please be specific. Right now it seems immensely clear to me that he's being charged with numerous things other than intimidating witnesses, and it's not clear to me he's even being charged with intimidating witnesses at all.

Exactly right. So naturally one wonders why he’s being charged under these statutes. I am not a lawyer, so I don’t know.

You said he's only being charged with witness tampering. Your only argument to support that is that you're not a lawyer and therefore are unqualified to determine if the thing he's being charged with is Witness Tampering?

Can you tell me why he’s being charged under that statute? And why pulling a fire alarm is now a federal crime?

you keep saying "that statute". He has multiple charges. Which statute are you referring to as "that statute"?

18 U.S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

Please read this

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2023/07/28/what-crimes-was-trump-charged-with-in-federal-documents-case-heres-what-to-know-as-doj-brings-new-charges/

This gives some detail as to why 1512 is ONE OF the specific charges. It doesn't seem to be about witnesses at all.

It isn’t about witnesses, victims, informants at all, but according to a provision under that statute it is now a federal crime for pulling a fire alarm in Congress, with punishment up to 20 years in prison.

It isn’t about witnesses — NOS4A2

That isn't what you were saying before

You’ll quote me saying otherwise, I’m sure.

The crime is the same and just as stupid in both cases. It’s a witness tampering crime — NOS4A2

You think the crime Trump is being charged with is Witness Tampering? — flannel jesus

It appears to be so. — NOS4A2

Now quote the statute.

(c)Whoever corruptly—
(1)alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
(2)otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

I think you've mistakenly read the title of the statute and stopped there.

And what statute is that a provision of?

he's not being charged with witness tampering, regardless of the title of the statute. You and I both know that.

Well, I’m sorry for reading the title of the statute.

Are you willing to go on record saying that this provision has nothing to do with the statute?

what does "on record" mean?

There's a reason why when I Google "Donald trump witness tampering", the only results I get are articles about what he hypothetically could be charged with, and not what he is charged with.

https://www.npr.org/2023/08/01/1191493880/trump-january-6-charges-indictment-counts

I don't know why c2 is documented alongside witness tampering codes, all I know is c2 is not witness tampering.

Well, I’m sorry for reading the title of the statute. — NOS4A2

You need to read more than just the title. He's been charged under subsections (c)(2) and (k):

(c) Whoever corruptly —

(2) obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

...

(k) Whoever conspires to commit any offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

Section 1512(c)(2) makes it a crime to “corruptly ... otherwise obstruct[], influence[], or impede[] any official proceeding, or attempt[] to do so.” Federal prosecutors have used § 1512(c)(2) to charge individuals for conduct such as falsifying evidence to influence a federal grand jury investigation and tipping off the target of a grand jury proceeding about an undercover operation. Numerous individuals involved in the unrest at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, have also been charged under the provision in the same jurisdiction where the Indictment has been filed. In one such case, United States v. Fischer, a split D.C. Circuit panel held that Section 1512(c)(2) “encompasses all forms of obstructive conduct,” including “violent efforts to stop Congress from certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election.” — Congressional research service

Well then I apologize for believing the provision had anything to do with the statute.

You’re right, I’m wrong. I apologize. I will ignore the statute, its genesis, and the precedent.

no need to apologize, but this post of yours looks very unnecessary in retrospect, doesn't it?

Yup. My bad.

You’re right, I’m wrong. I apologize. I will ignore the statute, its genesis, and the precedent. — NOS4A2

Regarding its genesis, see the Sarbanes–Oxley Act

SEC. 1102. TAMPERING WITH A RECORD OR OTHERWISE IMPEDING
AN OFFICIAL PROCEEDING.

Section 1512 of title 18, United States Code, is amended—
(1) by redesignating subsections (c) through (i) as subsections (d) through (j), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new subsection:
‘‘(c) Whoever corruptly—
‘‘(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an
official proceeding; or
‘‘(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.’’.

Thank you.

I've noticed in the last few days chatter about the ructions in the Republican circus caucus that Kevin McCarthy, who might be about to be rolled, has taken to referring to himself as 'the adult in the room':

Gaetz keeps pressure on ahead of move to oust McCarthy


McCarthy has brushed Gaetz’s threat aside. “If somebody wants to remove [me] because I want to be the adult in the room, go ahead and try,” McCarthy said on Saturday, adding: “If I have to risk my job for standing up for the American public, I will do that.” — Politico

The expression, 'the adult in the room', came into popular use when Trump hired John F Kelly as Chief of Staff, with commentators designating him in those terms because it was hoped he could keep Trump's childish impetuosity in check.

Now, however, McCarthy seems to think it's a boast! As if 'being an adult' is something the brag about. But then, I guess with the company he's keeping, it kind of makes sense, sad though that may be.

Now, however, McCarthy seems to think it's a boast! As if 'being an adult' is something the brag about. But then, I guess with the company he's keeping, it kind of makes sense, sad though that may be. — Wayfarer

Reminds me of the skit from Chris Rock "I take care of my kids!" as if it's a boast "you're supposed to you dumb fuck!"

Let's see how it goes now with McCarthy out.

And we really haven't even started in earnest the "silly season" of the US elections...