Category Archives: Society

Government, Legal, Politics, Society, United States

What Is Obstruction of Justice?

UNITED STATES

Ever since President Donald Trump fired FBI Director James Comey last week the term “obstruction of justice” has been swirling inside Washington D.C. and across cable television. The rhetoric has somewhat intensified after the New York Times cited a memo from Mr Comey claiming that the president had asked him to shut down an investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn following his resignation.

Using social media networking site Twitter, Senator Chris Murphy has asked about the exact definition of “obstruction of justice” and highlights the frenzy between Democrats and Republicans over its meaning. Mr Murphy tweeted with a link to the Times report.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse tweeted: “Yesterday, secrets to the Russians. Today, obstruction of justice? When does this end?”

But what exactly is Obstruction of Justice and how does it relate to the headlines that have been coming out of the Beltway?

Obstruction of Justice is essentially someone who intentionally intervenes or tampers with an ongoing investigation.

Obstruction of Justice

The Times wrote that the memo is “the clearest evidence that the president has tried to directly influence the Justice Department and F.B.I. investigation into links between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia.”

“You can’t get in the way or do anything to impede an investigation that has already been launched and if you do you may suffer criminal penalties,” said William C. Banks, a law professor and Director of the Institute for National Security and Counter-Terrorism at Syracuse University.

The federal code has 21 statutes outlining the different methods of obstruction of justice, including the use of murder or physical force to disrupt a testimony influencing a juror, and falsifying records. But one of the statutes, 18 U.S. Code § 1512 also includes a general provision, explaining that someone who “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”

But the key to proving obstruction of justice, explains Robert Weisberg, a law professor at Stanford, is that the intervention has to be propelled by corrupt motives.

“If it’s a threat, that makes it a crime. If it’s not a threat – but a request – it could still be a crime if the threat is motivated by a corrupt purpose,” Weisberg said.

The punishment varies, and usually depends on what the person was convicted for, but the maximum is 20 years of imprisonment if fined under the federal statute of 18 U.S. Code § 1512. In 1974, articles of impeachment drafted against Richard Nixon accused him of obstructing justice after he refused to hand over his tape recordings to the FBI. Nixon resigned, but faced no charges because Gerald Ford pardoned him.

In 2007, then Vice President Dick Cheney’s former Chief of Staff Scooter Libby, was convicted of Obstruction of Justice – in addition to lying to a grand jury and FBI agents – regarding the federal investigation into the leak of the identity of Valerie Plame and received a 30-month prison sentence before President George W. Bush pardoned him that June.

Standard
Economic, Government, Health, Society

IT systems in the NHS are pitifully weak. It must get on top of cyber-crime

RANSOMWARE

Ransomware

The message that appears if encryption occurs.

Two days ago, the NHS was hit by a major cyber-attack using ransomware. Computer screens suddenly announced that files and data were unavailable unless the user paid a fee. In some Health Board Trusts, phones stopped working, too; patients were advised not to go to A&E, and the full effect of this attack will not be known until this week when many employees may find that their computers will not function. The virus is worming its way through networks that could yet reap much more havoc. While state organisations like the NHS have many questions to answer, including the pitiful support they have given to their IT systems – including the running of out-of-support Windows XP systems – holding the nation’s healthcare hostage in this way is an unconscionable criminal act. It is also a wake-up call to the British state. Our newfound reliance upon electronic communications leaves the country vulnerable to extortion.

Of course, it is important to keep pace with technological change, especially if it promises to save money and streamline record keeping. But putting so many eggs in one basket does incur risk – and there have been many warnings before now that the NHS is struggling to keep things in good order. Last month, Barts Health, England’s largest trust, had to cancel at least 136 operations and “hundreds” of chemotherapy sessions after its IT systems went down; it also suffered a ransomware attack in January. It is feared that some trusts are continuing to use outdated software that might be more exposed to attack.

This is why patients have often expressed nervousness about the reliance upon NHS databases, particularly the notion of a national one. No matter how many assurances are made to the public that such arrangements are airtight, the criminals always seem to find a way to get in. The solution is obviously to tighten security; equally it is imperative that users take care – a system is only as strong as its most fallible point. Either way, it is now up to the security services to act and act fast. Cyber-crime – which has previously hit companies such as TalkTalk – costs the economy billions and puts lives at risk. The Government has to get on top of it. It has failed in its duty of care by taking necessary measures in protecting the most sensitive of information.

Standard
Britain, Consumer Affairs, Government, Politics, Society

Imposing a price cap will not improve the energy market

ENERGY MARKET

Energy costs

A series of remedies have been called for to encourage greater switching.

The energy market does not work well. Consumers who shop around by believing they have obtained cheaper tariffs soon find they will be paying higher prices not long afterwards when the special deals they signed-up to expire. Unless people are prepared to spend time looking out for better terms, or by getting another company to do it for them, they will likely end up with a bigger bill than they should. Energy consumers are being trapped into a false sense of security.

With energy costs increasing for a variety of reasons – not least because of onerous environmental requirements imposed by the state – the cost of energy has become a toxic political issue. The Labour Party recognised this prior to the last election when it pledged to cap prices.

Now, the Conservatives under Theresa May – who ridiculed this policy when it was proposed by Ed Miliband – plan to do the same if they win the general election on June 8. Mrs May has said the Big Six were ‘ripping off’ consumers and has stated that the Conservative manifesto would regulate the maximum costs of the standard variable tariffs on which most users are parked. The analysis offered suggests this will save the average customer around £200 a year. But, even if we accept that the market is flawed, price controls are not the best way of addressing this. It is not for a free-market Government to decide the right price for a commodity but rather to encourage competition by allowing people to make their own choices.

Big Six Cashing In

There are several price comparison websites that help consumers switch suppliers, as some two million have done over the past six months. But millions more stay with the same company; and it is this inertia on which the companies rely allowing them to freely hike up prices with impunity. One thing a cap will do is bring down prices for many users.

On the other hand, it will simply consolidate the lack of movement by entrenching consumers to stay with their present provider: if you know that the price is capped why look around for a better deal? What is more, if the cap is set too low it will force small suppliers out of the market; too high and prices will gravitate upwards.

Following a review last year, the Competitions and Markets Authority recommended against a variable tariff price cap and called for a series of remedies to encourage greater switching. The energy companies say the Conservative policy would destroy competition, jeopardise jobs and deter vital investment. Yet, if that is the case, rather than constantly complaining, they would be well advised to make sure that the market works for the benefit of all their customers.

Standard