"impairing government function" doesn't extend to legitimate implementations of bad ideas.The more broad interpritation of "Fraud" you are arguing for would open every politician ever elected up to liability for failed campaign promises.
A lot more lines will be crossed this will however be remembered and the president will be used against the left in timeIf Trump is jailed then we have crossed over the line. Like him or hate him that's a fact.
Only if the left looses power. Which is why the left is determined for that never to happen.A lot more lines will be crossed this will however be remembered and the president will be used against the left in time
I am sorry you feel that way.Elections being a government function, holding a politician to their campeign promises is just as much of a stretch or less than what they are going after Trump for.
Okay, a couple of things:"Tanner also involved money" is not a valid counterpoint to Tanner saying "Therefore, if petitioners' actions constituted a conspiracy to impair the functioning of the REA, no other form of injury to the Federal Government need be established for the conspiracy to fall under § 371."
Please note that neither Ciminelli nor Percoco mention § 371, as far as Ctrl-F is concerned at least.
Your list of "decades later" cases includes McNally, yet Tanner postdates Mcnally. In fact, this is key to the following argument:
1. Granted that McNally says that certain types of fraud must involve money or tangible assets.
2. Granted that Congress's 1988 response to McNally is immaterial to the argument at hand.
3. Nevertheless, after McNally, USSC reaffirmed that § 371 fraud cases (where there is a conspiracy to impair government functions) do not require involvement of money or tangible assets.
Which of the cases you cite has an answer to this?
Thank you very much for the correction. I had somehow got it in my head that Tanner was from 1989.First, and incidentally, Tanner does NOT postdate McNally. In fact, Tanner was actually decided two days before.
I need to understand why Tanner says what it does (quoted above) if your interpretation of things is true for § 371.So I’m not entirely sure where the confusion is
I didn’t address it because A) Tanner was decided *before* McNally -by only two days, yes, but still BEFORE. Therefore, whatever the substance of text of Tanner is (which I’ll address in a moment).Thank you very much for the correction. I had somehow got it in my head that Tanner was from 1989.
It seems to me that the fact that the two cases were decided essentially simultaneously highlights the need to illuminate the seeming conflict between the quotes you provide and "no other form of injury to the Federal Government need be established for the conspiracy to fall under § 371." To be clear, that is no other form than " 'any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of Government.' " which I hope you'll agree does not necessarily entail "a deceptive scheme designed to obtain money or tangible property".
You spent a lot of time talking about the McNally case and its descendants, but none talking about Tanner other than to correct me about its date. But if McNally and Tanner seem to be saying two contradictory things about what is necessary to establish fraud, and if § 371 is the statute in question for Tanner but not for McNally, and if the case that inspired this discussion is being brought under § 371, why is McNally so different? Why would the Court hand down two unanimous decisions with blatantly contradictory views on what constitutes fraud?
I need to understand why Tanner says what it does (quoted above) if your interpretation of things is true for § 371.
P.S. On review of § 371, if your answer will be "ah, but they could mean it's merely a conspiracy to commit offense, not a conspiracy to commit fraud" my answer will be "oh my fucking god fine then it's an offense not fraud that's not the real point"
My understanding still doesn't match yours, but for myself I don't think further discussion is likely to be productive. I do appreciate that sentiment though, and that you've argued intelligently, clearly and reasonably.-Snip- I’m hoping this clears things up. I don’t mean to sound heated, and I don’t think you do either, but this isn’t just me being obtuse.
Fair enough. And you’re welcome; I appreciate good discourse as well.My understanding still doesn't match yours, but for myself I don't think further discussion is likely to be productive. I do appreciate that sentiment though, and that you've argued intelligently, clearly and reasonably.
If I may, it seems like you're saying that they DO have blatantly contradictory definitions, but only because the Court knew full well it intended to blow up that precedent two days hence and the contradictory PART of the definition was completely immaterial for the purpose of resolving the case at hand.1) The sentence RIGHT before the one starting your quote says:
“We do not reconsider that aspect of the scope of § 371 in this case.”
In other words, the Court did not feel it necessary to address this point. Why? Simple. Even though the Court knew what its decision would be on the exact definition of “fraud” in another case before it that same term -again, not JUST as it pertains to 371 or 1341, but IN ALL OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAW- it would not -and indeed did not- have any bearing whatsoever on Tanner, because the conspiracy in Tanner was a scheme to cheat the government out of money. Which was one of the two things that the Court said could be the object of a fraud scheme under criminal law, the other being “traditional property”, i.e. things like land, jewelry, precious metals, cars, high-end electronics, etc. At no time in Tanner did the defense ever claim that the purpose of the scheme was NOT to deprive the government of money; rather, they tried arguing that 371 didn’t apply because the scheme was perpetrated against a government contractor rather than against the government directly (the Court position, which still holds, actually, states that defrauding an entity acting in a capacity on behalf of the government *is* the same as defrauding the government).
So, you see, the two cases DON’T have a “blatantly contradictory definition” of fraud. This is why it’s important to read the background of a case as well. Tanner involved something that the Court still recognizes as “fraud” under the definition it spelled out in McNally and other cases.
No one remains on top foreverOnly if the left looses power. Which is why the left is determined for that never to happen.
Nope, you hit the nail on the head.If I may, it seems like you're saying that they DO have blatantly contradictory definitions, but only because the Court knew full well it intended to blow up that precedent two days hence and the contradictory PART of the definition was completely immaterial for the purpose of resolving the case at hand.
Which would be an interpretation that I cannot refute. If you dispute the above characterization please do let me know.
Nope, you hit the nail on the head.
Yeah, but for how much longer and how much damage will they do first? And will it be a case of ‘here comes the new boss, same as the old boss’?No one remains on top forever
Yeah, but for how much longer and how much damage will they do first? And will it be a case of ‘here comes the new boss, same as the old boss’?
First check your tone when replying to me as i do not appreciate being insulted for a prediction🤬, secondly perhaps you could drop the well poisoning.No, this is one of the most absolutely fucking retarded Q-anon style takes I've ever seen. Explain the logic here. What's Trump got to gain by this? Why would he have a deal?
Oh idk maybe he's been in charge all along. Next month they're going to remove Biden and reveal Trump has been president secretly the whole time!
Yeah. Retarded. There's no logic or reason behind your theory. They're trying to destroy the man and prevent him from running.
if i'm right it will be perfectly calculated to infuriate the right but in the end he won't be punished to any significant degree. If i'm wrong America has much larger problems.🤔
It's out of their hands if he's convicted because the judge can't go any lighter than the minimum prescribed by law.He won't be punished very hard because the democrats, while retarded, are not suicidal. And even if they were the cases have no real legal weight to them.