Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 2,314 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,876,537
Pageviews Today: 2,599,369Threads Today: 636Posts Today: 12,080
07:57 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

The Office did not charge any Campaign associate or other U.S. person with conspiracy to defraud the United States based on the Russia-related...

 
RealityDrivesMeBonker​s
Offer Upgrade

User ID: 76811714
United States
04/19/2019 10:06 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
The Office did not charge any Campaign associate or other U.S. person with conspiracy to defraud the United States based on the Russia-related...
Page 189 of the Mueller Report

"For that reason, this Office's focus in resolving the question of joint criminal liability was
on conspiracy as defined in federal law, not the commonly discussed term "collusion." The Office
considered in particular whether contacts between Trump Campaign officials and Russia-linked
individuals could trigger liability for the crime of conspiracy-either under statutes that have their
own conspiracy language (e.g. , 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349, 195l(a)), or under the general conspiracy
statute (18 U.S.C. § 371). The investigation did not establish that the contacts described in Volume
I, Section IV, supra, amounted to an agreement to commit any substantive violation of federal
criminal law- including foreign-fnfluence and campaign-finance laws, both of which are
discussed further below. The Office therefore did not charge any individual associated with the
Trump Campaign with conspiracy to commit a federal offense arising from Russia contacts, either
under a specific statute or under Section 371 's offenses clause.

The Office also did not charge any campaign official or associate with a conspiracy under
Section 371 's defraud clause. That clause criminalizes participating in an agreement to obstruct a
lawful function of the U.S. government or its agencies through deceitful or dishonest means. See
Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855, 861 (1966); Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S.
182, 188 (1924); see also United States v. Concord Mgmt. & Consulting LLC, 34 7 F. Supp. 3d 38,
46 (D.D.C.2018). The investigation did not establish any agreement among Campaign officialsor
between such officials and Russia-linked individuals-to interfere with or obstruct a lawful
function of a government agency during the campaign or transition period. And, as discussed in
Volume I, Section V.A, supra, the investigation did not identify evidence that any Campaign
official or associate knowingly and intentionally participated in the conspiracy to defraud that the
Office charged, namely, the active-measures conspiracy described in Volume I, Section II, supra.
Accordingly, the Office did not charge any Campaign associate or other U.S. person with
conspiracy to defraud the United States based on the Russia-related contacts described in Section
IV above."
RealityDrivesMeBonkers
RealityDrivesMeBonker​s  (OP)

User ID: 76811714
United States
04/19/2019 10:06 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Office did not charge any Campaign associate or other U.S. person with conspiracy to defraud the United States based on the Russia-related...
[link to qalerts.app (secure)]
RealityDrivesMeBonkers
RealityDrivesMeBonker​s  (OP)

User ID: 76811714
United States
04/19/2019 10:15 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Office did not charge any Campaign associate or other U.S. person with conspiracy to defraud the United States based on the Russia-related...
M***Fu**rs

pg 214

"Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President
clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the
applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we
obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from
conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does
not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President
clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the
applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we
obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from
conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does
not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
RealityDrivesMeBonkers





GLP