Meeting with a foreign power to get assistance with a presidential campaign is not totally legal

Then Hillary and the DNC are in trouble. Moreso, because they actually acquired info and tried to use it.

Then Hillary and the DNC are in trouble.

ok.

If there is proof, it is right and correct to prosecute ANYONE who is guilty of this sort of crime.

MiliTanT minoriTy crazies

Go full blown delusional

Funny - funny
boris

It looks like Bad News Bears for dip-shit Jr.

and of course if Mikey The Fixer talks.......

"Look like"??

You've been blathering on about this irrelevant "chewing gum in class" crap for months now.

Hillary and the DNC commit REAL high crimes to frame President Trump with a fake "Dossier", promote "Russian!" collusion when it was HITLERY who colluded; still attempt to steal the election from 63 million Republican voters...

...and you STILL have nothing to say about THAT??

YOU'RE hoping-against hope that these piddly, wildly petty BS gets Trump impeached?? Bwaahaa!!!

Liars and Fascists like you are no different than Adolf's Brownshirts and their tactics. Go meet with your co-Brownshirt in another Beer Hall, then do what Dolpy's boys used to do after getting drunk and beating people: Practice your homofascist "activities" on each other. Because isn't THAT your actual "Visionary Mission" for America?

You lunatics possess ZERO honesty and integrity. I personally wouldn't trust you with my Beagle alone. OR with children.

a fake "Dossier", promote "Russian!" collusion when it was HITLERY who colluded;

Your infowars/hannity talking points amuse me!

If you or any of your low-information squad members can prove any wrong- doing, please by all means bring it!

If ANYONE was engaged in any fuckery as it applied to our elections, they should be prosecuted.

The truth, whether or not you can understand it, is that the Dip-Shit Donny team conspired with the russians to hack the 2016 elections.

No one even comes close to criminal acts that Clinton's do. Those two are the worst political criminals in history. Make Putin look like a criminal piker!

cite the law that Trump broke find it or this article gets deleted because it's a lie

The author cites the law:

let’s call it an electioneering conspiracy. The indictment charged violations of 18 U.S. Code § 371 — conspiracy to commit an offense against, or to defraud United States.

If you have a problem with the author, please take it up with the author.

If there is proof, it is right and correct to prosecute ANYONE who is guilty of this sort of crime.

Well, Mueller's team uncovered such proof and have yet to indict Hillary or anyone at the DNC.

He did manage, however, to charge Paul Manafort for something totally unrelated to his task. But not Hillary or the DNC.

The indictment charged violations of 18 U.S. Code § 371 — conspiracy to commit an offense against, or to defraud United States.

You quota a law(I assume did not look it up). Now where is the evidence that Trump jr Commit an offense against or to defraud the US. Seeking legit intel against a person is not a crime.

Now we do know many people such as Coomey, Stroch, Clintons, Rice, Obama that did defraud the government. Where the outrage for their real crimes?

He did manage, however, to charge Paul Manafort for something totally unrelated to his task.

Unrelated?

False.

Because PM was in charge of dip-shit donnie's cirle-jerk campaign, he's fair game, right?

... Would you give him a pass? If so, you're a real un-American piece-of-shit..

But anyway,

If there is proof, it is right and correct to prosecute ANYONE who is guilty of this sort of crime.

Please!

I beg you!! Be a "merican hero!! produce the evidence!!! put HRC and all the democrats you fear in prison!! DO IT!!

Exposing a longstanding lie blunt even by his standards, President Trump on Sunday confessed by tweet that the purpose of the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting between his campaign and a Kremlin-linked lawyer was “to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics.”

It was left to his lawyer Jay Sekulow to try to clean up the mess.

President Trump made no admission that the meeting was with a "Kremlin-linked lawyer," whatever the hell that means legally.

President Trump made no admission that the actual meeting involved an offer of information on an opponent.

In July 2017, in an interview with Maggie Haberman of the New York Times, described how the meeting had been pitched as an offer of information on an opponent. President Trump "admitted" in 2017, “Who wouldn’t have taken a meeting like that?”

