Obstruction of Justice

The phrase Obstruction of Justice as technical meaning in a legal sense as a type of crime. The statutes of the various jurisdictions specify the phrase’s exact legal meaning in those venues. However, when used in the broader context of the English language, the phrase could describe acts that, while not illegal, are immoral or unjust. Simply put, it’s not unreasonable for someone to describe an act that prevents or delays a just outcome in a situation as “obstructing justice.”

With that in mind, how might one describe a prosecutor who prolonged an investigation long after he knew no crime had actually been committed?

5 thoughts on “Obstruction of Justice

  1. Mueller didn’t conclude that no crime of obstruction was committed. He concluded that, due to the DOJ policy about not indicting a sitting president, no crime could be *prosecuted* by normal legal means, and that the Constitution provided a remedy: impeachment. Read the JMueller Report please before you comment on it.

    • I’ve read the whole report.

      The question I’ve asked amounts to what did the special counsel know and when did he know it? Based on the evidence I’ve seen thus far, it may be that Mueller knew he didn’t have a case well before the midterm elections. If that be true, then he should be asked to explain why he wasted the targeted individual(s) time.

      • Why he wasted targeted individual(s) time and MONEY. The process should not be the punishment.

    • This is patently false. He concluded nothing about obstruction, which in itself is a failure to abide by the Special Counsel statute.

      What he did do was punt. He picked 10 instances that he claimed might be obstruction. Under the statute he used, they are not, and there is federal circuit court precedent that they are not.

      Barr SPECIFICALLY stated in his press conference that the policy not to indict a sitting president was NOT used to conclude that the instances noted in the report were not obstruction. In fact, part of the legal analysis in the Office of Legal Counsel involved setting that policy aside and simply examining the law.

      Saying that you are innocent is not obstruction under that statute. Firing the head of the FBI, PER THE ADVICE OF THE DEPUTY AG, is not obstruction. The same deputy who then had you investigated for following his advice. The same deputy who refused to recuse himself from said investigation even though he is a material witness. I could go on, but the functionally literate get the picture.

      At the latest, Mueller appears to have known by August 2017, and that is being generous. Around that time, his focus shifted to obstruction.

      What people keep missing is that, as a rule, prosecutors do not “exonerate.” What is remarkable about the report is that Mueller actually did that on the collusion charge. I remember that happening only one other time, when the prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse case came out and said that the athletes were innocent.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s