administration didn t execute very welt administration didn t execute very welt even administration didn t execute very well. even here you can hear a lot of the well. even here you can hear a lot of the administration recognises there of the administration recognises there were lots of gaps that he needed there were lots of gaps that he needed to fill. they have gotten better needed to fill. they have gotten better because of what happened there better because of what happened there and how was executed. no doubt this wiii there and how was executed. no doubt this will be there and how was executed. no doubt this will be used in the mid term elections this will be used in the mid term elections to harm credibility on the democratic side. joe, elections to harm credibility on the democratic side. elections to harm credibility on the democratic side. joe, we mentioned the us and uk democratic side. joe, we mentioned the us and uk and democratic side. joe, we mentio
first of all, they still called this person a witness. so, my ears peek up immediately. a member of the white house support staff, we re learning, someone is not accustomed to getting calling from the president declined the call. my personality, i would have answered it and hit record and listened as well. that s just me. elliott, the idea of having this call come in, what do you think about this? it s big. unlike you, laura, i see any number i don t i pretty much screen everything. different people i don t know if i would have taken the call. needless to say, this is a big deal for the president s intent, which is the one thing the big thing you need to prove to get to witness tampering. does the person intend to delay, prevent, hinder, tamper, or get in the way of someone else testifying. if this were ivanka trump or mark meadows or another person he was trying to call, it might not be so alarming even if they were to be a witness in a proceeding. the fact it appears to be a
pressure to either hinder, the lake, prevent, or alter a witness s testimony. it s a very broad statute. it tries to contemplate all of the possible circumstances where someone could try to temper with the witness and perhaps, importantly here, it even reaches an attempt to intimidate a witness that s ultimately it s not successful. so that sort of pops a context for us to appreciate this breaking news tonight, that what we would be learning about would be a call made by the former president, someone on the white house support staff, and that is a really unlikely call for him to make. and just the normal course of operations, this is someone who spoke dismissively as people as being near coffee boys in the past. so unlikely that he would have a sort of sustained friendship here. and that feeling i think is confirmed by the fact that whoever the target of this call was reached out to his or her lawyer. and in just that sort short
this person was in touch with the committee or not. tell me about why this is a problem and what you think about the story that is just developing? right, the core of this crime witness intimidation is the notion that you cannot have someone who is perhaps a target or a subject of an investigation, attempting to use any sort of inappropriate pressure to either hinder, the lake, prevent, or alter a witness s testimony. it s a very broad statute. it tries to contemplate all of the possible circumstances where someone could try to temper with the witness and perhaps, importantly here, it even reaches an attempt to intimidate a witness that s ultimately it s not successful. so that sort of pops a context for us to appreciate this breaking news tonight, that what we would be learning about would be a call made by the former president, someone on the white house support staff, and that is a really unlikely call for him to make. and just the normal course of operations, this is someone who