Posted on 10/26/2018 8:58:14 AM PDT by davikkm
NBC News deliberately hid vital information that would have helped clear Brett Kavanaugh of the serial rape allegations Julie Swetnick and her attorney, Michael Avenatti, leveled against him. On September 16, Kavanaugh and his loved ones were dropped into a pit of hell due to allegations of sexual assault from Christine Blasey Ford. Although her story quickly fell apart during public testimony, for the three-plus weeks that would follow, in an effort to derail his confirmation, Democrats and their allies in the establishment media did everything in their power to personally destroy this man as a drunken serial rapist.
NBC News and Avenatti played a huge role in this obscene smear campaign. One notable example was NBC breathlessly publishing and airing an assault allegation against Kavanaugh that was quickly exposed as a hoax. NBC did not even bother to independently corroborate this allegation prior to airing it. A Democrat handed NBC the smear, and NBC ran with it.
To make matters worse, we now know NBC News withheld crucial information that undermined the allegations made by Swetnick, the Avenatti client who accused a high school-aged Kavanaugh of spiking punch bowls at house parties so he and his buddies could engage in serial rapes.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Like Dirty Harry Reid said, “it doesnt matter if it’s a lie. All it matters is that we won.”
No surprise, NBC altered the 911 call tape to smear the “white Hispanic” Zimmerman.
So Avenatti should be arrested. This should be sent to Fox and CNN and ABC and CBS and then they should all be questioned as to why they’re not reporting it.
The media makes me sick
NBC = Comcast = American Enemy > Iran or Russia
When does the entire nbc staff get dragged out of the office, lined up against a wall, and ...
Never. The fake news media can print whatever they want and get away with it.
If he had picked Judge Coney Barrett they would have had her being a wild girl and secretly a child abuser with all the witnesses they could gather.
One question: What does the Federal Communications Commission have to say about a licensee who practices on the credulity not only of the general public but also of the United States Senate?. . . and what do U.S. senators have to say about the FCC’s performance????
Exactly. They would have tried to destroy anyone put forward.
I bet if President Trump nominated Merrick Garland they would have destroyed him, too.
bookmark
Thanks davikkm.
18 U.S.C. § 371—Conspiracy to Defraud the United States
https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-923-18-usc-371-conspiracy-defraud-us
The operative language is the so-called “defraud clause,” that prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States. This clause creates a separate offense from the “offense clause” in Section 371. Both offenses require the traditional elements of Section 371 conspiracy, including an illegal agreement, criminal intent, and proof of an overt act.
Although this language is very broad, cases rely heavily on the definition of “defraud” provided by the Supreme Court in two early cases, Hass v. Henkel, 216 U.S. 462 (1910), and Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182 (1924). In Hass the Court stated:
The statute is broad enough in its terms to include any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of government . . . (A)ny conspiracy which is calculated to obstruct or impair its efficiency and destroy the value of its operation and reports as fair, impartial and reasonably accurate, would be to defraud the United States by depriving it of its lawful right and duty of promulgating or diffusing the information so officially acquired in the way and at the time required by law or departmental regulation.
Hass, 216 U.S. at 479-480. In Hammerschmidt, Chief Justice Taft, defined “defraud” as follows:
To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the Government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest. It is not necessary that the Government shall be subjected to property or pecuniary loss by the fraud, but only that its legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by misrepresentation, chicane or the overreaching of those charged with carrying out the governmental intention.
Hammerschmidt, 265 U.S. at 188.
The general purpose of this part of the statute is to protect governmental functions from frustration and distortion through deceptive practices. Section 371 reaches “any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of Government.” Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107, 128 (1987); see Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855 (1966). The “defraud part of section 371 criminalizes any willful impairment of a legitimate function of government, whether or not the improper acts or objective are criminal under another statute.” United States v. Tuohey, 867 F.2d 534, 537 (9th Cir. 1989).
The word “defraud” in Section 371 not only reaches financial or property loss through use of a scheme or artifice to defraud but also is designed and intended to protect the integrity of the United States and its agencies, programs and policies. United States v. Burgin, 621 F.2d 1352, 1356 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1015 (1980); see United States v. Herron, 825 F.2d 50, 57-58 (5th Cir.); United States v. Winkle, 587 F.2d 705, 708 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 827 (1979). Thus, proof that the United States has been defrauded under this statute does not require any showing of monetary or proprietary loss. United States v. Conover, 772 F.2d 765 (11th Cir. 1985), aff’d, sub. nom. Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107 (1987); United States v. Del Toro, 513 F.2d 656 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 826 (1975); United States v. Jacobs, 475 F.2d 270 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 821 (1973).
“One question: What does the Federal Communications Commission have to say about a licensee who practices on the credulity not only of the general public but also of the United States Senate?”
Might be about time the FCC was asked.
Note that Senators will tell lies about Romney from the floor, but not tell truths about Obama. (They are protected either way.)
When do they not lie ?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.