Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 10/27/2018 5:41:13 AM PDT by ZeroToHero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: ZeroToHero

Decision makers there along with Blasey-Ford, her lawyer Katz, Schumer, Feinstein and anyone involved with this must be arrested. Failure to do so is going to cause some really bad problems in the future.


2 posted on 10/27/2018 5:43:49 AM PDT by MeneMeneTekelUpharsin (Freedom is the freedom to discipline yourself so others don't have to do it for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ZeroToHero

Does NBC serve the public or are they simply Democrat Party hacks?


3 posted on 10/27/2018 5:43:53 AM PDT by FreedBird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ZeroToHero

The entire nbc network needs to be thrown in jail for this.


6 posted on 10/27/2018 5:56:15 AM PDT by I want the USA back (The country is suffering from a hysterical obsession with race, skin color and national origin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ZeroToHero

Wouldn’t this be considered withholding evidence and interfering with congressional business and therefore a crime?


7 posted on 10/27/2018 5:59:05 AM PDT by albie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ZeroToHero

LOCK THEM UP!!!

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).


8 posted on 10/27/2018 6:05:27 AM PDT by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ZeroToHero

Time to file a complaint against every NBC station in America with the FCC.


9 posted on 10/27/2018 6:11:15 AM PDT by Lockbox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ZeroToHero

Revoke their broadcast license. That would send a strong message.


10 posted on 10/27/2018 6:19:23 AM PDT by Gahanna Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ZeroToHero

Why can’t they be nailed for Obstruction with such clear and provable facts. (Isn’t it a shame we have to define “facts these days?)


12 posted on 10/27/2018 6:22:05 AM PDT by ThePatriotsFlag (We are getting even more than we voted for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ZeroToHero

Bump.

Email this to Chris Wallace.

There’s s media crut8csm ping list on fr as well.


14 posted on 10/27/2018 6:24:18 AM PDT by TigerClaws
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ZeroToHero

I’m sure Sessions will get right on it.


15 posted on 10/27/2018 6:36:34 AM PDT by Seruzawa (TANSTAAFL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ZeroToHero

The license should be revoked.


17 posted on 10/27/2018 7:10:14 AM PDT by minnesota_bound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson