CDZ Obstruction of Justice

[usmbguest5318]

Just so you know, to be found guilty of obstruction of justice, there does not need to be an underlying crime to which a defendant be party to or guilty of.

Obstruction of justice is a criminal offense of interfering with the (1) administration or process of law, (2) withholding material information or giving false testimony, or (3) harming or intimidating a juror, witness, or officer of law.

Generally, obstruction charges are laid when it is discovered that a non-suspect person has lied to the investigating officers. Obstruction charges can also be laid if a person alters or destroys physical evidence, even if s/he was under no compulsion to produce such evidence, at any time. Obstruction of justice is a broad concept that extends to any effort to prevent the execution of lawful process or the administration of justice in either a criminal or civil matter. Obstructive conduct also includes the intimidation of potential witnesses or retaliation against actual witnesses, the preparation of false testimony or other evidence, or the interference with jurors or other court personnel. The purpose of criminal obstruction statutes is to protect the integrity of legal proceedings and, at the same time, protect those individuals who participate in such proceedings.

The government must prove that there was a pending federal judicial proceeding, the defendant knew of the proceeding, and the defendant had corrupt intent to interfere with or attempted to interfere with the proceeding, in order to obtain a conviction under section 1503. Under the statute, actual obstruction is not necessary as an element of proof to sustain a conviction. The defendant’s endeavor to obstruct justice is sufficient. The courts define “endeavor” as an effort to accomplish the purpose the statute was enacted to prevent.
​

I decided to share this as a thread because regardless of whether Trump did anything wrong during the 2016 campaign, it's looking more and more like he's been obstructing justice since the arriving in the WH the day of his inauguration.

 

[HaShev]

Just so you know, to be found guilty of obstruction of justice, there does not need to be an underlying crime to which a defendant be party to or guilty of.

Obstruction of justice is a criminal offense of interfering with the (1) administration or process of law, (2) withholding material information or giving false testimony, or (3) harming or intimidating a juror, witness, or officer of law.

Generally, obstruction charges are laid when it is discovered that a non-suspect person has lied to the investigating officers. Obstruction charges can also be laid if a person alters or destroys physical evidence, even if s/he was under no compulsion to produce such evidence, at any time. Obstruction of justice is a broad concept that extends to any effort to prevent the execution of lawful process or the administration of justice in either a criminal or civil matter. Obstructive conduct also includes the intimidation of potential witnesses or retaliation against actual witnesses, the preparation of false testimony or other evidence, or the interference with jurors or other court personnel. The purpose of criminal obstruction statutes is to protect the integrity of legal proceedings and, at the same time, protect those individuals who participate in such proceedings.

The government must prove that there was a pending federal judicial proceeding, the defendant knew of the proceeding, and the defendant had corrupt intent to interfere with or attempted to interfere with the proceeding, in order to obtain a conviction under section 1503. Under the statute, actual obstruction is not necessary as an element of proof to sustain a conviction. The defendant’s endeavor to obstruct justice is sufficient. The courts define “endeavor” as an effort to accomplish the purpose the statute was enacted to prevent.
​

I decided to share this as a thread because regardless of whether Trump did anything wrong during the 2016 campaign, it's looking more and more like he's been obstructing justice since the arriving in the WH the day of his inauguration.

Are you kidding us?
You just described The Many Dem politicians and supporting players in the agencies, even as Nunes will get the requested documents finally, the delay and witholding evidence is because it reveals those obstructions (lies) by Dem Players.
Comey obstructed Justice, even Mueller did when he broke the law *28 CFR Section 45.2
Jeff Sessions has the right to remove him by law, by Mueller not recusing himself and did so to protect his buddy Comey.

 

[toobfreak]

I decided to share this as a thread because regardless of whether Trump did anything wrong during the 2016 campaign, it's looking more and more like he's been obstructing justice since the arriving in the WH the day of his inauguration.

So what you are saying is that Trump may or may not have done anything wrong, but assuming it's the latter and he was incensed at his getting a proctology exam since the day he held office for absolutely nothing he has done, by people who themselves he knows and feels have a long list of overt crimes and his being targeted purely for political reasons in an attempt to invalidate his election that he complained, questioned and objected to the actions as any normal, rational person would, he may be charged with a crime for being found not to have committed any crime at all for which the investigation was meant?

FOR ONE THING, obstruction of justice is a highly discretionary thing, and prosecutors have a wide latitude in how to apply it. For instance, Barack and especially Hillary could be charged with it many times over but we both know Barack never will and it remains whether Hillary ever will.

