A number of members of the US Congress have stated the opinion that the fact that President Trump twitted his opinion of Muller's investigation, before it concluded, amounted to an obstruction of justice. The purported basis for this was that he was a potential future subject of the investigation.

Attorney General Barr stated, during a previous Congressional testimony, that he intended to pursue an investigation of the genesis of the collusion allegation against the President.

After yesterday's Congressional testimony, a number of Congressmen twitted that Barr should resign. As potential subjects of Barr's investigation into the origins of the genesis of the collusion allegation, did these Congressmen not commit obstruction of justice with their twits?

Specifically, "Whoever knowingly uses intimidation,... or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge...of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense shall be fined under this title or imprisoned..."

It seems to me that either both Trump and anyone demanding that Barr resign committed obstruction or none of them did.

Am I missing something? Or this outside of the purview of the law and the discussion is completely political?

  • I see that there is a lot of downvotes without suggestions how the question can be improved. It must be assumed that all those downvoting agree that it is obstruction, for potential subjects of the investigation, to call for Barr to resign, but the downvoters want this obstruction to happen without anyone asking questions about it. – grovkin May 11 '19 at 18:46


"Obstruction of Justice" is defined in Title 18, Part I, Chapter 73 of the US Code and consist of 22 separate offences. Without going into the details, the actions described do not meet the criteria for any of them.

For example, § 1503. Influencing or injuring officer or juror generally, requires:

... corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any ...

This is a high bar - it requires offering bribes (corruptly) or threats. Saying someone is unfit for their job and should resign doesn't meet that bar.

This is entirely political hyperbole.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.