Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

The legal definition defines obstruction as:

18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1501–1517, which aim to protect the integrity of federal judicial proceedings as well as agency and congressional proceedings. Section 1503 is the primary vehicle for punishing those who obstruct or who endeavor to obstruct federal judicial proceedings.
Section 1503 proscribes obstructions of justice aimed at judicial officers, grand and petit jurors, and witnesses. The law makes it a crime to threaten, intimidate, or retaliate against these participants in a criminal or civil proceeding. In addition, section 1503 makes it illegal to attempt the Bribery of an official to alter the outcome of a judicial proceeding.

Besides these specific prohibitions, section 1503 contains the Omnibus Clause, which states that a person who "corruptly or by threats of force, or by threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice" is guilty of the crime of obstruction of justice. This clause offers broad protection to the "due administration of justice." Federal courts have read this clause expansively to proscribe any conduct that interferes with the judicial process.

Government must prove 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.

Two types of cases arise under the Omnibus Clause: the concealment, alteration, or destruction of documents; and the encouraging or rendering of false testimony. Actual obstruction is not needed as an element of proof to sustain a conviction. The defendant's endeavor to obstruct justice is sufficient. "Endeavor" has been defined by the courts as an effort to accomplish the purpose the statute was enacted to prevent. The courts have consistently held that "endeavor" constitutes a lesser threshold of purposeful activity than a criminal "attempt."

Federal obstruction of justice statutes have been used to prosecute government officials who have sought to prevent the disclosure of damaging information. The Watergate scandal of the 1970s involving President Richard M. Nixon is a classic example of this type of obstruction. A number of Nixon's top aides were convicted of obstruction of justice, including former attorney general John N. Mitchell. A federal Grand Jury named Nixon himself as an indicted co-conspirator for the efforts to prevent disclosure of White House involvement in the 1972 Burglary of Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate building complex in Washington, D.C. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/obstruction+of+justice

So.... is our President guilty?
How about Comey?
How about Lynch?

Tell me your opinions, please. But.... do be civil with one another, let us stick to our President, Comey and Lynch. Your thoughts about another OPP member is outside of the scope. Many thanks!!

simply me

I do not believe President Trump is guilty of obstruction !!!! I do believe the obstruction is coming from the sick left!!!!

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Okay, I understand that this is what you think.. and I agree with you. Can you elaborate or expound on your reply. Why would you consider him innocent? Do you think that the government will be unable to prove intent? Also, why is the left guilty.... and specifically who on the left are guilty?

guitarman Loc: University Park, Florida

Trump is not guilty of obstruction. Mike Flynn nor anyone else has been charged with a crime. The Democrats are doing just what the Russian want in that they are destroying our democratic process. They are so eager to get Trump they can't see the damage they are doing to the country.

debeda

under the above definition I would say the president is NOT guilty based on everything I've seen and read so far. I would opine that Mr Obama was guilty of obstruction of justice numerous times in his administration. I think comey MAY be guilty of obstruction, but is certainly guilty of sedition by leaking a self-generated memo to the media with the intent of throwing blood in shark-infested waters instead of following protocols if he truly believed the president was trying to obstruct an FBI investivation. I think that this whole "Russia boogeyman witch hunt" is an attempt to slander and delegitimize the current administration to keep members of the previous administration off the radar. My belief is that for the Clintons in particular they have enough trouble trying to pacify the foreign interests they've already made promises to, and they can't fight on two fronts. I'm also personally disgusted that so much of our money and our employees' (congress) time is being wasted on this nonsense and additionally the ridiculously long and obstructive appointment hearings.

Sassy Lass

I do not believe President Trump is guilty of obstruction: "hoping" that you can let Flynn go is not obstruction. Put in context, this was said one day after Trump fired him. Trump said about Flynn, "he is a good guy." I believe President Trump was being compassionate. In contrast, we have Loretta Lynch telling Comey that there would be no "charges" brought against Hillary under any circumstances. Then staring at Comey "steely-eyed" for a long time, them dismissing him from her office. Get the idea? Sounds like obstruction to me.

Hillary destroying over 30,000 government emails from her computer server, then bleaching her hard drive so there were no records left to retrieve, AFTER those emails were subpoenaed sounds like obstruction to me.

This investigation of Trump is nothing more than investigation in search of a crime. Sad!