Further, the question is whether Obstruction rises to the level of a High Crime or Misdemeanor suitable for the removal of a President and we both know that if this were a Democrat, nothing Trump has done would merit any investigation at all much less impeachment. If they think they can charge Trump with Obstruction for what will very likely turn out to be an investigation for nothing at all and impeach him, all I can say is bring it on, and see what it does to the country!

 

[usmbguest5318]

I decided to share this as a thread because regardless of whether Trump did anything wrong during the 2016 campaign, it's looking more and more like he's been obstructing justice since the arriving in the WH the day of his inauguration.

So what you are saying is that Trump may or may not have done anything wrong, but assuming it's the latter and he was incensed at his getting a proctology exam since the day he held office for absolutely nothing he has done, by people who themselves he knows and feels have a long list of overt crimes and his being targeted purely for political reasons in an attempt to invalidate his election that he complained, questioned and objected to the actions as any normal, rational person would, he may be charged with a crime for being found not to have committed any crime at all for which the investigation was meant?

FOR ONE THING, obstruction of justice is a highly discretionary thing, and prosecutors have a wide latitude in how to apply it. For instance, Barack and especially Hillary could be charged with it many times over but we both know Barack never will and it remains whether Hillary ever will.

Further, the question is whether Obstruction rises to the level of a High Crime or Misdemeanor suitable for the removal of a President and we both know that if this were a Democrat, nothing Trump has done would merit any investigation at all much less impeachment. If they think they can charge Trump with Obstruction for what will very likely turn out to be an investigation for nothing at all and impeach him, all I can say is bring it on, and see what it does to the country!

So what you are saying is that Trump may or may not have done anything wrong, but assuming it's the latter and he was incensed at his getting a proctology exam since the day he held office for absolutely nothing he has done, by people who themselves he knows and feels have a long list of overt crimes and his being targeted purely for political reasons in an attempt to invalidate his election that he complained, questioned and objected to the actions as any normal, rational person would, he may be charged with a crime for being found not to have committed any crime at all for which the investigation was meant?

No.

 

[HaShev]

The OP has to remember that if Mueller were to claim Trump obstructed Justice in legally firing Comey then that means Comey committed a crime in not reporting it and Mueller committed a crime in not indicted Comey and not recusing himself from the prosecution. It's all circular.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I decided to share this as a thread because regardless of whether Trump did anything wrong during the 2016 campaign, it's looking more and more like he's been obstructing justice since the arriving in the WH the day of his inauguration.

So what you are saying is that Trump may or may not have done anything wrong, but assuming it's the latter and he was incensed at his getting a proctology exam since the day he held office for absolutely nothing he has done, by people who themselves he knows and feels have a long list of overt crimes and his being targeted purely for political reasons in an attempt to invalidate his election that he complained, questioned and objected to the actions as any normal, rational person would, he may be charged with a crime for being found not to have committed any crime at all for which the investigation was meant?

FOR ONE THING, obstruction of justice is a highly discretionary thing, and prosecutors have a wide latitude in how to apply it. For instance, Barack and especially Hillary could be charged with it many times over but we both know Barack never will and it remains whether Hillary ever will.

Further, the question is whether Obstruction rises to the level of a High Crime or Misdemeanor suitable for the removal of a President and we both know that if this were a Democrat, nothing Trump has done would merit any investigation at all much less impeachment. If they think they can charge Trump with Obstruction for what will very likely turn out to be an investigation for nothing at all and impeach him, all I can say is bring it on, and see what it does to the country!

So what you are saying is that Trump may or may not have done anything wrong, but assuming it's the latter and he was incensed at his getting a proctology exam since the day he held office for absolutely nothing he has done, by people who themselves he knows and feels have a long list of overt crimes and his being targeted purely for political reasons in an attempt to invalidate his election that he complained, questioned and objected to the actions as any normal, rational person would, he may be charged with a crime for being found not to have committed any crime at all for which the investigation was meant?

No.

OT:

So what you are saying is that Trump may or may not have done anything wrong, but assuming it's the latter and he was incensed at his getting a proctology exam since the day he held office for absolutely nothing he has done, by people who themselves he knows and feels have a long list of overt crimes and his being targeted purely for political reasons in an attempt to invalidate his election that he complained, questioned and objected to the actions as any normal, rational person would, he may be charged with a crime for being found not to have committed any crime at all for which the investigation was meant?