Russian Veselnitskaya is a private attorney and not the state of Russia. She was interviewed before the the Trump Tower meeting by Fusion GPS, the same firm that compiled the infamous Trump pee dossier. Then she was interviewed again after the Trump Tower meeting by the same Fusion GPS who compiled the infamous pee dossier.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-dossier-firm-also-supplied-info-used-meeting-russians-trump-n819526

Months before she met in June 2016 with Trump Jr., Veselnitskaya said she turned the information she got from Simpson over to Russian Prosecutor General Yuri Chaika, who she said sought to verify it through his own investigation.

In May 2016, the Russian prosecutor general issued a statement seeking U.S. help in investigating what he described as a tax evasion scheme involving the Ziff brothers, American investors, and British investor Bill Browder.

Veselnitskaya said that statement was based in part on information she provided in the fall of 2015.

"I was in effect, the primary source of this information for the Russian Prosecutor General's office. They then published the facts I uncovered."

She got the information from Fusion GPS, which prepared detailed reports in 2014, she said.

Veselnitskaya has offered to return to the United States and be interviewed by Robert Mueller. Mueller and his team have not attempted to interview her.

- - - - - - - - - -

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/us/politics/trump-interview-transcript.html

Excerpts From The Times’s Interview With Trump

By The New York Times

July 19, 2017

President Trump spoke on Wednesday with three New York Times reporters — Peter Baker, Michael S. Schmidt and Maggie Haberman — in an exclusive interview in the Oval Office. Also in attendance was Hope Hicks, a White House spokeswoman. At one point, the president’s daughter and adviser Ivanka Trump appeared at the door, and her daughter, Arabella, entered the room.

The following are excerpts from that conversation, transcribed by The Times. They have been lightly edited for content and clarity, and omit several off-the-record comments and asides.

TRUMP ... And now Melania was sitting on the other side of the table, way down on the other end, very far away. She was sitting next to Putin and somebody else, I don’t know. She was sitting next to Putin.

HABERMAN: She had been the whole time?

TRUMP: No. She speaks other languages.

TRUMP: She was sitting next to Putin and somebody else, and that’s the way it is. So the meal was going, and toward dessert I went down just to say hello to Melania, and while I was there I said hello to Putin. Really, pleasantries more than anything else. It was not a long conversation, but it was, you know, could be 15 minutes. Just talked about — things. Actually, it was very interesting, we talked about adoption.

HABERMAN: You did?

TRUMP: We talked about Russian adoption. Yeah. I always found that interesting. Because, you know, he ended that years ago. And I actually talked about Russian adoption with him, which is interesting because it was a part of the conversation that Don [Jr., Mr. Trump’s son] had in that meeting. As I’ve said — most other people, you know, when they call up and say, “By the way, we have information on your opponent,” I think most politicians — I was just with a lot of people, they said [inaudible], “Who wouldn’t have taken a meeting like that?” They just said——

HABERMAN: The senators downstairs?

TRUMP: A lot of them. They said, “Who wouldn’t have taken a meeting like that?”

The indictment charged violations of 18 U.S. Code § 371 — conspiracy to commit an offense against, or to defraud United States.

That doesn't cut it fag boy.

What is the words in the law that Trump broke?

Hmm yellow snowflake

Meeting with a foreign power to get assistance with a presidential campaign is not totally legal; special counsel Robert S. Mueller III almost certainly could indict Donald Trump Jr. today for what is publicly known about the meeting; and the president should be deeply concerned about his own liability.

Meeting with a private attorney from Russia is not meeting with a foreign power.

Veselnitskaya's presence was unknown until she appeared and she is not, and she was not then (or later), held out to be a representative of Russia or any other foreign government.

BAIT AND SWITCH

Mueller’s February indictment of the Internet Research Agency, and associated Russian entities and individuals, charged a conspiracy to influence the election to damage Hillary Clinton, Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and support Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump — let’s call it an electioneering conspiracy. The indictment charged violations of 18 U.S. Code § 371 — conspiracy to commit an offense against, or to defraud United States.

This refers to an indictment of Internet Research Agency LLC, not Donald Trump, Jr. or any American entity.

United States v. INTERNET RESEARCH AGENCY LLC (1:18-cr-00032) District Court, District of Columbia.

The indictment is dated February 16, 2018.

INDICTMENT as to INTERNET RESEARCH AGENCY LLC (1) count(s) 1, 2, 3-8, CONCORD MANAGEMENT AND CONSULTING LLC (2) count(s) 1, CONCORD CATERING (3) count(s) 1, YEVGENIY VIKTOROVICH PRIGOZHIN (4) count(s) 1, MIKHAIL IVANOVICH BYSTROV (5) count(s) 1, MIKHAIL LEONIDOVICH BURCHIK (6) count(s) 1, ALEKSANDRA YURYEVNA KRYLOVA (7) count(s) 1, ANNA VLADISLAVOVNA BOGACHEVA (8) count(s) 1, SERGEY PAVLOVICH POLOZOV (9) count(s) 1, MARIA ANATOLYEVNA BOVDA (10) count(s) 1, ROBERT SERGEYEVICH BOVDA (11) count(s) 1, DZHEYKHUN NASIMI OGLY ASLANOV (12) count(s) 1, 2, 3-8, VADIM VLADIMIROVICH PODKOPAEV (13) count(s) 1, GLEB IGOREVICH VASILCHENKO (14) count(s) 1, 2, 3-8, IRINA VIKTOROVNA KAVERZINA (15) count(s) 1, 3-8, VLADIMIR VENKOV (16) count(s) 1, 3-8. (FORFEITURE ALLEGATION) (tl) (Entered: 02/16/2018)

It was a public relations stunt gone wrong when CONCORD MANAGEMENT AND CONSULTING LLC showed up by its American attorney and demanded discovery and a speedy trial. Mueller's team almost immediately requested a delay and has yet to effect service on anyone in that case but CONCORD MANAGEMENT AND CONSULTING LLC, who effected service by their appearance through their attorney.

Having appeared in court for the initial appearance and arraignment, Mueller's public relations stunt went off the rails when defendant CONCORD MANAGEMENT AND CONSULTING LLC unexpectedly appeared by their attorney. Mueller's team was completely unprepared to proceed to trial (so why were they there?) and requested a delay.

MOTION to Continue Initial Appearance and Arraignment by USA as to INTERNET RESEARCH AGENCY LLC, CONCORD MANAGEMENT AND CONSULTING LLC, CONCORD CATERING, YEVGENIY VIKTOROVICH PRIGOZHIN, MIKHAIL IVANOVICH BYSTROV, MIKHAIL LEONIDOVICH BURCHIK, ALEKSANDRA YURYEVNA KRYLOVA, ANNA VLADISLAVOVNA BOGACHEVA, SERGEY PAVLOVICH POLOZOV, MARIA ANATOLYEVNA BOVDA, ROBERT SERGEYEVICH BOVDA, DZHEYKHUN NASIMI OGLY ASLANOV, VADIM VLADIMIROVICH PODKOPAEV, GLEB IGOREVICH VASILCHENKO, IRINA VIKTOROVNA KAVERZINA, VLADIMIR VENKOV. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Rhee, Jeannie) (Entered: 05/04/2018)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

18 U.S.C. § 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

https://law.justia.com/codes/us/2016/title-18/part-i/chapter-19/sec.-371/

§ 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.

Conspiracy to commit an offense requires the identification of some predicate offense. Said separate offense need not have been committed, but it must be identified, and some overt act to further the conspiracy to commit the act must have been taken.

Who conspired to commit what offense against the United States? What overt act was taken to further the conspiracy to commit the act?

Who conspired to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof? What overt act was taken to further the conspiracy to commit the act?

What is the criminal statute for talking to a private Russian attorney?

Did Fusion GPS, hired by the Democrats, enter into a criminal conspiracy?

