18 U.S. Code § 1512

[g5000]

18 U.S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

www.law.cornell.edu

(c) Whoever corruptly—

(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or​

(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,​

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.​

18 U.S. Code § 1515 - Definitions for certain provisions; general provision

www.law.cornell.edu

(a) As used in sections 1512 and 1513 of this title and in this section—

(1) the term “official proceeding” means—​

​

(A) a proceeding before a judge or court of the United States, a United States magistrate judge, a bankruptcy judge, a judge of the United States Tax Court, a special trial judge of the Tax Court, a judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims, or a Federal grand jury;​

(B) a proceeding before the Congress;​

(C) a proceeding before a Federal Government agency which is authorized by law; or​

(D) a proceeding involving the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce before any insurance regulatory official or agency or any agent or examiner appointed by such official or agency to examine the affairs of any person engaged in the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce;​

The 1512 statute has been used against a lot of the insurrectionists:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/oathkeepers-obstruction-charge-vague/2021/09/08/9a833eaa-10c3-11ec-bc8a-8d9a5b534194_story.html

At issue is a statute the Justice Department has employed against at least 235 defendants accused of corruptly disrupting Congress’s certification of the 2020 electoral-college vote.

Prosecutors have brought the obstruction charge in many of the most notorious cases, including against members of the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys and Three Percenters groups who allegedly conspired and prepared in advance for violence. The government has also leveled the charge against scores of individuals not accused of attacking police or destroying property but facing some of the most egregious allegations — such as occupying the Senate chamber, sitting in the vice president’s chair and targeting government officials.


But wait, it gets more interesting.

After reading the texts sent to Trump's Chief of Staff Mark Meadows from members of Congress, Fox News celebrities, and Don Jr (which I'm sure you all heard about), Liz Cheney then asked this very tantalizing question in regard to Trump's inaction for over three hours to stop the insurrection:

"Did Donald Trump, through action or inaction, corruptly seek to obstruct or impede Congress’s official proceeding to count electoral votes?”

Notice how she worded that question.

 

[Mac1958]

18 U.S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

www.law.cornell.edu

(c) Whoever corruptly—

(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or​

(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,​

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.​

18 U.S. Code § 1515 - Definitions for certain provisions; general provision

www.law.cornell.edu

(a) As used in sections 1512 and 1513 of this title and in this section—

(1) the term “official proceeding” means—​

​

(A) a proceeding before a judge or court of the United States, a United States magistrate judge, a bankruptcy judge, a judge of the United States Tax Court, a special trial judge of the Tax Court, a judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims, or a Federal grand jury;​

​

(B) a proceeding before the Congress;​

​

(C) a proceeding before a Federal Government agency which is authorized by law; or​

​

(D) a proceeding involving the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce before any insurance regulatory official or agency or any agent or examiner appointed by such official or agency to examine the affairs of any person engaged in the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce;​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/oathkeepers-obstruction-charge-vague/2021/09/08/9a833eaa-10c3-11ec-bc8a-8d9a5b534194_story.html

At issue is a statute the Justice Department has employed against at least 235 defendants accused of corruptly disrupting Congress’s certification of the 2020 electoral-college vote.

Prosecutors have brought the obstruction charge in many of the most notorious cases, including against members of the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys and Three Percenters groups who allegedly conspired and prepared in advance for violence. The government has also leveled the charge against scores of individuals not accused of attacking police or destroying property but facing some of the most egregious allegations — such as occupying the Senate chamber, sitting in the vice president’s chair and targeting government officials.


But wait, it gets more interesting.

After reading the texts sent to Trump's Chief of Staff Mark Meadows from members of Congress, Fox News celebrities, and Don Jr (which I'm sure you all heard about). Liz Cheney then asked this very tantalizing question in regard to Trump's inaction for over three hours to stop the insurrection:

"Did Donald Trump, through action or inaction, corruptly seek to obstruct or impede Congress’s official proceeding to count electoral votes?”

Notice how she worded that question.

Yeah, we can see where this is going.

Good. It's clearly appropriate. Not to mention OBVIOUS.

 

[whitehall]

Didn't rogue agents in the FBI violate the Code when they used a fake document to try to undermine the administration of the President of the United States? Certainly the former governor of NY violated the code when he issued an Executive Order that caused the deaths of an estimated 10,000 nursing home residents.

