There’s a lot of fun speculation swirling around the interwebs about the Epstein thing. Interesting data bits are popping up—like Alan Dershowitz (who kept his underwear on while being massaged by a teenager at Epstein’s place) saying that none other than Lynn Rothschild introduced him to Epstein. Alex Krainer thinks he’s got this all figured out, and this is one of the funnest theories out there:
Alex (Sasha) Krainer @NakedHedgie
The big one just dropped. There'll be a purge and the Epstein files will likely be incriminating evidence against the big fish, bargaining chip for those who offer cooperation. Now we know.
Quote
DNI Tulsi Gabbard @DNIGabbard
Their goal was to usurp President Trump and subvert the will of the American people.
No matter how powerful, every person involved in this conspiracy must be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The integrity of our democratic republic depends on it.
We are turning over all documents to the DOJ for criminal referral.
Yup. All connected: US help with MIGA viz Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iran plus provide cover for Epstein's financial black ops; in return Trump cleans house in the US. My hope: if MIGA happens, then Israel agrees to get out of US politicking. Going after corruption without exposing the Israeli quotient will not be perfect, but better than nothing.
Well, I dunno. However, this further comment makes complete sense to me:
Vitamin S @Vitamin_ess
They’re not going to release much; it’s waaaaay to hot as once you pull at the thread of Epsteins financial network and what he was funding you end up in places like Gavi, the Wellcome Trust and Covid op Warpspeed/ scamdemic.
As I said the other day, in some ways the sex angle—undoubtedly a significant part of the operation—is a distraction, since it tends to draw attention away from the hardcore intel angle that had to have been at the heart of this. I’m all for hammering creepy people, but let’s not lose sight of the big picture. If you’re from Missouri and have 2-3/4 hours to spare, you can listen to Tucker and Darryl Cooper recounting everything there is to know about Epstein—you’ll come away convinced. And you’ll be all in favor of putting a priority on pulling at the thread of Epstein’s financial network.
Moving on.
Tulsi has been talking about “treasonous conspiracy.” I understand the informal sense of those words, but Tulsi speaks as the DNI, so she should avoid suggesting prosecution of named individuals for crimes that don’t fit the facts. As for what criminal statute might fit the case, let me suggest Conspiracy to Defraud, which I discussed in a previous life—or at least that’s how May of 2019 seems these days:
If that sounds a bit weird, let me explain with a partial quote from that post:
Many observers of the Russia Hoax have expressed frustration that what seems in a common sense way to be a clearly treasonous or seditious conspiracy by the Obama Administration is not being discussed in that sense by legal conservative types. I've explained to several commenters that the Founding Fathers deliberately made these types of prosecutions very difficult, even going so far as to embody their restrictive views in the Constitution itself:
Article III, Section 3
1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
There were good historical reasons for this but, even as I maintained that these laws didn't fit the facts of the Russia Hoax, I had to admit that the alternatives were--to take a term from Bill Barr--"inadequate." Yes, it seems clear that various criminal statues have been violated, but none of them capture the full scope of what was in reality a broadly based conspiracy to subvert a national election or, failing that, prosecute a lawfare coup against President Trump by fraudulent means. Kim Strassel captures this big picture excellently ("A Searing Indictment Of The FBI"). To prosecute the perps of this massive subversion of our constitutional order as a nation on other charges seems, relatively speaking, a nickel dime affair when compared to the enormity of what actually took place over a period of years at the highest levels of the Obama Administration, it's Department of "Justice", and the Intelligence Community (FBI/CIA). "Inadequate," to quote Bill Barr again.
I was stewing over this when Mike Sylwester reminded me of 18 U.S.C. § 371—CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES. And, better than just reminding me, Mike pointed me to the Department of Justices Criminal Resource Manual, which provides guidance on the application of criminal statutes by prosecutors. You can read the entire section on Conspiracy to Defraud the United States here, but I'll be quoting selected portions. As it happens, I've previously discussed 371 at some length as forming a possible theory that the Russia Hoaxers hoped to use against Trump. I'll append that discussion below, but suffice it to say that at that time I didn't find the theory far fetched as a theory--the problem was that Trump failed to oblige the Russia Hoaxers by engaging in a pattern of conduct that would match facts to theory.
So ...
Here's the text of 18 U.S. Code § 371, Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States:
If 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, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.
Seems fairly non-descript, right? How does that apply to a coup attempt, or an attempt to subvert an election? Well, that's where the Criminal Resource Manual, with its citations of relevant case law, comes in. Check it out:
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. [Case citations] Thus, proof that the United States has been defrauded under this statute does not require any showing of monetary or proprietary loss. [Case citations]
Ouch!
What acts might have been part of this particular conspiracy or coup attempt that we call the Russia Hoax? Well, the use of the Steele "dossier", knowing its highly dubious origins, will be highly suspect in any circumstance--such as using the "dossier" as the basis of an FBI Full Investigation, or obtaining FISA warrants, or ... authorizing a Special Counsel to lead a fraudulent inquisition of the POTUS! How about criminal leaks to the media? Yeah, that works, I think. Then there would be the setup and prosecution of people like Flynn and Papadopoulos--it was all in furtherance of a conspiracy to interfere with lawful government functions. Or so I would argue. And I'd argue that strenuously, even as I also pushed the individual criminal acts. I'd also probably want to argue that in addition to "impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of Government" we should also consider an intent to "pervert" the lawful function of any department of Government. "[B]y misrepresentation, chicane or the overreaching of those charged with carrying out the governmental intention."
Thanks for reading Meaning In History! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Something I should repeat: Releasing GJ testimony is fine, but it's unlikely to advance investigation into the intel angle. Instead, it would probably deflect from that.
Danny Davis makes the point that this whole Epstein thing seems to have Trump really spooked.
I think you're missing the enormity of the crime. If this conduct goes unpunished because of a legal technicality or inadequacy, then you are proactively undermining the very essence of what holds up together as a nation. And that is no trivial thing. The victim of letting this slide is the death of patriotism. No sane young man would, or should, volunteer to fight and risk death for the illusion of law and order. No sane citizen should place any faith or confidence in our system of governance. There is no longer any reason to trust anyone in public service, in any capacity, or for any reason. Societal trust dies in cowardice of our leaders and their duplicity. Those chickens will come home to roost sooner rather than later.
Something I should repeat: Releasing GJ testimony is fine, but it's unlikely to advance investigation into the intel angle. Instead, it would probably deflect from that.
Danny Davis makes the point that this whole Epstein thing seems to have Trump really spooked.
I think you're missing the enormity of the crime. If this conduct goes unpunished because of a legal technicality or inadequacy, then you are proactively undermining the very essence of what holds up together as a nation. And that is no trivial thing. The victim of letting this slide is the death of patriotism. No sane young man would, or should, volunteer to fight and risk death for the illusion of law and order. No sane citizen should place any faith or confidence in our system of governance. There is no longer any reason to trust anyone in public service, in any capacity, or for any reason. Societal trust dies in cowardice of our leaders and their duplicity. Those chickens will come home to roost sooner rather than later.