The Trump Tower meeting clearly fits established definitions of “conspiracy to defraud the United States.”

Really?

https://law.justia.com/codes/us/2016/title-18/part-i/chapter-47/sec.-1031/

18 U.S.C. § 1031 - Major fraud against the United States

§ 1031. Major fraud against the United States

(a) Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, any scheme or artifice with the intent—

(1) to defraud the United States; or

(2) to obtain money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises,

in any grant, contract, subcontract, subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance, or other form of Federal assistance, including through the Troubled Asset Relief Program, an economic stimulus, recovery or rescue plan provided by the Government, or the Government's purchase of any troubled asset as defined in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, or in any procurement of property or services as a prime contractor with the United States or as a subcontractor or supplier on a contract in which there is a prime contract with the United States, if the value of such grant, contract, subcontract, subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance, or other form of Federal assistance, or any constituent part thereof, is $1,000,000 or more shall, subject to the applicability of subsection (c) of this section, be fined not more than $1,000,000, or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

(b) The fine imposed for an offense under this section may exceed the maximum otherwise provided by law, if such fine does not exceed $5,000,000 and—

(1) the gross loss to the Government or the gross gain to a defendant is $500,000 or greater; or

(2) the offense involves a conscious or reckless risk of serious personal injury.

(c) The maximum fine imposed upon a defendant for a prosecution including a prosecution with multiple counts under this section shall not exceed $10,000,000.

(d) Nothing in this section shall preclude a court from imposing any other sentences available under this title, including without limitation a fine up to twice the amount of the gross loss or gross gain involved in the offense pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 3571(d).

(e) In determining the amount of the fine, the court shall consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. sections 3553 and 3572, and the factors set forth in the guidelines and policy statements of the United States Sentencing Commission, including—

(1) the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, including the harm or loss to the victim and the gain to the defendant;

(2) whether the defendant previously has been fined for a similar offense; and

(3) any other pertinent equitable considerations.

(f) A prosecution of an offense under this section may be commenced any time not later than 7 years after the offense is committed, plus any additional time otherwise allowed by law.

(g)(1) In special circumstances and in his or her sole discretion, the Attorney General is authorized to make payments from funds appropriated to the Department of Justice to persons who furnish information relating to a possible prosecution under this section. The amount of such payment shall not exceed $250,000. Upon application by the Attorney General, the court may order that the Department shall be reimbursed for a payment from a criminal fine imposed under this section.

(2) An individual is not eligible for such a payment if—

(A) that individual is an officer or employee of a Government agency who furnishes information or renders service in the performance of official duties;

(B) that individual failed to furnish the information to the individual's employer prior to furnishing it to law enforcement authorities, unless the court determines the individual has justifiable reasons for that failure;

(C) the furnished information is based upon public disclosure of allegations or transactions in a criminal, civil, or administrative hearing, in a congressional, administrative, or GAO report, hearing, audit or investigation, or from the news media unless the person is the original source of the information. For the purposes of this subsection, "original source" means an individual who has direct and independent knowledge of the information on which the allegations are based and has voluntarily provided the information to the Government; or

(D) that individual participated in the violation of this section with respect to which such payment would be made.

(3) The failure of the Attorney General to authorize a payment shall not be subject to judicial review.

(h) Any individual who—

(1) is discharged, demoted, suspended, threatened, harassed, or in any other manner discriminated against in the terms and conditions of employment by an employer because of lawful acts done by the employee on behalf of the employee or others in furtherance of a prosecution under this section (including investigation for, initiation of, testimony for, or assistance in such prosecution), and

(2) was not a participant in the unlawful activity that is the subject of said prosecution, may, in a civil action, obtain all relief necessary to make such individual whole. Such relief shall include reinstatement with the same seniority status such individual would have had but for the discrimination, 2 times the amount of back pay, interest on the back pay, and compensation for any special damages sustained as a result of the discrimination, including litigation costs and reasonable attorney's fees.