 

[surada]

18 U.S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

www.law.cornell.edu

(c) Whoever corruptly—

(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or​

(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,​

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.​

18 U.S. Code § 1515 - Definitions for certain provisions; general provision

www.law.cornell.edu

(a) As used in sections 1512 and 1513 of this title and in this section—

(1) the term “official proceeding” means—​

​

(A) a proceeding before a judge or court of the United States, a United States magistrate judge, a bankruptcy judge, a judge of the United States Tax Court, a special trial judge of the Tax Court, a judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims, or a Federal grand jury;​

​

(B) a proceeding before the Congress;​

​

(C) a proceeding before a Federal Government agency which is authorized by law; or​

​

(D) a proceeding involving the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce before any insurance regulatory official or agency or any agent or examiner appointed by such official or agency to examine the affairs of any person engaged in the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce;​

The 1512 statute has been used against a lot of the insurrectionists:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/oathkeepers-obstruction-charge-vague/2021/09/08/9a833eaa-10c3-11ec-bc8a-8d9a5b534194_story.html

At issue is a statute the Justice Department has employed against at least 235 defendants accused of corruptly disrupting Congress’s certification of the 2020 electoral-college vote.

Prosecutors have brought the obstruction charge in many of the most notorious cases, including against members of the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys and Three Percenters groups who allegedly conspired and prepared in advance for violence. The government has also leveled the charge against scores of individuals not accused of attacking police or destroying property but facing some of the most egregious allegations — such as occupying the Senate chamber, sitting in the vice president’s chair and targeting government officials.


But wait, it gets more interesting.

After reading the texts sent to Trump's Chief of Staff Mark Meadows from members of Congress, Fox News celebrities, and Don Jr (which I'm sure you all heard about), Liz Cheney then asked this very tantalizing question in regard to Trump's inaction for over three hours to stop the insurrection:

"Did Donald Trump, through action or inaction, corruptly seek to obstruct or impede Congress’s official proceeding to count electoral votes?”

Notice how she worded that question.

You're sharp and so is Cheney.. Thanks for the link to the statute.

 

[g5000]

Didn't rogue agents in the FBI violate the Code when they used a fake document to try to undermine the administration of the President of the United States? Certainly the former governor of NY violated the code when he issued an Executive Order that caused the deaths of an estimated 10,000 nursing home residents.

That has nothing to do with this particular statute. What a pathetic attempt at a tu quoque fallacy. One of the weakest I have ever seen.

 

[Indeependent]

18 U.S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

www.law.cornell.edu

(c) Whoever corruptly—

(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or​

(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,​

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.​

18 U.S. Code § 1515 - Definitions for certain provisions; general provision

www.law.cornell.edu

(a) As used in sections 1512 and 1513 of this title and in this section—

(1) the term “official proceeding” means—​

​

(A) a proceeding before a judge or court of the United States, a United States magistrate judge, a bankruptcy judge, a judge of the United States Tax Court, a special trial judge of the Tax Court, a judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims, or a Federal grand jury;​

(B) a proceeding before the Congress;​

(C) a proceeding before a Federal Government agency which is authorized by law; or​

(D) a proceeding involving the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce before any insurance regulatory official or agency or any agent or examiner appointed by such official or agency to examine the affairs of any person engaged in the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce;​

The 1512 statute has been used against a lot of the insurrectionists:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/oathkeepers-obstruction-charge-vague/2021/09/08/9a833eaa-10c3-11ec-bc8a-8d9a5b534194_story.html

At issue is a statute the Justice Department has employed against at least 235 defendants accused of corruptly disrupting Congress’s certification of the 2020 electoral-college vote.

Prosecutors have brought the obstruction charge in many of the most notorious cases, including against members of the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys and Three Percenters groups who allegedly conspired and prepared in advance for violence. The government has also leveled the charge against scores of individuals not accused of attacking police or destroying property but facing some of the most egregious allegations — such as occupying the Senate chamber, sitting in the vice president’s chair and targeting government officials.


But wait, it gets more interesting.

After reading the texts sent to Trump's Chief of Staff Mark Meadows from members of Congress, Fox News celebrities, and Don Jr (which I'm sure you all heard about), Liz Cheney then asked this very tantalizing question in regard to Trump's inaction for over three hours to stop the insurrection:

"Did Donald Trump, through action or inaction, corruptly seek to obstruct or impede Congress’s official proceeding to count electoral votes?”

Notice how she worded that question.

Trump also didn't interfere in the National BLM George Floyd carnage; neither did any Democratic Mayor or Governor.
But that's cool, isn't it

 

[TemplarKormac]

We get it, you hate Trump.

To the point where you'll want him put away for anything, ranging from legitimate violations of federal law to something as minor as using a non government sanctioned cell phone during his presidency.

Yeah, we see where this is going.

 

[g5000]

Trump also didn't interfere in the National BLM George Floyd carnage; neither did any Democratic Mayor or Governor.
But that's cool, isn't it

Again, not applicable to the statute.

And your claim no mayor or governor intervened is complete horseshit.

 

[Esdraelon]

TICK, TOCK...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That has nothing to do with this particular statute. What a pathetic attempt at a tu quoque fallacy. One of the weakest I have ever seen.

It does however apply to shitforbrains and his altering of a document.

