,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
It seems to me that some folks have adopted awfully broad (and problematic) definitions of "obstruction," and that these definitions could create problems for the practice of law. (brief thread) 1/
An essential part of an attorney's role is advising his or her client about their conduct and helping to ensure that clients engage in legal behavior. As a consequence, we should expect conversations in which clients suggest/urge illegal conduct to occur. 2/
When the client suggests or calls for illegal conduct, we expect a good attorney to advise the client against such a course of action and to refuse to participate in illegal conduct. Indeed, that's one reason people have attorneys. 3/
That is, one reason for having an attorney is premised on the idea that many clients will consider unlawful or unethical acts and would take unlawful courses of action were it not for their attorneys. 4/
Thus it seems to me highly problematic to assert that asking an attorney to engage in illegal activity is itself obstruction of justice or that such a request could constitute an overt act for a conspiracy to obstruct justice. 5/
If this were criminal, by itself, we've suddenly criminalized a wide range of attorney-client interactions and risk putting undo pressure on attorney-client confidentiality (because of the crime-fraud exception, etc.). 6/
What I think this means is that those looking to make the case for obstruction need to go beyond Trump's request that McGahn fire Mueller and the like. Is this right? Or am I missing something? (Perhaps @jedshug @AndraRobertson or @Popehat will correct me.) 7/7