But this is Trump. We can define "defraud" anyway we want to. Like, "Digging up dirt on Hillary defrauded the voters of a clean election which defrauds the United States". And that's illegal and an impeachable offense possibly involving a firing squad.

On the other hand, Hillary paying the Russians for fictional dirt on Trump … that's just part of politics.

Under the “defraud clause,” as precedent and the U.S. Attorneys’ Manual make clear, the statute criminalizes “any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of government,” even if the object of the conspiracy is not a criminal offense. According to Mueller’s indictment, the conspiracy sought to defraud the Federal Election Commission and the Department of Justice — the agencies charged with preventing foreign nationals from making contributions, donations or expenditures (which can include not just money, but any “thing of value”) that would influence U.S. elections.

Conspiracy law, it’s important to note, punishes the act of agreeing to a forbidden goal regardless of whether that goal is achieved. So long as the government can establish that targets agreed to pursue the conspiratorial objective, they may be prosecuted as co-conspirators. Conspirators need only agree to help bring about the object of a conspiracy even if they are not aware of all the details of the conspiracy itself. For example, in “chain-conspiracies” usually involving narcotics, lower-level buyers and sellers are included in larger distribution conspiracy so long as they have some understanding of the existence of the larger plot.

The Trump Tower meeting clearly fits established definitions of “conspiracy to defraud the United States.” In early June, Trump Jr. received an email explaining that a Russian government official wanted to provide his father’s campaign with incriminating documents and information about Clinton as part of “Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump." Trump Jr. replied, "if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer.” The June 9 meeting was confirmed two days earlier, on June 7. That night, Trump announced that he would “give a major speech” in the next week to discuss “all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons.”

https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-923-18-usc-371-conspiracy-defraud-us

Offices of the United States Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys
Resources
U.S. Attorneys' Manual
Criminal Resource Manual
CRM 500-999
Criminal Resource Manual 901-999

923. 18 U.S.C. § 371—Conspiracy to Defraud the United States

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. (emphasis added). See Project, Tenth Annual Survey of White Collar Crime, 32 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 137, 379-406 (1995)(generally discussing § 371).

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).

Thus, if the defendant and others have engaged in dishonest practices in connection with a program administered by an agency of the Government, it constitutes a fraud on the United States under Section 371. United States v. Gallup, 812 F.2d 1271, 1276 (10th Cir. 1987); Conover, 772 F.2d at 771. In United States v. Hopkins, 916 F.2d 207 (5th Cir. 1990), the defendants' actions in disguising contributions were designed to evade the Federal Election Commission's reporting requirements and constituted fraud on the agency under Section 371.

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. See United States v. Puerto, 730 F.2d 627 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 847 (1984); United States v. Tuohey, 867 F.2d 534 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. Sprecher, 783 F. Supp. 133, 156 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)("it is sufficient that the defendant engaged in acts that interfered with or obstructed a lawful governmental function by deceit, craft, trickery or by means that were dishonest"), modified on other grounds, 988 F.2d 318 (2d Cir. 1993).

In United States v. Madeoy, 912 F.2d 1486 (D.C. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1105 (1991), the defendants were convicted of conspiracy to defraud the government and other offenses in connection with a scheme to fraudulently obtain loan commitments from the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) or Veterans Administration (VA). The court held that the district court had properly instructed the jury that:

the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of a scheme or artifice to defraud, with the objective either of defrauding the FHA or the VA of their lawful right to conduct their business and affairs free from deceit, fraud or misrepresentation, or of obtaining money and property from the FHA by means of false and fraudulent representations and promises which the defendant knew to be false.

Madeoy, 912 F.2d at 1492.

