was trying to sell about wikileaks and the stuff that russian military intelligence stole from the democrats and the clinton campaign for that witness tampering charge, does it matter in legal terms whether a message whether the witness tampering message is sent in private or whether that message is broadcast to millions of people over twitter does that legally make a difference to prosecutors? can you tamper with witnesses really, really, really out loud? joining us now is barbara mcquade, former u.s. attorney in michigan barbara, thank you so much for being here. oh, thanks for having me, rachel. i see a tonal relationship between the witness tampering messages that mr. stone was charged for today and the sorts of things that the president has said in public about michael cohen. does it matter whether these things are said publicly or in private? no, it really doesn t the law doesn t say so i mean, other than the fact that they both clearly watch too many gangster movies, the
he felt that his family was in danger yeah, actually, it doesn t matter whether it works or not even the attempt alone is enough so even if the person stands firm and decides to go through with it anyway, what the person did to try to intimidate them, to persuade them not to testify is itself a completed crime. when you look at this indictment today, barb, obviously one of the things that jumped out for me is that it appears that mr. stone had never had any contact with the special counsel s office before this indictment today he was charged with lying to congress and with witnessing tampering with a witness who could potentially undo the allegedly false cover story that he gave to congress. that really leapt out to me in terms of how this fits in overall. what seems important to you about this well, i think that the language in the indictment that talks about the senior campaign official being directed to have these communications, i think as you pointed out suggests very stro
yeah, actually, it doesn t matter whether it works or not even the attempt alone is enough so even if the person stands firm and decides to go through with it anyway, what the person did to try to intimidate them, to persuade them not to testimony is itself a completed crime. when you look at this indictment today, barb, obviously one of the things that jumped out for me is that it appears that mr. stone had never had any contact with the special counsel s office before this indictment today he was charged with lying to congress and with witnessing tampering with a witness who could potentially undo the allegedly false cover story that he gave to congress. that really leapt out to me in terms of how this fits overall what seems important to you about this well, i think that the language in the indictment that talks about the senior campaign official being directed to have these communications, i think as you pointed out suggests very strongly that that is only a select few of p
things are said publicly or in private? no, it really doesn t the law doesn t say so i mean, other than the fact that they both clearly watch too many gangster movies, there s a lot in common between the statements that roger stone is making and that president trump is making the witness tampering statute says that it s a crime to knowingly intimidate, threaten or corruptly persuade another person with intent to influence or prevent or delay their testimony in official proceedings. so seeing what they did is usually the easy part. the harder part is usually determining someone s intent but here the mere fact that this is done out loud versus quietly and privately i don t think should throw prosecutors off the scent. you know, certainly it s unprecedented that somebody s using twitter to make thee kinds of statements, but if you look at the elements of the offense, the fact that they re done in an open and notorious way doesn t make them any less fitting of those elements
clinton campaign for that witness tampering charge, does it matter in legal terms whether a message whether the witness tampering message is sent in private or whether that message is broadcast to millions of people over twitter does that legally make a difference to prosecutors? can you tamper with witnesses really, really, really out loud? joining us now is barbara mcquade, former u.s. attorney in michigan barbara, thank you so much for being here. oh, thanks for having me, rachel. i see a tonal relationship between the witness tampering messages that mr. stone was charged for today and the sorts of things that the president has said in public about michael cohen. does it matter whether these things are said publicly or in private? no, it really doesn t the law doesn t say so i mean, other than the fact that they both clearly watch too many gangster movies, there s a lot in common between the statements that roger stone is making and that president trump is making the witness