Thread by @ClimateAudit

1/ several weeks ago, @willchamberlain pointed out the important difference of opinion between Bill Barr and Andrew Weissman on scope of USC 1512(c)(2), which was used by Weissman to innuendo obstruction to facially legal acts e.g. firing Comey
law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18…

2/ Weissman has prior history of concocting fanciful interpretation of unclear laws (one such Weissman interpretation was struck down 9-0 by Supreme Court in unusual unanimity). Though obstruction of justice is ancient offense, USC 1512(c) is very new law (Sarbanes-Oxley) passed

3/ in context of corporate record preservation in wake of Enron. Weissman's theory is that the vaguely worded 1512(c)(2) gives prosecutors the right to charge people with felony obstruction even for facially legal acts if they attempted to "impede" a proceeding "corruptly".

4/ every time, a defendant files a motion or tries to delay a trial, they are, in a sense, trying to "impede" a proceeding. Under Weissman theory, a merely "zealous" defense arguably triggers the elements of 1512(c)(2).

5/ 1512(c)(2) includes the verb "influences" as well as "impedes".

6/ Mueller's press conference appears to have been a fairly transparent attempt to "influence" a proceeding - Congressional investigation and impeachment of Trump. If Mueller did so "corruptly", then, under the obstruction theory of the Mueller Report, Mueller committed a felony

7/ because the supposed crime depends entirely on Mueller's state of mind, which one cannot KNOW, a prosecutor tasked with investigating potential Weissman-theory obstruction of justice by Mueller would be unable to exonerate Mueller.

8/ the morale is not that Mueller's press conference was criminal, but that theory of 1512(c)(2) obstruction advocated by Mueller Report is absurd. A point previously made in Barr memo, but ignored by Weissman and the doddering Mueller.

9/ 1512(c)(2) also exemplifies adage "Hard facts make bad law". Obstruction of justice is ancient law. Enron failure created political demand for new law, though, in retrospect, problem appears to have arisen from breaking existing law, not prior non-existence of 1512(c)(2).

10/ vague and overbroadly worded 1512(c)(2) was thrown in during floor debate without prior review by legal community. It's probably unconstitutional for vagueness. Such laws abused by unscrupulous prosecutors like Weissman and concentrate power to police and prosecutors.