Prosecutors considering charges under the defraud prong of Section 371, and the offense prong of Section 371 should be aware of United States v. Minarik, 875 F.2d 1186 (6th Cir. 1989) holding limited, 985 F.2d 962 (1993), and related cases. See United States v. Arch Trading Company, 987 F.2d 1087 (4th Cir. 1993). In Minarik, the prosecution was found to have "used the defraud clause in a way that created great confusion about the conduct claimed to be illegal," and the conviction was reversed. 875 F.2d at 1196. After Minarik, defendants have frequently challenged indictments charging violations of both clauses, although many United States Courts of Appeals have found it permissible to invoke both clauses of Section 371. Arch Trading Company, 987 F.2d at 1092 (collecting cases); see also United States v. Licciardi, 30 F.3d 1127, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 1994)(even though the defendant may have impaired a government agency's functions, as part of a scheme to defraud another party, the government offered no evidence that the defendant intended to defraud the United States and a conspiracy to violate an agency regulatory scheme could not lie on such facts).

In summary, those activities which courts have held defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 371 affect the government in at least one of three ways:

[cited in USAM 9-42.001]

1. They cheat the government out of money or property;
2. They interfere or obstruct legitimate Government activity; or
3. They make wrongful use of a governmental instrumentality.

On the face of it, Trump Jr. was approached by a foreign government seeking to influence an American election. Trump Jr. welcomed the possibility of influence, and candidate Trump’s actions, while circumstantial, indicate that he intended to make use of that information. It is irrelevant, in conspiracy law, that Trump Jr. found the information ultimately worthless, or as Trump said, that “it went nowhere.”

On the face of it, Donald Trump, Jr. was approached by his acquaintance Rob Goldstone about an alleged offer of official information related to him by Emin who allegedly stated his father had met with the Crown prosecutor of Russia that morning. Of course, there is no King of Russia, and there is no Crown prosecutor of Russia.

On Jun 3, 2016, at 10:36 AM, Rob Goldstone wrote:

Good morning

Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.

The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.

What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?

I can also send this info to your father via Rhona, but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first.

Best

Rob Goldstone

- - - - - - - - - -

Candidate Trump’s actions, while circumstantial, indicate that he intended to make use of that information.

What actions? What information? No information was provided. Veselnitskaya is a private attorney, and the Crown prosecutor of Russia does not exist. Emin Agalarov is a singer/songwriter. Aras Agalarov is a Russian businessman billionaire.

More than one year after telling the world that the June 2016 meeting was about adoptions, Trump and his eldest son stand stripped of their false cover. There is no more denying that the meeting sought to enlist the help of a hostile power to swing the election Trump’s way. The effort and the false statements about it were plainly deplorable.

This propaganda bullshit is deplorable.

As is well and publicly known by publication in the New York Times, President Trump clearly stated in 2017 that the meeting was pitched as information on Hillary Clinton, but actually turned out to be about Russian adoption and the Magnitsky Act, having nothing to do with Hillary Clinton.

There was no hostile power in the room or the pitch. Veselnitskaya is a private attorney. The Crown prosecutor of Russia does not exist. Emin Agalarov is a singer/songwriter. Emin's father Aras Agalarov is a Russian businessman billionaire.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/us/politics/trump-interview-transcript.html

Excerpts From The Times’s Interview With Trump

By The New York Times

July 19, 2017

TRUMP: She [nc - Melania] was sitting next to Putin and somebody else, and that’s the way it is. So the meal was going, and toward dessert I went down just to say hello to Melania, and while I was there I said hello to Putin. Really, pleasantries more than anything else. It was not a long conversation, but it was, you know, could be 15 minutes. Just talked about — things. Actually, it was very interesting, we talked about adoption.

HABERMAN: You did?

TRUMP: We talked about Russian adoption. Yeah. I always found that interesting. Because, you know, he ended that years ago. And I actually talked about Russian adoption with him, which is interesting because it was a part of the conversation that Don [Jr., Mr. Trump’s son] had in that meeting. As I’ve said — most other people, you know, when they call up and say, “By the way, we have information on your opponent,” I think most politicians — I was just with a lot of people, they said [inaudible], “Who wouldn’t have taken a meeting like that?” They just said——

HABERMAN: The senators downstairs?

TRUMP: A lot of them. They said, “Who wouldn’t have taken a meeting like that?”

