Interesting tidbit: The obstruction statute being used to prosecute lots of the insurrection cases, U.S.C. 1512(c)(2) was part of an Act passed in 2002 in the wake of the Enron scandal specifically to prosecute destruction of records that might be needed in future proceedings.
https://twitter.com/Delavegalaw/status/1491877243060043789
Of course, this is the law so it's never as easy as it seems.
If there is a tricky word in this statute, it would be "official proceeding."
Would there need to be a specific proceeding on the horizon?
The Enron executives . . .
If there is a tricky word in this statute, it would be "official proceeding."
Would there need to be a specific proceeding on the horizon?
The Enron executives . . .
. . . the Enron (Arthur Anderson) executives started shredding documents after an investigation was opened into their corrupt practices, but before a subpoena was issued.
https://twitter.com/BruceDuck2/status/1491893821789011972
Yes, the DOJ is using (2), not (1).
Legislative history indicates that both (1) and (2) were motivated by Enron's shredding.
Defendants are arguing (without success) that both relate solely to shredding.
Yes, I'm sure there are statutes more on point.
However, the penalty for the obstruction statute is up to 20 years.
Just interesting that the obstruction statute used in the insurrection cases contains a "destroy documents" provision.
However, the penalty for the obstruction statute is up to 20 years.
Just interesting that the obstruction statute used in the insurrection cases contains a "destroy documents" provision.
https://twitter.com/sharpkmcm/status/1491895648672645146
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
