Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Saviolo

(3,270 posts)
Thu Jun 8, 2017, 10:06 AM Jun 2017

Understanding Obstruction of Justice:

There's a really excellent twitter thread about it here:





Some important points from the thread:

Obstruction of Justice IS a legal term and federal criminal statute. It has a strict legal definition. It is NOT open to interpretation.

Obstruction of Justice is NOT a political term. Politicians may NOT define it in whatever way pleases them or may advantage their party.

The federal Obstruction of Justice statute does NOT take into account—or care about whatsoever—how a defendant's actions made you FEEL.

The Obstruction of Justice statute ALSO does NOT take into account—or care about at all—whether an investigation was in FACT obstructed.

Questions tomorrow about how Trump's actions made Jim Comey FEEL—or about whether those actions IMPEDED an investigation—are IRRELEVANT.

Therefore any Obstruction of Justice case against President Trump IS about—almost exclusively—the nature of the words he said to Comey.

If the words Comey CONTEMPORANEOUSLY RECORDED as having been said by Trump were indeed said, Trump IS guilty of Obstruction of Justice.

Another lie you'll hear tomorrow is Obstruction of Justice is hard to prove. It isn't—at all. Because it's NOT a specific intent crime.

If you're looking for a shorthand for tomorrow: in Obstruction of Justice, WORDS and their CONTEXT matter; FEELINGS and EFFECTS do not.


Please check out the whole thread, it's extremely in-depth and informative.
7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

jmg257

(11,996 posts)
2. So when Comey makes a statement like "My instincts told me.." or "because the set-up made me uneasy"
Thu Jun 8, 2017, 10:13 AM
Jun 2017

we can take whatever comes next with a grain of salt?

brush

(53,474 posts)
5. Yeah, but the fact that trump fired Comey and admitted on TV that he did it to relieve...
Thu Jun 8, 2017, 10:45 AM
Jun 2017

the pressure of the Russian investigation — no salt is needed.

Saviolo

(3,270 posts)
6. From a legal standpoint
Thu Jun 8, 2017, 11:33 AM
Jun 2017

I think that it is meaningless. What he felt, what he thought Trump was trying to get him to do, any unease, those are all irrelevant to the legal proceedings. Obstruction of Justice is a procedural infraction, so it 100% has to do with the words that Trump said.

IANAL, I'm just going by what I've read here and other sources.

 

beachbum bob

(10,437 posts)
3. When talking impeachable offenses, the criminal definition of
Thu Jun 8, 2017, 10:18 AM
Jun 2017

Obstruction of justice is not at play, further more we must not ignore the "abuse of power" element as well...the firing of comey falls into that.

Saviolo

(3,270 posts)
4. He does address that in his twitter thread:
Thu Jun 8, 2017, 10:22 AM
Jun 2017

(17) The reason the GOP must misinform us about what Obstruction of Justice is? THEY established—with Clinton—it IS an impeachable offense.

(24) On this record, NO reasonable juror could conclude Trump didn't commit Obstruction of Justice—especially as Trump won't deny the words.

(25) What this means is, Mueller WILL report to Congress that—were Trump not president—Mueller would indict him for Obstruction of Justice.

Tommy_Carcetti

(43,085 posts)
7. The...Obstruction....statute does NOT take into account...how a defendant's actions made you FEEL.
Thu Jun 8, 2017, 11:39 AM
Jun 2017

And that pretty much explains Rogers and Coats behavior yesterday.

I think they were afraid of being subjected to perjury. But testifying about a subjective opinion--i.e. whether or not they felt like Trump was pressuring them--gives a lot more wiggle room on interpretation than what was actually said to them.

So, in attempt to not anger their boss, they said they didn't *feel* pressured, but they refused to say what was actually said to them. Which could have possibly been examined as to whether or not it could constitute obstruction legally.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Understanding Obstruction...