It looks like Bad News Bears for dip-shit Jr.

It looks like Keystone Kops for the L.A. Times.

and of course if Mikey The Fixer talks.......

... he will add to his list of lies, be unable to restore is credibility, and a he-said he-said involving Michael Cohen offers even less credibility than Robert Mueller and his gang of Democrat hacks.

Odds of us finding out if a sitting president can pardon himself: 2 to 1

The probability of judicially determining whether a president can pardon himself is zero.

The probability of criminally indicting a sitting President is zero.

What is the words

**What ARE the words**

"conspiracy to commit an offense against, or to defraud United States"

Trump clearly stated

Dip-Shit Donnie is a pathological liar.

Dip-Shit, Jr. was approached by his acquaintance Rob Goldstone about an alleged offer of official information related to him by Emin who allegedly stated his father had met with the Crown prosecutor of Russia that morning. Of course, there is no King of Russia, and there is no Crown prosecutor of Russia.

Your point is valid.

DSJR is obviously stupid, and was being compromised by Goldstone.

"...What information? ...?

In my opinion, the "information" was the hacked e-mails....but, it really doesn't matter, does it? The purpose of the meeting - from the perspective of the campaign - was to gain and utilize illegally obtained information.

Veselnitskaya is a private attorney, Emin Agalarov is a singer/songwriter. Aras Agalarov is a Russian businessman billionaire.

Sure. Believe what you wish.

The Russians intended to compromise and control DS45 and his entire corrupt family.

It looks like they were successful.

As is well and publicly known by publication in the New York Times, President Trump clearly stated in 2017 that the meeting was pitched as information on Hillary Clinton, but actually turned out to be about Russian adoption and the Magnitsky Act, having nothing to do with Hillary Clinton.

Well, they tried to get dirt on Hillary from a Russian citizen and that's a crime because shut up and Trump should be impeached.

Now, had they actually obtained dirt from Russian operatives and paid $1.02 million for that dirt through various cutouts then distributed that dirt to the press in hopes of bringing down a sitting President -- even though that dirt was 100% false -- that's simply "opposition research" and everyone does that.

Veselnitskaya is a private attorney, Emin Agalarov is a singer/songwriter. Aras Agalarov is a Russian businessman billionaire.

Sure. Believe what you wish.

No, that is what a pathological blowhard, such as yourself, does. I am always willing to present facts and sources relied upon for my claims.

NATALIA VESELNITSKAYA - PRIVATE ATTORNEY

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/342118-homeland-security-confirms-special-entry-for-russian-lawyer

Homeland Security confirms special entry for Russian lawyer

By John Solomon and Jonathan Easley - 07/14/17 05:53 PM EDT

[excerpt]

The Homeland Security Department confirmed Friday that Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya was granted special entry to the United States on multiple occasions in 2015 and 2016 at the request of the Justice Department.

It also said Veselnitskaya eventually won a nonimmigrant work visa around the time she met President Trump’s eldest son in New York last summer.

Homeland told The Hill that Veselnitskaya was allowed to enter the United States on multiple occasions between September 2015 and February 2016 under a “Significant Public Benefit Parole” document requested by the Justice Department so she could participate in a court case for a client.

The request was done “in concurrence” with the U.S. attorney's office in New York City, which was enforcing a civil asset forfeiture case against Prevezon Holdings, a company owned by Russian businessman Denis Katsyv, whom Veselnitskaya represented as a private attorney in their home country.

[...]

A federal prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's office in Manhattan told the court in a hearing in January 2016 that the “extraordinary circumstances” parole request needed to be approved by Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

[...]