Seriously, dude? You wrote a 112 word interrogative sentence having six instances of passive voice, making it among the most burdensome to read sentences around, and that is fully answerable by "yes" or "no!" Seriously!!! You went through that much trouble to ask a yes-no question!​

 

[toobfreak]

I decided to share this as a thread because regardless of whether Trump did anything wrong during the 2016 campaign, it's looking more and more like he's been obstructing justice since the arriving in the WH the day of his inauguration.

So what you are saying is that Trump may or may not have done anything wrong, but assuming it's the latter and he was incensed at his getting a proctology exam since the day he held office for absolutely nothing he has done, by people who themselves he knows and feels have a long list of overt crimes and his being targeted purely for political reasons in an attempt to invalidate his election that he complained, questioned and objected to the actions as any normal, rational person would, he may be charged with a crime for being found not to have committed any crime at all for which the investigation was meant?

FOR ONE THING, obstruction of justice is a highly discretionary thing, and prosecutors have a wide latitude in how to apply it. For instance, Barack and especially Hillary could be charged with it many times over but we both know Barack never will and it remains whether Hillary ever will.

Further, the question is whether Obstruction rises to the level of a High Crime or Misdemeanor suitable for the removal of a President and we both know that if this were a Democrat, nothing Trump has done would merit any investigation at all much less impeachment. If they think they can charge Trump with Obstruction for what will very likely turn out to be an investigation for nothing at all and impeach him, all I can say is bring it on, and see what it does to the country!

So what you are saying is that Trump may or may not have done anything wrong, but assuming it's the latter and he was incensed at his getting a proctology exam since the day he held office for absolutely nothing he has done, by people who themselves he knows and feels have a long list of overt crimes and his being targeted purely for political reasons in an attempt to invalidate his election that he complained, questioned and objected to the actions as any normal, rational person would, he may be charged with a crime for being found not to have committed any crime at all for which the investigation was meant?

No.

OT:

So what you are saying is that Trump may or may not have done anything wrong, but assuming it's the latter and he was incensed at his getting a proctology exam since the day he held office for absolutely nothing he has done, by people who themselves he knows and feels have a long list of overt crimes and his being targeted purely for political reasons in an attempt to invalidate his election that he complained, questioned and objected to the actions as any normal, rational person would, he may be charged with a crime for being found not to have committed any crime at all for which the investigation was meant?

Seriously, dude? You wrote a 112 word interrogative sentence having six instances of passive voice, making it among the most burdensome to read sentences around, and that is fully answerable by "yes" or "no!" Seriously!!! You went through that much trouble to ask a yes-no question!​

Yeah, but that doesn't begin to compare to you COUNTING MY WORDS!

 

[yiostheoy]

Just so you know, to be found guilty of obstruction of justice, there does not need to be an underlying crime to which a defendant be party to or guilty of.

Obstruction of justice is a criminal offense of interfering with the (1) administration or process of law, (2) withholding material information or giving false testimony, or (3) harming or intimidating a juror, witness, or officer of law.

Generally, obstruction charges are laid when it is discovered that a non-suspect person has lied to the investigating officers. Obstruction charges can also be laid if a person alters or destroys physical evidence, even if s/he was under no compulsion to produce such evidence, at any time. Obstruction of justice is a broad concept that extends to any effort to prevent the execution of lawful process or the administration of justice in either a criminal or civil matter. Obstructive conduct also includes the intimidation of potential witnesses or retaliation against actual witnesses, the preparation of false testimony or other evidence, or the interference with jurors or other court personnel. The purpose of criminal obstruction statutes is to protect the integrity of legal proceedings and, at the same time, protect those individuals who participate in such proceedings.

The government must prove that there was a pending federal judicial proceeding, the defendant knew of the proceeding, and the defendant had corrupt intent to interfere with or attempted to interfere with the proceeding, in order to obtain a conviction under section 1503. Under the statute, actual obstruction is not necessary as an element of proof to sustain a conviction. The defendant’s endeavor to obstruct justice is sufficient. The courts define “endeavor” as an effort to accomplish the purpose the statute was enacted to prevent.
​

I decided to share this as a thread because regardless of whether Trump did anything wrong during the 2016 campaign, it's looking more and more like he's been obstructing justice since the arriving in the WH the day of his inauguration.

At the POTUS level, impeachment is a political issue.

Fast forwarding to the bottom line, it is unlikely if not impossible for either major party to amass a supermajority in the Senate to convict Trump in an impeachment.

Therefore this whole exercise is merely academic.

Whether Trump obstructed justice or not, he is going to get away with it.

 

[MarathonMike]

It's just Democrats wasting everyone's time on useless causes. Nothing new.