When it comes to the Trump-Russia probe and the possibility of an obstruction of justice charge, I hear two comments from analysts far more than any other: 1) Trump is likely guilty of it. and 2) It'll be difficult to prove. Why is this? Allow Cornell Law School to share with us the reason:
"Obstruction of justice is defined in the omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. 1503, which provides that 'whoever....corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be (guilty of an offense).' Persons charged under this statute based on allegations that a defendant intended to interfere with an official proceeding, by doing things such as destroying evidence, or interfering with the duties of jurors or court officers.
A person obstructs justice when they have a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, they must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but the person must know (1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and (2) there must be a nexus between the defendant's endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding, and the defendant must have knowledge of this nexus.
1503 applies only to federal judicial proceedings. Under 1505, however, a defendant can be convicted of obstruction of justice by obstructing a pending proceeding before Congress or a federal agency. A federal proceeding could include an informal investigation by an executive agency."
There it is. A person can't legally obstruct justice unless intent is proven. How is intent, beyond a reasonable doubt, proven when it comes to obstruction of justice, and even if intent isn't proven, shouldn't it still be a crime? If a person's gun accidentally falls out of their holster, it goes off and kills a person, shouldn't this individual still be punished regardless of intent? Can they just say, like with obstruction, "Hey, I didn't mean to kill that guy!," and be ruled as innocent? Perhaps the punishment shouldn't be as severe for an unintentional crime, yet at the end of the day, it's still a crime and repercussions should follow.
From a technical standpoint, Donald Trump has obstructed justice more times than a 4.0 math major can count, but can intent be proven? Can the man's ignorance of most every subject, including the legal system, come back to aid him? Will the saying "ignorance is bliss" finally be proven as accurate in at least one circumstance? I personally don't know, but if Trump's ignorance turns out to be his saving grace in the Russia probe, we'll need to look in the mirror, see how screwed up our justice system is, and think about making some serious changes. Breaking a law and telling the police, "Oh, I didn't know that was illegal!" shouldn't be grounds for charges to be removed. If that's the road we travel down, we'll wind up being a lawless nation, and unfortunately, that appears to be what Donald Trump wants (exceptions include: Blacks, Muslims, Hispanics, women, members of the media, those whom have criticized him, etc.).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obstruction_of_justice
"Obstruction of justice is defined in the omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. 1503, which provides that 'whoever....corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be (guilty of an offense).' Persons charged under this statute based on allegations that a defendant intended to interfere with an official proceeding, by doing things such as destroying evidence, or interfering with the duties of jurors or court officers.
A person obstructs justice when they have a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, they must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but the person must know (1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and (2) there must be a nexus between the defendant's endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding, and the defendant must have knowledge of this nexus.
1503 applies only to federal judicial proceedings. Under 1505, however, a defendant can be convicted of obstruction of justice by obstructing a pending proceeding before Congress or a federal agency. A federal proceeding could include an informal investigation by an executive agency."
There it is. A person can't legally obstruct justice unless intent is proven. How is intent, beyond a reasonable doubt, proven when it comes to obstruction of justice, and even if intent isn't proven, shouldn't it still be a crime? If a person's gun accidentally falls out of their holster, it goes off and kills a person, shouldn't this individual still be punished regardless of intent? Can they just say, like with obstruction, "Hey, I didn't mean to kill that guy!," and be ruled as innocent? Perhaps the punishment shouldn't be as severe for an unintentional crime, yet at the end of the day, it's still a crime and repercussions should follow.
From a technical standpoint, Donald Trump has obstructed justice more times than a 4.0 math major can count, but can intent be proven? Can the man's ignorance of most every subject, including the legal system, come back to aid him? Will the saying "ignorance is bliss" finally be proven as accurate in at least one circumstance? I personally don't know, but if Trump's ignorance turns out to be his saving grace in the Russia probe, we'll need to look in the mirror, see how screwed up our justice system is, and think about making some serious changes. Breaking a law and telling the police, "Oh, I didn't know that was illegal!" shouldn't be grounds for charges to be removed. If that's the road we travel down, we'll wind up being a lawless nation, and unfortunately, that appears to be what Donald Trump wants (exceptions include: Blacks, Muslims, Hispanics, women, members of the media, those whom have criticized him, etc.).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obstruction_of_justice
Comments
Post a Comment