Sure I've now read part of that info and yes i see because it is a proceeding before congress he could be breaking a law.
But he has not engaged in Bribery, Physical threats or intimidation or prevented there testimony to my knowledge. Tell me if I'm wrong.
On the aspect of verbal intimidation, harassment or rather hurt feelings I would suggest that you could not charge him with witness tampering and expect to prove it. To hope to charge him you would also have to first charge the person who unneccesarily communicated the information with malice intended.
The tweets would not otherwise have had any potential to coerce the "witnesses".
As to the link and its content, 1729. PROTECTION OF GOVERNMENT PROCESSES -- TAMPERING WITH VICTIMS, WITNESSES, OR INFORMANTS -- 18 U.S.C. 1512
"It proscribes conduct intended to illegitimately affect the presentation of evidence in Federal proceedings or the communication of information to Federal law enforcement officers. It applies to proceedings before Congress, executive departments, and administrative agencies, and to civil and criminal judicial proceedings, including grand jury proceedings. "
So as can be proven, the person with the intent to illegitimately affect the presentation of evidence is "Schiff" or whomever communicated the tweets to the witnesses in a closed hearing.
The tweets are not being made at a time prior to the testimonies, rather they are going on at the time that individuals are in closed hearings.
Therefore making the guilty party (as to how the law pertains) being the communicator of the information. Especially as the witness/es would not have learnt of the tweets until after leaving the hearing.
I also doubt that even with as stupid as many would like to believe Trump is, he would have already clarified the law in regard to the tweeting. Almost everyone would be aware of witness tampering and it's illegality. Just because they want to say he is thick and or still would have done it anyway wont make the claims of tampering any more legitimate.
Would you still say that Trump is to blame within the context of the law and as it applies to the cirumstance in which he communicated the percieved threats or intimidation?
thanks for the link.
Caption this Meme
