Three Supreme Court Obstruction Rulings Guided Mueller's Team

National Law Journal ^ | April 18, 2019 | Marcia Coyle

[NobleFree]

[...] >> Corrupt intent: United States v. Aguilar (1995) and Arthur Andersen v. United States (2005). Mueller’s prosecutors returned to the Aguilar and Andersen decisions for analysis on “corrupt intent.”

The special counsel’s report stated that the word “corruptly” provides the intent element for obstruction and means acting “knowingly and dishonestly” or “with an improper motive.’” Mueller cited to Andersen, too, which interpreted “corruptly” to mean “wrongful, immoral, depraved, or evil” and which held that acting “knowingly … corruptly” requires “consciousness of wrongdoing.” [...]

In Arthur Andersen, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the conviction of the accounting firm for obstructing an official proceeding by ordering the destruction of documents. A key issue at the firm’s trial was whether it had acted “corruptly.” In an opinion by Rehnquist, the justices held that the jury instructions improperly conveyed the elements of “corrupt persuasion” under the relevant statute.

“Only persons conscious of wrongdoing can be said to ‘knowingly … corruptly persuad[e],’” Rehnquist wrote. “And limiting criminality to persuaders conscious of their wrongdoing sensibly allows §1512(b) to reach only those with the level of ‘culpability … we usually require in order to impose criminal liability.’”

[Eddie01]

Obama guided Mueller’s team.

[dirtboy]

The irony is thick here, as Weissman was the lead prosecutor in Arthur Anderson. And got spanked by SCOTUS for misconduct in that case.

[Gay State Conservative]

save for later

[red-dawg]

[God luvs America]

for those of us who are illiterate in law-speak, can someone explain in layman’s terms?? TIA

[Uncle Miltie]

• False charges brought by overzealous prosecutor Andrew Weissmann (Robert Mueller’s right-hand man) in the case against leading accounting firm Arthur Andersen. Although the conviction was subsequently reversed unanimously by the Supreme Court, Andersen was completely destroyed, its 85,000 employees lost their jobs, and the assets of untold investors were wiped out. Weissmann was promoted by the DoJ.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/02/the_corrupt_doj_vs_the_people.html

[NobleFree]

It boils down to 3 words: "consciousness of wrongdoing". The report concluded that to prove obstruction it would be necessary to prove consciousness of wrongdoing, and that this could not be done.

[God luvs America]

thanks...sort of like comey exonerating clinton based on “intent”...

[richardtavor]

I believe that Weidman bulldog Mueller’s ‘essay’. There was nothing legal about it. The premise for Weisman in the Arthur Andersen case was that they did not prove their innocence. In our system of Justice, there is a presumption of innocence and the burden falls on the Prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. How do you prove innocence anyway?

[gandalftb]

“level of ‘culpability” Is the key to the issue.

Too many attorneys getting this obstruction issue muddled up. Lemmee splain.

Mueller did not find an underlying crime in the collusion/conspiracy allegation.

That means that Trump’s push back, complaints, that is, any effort to derail the investigation must have a motive that is not corrupt.

However, if you are trying to cover up a crime or derail an investigation that discovers a crime....... Then you have obstruction.

The press and all the analysts are not being clear about that.

Now the House can try to vote to impeach for “high crimes and misdemeanors”.

Nadler can’t create a crime. Pelosi isn’t going to waste the House’s time on abstruse legal theories without cooperation from a Federal prosecutor.

[Revolutionary]

Trump had a virtuous motive. Innocence and defense against a coup.

[Buckeye McFrog]

translation: Indictment would be an eight-year knock-down drag-out fight that we’d ultimately lose at SCOTUS anyway.

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

The article attempts to define precisely and parse microscopically what constitutes or could constitute obstruction and what doesn’t. What’s inside the line and what’s outside the line. And it’s not that easy, but Mueller is saying, “we can’t decide”. What he’s REALLY saying is, “I am extedning the fuse on this stinkbomb to keep open the option(s) for Democrats to keep this alive as long as they want.

for one example:
On one hand, obs is in some places defined as “anything that blocks or tries to block”...

But that could very well include a potential defendant or accusee simply saying “No, I didn’t do it”. But that right cannot be denied a defendant.

********

Mueller has his so-called “10 episodes” of potential obstruction. Half of those are just ridiculously puerile. The other half are possibly worthy of a few moments thought.

Mueller really wussed out, and despicably so, IMO, leaving this (the yes/no) obs decision) to Congress. I am no fan of Mueller, but this is really crapping on the carpet. In the first place, he originally said he’d leave the yes/no obs decision to the (incoming) AG..... before deciding to leave it to Congress. Hey, why don’t we leave it to the Crips and the Bloods, you dig? So, with a dozen and a half attorneys and 2.5 years and unlimited budget both in time and money, you can’t figure it out, so let’s leave it to the brilliant and impartial legal minds in Congress? That’s not even laughable. Maybe Maxine Waters or Hank Johnson can help you figure it out? What a POS chickens**t decision.

[petro45acp]

gandalf,

Thanks, that is pretty darned concise and a GREAT hip-pocket retort to any gum-flapping in personal periphery.

Cheers

KYPD

[DesertRhino]

All of these arguments are pure sophistry. They had a predetermined goal to damage his presidency until they could gain the house.

[trebb]

The fact that Team Trump requested zero redactions and withheld zero of the requested documents and exerted zero Executive prerogative to keep anything hidden and allowed folks to be “interviewed” kind of makes it so anything Mueller tried to do via the “legal” system would have been dismissed with prejudice proves there were no crimes by those Mueller really wanted to get. He knew if he tried, it was game over for his beloved rabid Dems so he sprinkled Comey-ish tidbits into the report to ensure the Dems could have a lot of rotten meat to try to sink their teeth into.
I’m glad that they have also alienated AG Barr because he will have no pangs of conscience in delving into their own criminal acts/intents - which is why they now have to continue to try to smear and impugn him which sets that circle spinning out of their control.
They will choke on their own venom ...