What You Should Know about Obstruction of Justice

​Q: What does it mean to "obstruct justice?"
A: Generally, any act that is intended to interfere with the administration of justice may constitute obstruction of justice. There are many different kinds of obstruction of justice that are covered by different federal and state statutes. For example, separate federal statutes cover obstruction of court orders, obstruction of criminal investigations, obstruction of state and local law enforcement of gambling statutes, and tampering with or retaliating against witnesses, victims and informants.

Q: What sorts of acts may constitute obstruction of justice?
A: Obstruction may consist of any attempt to hinder the discovery, apprehension, conviction or punishment of anyone who has committed a crime. The acts by which justice is obstructed may include bribery, murder, intimidation, and the use of physical force against witnesses, law enforcement officers or court officials. The purpose may be to influence, delay or prevent the communication of information to law enforcement officers; to influence, delay or prevent court testimony; to alter or destroy evidence; or to evade a subpoena or similar court process.

Q: Does obstruction of justice always involve bribery or physical force?
A: No. One particularly murky category of obstruction is the use of "misleading conduct" toward another person for the purpose of obstructing justice. "Misleading conduct" may consist of deliberate lies or "material omissions" (leaving out facts which are crucial to a case). It may also include knowingly submitting or inviting a judge or jury to rely on false or misleading physical evidence, such as documents, maps, photographs or other objects. Any other "trick, scheme, or device with intent to mislead" may constitute a "misleading conduct" form of obstruction.

Q: How has the "misleading conduct" category of obstruction of justice been used?
A: The definition of "misleading conduct" is so general that it can be used to fit many different situations. For instance, Whitewater Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr attempted to apply the obstruction statutes very broadly in his investigation of former President Clinton. Mr. Starr argued that Mr. Clinton committed obstruction of justice by denying to friends and subordinates that he engaged in intimate contact with Monica Lewinsky. According to Starr, this constituted "misleading conduct" obstruction because Mr. Clinton expected that his denials would be repeated to the grand jury that was investigating the relationship. Mr. Starr also prosecuted Susan McDougal for obstruction because she refused to testify before the grand jury about Mr. and Mrs. Clinton's investment in the Whitewater real estate project (McDougal was acquitted). And Mr. Starr unsuccessfully prosecuted Julie Hiatt Steele for obstructing the Lewinsky investigation by claiming that she lied to a grand jury about what and when former White House volunteer Kathleen Willey had told her concerning an alleged sexual advance by Mr. Clinton.

Q: What is "obstruction of official business"?
A: Under Ohio law, it is a second-degree misdemeanor to hamper or impede a police officer or other public official in the performance of his or her official duties. This charge encompasses a wide range of affirmative acts, including, for example, lying to a police officer or fleeing from an officer after being ordered to stop. Note that an affirmative act is required, which means that a failure to act--such as refusing to provide identification--does not fall within the statute.

Q: Must a court case be pending for obstruction to occur?
A: No. An official proceeding need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense. This was illustrated in the Martha Stewart case; her alleged obstruction occurred very early in the investigation. Furthermore, she ended up not being charged with the underlying crime that was being investigated.

Q: What is the penalty for obstruction?
A: Generally, federal obstruction of justice is punishable by up to five years in prison. If the obstruction occurs in connection with the trial of a federal criminal case, the defendant may be sentenced to either five years in prison, or the maximum sentence that could be imposed in the trial in which the obstruction occurred, whichever is greater. For example, if the obstruction occurs in connection with a drug trafficking case carrying a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison, the person who obstructed justice might receive 20 years in prison for obstructing justice. If the person who obstructed justice was also the defendant in the drug trafficking case, the obstruction sentence might be added to the drug trafficking sentence, for a maximum possible sentence of 40 years in prison.

Habeas Corpus much?

That (from E.Furgal) seems to have covered the ipso jure here very nicely, but I am still struggling with the ipso facto of this case.

I guess I missed the part at the very beginning of this segment, where the news anchor tells me what's coming next--after the commercial break.

?

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-24-2017).]

You're a used car sales man arnt you..

On second thought ...

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-28-2017).]

At LegalZoom(.com), we put the law on your side.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-28-2017).]

It tis what it tis... or tisn't it?

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-29-2017).]

So, our remarkable E.Furgal posted this thread with a discourse on "Obstruction of Justice", on April 24.

But it wasn't until May 9, or 16 days in the future (from April 24), that Comey was removed from his position as Director of the FBI. And the beginning of the chain of events that has resulted in the public awareness that the Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, is looking at "Obstruction of Justice" in the person of President Trump.

E.Furgal... PRESCIENT..?

Or was it already obvious or fairly predictable, as far back as April 24..?

When I looked up the date (May 9) of the Comey firing, it surprised me, as more recent than I imagined. It already seems like a long time ago.

That dissertation was lifted verbatim, without citation, from an article posted in 2016 on the web site of the Ohio State Bar Assn.

https://www.ohiobar.org/for...awyoucanuse-132.aspx

The Democrats were talking about obstruction of justice on 4/24/2017: https://www.democraticcoali...-post/BurrMustRecuse

[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 06-15-2017).]

Thanks for that, Willie (Goat.)

I think it's plausible that the Special Counsel could issue a finding that President Trump has engaged in obstruction of justice, regardless of whether or not the Special Counsel issues any findings of willful collusion involving President Trump or anyone else of significance in the Trump Campaign with known Russian intelligence agents or proxies.

I would not describe any assertions from the Special Counsel that President Trump engaged in obstruction of justice as a "straight line" that leads to the House of Representatives drawing up a Bill (not Clinton) of Impeachment against the President.

I think it depends on the totality of the Special Counsel's findings. If the evidence suggests that the President's obstructions of justice are only a misguided effort by the President to spare his fired National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, from additional humiliation and criminal penalties, I think I would say "OK, obstruction of justice, but that's where it ends. No reason to go forward with any Bill of Impeachment against the President."

If the totality of the evidence results in findings that implicate the President in any other criminal activity--and it could be something else--something apart from colluding with Russian agents in their efforts to intrude upon our 2016 elections--then I would say "OK, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. Add it onto the President's bar 'tab'--the Bill of Impeachment."

Jared Kushner has a youthful, innocent looking face... imagine how any of us could "riff" on that... but let me hypothesize that there was something "unholy" about the conversations that he had. Jared's meeting with the Russian ambassador, who came to Trump Tower and was ushered into the building discretely, using a side entrance. Jared's conversation with the Russian "dude" who is (or was) the head honcho at VEB, which is a Russian bank or financial institution that was sanctioned by President Obama, in response to the Russian involvement in Ukraine and the Russian seizure of Crimea.

Is it too "science fiction-y" to think that it is possible--perhaps not probable, but just possible--that Jared crossed a line that would allow a federal prosecutor to indict him for some kind of white collar crime--maybe "sanctions busting?" And is it too science fiction-y to think that maybe the Special Counsel would have evidence that this was known to Donald J Trump--what Jared was up to?

What then?

Just a hypothetical. Too far-fetched to even imagine? Or not. "You make the call."

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-16-2017).]

quote Originally posted by williegoat: What would be the motive, and is it even possible to obstruct the investigation into an imaginary event? How would someone even go about obstructing a ghost hunter?

Turn on the lights..

OK.