Talk:Obstruction of justice in the United States

message: 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)
thread_title:  American Law & British Law 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Scooter Libby Details... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Conrad Black - Not Typical Obstruction? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This article is confusing messy 

message: This looks like it belongs out.-Stevertigo (w | t | e) 22:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Check 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Severe mistake: 

message: Donald Trump has not been convicted of Obstruction of justice Wes Lennon (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: @Wes Lennon: Trump is not (currently) mentioned in the article. No change is needed. —C.Fred (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: does anyone have plans to add loretta or hillary?107.77.210.76 (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2017 

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

text: Uh, no, even if Trump were mentioned in this article. --Izno (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2017 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2017 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2017 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Re-added! Milhouse10000 (talk) 08:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Donald Trump... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Banner should be removed 

message: Boud (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal