? When is enough enough?”
Well, on that question, with respect to pardons for the actual January 6th, 2021 participants, his colleagues have largely rejected the proposal. Even Lindsay Graham said that it was inappropriate. But, again, Lindsey Graham was referring to possible pardons for past acts, despite knowing the current purpose. Aguilar’s accusation and Graham’s assessment actually involve the statement’s impact on current witnesses and, as a practical matter, he is certainly right in that it is a message meant to be heard and acted upon by current witnesses.
How do we know? Because it falls woefully short of criminal witness tampering for current witnesses against either January 6th witnesses or potential witnesses against him now. According to Google’s layman’s definition of witness tampering, witness tampering occurs when:
Witness tampering occurs when someone attempts to cause a person to testify falsely, withhold testimony or information, or be absent from any proceeding to which the witness has been summoned.
It would be impossible for a prosecutor to add Trump’s rally statement as a current charge of witness tampering. Trump didn’t frame the statement in the present or future and didn’t threaten anyone who might testify against the current defendants. If anything, it was a threat against DOJ, a threat to undo all their work.
But that’s the legal layer of witness tampering. There is a second layer and that’s just the practical impact and Aguilar’s point goes to the second definition because the Select Committee is not a court, nor a prosecutor, and can make an accusation on this practical level. Aguilar did not point to adding a charge to their investigation, his question was to Trump’s supporters in Congress and the Senate; “With respect to this coded message, when is enough enough?” (Paraphrased).
It is a critically important question as we see some movement among the political MAGA crowd away from Trump, and perhaps some of it toward DeSantis, who Trump senses gaining in popularity, thus opening the rift. Again, Lindsey Graham’s comment is instructive, No, it wasn’t appropriate.
We should all be on the lookout for more and more statements from Trump as he panics. There is every indication that witnesses are now attempting to dump as much responsibility directly on Trump and off themselves. It was inevitable if the incident was sufficiently investigated. By all appearances, DOJ was unwilling to do the investigation (It has not yet even indicted Meadows) but that doesn’t make the investigation of Trump less real or the facts less compelling, nor does it mean that the testimony won’t serve to block and punish Trump, even outside of courts in the future.
Aguilar was right, Lindsay Graham was right, but we’re talking about politics now, not criminal charges. It doesn’t matter, the impact will be damaging, either way.
@JasonMiciak believes a day without learning is a day not lived. He is a political writer, features writer, author, and attorney. He is a Canadian-born dual citizen who spent his teen and college years in the Pacific Northwest and has since lived in seven states. He now enjoys life as a single dad of a young girl, writing from the beaches of the Gulf Coast. He loves crafting his flower pots, cooking, and currently studies philosophy of science, religion, and non-math principles behind quantum mechanics and cosmology. Please feel free to contact with any concerns.
