Friday, May 12, 2017

What is Obstruction of Justice?


Some critics of President Trump have accused him of Obstruction of Justice in his firing of the FBI Director, James B. Comey, amid the Bureau’s Investigation into the Trump Campaign’s Contacts with Russia.

Here is a look at the complex Legal concept.

What is Obstruction of Justice?

Several Federal Statutes criminalize actions that impede Official Investigations. While some examples of illegal ways to thwart the Justice system are specific, like killing a witness or destroying evidence, the Law also includes broad, catchall prohibitions. For example, Section 1512 of Title 18 makes it a crime if someone corruptly “obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding,” even if the proceeding was not yet pending at the time of the act. A conviction under that provision can be punished by up to 20 years in prison.

Could that Cover Firing the FBI Director?

In theory. Samuel Buell, a former federal Prosecutor who now teaches Criminal Law at Duke University, said Statutes like Section 1512 were “drafted broadly to cover all possible means of obstruction of justice,” because there are so many ways to thwart the Legal system. So in theory, he said, firing an Investigator could fit. But there would be significant practical obstacles to bringing such a Case.

Did Trump have Lawful Authority to Fire Comey?

Yes. But Courts have ruled that otherwise Lawful Acts can constitute Obstruction of Justice if done with Corrupt intentions. Buell pointed to a 1998 Case in which a Federal Appeals Court upheld the Conviction of a Lawyer who had filed Legal Complaints and related Motions against a Government Agent who was Investigating an Illegal Gambling operation. The court Ruled that the defendant’s “nominally litigation-related conduct” was Unlawful because his real motive was “to safeguard his personal financial interest” in the Corrupt Enterprise.

Would there be Impediments to Charging Trump?

Yes, and not just that the Justice Department reports to Trump and is therefore unlikely to Prosecute him for anything. Obstruction of Justice Cases often come down to whether Prosecutors can prove what a defendant’s Mental State was when he or she committed the Act, Legal Specialists said. It is not enough to show that a Defendant knew the Act would have a side consequence of Impeding an Investigation; achieving that Obstruction has to have been the specific Intention.

Trump told NBC he had been thinking about the Russia Investigation, which he called a “made-up story” that “should have been over with a long time ago,” when he decided to fire Comey. But he also said he wanted the Investigation to be “done properly” and suggested the firing might prolong it.

Defense Lawyers could raise arguments in an attempt to create Reasonable Doubt about Trump’s Motivation for Firing Comey. For one thing, they could point to the alternative stories or purported motives the White House has described. Trump, for example, has said he acted because he thought the Bureau was in “turmoil” under Comey, whom he called a “grandstander.” The White House also initially put forward a Memo by the Deputy Attorney General, Rod J. Rosenstein, who criticized Comey’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email Investigation, although Trump said on Thursday that he had already decided to Fire Comey before consulting Rosenstein. But it was Trump who asked Rosenstein and Attorney General Sessions to write the Memo. Also, Sessions recused himself from anything doing with the Russians Investigation.

What About Impeachment?

Both American Presidents who were subjected to Impeachment proceedings in the last Century, Bill Clinton in 1998 and Richard Nixon in 1974, were accused of Obstruction of Justice.

While it can be a murky task in Court to interpret the Obstruction Statutes, said David Sklansky, a former federal Prosecutor who teaches at Stanford University, Impeachment proceedings are different. They are a “quasi-judicial, quasi-political process,” he noted; the House and Senate determine for themselves whether the Standards are met.

In other words, as a practical matter, the Constitution’s Standards for Impeachment and Removal of a President, if he has committed “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”, are met by anything that a Majority of the House and two-thirds of the Senate are willing to vote for.

That makes Prognostication an Exercise in vote Counting, not Legal Analysis. Because Trump’s fellow Republicans Control both Chambers of Congress, as things stand, he is exceedingly unlikely to be Impeached for Firing Comey.











NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
Digg! StumbleUpon

No comments: