Talk:Obstruction of justice

This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Riotta, Chris (8 June 2017). "Trump's name was added to Wikipedia's obstruction of justice page". Newsweek. Retrieved 8 June 2017. Someone seemingly using an IP address associated with the House of Representatives added Donald Trump's name to a Wikipedia article on obstruction of justice Thursday morning—at the same time former FBI Director James Comey took the stand to testify in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee investigating the president's possible collusion with the Kremlin.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Category

The following sources contain public domain or freely licensed material that may be incorporated into this article: Obstruction of Justice Under Federal Law: A Review of Some of the Elements, a public-domain report commissioned by Congress from the Congressional Research Service. Obstruction of Justice Under Federal Law: An Abbreviated Sketch, a public-domain report commissioned by Congress from the Congressional Research Service. ‌

The Perverting the course of justice article says that the offence applies in British law. this article is written from a US perspective. Is it therefore safe to assume that this article is particular to the United States? Is 'obstruction of justice' the American equivalent of the British offence of 'perverting the cource of justice'? And if so, shouldn't the article state that the offence applies in United States jurisdictions, and have a 'see also' perverting the course of justice? Also, where the article refers to a common law state, is this a refernce to a state in the United States, or a nation state? -- Adz 04:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Search the web for "Mike Nifong rogue prosecutor" for current examples of possible abuse of power which can be construed as obstruction of justice and and possible criminal prosecution

Go to www.adbmich.org and search "bribe" for specific examples of obstruction of justice by judicial tyranny(Wikiywry1947 13:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

There needs to be a more detailed description of the charges and circumstances surrounding Scooter Libby's conviction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jordinho (talk • contribs) 00:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

From the statements in this article, it seems that the example of Conrad Black isn't a typical case of obstruction of justice, as the evidence wasn't altered or destroyed, simply "borrowed" and returned. I'm thinking this should be mentioned, but I'm not sure how to phrase it without seeming POV. Malcolmst 11:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S. alone there are 51+ criminal law jurisdictions. Some states have no offense called "obstruction of justice." Most people who talk of "Obstruction of Justice" are talking about U.S. Federal prosecutions. However there actually is no single federal crime by that name. Title 18, Chapter 73 of the United States Code is entitled "Obstruction of Justice" and the term is routinely applied to the offenses thereunder which are actually 19 or so separately sectioned crimes (including 18 USC § 1507 called "Picketing or parading") none of which is named "obstruction of justice." http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_73.html These offenses deal mostly with bribing or threatening jurors, witnesses or investigators or with interference with subpoenas, court orders, and falsification of certain records. Though §§ 1503 and 1505 have some sweeping language, most sections are much more particular than one might suppose. Overall, the federal statute has little similarity with the claims strewn by this article. Of course, this federal statute is not necessarily the end-all be-all of "Obstruction of Justice"--there are tons of other laws out there. That's my other point. This article makes no effort to specifically describe what actual crimes it says are "Obstruction of Justice." It certainly doesn't well describe the federal law cited above, nor the laws of the State of New York, for example. It fails to explain what jurisdictions, if any, actually have an offense by that name or offenses that acre commonly referred to by that name. It is just a collection of misplaced notions written by some clueless people.

This sentence from the article makes no sense as is. "However, in most common law jurisdictions, the right to remain silent used to allow any person questioned by police merely to refuse to answer questions posed by an investigator without giving any reason for doing so." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.114.252.54 (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that there aren't words of generic or semi-generic legal meaning, but this article doesn't even try to say what the actual scope of the term is or what senses it might be used in.

As for the wrongheadedness of citing to U.S. v. Binion--which deals with the USSG only, please go look at my diatribe on that sad article's talk page. Criticality (talk) 09:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like it belongs out.-Stevertigo (w | t | e) 22:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Under victimless crimes you have issues that have a victim in relation and fall under the heading of forms of Tort. Adultery is one of these, it is not victimless, being it a form of contractual fraud.

Suicide and masterbation on the other hand are not crimes at all, but could fall under loitering, trashing (like throwing sperm around), or public/private nuissance. The allegation of a crime is indirect, not direct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.91.93.21 (talk) 21:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Donald Trump has not been convicted of Obstruction of justice Wes Lennon (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wes Lennon: Trump is not (currently) mentioned in the article. No change is needed. —C.Fred (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

does anyone have plans to add loretta or hillary?107.77.210.76 (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@107.77.210.76: If you can find a reliable source saying they've been investigated for the crime or convicted of it, you can add it. --ChiveFungi (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Notable Examples (of Obstruction of Justice) Bullet 6 REMOVE 'Donald Trump' as no source is possible, no justification, no truth in listing the name there 2001:56A:76D7:6400:31DC:C355:CD13:3CE4 (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump isn't mentioned in the article at all. --ChiveFungi (talk) 13:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comey's testimony clears President Trump of "collusion" and "obstruction of justice" and should therefore be removed from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.110.145.183 (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no, even if Trump were mentioned in this article. --Izno (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove Donald Trump as a notable example of obstruction of justice. He is not under investigation, has not been charged with this or any other crime nor been convicted of any crime. This inclusion of his name is just a political attempt at attacking him and smearing his name while at the same time devaluing this site. Patchesbennett (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Izno (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"Donald Trump" is not currently a notable example of obstruction of justice and there are no sources cited or information provided to substantiate this conjecture. "Donald Trump" should be removed from this article and should never have been added by an anonymous House staffer in the first place. 173.19.226.104 (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Izno (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, this is notable examples of Obstruction of Justice, not notable examples of people being investigated for obstruction of justice. Leave Trump out of the article until he is found guilty or at very least it becomes CLEAR he is being investigated seriously and not just tangentially. I agree with the IPs. It's like 'one of these is not like the others.' ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 13:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"not notable examples of people being investigated for obstruction of justice". From the section: "Richard Nixon was being investigated for obstruction of justice" (nowhere does it mention that Nixon was convicted - and indeed the Richard Nixon article doesn't say that he was ever convicted of it). The section title is "Notable examples" not "Notable convictions". It seems the Donald Trump case is a notable case. It's been widely covered in reliable sources. --ChiveFungi (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's the consensus here? Does he belong in this article, or not?

In my opinion he does. The case has been reported by reliable sources. It's a very important case. And the subject himself has acknowledged that he's under investigation. --ChiveFungi (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow politics much, so I don't know exactly what has been reported in the news, but based on the reference that is used to support the contested text, I don't think it would be appropriate at all to include this. The cited article appears to be speculation based on anonymous sources. That is insufficient, in my opinion, and it would constitute a WP:BLP violation to include it in this article at the very least unless/until there is an official statement from an investigator saying that Trump is being investigated for the crime of obstruction of justice. Even then, I'm not sure it would be appropriate to include it unless there is something more than the fact that they are just looking into it. Best would be to wait until specific charges of wrongdoing are made by investigators. There is also a clear distinction between Trump and Nixon. Nixon was not merely investigated, he was disbarred for obstruction of justice. Deli nk (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the argument that in 2017 it was unclear whether Trump deserved a mention here. But in light of Volume 2 of the Mueller Report, it seems pretty clear to belong now as a notable investigation, so I added a section on Trump about a week ago. An unregistered user removed it as incorrect (commenting "Donald Trump never was investigated on obstruction of justice" which seems wrong). Another user removed references to Trumps' pardons for obstruction of justice as irrelevant (I also disagree with this since the resolution of the cases is important). Thoughts on reverting these edits? Milhouse10000 (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added information on the pardons of Libby and Black (and Nixon who was pre-emptively pardoned). Will re-add information on Trump unless there is any objection. Milhouse10000 (talk) 12:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It should definitely be included. Even if Trump somehow gets completely exonerated, it's probably the most widely-discussed obstruction investigation in history (other than maybe Watergate) and highly relevant to the article. Also agree that the pardons should be included simply as a BLP matter, since the pardoned people are legally not guilty of obstruction anymore. Toohool (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re-added! Milhouse10000 (talk) 08:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Man Bad! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8800:6F00:80D5:9561:7CFF:2994 (talk) 15:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is forthright about being a concept most fleshed out in US Jurisdictions. I think it unnecessary to have a banner which states that it may unduly represent US law. That is covered in the topic sentence. I am a Leaf (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]