Talk:Obstructing an official proceeding

Section 1519
It seems to me that this article perhaps should mention. DOJ has said (in 2002) that “Section 1512, as amended, should be read in conjunction with the new Section 1519….” Section 1519 says (emphasis added): "Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence  the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both." That seems important for us to mention, because if DOJ was correct about this in 2002, then maybe 1512 should be read as follows: Whoever corruptly (1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or (2) [in a way that] otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so…. Our lead paragraph says 1512 is about evidence tampering, after all. We need to be careful not to take a position in ongoing litigation. According to this reliable source, “U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols ruled that ‘otherwise’ could only refer to other kinds of document-tampering, setting up the disagreement resolved by Friday's [circuit court] decision.” We should not take the position that Judge Nichols was wrong, or that the dissent by Judge Kansas was wrong. SCOTUS has agreed to decide that question.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I made some article edits accordingly.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)