A legal question about Hannity's advice

[PJMcK]

Hannity has "jokingly" suggested that any witnesses in the Mueller investigation should destroy their smart phones and delete their electronic communications.

If someone has not been subpoenaed nor invited for an interview, is it obstruction if I do whatever I want with my personal property? One cannot know that they will be interviewed so how could intent be proven?

Of course, both Apple and Samsung won't mind if you destroy their expensive devices before buying new ones.

Hannity's an ass and Mueller's team has lots of ways to get the information they seek so I don't think Hannity is really a threat to the probe.

[ProfessorGAC]

1. Don't Know About The Legal Aspect, But. . .

. . .when the RW was (and still does) screaming about HRC's emails, how would they be reacting if someone had suggested she just destroy her phone and server?

I think we know that answer. Everyone one of them would be screaming that it was illegal and obstruction. Now it's ok, apparently.

[FBaggins]

2. It could be obstruction if they do it... but not for Hannity to "joke" about it

Not unless he’s connected to the investigation in ways we don’t know about.

[dem4decades]

4. I think Hannity is telling everyone to slam shut the barn doors, 3 months after the last horse has

left.

It doesn't matter. Though I hope Hannity has some encrypted messages caught in the Mueller's web?

[flibbitygiblets]

6. He IS one of Cohen's three (and only three) clients, so it's not unlikely

[dem4decades]

8. Hannity has a couple of chances to answer questions under oath. Get the popcorn.

[marble falls]

5. Indicted or not, it would be a crime to destroy evidence knowingly ...

private property or not.

[Achilleaze]

7. Why does Hannity (R) want to hide truth from Americans

Basically republican mouthpiece Hannity is asking likely criminals to hide the truth from Americans.

How republican is that? How treasonous against America?

[C_U_L8R]

9. As illegal as Hannity's advice is...

I suspect he's just vomiting flamebait to divert attention.
I'm sure investigators know how to deal with toxic trolls like this.
Maybe they should look into the people paying Hannity
and directing this angry shouting potato to go on air
each night to spew such nonsense. Go for the hand,
not the yo-yo.

[OnDoutside]

10. Weren't all WH staff already told that they should hold onto all devices/emails/messages etc ?

[PJMcK]

13. Yes, they were

But not all of the witnesses in Robert Mueller's investigation work in the White House. Perhaps those are the (potential) witnesses that Hannity was addressing with his ridiculous advice.

[OnDoutside]

14. I'd have to think that anyone remotely touched by Mueller would have already been told not to

destroy that stuff, but I think you are right, there are definite people Hannity is addressing.

[Lee-Lee]

11. It's a tough line to prove if done before a subpoena

It could be prosecuted IF they can prove it was down with intent to destroy or hide evidence and not as a normal course of business.

For example if a company had a policy that all security tapes are only retained for 30 days they can’t be held for tampering with evidence if prosecutors seek evidence older than that. If they upgrade a server or have a failure and lose days earlier they could possibly be prosecuted IF the prosecution can show that was done intentionally timed to destroy evidence.

So with a phone- if you get a new phone and trash the old one, is that what people do now and then or did you do it just to hide evidence? If they can prove the latter then prosecution is possible. But it would be a damm hard one to prove intent absent any recorded communication saying that’s the intent.

I just got a new iPad and I wiped my old one and donated it to a local shelter for domestic violence victims. If I was to get served with a subpoena today in a civil or criminal case seeking all electronic devices and records were my actions last week tampering with evidence of just good timing? The burden to prove the crime would be on the prosecution.

It’s a fine line. And given the record of the staff of our last Presidential Candidate of destroying her old devices with a hammer (without her knowledge I’m almost sure) probably not a line we want to push too hard.

[PJMcK]

12. Thanks for the thoughtful response

In essence, you've expressed what I believe as a non-lawyer.

It will be interesting to see what comes out of the electronic communications Robert Mueller has reviewed.