— — — —
— —
I think it is about time for the incoming Biden Administration to start pursuing the sound legal advice of Michael R. Bromwich [former DOJ IG; Asst US Attorney, SDNY; Assoc. Independent Counsel, Iran-Contra; independent monitor; law enforcement consultant] — as stated here:
—
Mr. Bromwich knows that which of he speaks …
DOJ —Archives
The general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, creates an offense "[i]f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose. [...]
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).
[...]
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.
The general purpose of this part of the statute is to protect governmental functions from frustration and distortion through deceptive practices. [...]
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. [...]
[...]
The intent required for a conspiracy to defraud the government is that the defendant possessed the intent (a) to defraud, (b) to make false statements or representations to the government or its agencies in order to obtain property of the government, or that the defendant performed acts or made statements that he/she knew to be false, fraudulent or deceitful to a government agency, which disrupted the functions of the agency or of the government. It is sufficient for the government to prove that the defendant knew the statements were false or fraudulent when made. The government is not required to prove the statements ultimately resulted in any actual loss to the government of any property or funds, only that the defendant's activities impeded or interfered with legitimate governmental functions.
[...]
The coordinated attempt to block/overturn/discredit the certified Electoral College result, would likely fall into this broad category of “defrauding” the lawful governmental functions.
The coordinated attempt to block/postpone/refuse to assist in the peaceful transition of government information to the incoming Administration, would likely fall into this broad category of “defrauding” the lawful governmental functions, as well.
As Mr. Bromwich puts it:
It wouldn't take a particularly creative prosecutor to charge them with conspiracy to defraud the US by obstructing the orderly functions of government -- i.e., the transition.
—
Dems (and non-Trump supporters too) would be wise to exact a cost for the coordinated efforts of Trump advocates [dead-enders] to damage and defraud the lawful functioning of the U.S. government. There are very real national security consequences to their ongoing obstructions.
If these spiteful actions conducted on behalf of the outgoing Administration, do not warrant such legal repercussions, WHAT — in the name of We-The-People — does?
…
( Just asking for a friend … our once-stable people-driven democracy.)
— —
—