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

I have no idea, but am perfectly happy to let the legal folks sort that out. I have no doubt that Trump has violated the "foreign payments" articles of the Constitution, but have no idea if it'll ever be proven. I have no doubt that Trump et al, took advantage of the Russian meddling, but Clinton would have done the same, had their positions be reversed.

There's a hell of a lot of smoke, I'll let a firefighter find the source - I'm just trying not to joke on it.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

I am so impressed with the responses to this point! Let us keep this going.

Sassy Lass brought up the point of saying that "I hope" is not nor in my humble opinion could be considered an order, just compassion for a man who had just lost his position.

Debda, your position that this is smoke and mirrors may be all the substance there is. The investigation into our President may be just to appease Democrats that have issues.

And LPN Major, I am not sure that our President, after inauguration, has accepted any foreign payments. I am sure that Clinton was trying to take advantage of what she and obama called Russian medaling. She or her staff were the ones who dug up the now disproved dossier on President Trump.

My thanks to guitarman for your views, I hope you will read the other comments and provide your thoughts.

So... let us expand this. How about Clinton? Obama?

Jakebrake Loc: Broomfield, CO

Exactly Pennylynn! The key word here is 'hope', which seems to me, attempting to be redefined by the alt-left.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hope

Definition of hope
hoped; hoping
intransitive verb
1
:  to cherish a desire with anticipation :  to want something to happen or be true hopes for a promotion hoping for the best I hope so.
2
archaic :  trust
transitive verb
1
:  to desire with expectation of obtainment or fulfillment I hope she remembers. hopes to be invited
2
:  to expect with confidence :  trust Your mother is doing well, I hope.

Any clear thinking person would in no way define 'hope' as an 'order'. However, that being said don't expect libs to stop their redefining of the english language to suit their desires.

Jakebrake Loc: Broomfield, CO

Indeed, let us look at Clinton and obama;

Talk about Russian collusion?


Well, what can one say?

Sassy Lass

I would like to add here:

Clinton - used her position as Secretary of State to enrich herself selling favors/influence to foreign governments through the Clinton Foundation (RICO)?

Clinton sold 20% of America's uranium to a Canadian frontman which ultimately went to Russia's Vladimir Putin. The Clinton Foundation received $145 million following that transaction.

When you aid and abet the enemy, I believe that is called treason.

Obama - where do I start? How about the Fast and Furious gun-running scheme that got hundreds of Mexicans killed and an American border agent, Bryan Terry. Congress now has the proof that Obama and Holder obstructed the investigation and withheld information from Terry's parents and the American people. The proof was found in documents obtained in a FOIA request by Judicial Watch.

Most egregious was the Iranian deal where we now know that Obama ordered investigations stopped into financial dealings and terrorist front groups so that he could get the Iranian deal accomplished that he so desperately wanted. We know that Iran is the biggest sponsor of terror in the Mideast. Aiding and abetting the enemy? Sounds like treason to me. He lied to Congress and the American people to get his deal. Why? Why isn't this man being held accountable for his actions?

Bill Clinton gave us nuclear weapons in the hands of the despot, Kim Jong Un. Obama will be remembered for giving nuclear weapons to the ayatollahs in Iran. What a legacy!

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

I agree, and further had this been any more than wishful thinking on the part of our President, it would not have been a one time remark.
And he did not follow up, as I often did with my employees.... "what can I do to make this happen?" But, it would seem that our President simply dropped it and never brought it up again. So, based on this I think the government would fail to prove "intent."

America Only Loc: From the right hand of God

No Trump has not done anything to obstruct justice. HOWEVER I know Hillary is and so is Comey!

Radiance3

==================
This is a blatant WITCH HUNT. Most under the Obama administration did obstruction of justice. The top ones are Mr. Obama, Lynch, Hillary Clinton, Brennan, Clapper, Susan Rice, Bill Clinton, Comey. These must be investigated.

None to obstruct under president Trump. There was no Russian collusion. Suggestion of the president to Comey was not obstruction. He used the word "hope". That is not an order, or demand.

If there was, it is required by law, the duty of Comey to report to DOJ, or to Congress. But he did not because there was no obstruction.

Per 18 US Code 4:
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 684; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §?330016(1)(G), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Thank you very much for the exact quote! I kinda knew that he was obligated, but did not know what section it fell under...
nice job!!