Why No One Seems To Know What ‘Obstruction Of Justice’ Actually Means

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.

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.

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.

---

Sen. Chuck Schumer Defends Democrats’ Decision to Sit During SOTU, After Trump Invited Them to Stand if They Support Americans Over Illegals

---

Ohio courtroom devolves into chaos after sentencing in death of teen

---

Fact-checkers challenge Trump’s ‘eight wars’ claim, back him on crime

---

Democrats’ big misfire at State of the Union has GOP strategists salivating: ‘Huge moment’

---

Child predator dubbed ‘monster parents fear most’ cleared for release through California parole program

---

Trump calls for ‘deranged’ Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar to be ‘institutionalized’ after State of the Union

---

Border-State Sen. Mark Kelly is Feeling the Heat After Refusing to Stand for American Citizens Over Illegals

---

Takeaways from the intense hearing with Trump surgeon general nominee Casey Means

---

Dem rising star’s SOTU rebuttal ripped by conservatives: ‘Anyone who claims she is a “moderate” is a liar’

---

Trump’s former Ukraine envoy criticizes US abstention on UN peace vote

---

WATCH: Fiery Brit Squares Up to Muslim and Savages Islamism to His Face – “Every Inch of This Land Is Mine”

---

CNN Poll: Majority of Viewers Felt More Optimistic About America’s Future After Watching Trump’s Speech

---

Trump Excoriates Democrats for Supporting Child Mutilation During SOTU Speech: ‘These People Are Crazy’

---

Dem Protests to SOTU: Bad Singing, Radical Giraffe Furries, Fake Tears, Pro-Trump Crashers, and Almost Zero Audience

---

Voters react as Trump calls Dems ‘crazy’ for not applauding ban on secret teen gender transitions

---

See also  ‘We did not hear the truth from the president’: Spanberger squares up to Trump in State of the Union rebuttal

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.

Share this article:

Facebook

Twitter