America has a crime problem: We treat criminal laws as if they were terms of service on a website — blindly agreeing and praying we’ll never need to know what they say. But it isn’t ordinary Americans who do the clicking; Congress clicks for us.
Worse, most legislators are as blind to what’s inside the laws they enact, or how to enforce them, as your average iTunes user clicking “Yes” on the latest Apple user agreement.
Consider a crime we keep hearing about — obstruction of justice. During his confirmation hearings, Attorney General William Barr sparred with senators about the meaning of the word “corruptly” as it’s used in the obstruction statutes.
Walz received $10K from donors tied to Somali-run day care centers
The Chinese ambitions behind threats of a ‘multipolar world’
Mamdani sworn in by AG James in private midnight ceremony
Trump targets Minnesota fraud allegations, says ‘we’re going to get to the bottom of it’
DOJ outlines 10 ‘wins’ under Trump, says agency restored after Biden era
US military confirms 5 killed in Dec 31 kinetic strike on reported narco-terror vessels
Disney World cast member injured after massive boulder prop veers off track at Indiana Jones stunt show
Trump Orders National Guard Withdrawal from Chicago, Los Angeles and Portland, Warns of Return if Crime Surges
Here’s where Trump launched airstrikes around the world in 2025: ‘Protect the homeland’
Jim Beam shuts down iconic Kentucky distillery for at least a year amid market downturn
LIES: Here Are the Top Ten Hoaxes Pushed by Mainstream Media Outlets in 2025
Adams reads his ‘greatest hits’ quotes from coffee mug in farewell tribute as NYC mayor
Washington Monument to become ‘birthday candle’ as US marks start of 250th year
Bondi signals Obama-Biden era conspiracy case could drop in 2026
House Oversight Committee Announces Minnesota Fraud Hearing, Calls on Tim Walz to Explain Himself
It was just one word, concerning one kind of crime, and yet there was sharp disagreement between the people writing laws and the man who would soon be enforcing them. Special counsel Robert Mueller spent 182 pages analyzing the president’s conduct under those same statutes, only to leave the ultimate question unresolved. When Barr returned for Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, Sen. Dianne Feinstein seemed flummoxed when he explained that instructing someone to lie isn’t necessarily a crime.
For answers, many have turned to the cavalcade of legal analysts on cable news declaring assuredly that the president definitely had, or definitely hadn’t, committed obstruction. Those watching at home had to wonder: Shouldn’t there be an actual answer? Isn’t everyone looking at the same law? Surely America’s most telegenic legal minds and seasoned government officials can definitively answer the binary question of whether the president obstructed justice. But they haven’t. Now some are calling on Congress to answer it in impeachment proceedings.
This tiresome exercise could be undertaken with countless other federal laws. Is it a crime to remove a migratory bird that has taken up roost in your house? It depends. Can you cut the tag off a mattress? Again, it depends. What does it depend on? Well, that depends too. Lawyers are conditioned to accept this, but it’s no less unsettling that, even when the facts are clear, lawmakers, law enforcers, judges and lawyers still can’t agree on what the law itself makes a crime.
Walz received $10K from donors tied to Somali-run day care centers
The Chinese ambitions behind threats of a ‘multipolar world’
Mamdani sworn in by AG James in private midnight ceremony
Trump targets Minnesota fraud allegations, says ‘we’re going to get to the bottom of it’
DOJ outlines 10 ‘wins’ under Trump, says agency restored after Biden era
US military confirms 5 killed in Dec 31 kinetic strike on reported narco-terror vessels
Disney World cast member injured after massive boulder prop veers off track at Indiana Jones stunt show
Trump Orders National Guard Withdrawal from Chicago, Los Angeles and Portland, Warns of Return if Crime Surges
Here’s where Trump launched airstrikes around the world in 2025: ‘Protect the homeland’
Jim Beam shuts down iconic Kentucky distillery for at least a year amid market downturn
LIES: Here Are the Top Ten Hoaxes Pushed by Mainstream Media Outlets in 2025
Adams reads his ‘greatest hits’ quotes from coffee mug in farewell tribute as NYC mayor
Washington Monument to become ‘birthday candle’ as US marks start of 250th year
Bondi signals Obama-Biden era conspiracy case could drop in 2026
House Oversight Committee Announces Minnesota Fraud Hearing, Calls on Tim Walz to Explain Himself
It’s not just a federal problem. Nor is it an exclusively political one. The same day that the special counsel released his report, the highest court in the state of Washington issued an evenly split opinion concerning that state’s own obstruction statute. In it, eight justices of the Washington Supreme Court couldn’t agree whether a man’s refusal to open his door for police constituted a crime. There was no real dispute about the facts. There was a statute written in black and white. Yet the court split 4-4.
This kind of ambiguity is a problem for an executive branch charged with enforcing laws and a judiciary that applies them. It may soon become a very public problem for a Congress trying its hand at both. Mostly, however, it threatens all of us who are presumed to know the law, required to comply with it and barred from arguing ignorance of the law as an excuse.
If Congress really is about to embark on impeachment, perhaps lawmakers will learn a valuable lesson in the process. Let them slog through the muck of their own criminal statutes. Let them display how even they can’t agree on what the text of the law means. Then let America be reminded that we had better follow the untold thousands of laws written by these people or go to prison.
Walz received $10K from donors tied to Somali-run day care centers
The Chinese ambitions behind threats of a ‘multipolar world’
Mamdani sworn in by AG James in private midnight ceremony
Trump targets Minnesota fraud allegations, says ‘we’re going to get to the bottom of it’
DOJ outlines 10 ‘wins’ under Trump, says agency restored after Biden era
US military confirms 5 killed in Dec 31 kinetic strike on reported narco-terror vessels
Disney World cast member injured after massive boulder prop veers off track at Indiana Jones stunt show
Trump Orders National Guard Withdrawal from Chicago, Los Angeles and Portland, Warns of Return if Crime Surges
Here’s where Trump launched airstrikes around the world in 2025: ‘Protect the homeland’
Jim Beam shuts down iconic Kentucky distillery for at least a year amid market downturn
LIES: Here Are the Top Ten Hoaxes Pushed by Mainstream Media Outlets in 2025
Adams reads his ‘greatest hits’ quotes from coffee mug in farewell tribute as NYC mayor
Washington Monument to become ‘birthday candle’ as US marks start of 250th year
Bondi signals Obama-Biden era conspiracy case could drop in 2026
House Oversight Committee Announces Minnesota Fraud Hearing, Calls on Tim Walz to Explain Himself
Impeachment or not, the problem is already on display. We spent two years and tens of millions of dollars on an investigation conducted by dozens of lawyers, all for a non-answer on whether one person committed a particular crime. Meanwhile, hundreds of millions of us could have violated any of the thousands of criminal laws on the books, and we would be hard-pressed to afford just one lawyer to defend us.
To be sure, criminal conduct is nuanced, and it’s impossible to write a perfect statute. But we shouldn’t ignore the danger in a system where lawmakers, the nation’s top prosecutor or a court of last resort can’t agree on whether something is a crime. Hopefully, lawmakers will soon spend less time politicking and more time making the law clearer.
Story cited here.