 

[BrokeLoser]

18 U.S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

www.law.cornell.edu

(c) Whoever corruptly—

(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or​

(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,​

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.​

18 U.S. Code § 1515 - Definitions for certain provisions; general provision

www.law.cornell.edu

(a) As used in sections 1512 and 1513 of this title and in this section—

(1) the term “official proceeding” means—​

​

(A) a proceeding before a judge or court of the United States, a United States magistrate judge, a bankruptcy judge, a judge of the United States Tax Court, a special trial judge of the Tax Court, a judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims, or a Federal grand jury;​

(B) a proceeding before the Congress;​

(C) a proceeding before a Federal Government agency which is authorized by law; or​

(D) a proceeding involving the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce before any insurance regulatory official or agency or any agent or examiner appointed by such official or agency to examine the affairs of any person engaged in the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce;​

The 1512 statute has been used against a lot of the insurrectionists:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/oathkeepers-obstruction-charge-vague/2021/09/08/9a833eaa-10c3-11ec-bc8a-8d9a5b534194_story.html

At issue is a statute the Justice Department has employed against at least 235 defendants accused of corruptly disrupting Congress’s certification of the 2020 electoral-college vote.

Prosecutors have brought the obstruction charge in many of the most notorious cases, including against members of the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys and Three Percenters groups who allegedly conspired and prepared in advance for violence. The government has also leveled the charge against scores of individuals not accused of attacking police or destroying property but facing some of the most egregious allegations — such as occupying the Senate chamber, sitting in the vice president’s chair and targeting government officials.


But wait, it gets more interesting.

After reading the texts sent to Trump's Chief of Staff Mark Meadows from members of Congress, Fox News celebrities, and Don Jr (which I'm sure you all heard about), Liz Cheney then asked this very tantalizing question in regard to Trump's inaction for over three hours to stop the insurrection:

"Did Donald Trump, through action or inaction, corruptly seek to obstruct or impede Congress’s official proceeding to count electoral votes?”

Notice how she worded that question.

”WE GOT HIM RIGHT WHERE WE WANT HIM…AND THIS TIME WE REALLY MEAN IT.”
Episode #3,911

 

[g5000]

”WE GOT HIM RIGHT WHERE WE WANT HIM…

Yep. In Mar-A-Lago.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Yep. In Mar-A-Lago.

 

[B. Kidd]

Didn't rogue agents in the FBI violate the Code when they used a fake document to try to undermine the administration of the President of the United States? Certainly the former governor of NY violated the code when he issued an Executive Order that caused the deaths of an estimated 10,000 nursing home residents.

Dimm's do this shit all the time as a normal course of business.
Nothing to see here. Mosey on continue playing like you fuckwads are the defenders of Democracy when y'all ain't nothing but totalitarian pukes!!

 

[struth]

18 U.S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

www.law.cornell.edu

(c) Whoever corruptly—

(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or​

(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,​

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.​

18 U.S. Code § 1515 - Definitions for certain provisions; general provision

www.law.cornell.edu

(a) As used in sections 1512 and 1513 of this title and in this section—

(1) the term “official proceeding” means—​

​

(A) a proceeding before a judge or court of the United States, a United States magistrate judge, a bankruptcy judge, a judge of the United States Tax Court, a special trial judge of the Tax Court, a judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims, or a Federal grand jury;​

(B) a proceeding before the Congress;​

(C) a proceeding before a Federal Government agency which is authorized by law; or​

(D) a proceeding involving the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce before any insurance regulatory official or agency or any agent or examiner appointed by such official or agency to examine the affairs of any person engaged in the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce;​

The 1512 statute has been used against a lot of the insurrectionists:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/oathkeepers-obstruction-charge-vague/2021/09/08/9a833eaa-10c3-11ec-bc8a-8d9a5b534194_story.html

At issue is a statute the Justice Department has employed against at least 235 defendants accused of corruptly disrupting Congress’s certification of the 2020 electoral-college vote.

Prosecutors have brought the obstruction charge in many of the most notorious cases, including against members of the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys and Three Percenters groups who allegedly conspired and prepared in advance for violence. The government has also leveled the charge against scores of individuals not accused of attacking police or destroying property but facing some of the most egregious allegations — such as occupying the Senate chamber, sitting in the vice president’s chair and targeting government officials.


But wait, it gets more interesting.

After reading the texts sent to Trump's Chief of Staff Mark Meadows from members of Congress, Fox News celebrities, and Don Jr (which I'm sure you all heard about), Liz Cheney then asked this very tantalizing question in regard to Trump's inaction for over three hours to stop the insurrection:

"Did Donald Trump, through action or inaction, corruptly seek to obstruct or impede Congress’s official proceeding to count electoral votes?”

