Nonetheless, there is a lot of territory between what everyone naturally assumes — that Trump was attempting to tamper with a witness — and bringing a criminal charge, much less securing a conviction. A successful prosecution would require more information than Cheney has provided so far.

The terms of the federal witness tampering statute are strict. They apply to those who “corruptly” try to persuade someone to withhold testimony or decline to appear in an “official proceeding.” The requirement that a defendant must have “corruptly” intended to influence the witness’s testimony is necessary to protect otherwise innocent conduct, such as counseling a sick relative to stay home instead of appearing in court, or advising a client that a subpoena is probably defective.

Moreover, a witness’s own interpretation of ambiguous circumstances — “I felt intimidated” — is not conclusive unless there is additional proof of actual intent. Although intent can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances, an unanswered telephone call gives prosecutors precious little to work with despite the blatant implication that Trump was up to no good.