In an interview with NBC News, Veselnitskaya stated her June trip involved lobbying against the Magnitsky Act and that she never had any dirt to share on Clinton.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalia_Veselnitskaya

[excerpt]

Education and career

Veselnitskaya has said that she graduated with distinction from the Moscow State Legal Academy in 1998. She attests that she was then employed by the prosecutor's office in Moscow Oblast, where she worked on legislation. She claims to have won over 300 legal cases. She then moved into private practice, focusing on land deals in the expanding Moscow suburbs.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/23/natalia-veselnitskaya-mueller-investigation-545588

Russian lawyer who met with top Trump campaign officials says Mueller hasn't contacted her

By LOUIS NELSON
Politico
04/23/2018 07:15 AM EDT

[excerpt]

The Russian attorney said Mueller’s team, which is investigating Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and allegations that individuals tied to Trump colluded in those efforts, has not contacted her. If it does not, she said, it would be an indication that the special counsel’s office “is not working to discover the truth.”

https://www.businessinsider.com/ap-russian-lawyer-questions-why-mueller-hasnt-contacted-her-2018-4

[Excerpt]

The apparent lack of interest shown by Mueller's team in her testimony could be a sign the special counsel is not eager to find out what happened, Veselnitskaya told the AP in the interview in downtown Moscow.

"If Mueller's team is not working to discover the truth, they will never question me," she said.

[...]

The Senate Intelligence Committee approached Veselnitskaya earlier this year, but she refused to go the United States, saying she feared for her safety. The lawyer and the committee's investigators instead met in a Berlin hotel on March 26 and talked for three hours.

"That was essentially a monologue. They were not interrupting me," Veselnitskaya said. "They listened very carefully...Their questions were very sharp, pin-pointed."

The investigators mainly wanted to know about her 2016 meeting at Trump Tower. Veselnitskaya says she repeated her previous statements about it, insisting that she was not linked to the Russian government and merely wanted to discuss sanctions against Russia.

Veselnitskaya's said the Berlin interview also focused on information in memos compiled by a former British spy whose work was funded by the Democratic National Committee and Clinton's campaign. The dossier contains numerous allegations of Russian ties to Trump, his associates and the Trump campaign.

- - - - - - - - - -

ARAS AND EMIN AGALAROV - FATHER BILLIONAIRE, SON POP SINGER

https://www.forbes.com/profile/aras-agalarov/#1125e53b2133

#1339 Aras Agalarov

As of 8/8/18

REAL TIME NET WORTH
$1.7B

• Aras Agalarov began his business journey bringing premium goods to Russia. He later pivoted to the development of luxury retail centers.

• Now Agalarov owns more than ten large shopping centers, a concert hall, oceanarium and exhibition complex.

• His company Crocus Group is the general contractor for two stadium projects that will be used at the 2018 FIFA World Cup.

• Agalarov's son, Emin, helps his father in business; he moonlights as a pop singer.

• Crocus City Hall hosted the Miss Universe finals in 2013. Donald Trump attended the ceremony and met with the Agalarovs.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I SHOWED YOU MINE, YOU SHOW ME YOURS

In my opinion, the "information" was the hacked e-mails....but, it really doesn't matter, does it? The purpose of the meeting - from the perspective of the campaign - was to gain and utilize illegally obtained information.

The meeting could not have taken place without the kind cooperation of AG Loretta Lynch signing off on an extraordinary circumstances parole (visa) request, and private attorney Veselnitskaya met with Fusion GPS before and after the meeting. Fusion GPS was financed by the Hillary Clinton campaign with payments via the DNC and Perkins Coie. There is reason to believe it was a sting operation set up by the corrupt Clinton campaign and the corrupt Democrat party, along with Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele who were paid lots of money to write political fiction about golden showers and such, and funnel their fiction into the U.S. Intelligence information stream.

What basis is there to back up your opinion that the never seen information was hacked emails?

Who supposedly had these hacked emails? The non-existent Crown Prosecutor of Russia?

Wy would a real Russian source claim contact with the non-existent Crown Prosecutor of Russia?

The Russians intended to compromise and control DS45 and his entire corrupt family.

It looks like they were successful.

What is the factual basis underlying your claim that the Russians intended to compromise and control DS45?

What is the factual basis underlying your claim that the Russians were successful in compromising and controlling DS45?

What is it that makes it appear, to you, that the Russians are controlling DS45?