Notice how she worded that question.

its quite a stretch to make that suggestion

 

[Rambunctious]

18 U.S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

www.law.cornell.edu

(c) Whoever corruptly—

(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or​

(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,​

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.​

18 U.S. Code § 1515 - Definitions for certain provisions; general provision

www.law.cornell.edu

(a) As used in sections 1512 and 1513 of this title and in this section—

(1) the term “official proceeding” means—​

​

(A) a proceeding before a judge or court of the United States, a United States magistrate judge, a bankruptcy judge, a judge of the United States Tax Court, a special trial judge of the Tax Court, a judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims, or a Federal grand jury;​

(B) a proceeding before the Congress;​

(C) a proceeding before a Federal Government agency which is authorized by law; or​

(D) a proceeding involving the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce before any insurance regulatory official or agency or any agent or examiner appointed by such official or agency to examine the affairs of any person engaged in the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce;​

The 1512 statute has been used against a lot of the insurrectionists:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/oathkeepers-obstruction-charge-vague/2021/09/08/9a833eaa-10c3-11ec-bc8a-8d9a5b534194_story.html

At issue is a statute the Justice Department has employed against at least 235 defendants accused of corruptly disrupting Congress’s certification of the 2020 electoral-college vote.

Prosecutors have brought the obstruction charge in many of the most notorious cases, including against members of the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys and Three Percenters groups who allegedly conspired and prepared in advance for violence. The government has also leveled the charge against scores of individuals not accused of attacking police or destroying property but facing some of the most egregious allegations — such as occupying the Senate chamber, sitting in the vice president’s chair and targeting government officials.


But wait, it gets more interesting.

After reading the texts sent to Trump's Chief of Staff Mark Meadows from members of Congress, Fox News celebrities, and Don Jr (which I'm sure you all heard about), Liz Cheney then asked this very tantalizing question in regard to Trump's inaction for over three hours to stop the insurrection:

"Did Donald Trump, through action or inaction, corruptly seek to obstruct or impede Congress’s official proceeding to count electoral votes?”

Notice how she worded that question.

How about if they stick one in their underwear and sneak it out of the archives building?......

 

[Darkwind]

Sort of reminds Me of bit bleached servers, destroyed cell phones, and missing emails.

Oh wait, that is the same thing but no one cared.

 

[Muhammed]

18 U.S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

www.law.cornell.edu

(c) Whoever corruptly—

(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or​

(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,​

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.​

18 U.S. Code § 1515 - Definitions for certain provisions; general provision

www.law.cornell.edu

(a) As used in sections 1512 and 1513 of this title and in this section—

(1) the term “official proceeding” means—​

​

(A) a proceeding before a judge or court of the United States, a United States magistrate judge, a bankruptcy judge, a judge of the United States Tax Court, a special trial judge of the Tax Court, a judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims, or a Federal grand jury;​

(B) a proceeding before the Congress;​

(C) a proceeding before a Federal Government agency which is authorized by law; or​

(D) a proceeding involving the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce before any insurance regulatory official or agency or any agent or examiner appointed by such official or agency to examine the affairs of any person engaged in the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce;​

The 1512 statute has been used against a lot of the insurrectionists:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/oathkeepers-obstruction-charge-vague/2021/09/08/9a833eaa-10c3-11ec-bc8a-8d9a5b534194_story.html

At issue is a statute the Justice Department has employed against at least 235 defendants accused of corruptly disrupting Congress’s certification of the 2020 electoral-college vote.

Prosecutors have brought the obstruction charge in many of the most notorious cases, including against members of the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys and Three Percenters groups who allegedly conspired and prepared in advance for violence. The government has also leveled the charge against scores of individuals not accused of attacking police or destroying property but facing some of the most egregious allegations — such as occupying the Senate chamber, sitting in the vice president’s chair and targeting government officials.


But wait, it gets more interesting.

After reading the texts sent to Trump's Chief of Staff Mark Meadows from members of Congress, Fox News celebrities, and Don Jr (which I'm sure you all heard about), Liz Cheney then asked this very tantalizing question in regard to Trump's inaction for over three hours to stop the insurrection:

"Did Donald Trump, through action or inaction, corruptly seek to obstruct or impede Congress’s official proceeding to count electoral votes?”

Notice how she worded that question.

No congressional proceeding was disrupted by the anti-election fraud protestors on January 6th.

 

[Indeependent]

Again, not applicable to the statute.

And your claim no mayor or governor intervened is complete horseshit.

It's not horseshit.
Laws were changed in NYS and other localities and D politicians tell their DAs not to persue Slum hoodlums and you damn well know it.

 

[OKTexas]

That has nothing to do with this particular statute. What a pathetic attempt at a tu quoque fallacy. One of the weakest I have ever seen.

But adumb shitt did violate it when he fabricated evidence presented to the committee. But that's different, RIGHT?

.