5

"Conflict of interest" has a specific meaning w.r.t. various federal laws, which have financial gain as their underpinning. The so-called conflict which your referring to is an abstract moral duty, eforced at the polls every few years: there is no conflict of interest. "Obstruction of justice" is defined in 18 USC 73. The law does not require a person to ...


3

You are not obliged to say anything to a police officer during a traffic stop, in fact you are generally better off staying silent. This is your Fifth Amendment right to silence. The only exception to this is that the officer could ask for your name and you are obliged to give it under Arizona Laws 13-2412, but the answer to that is language-independent ...


3

Gabbard accusing Harris of obstruction doesn't make Harris guilty of obstruction. There is no legal progression between a statement by one party about the existence or veracity of a fact that could prove a crime by another party, and that other party and the veracity of the facts or the crime itself and forgone guilt, other than the statement by the first ...


3

The US legal system deals with this by punishing you for the crimes of which you are convicted. That is, those where the evidence (whatever it is) convinces a jury that you are guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If there is insufficient evidence, for whatever reason then you would not be convicted. The prosecution can, subject to admissibility, put forward ...


3

The short answer is no. The President has plenary and absolute power to pardon anyone other than himself, before or after conviction, of any federal crime. Therefore, his constitutional exercise of this power, whatever its motive, can not constitute a crime, although it could be a ground for impeaching the President or retaliating against the President ...


2

I focus on the crime of obstruction of justice, given an explicit definition in Ch. 73 of Title 18. I think the Cornell synopsis is good enough for most cases, and this would not be most cases. Various sections look (by title) like they might be applicable, such as §1503, §1510 or §1519. For 1503 to be relevant, the actor must act (a) "corruptly, or by ...


2

I think there is some confusion here between unconstitutional and just plain unlawful. Even leaving aside whether the President needs to order the Attorney General to perform the investigative steps, with respect to the various election issues that have arisen the current Administration, there have been significant potential problems with existing law. If ...


1

No, you don't have to communicate in English. A large number of tourists and even American residents don't have the ability to do so, so requiring them to do what they cannot do would be silly. That being said, it's probably the wiser move to be cooperative. An officer is doing his/her job and often has some personal discretion. If they sense that you ...


1

No Advising someone to do something that the police will shortly be telling them they have the right to do can hardly be obstruction.


1

No "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 ...


1

It's not entirely settled whether a third party can intervene in an arrest, and as commenters have mentioned, it'll depend on the jurisdiction and circumstances. This is an excerpt from a recent, thorough discussion of the issue, which includes some sample cases and statutes: While the law concerning the use of deadly force against police officials in ...


1

In the United States generally: Yes. It is not legal in any U.S. jurisdiction to use deadly force to effect an arrest for a misdemeanor. It is always legal to use force, including against police (see also here), if one reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent imminent (and unjustified) death or great bodily harm to oneself or another. (More detailed ...


1

One source states: Obstruction could occur, for instance, if the President suggested publicly that he might pardon a White House aide who was under investigation, which could signal an obstructive quid pro quo--the target's silence about the President's illicit involvement in exchange for the President's pardon. Luke M. Milligan, The "Ongoing ...


1

Does the US legal system have specific mechanisms to ensure that evidence tampering does not allow one to reduce total punishment? As examples, can proof of evidence tampering be used as evidence of the original crime? I believe so. According to People v Davis, 43 N.Y.2d 17 (1977): a party's attempt to procure false testimony or to corrupt a witness, ...


1

It feels legal to me. After all, if I have a video of dog gamboling on the lawn that a neighbor wants, for whatever purpose, then I am legally allowed to request money in exchange for a copy of the video. It doesn't matter whether my neighbor is a carpenter or a cop. If he is a cop and suspects or even knows with moral certainty that there is evidence of a ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible