Tweet
Originally posted by travestyny
View Post
Originally posted by 1bad65
View Post
My first question was what are the parameters of "underlying crime". I asked 1bad, and his answer included the Stewart case, and the conviction of the broker on the insider trading crime. He made it clear that the underlying crime did not have to be committed by the person guilty of obstruction. One of the articles submitted by travesty illustrates this.
Courts ranging from Utah, to Michigan, to Florida have held that defendants can form the corrupt intent required for obstruction of justice, without committing an underlying crime, if they seek to protect their own reputations or shield family and friends from criminal liability
https://will.illinois.edu/legalissue...ewart-revisted
In the Stewart case, the underlying crime was the insider trading and securities fraud. The article submitted by travesty seems to acknowledge that there was an underlying crime right after saying there wasn't.
regardless of whether she was ever found guilty or even charged with committing the crimes that were the focus of the criminal investigation
the U.S. Attorney explained that he used his prosecutorial discretion in deciding not to bring insider trading charges against Ms. Stewart
https://will.illinois.edu/legalissue...ewart-revisted
The Libby case was more difficult to ponder. I did not agree with 1bad that the underlying crime was the lying to Congress (or whatever) Mr Libby was charged with. I saw that as the feds just ramping up charges, ie. If I shoot at a house, I can get charged with attempted murder, shooting an occupied dwelling, unlawful discharge, etc for one overt act. However, it is travesty job to refute the claim, and I don't believe the Libby case does that.
The underlying crime for Libby was the unlawful release of that CIA agents information. Unlike the Stewart case where there was a conviction for the underlying crime, no one was charged in the Platt affair. So I wondered whether or not a crime was committed.
Unlike the Trump case, which is a covert act and it can be argued never happened without sufficient evidence, the Platt affair was an overt act. It's like the Kennedy assassination. Even though no one was ever charged, it's quite obvious a crime was committed. Ms Platt information was obviously released in an unlawful way. It's that crime that Mr Libby was obstructing the justice of.
While I've read legal conjecture of the idea, I haven't seen any real evidence or case law that suggests a person can be convicted of obstruction without an underlying crime. I rule in favor of 1bad and will impose judgment.
Defense has 10 days to submit all appeal paperwork to the Court.
Respectfully submitted,
Honorable Judge
GGG Gloveking
Comment