Mueller Report – POTUSWARS(c)(tm) FLOTUSWATCH(c)(tm) www.richlinfordreport.com

1. So, BARREL, you are a litigator of civil and criminal matters, is it not much more reasonable to conclude from Mr. Nadler’s conduct that Mr. Nadler and those who are colluding with him are the ones who are criminally colluding and obstructing justice?

2. PORK, yes it is. AG BARR and the DOJ may wish to take Mr. Nadler’s conduct and that of those who are colluding with him to the Grand Jury.

4. How so, BARREL?

5. PORK, the general legal definition of obstruction of justice is straight forward.

6. Obstruction of Justice is:

7. a crime defined as

8. the act of willfully interfering with the process of justice and law

9. especially

10. threatening

11. harming

12. impeding a witness, potential witness, juror, or judicial or legal officer

13. or by furnishing false information in

14. or otherwise impeding an investigation or legal process .

15. Mr. Nadler and those who are colluding with him by their conduct in attacking AG BARR have willfully interfered with the special counsel and AG/Department Of Justice process of justice and law.

17. Mr. Nadler and those who are colluding with him have threatened AG BARR and the Department of Justice on national television and before congress.

18. Mr. Nadler and those who are colluding with him have threatened POTUS TRUMP on national television and before congress.

19. Mr. Nadler and those who are colluding with him have harmed AG BARR’s reputation on national television and before congress.

20. Mr. Nadler and those who are colluding with him have harmed POTUS TRUMP’S reputation on national television and before congress.

21. Mr. Nadler and those who are colluding with him have impeded the conclusion of the Mueller investigation wherein MR. MUELLER found no collusion and no obstruction and AG BARR and DAG ROSENSTEIN found no collusion and no obstruction.

22. Mr. Nadler and those who are colluding with him have impeded the legal process which exonerates POTUS TRUMP.

23. Mr. Nadler and those who are colluding with him have also impeded the on-going legal process of ferreting out and indicting those who foisted the Russia collusion narrative off on the country for the last two years, and those who got egregiously rich violating their office trust, and those who committed election law violations, not the least of which was marginalizing Mr. Sanders in 2016.

24. More specifically

25. Definition

18 U.S.C. § 1503 18. U.S.C. Section 1503 defines “obstruction of justice” as an act that “corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice.”

26. Mr. Nadler and those who are colluding with him have “corruptly and by threats of force and by threatening communication influenced, obstructed, impeded, and endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice” which is to exonerate POTUS TRUMP.

27. Mr. Nadler and those who are colluding with him are obstructing justice in that they have “a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding – in this case the Mueller investigation conclusion in favor of POTUS TRUMP.

28. Mr. Nadler and those who are colluding with him may be indicted for obstructing justice, because Mr. Nadler and his cronies “not only have the specific intent to obstruct the [Mueller investigation] [and obstruct the work of AG BARR and the Department of Justice] proceedings [which exonerates POTUS TRUMP][and find and indict those who are guilty of riling up the nation with the false narratives of POTUS TRUMP Russia Collusion and guilty of profiting off their offices and guilty of egregious election violations including marginalizing Mr. Sanders during the 2016 election], and Mr. Nadler and those who are colluding with him “know (1) that a proceeding [the Mueller investigation][and multiple criminal investigations] are “actually pending at the time; and (2) there [is] a connection between Mr. Nadler’s (and those who are colluding with him) endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding[s mentioned], and” Mr. Nadler and those who are colluding with him “have knowledge of this connection.

§ 1503 applies … to federal judicial proceedings.

29. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1505, Mr. Nadler and those who are colluding with him “can be convicted of obstruction of justice by obstructing … pending proceeding[s] before Congress or a federal administrative agency [in this case the DOJ and Federal Courts]. A pending proceeding … include[s] an informal investigation by an executive agency [as well].

30. So, PORK, it looks like Mr. Nadler and those who are colluding with him are once again using the age old Saul Allinsky tactic of accusing AG BARR and POTUS TRUMP of doing what they are doing.

31. Again, AG BARR may want to take the collusion and obstructionist conduct of Mr. Nadler and those colluding with him to a Grand Jury.

A. BARREL, is AG Barr or Mr. Huber or someone else in the FBI, DOJ, Inspector General, or media taking the time to ask the question “Are there accessories to the various crimes that appear to have been committed against the nation and against POTUS Trump?

B. PORK, what do you mean?

C. Well, BARREL, if you read Peter Sweizer’s investigative journalism and listen to Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly and Tucker Carlson and Rush Limbaugh and others, it looks to me like some of the politicians and media owners and journalists and company owners have committed serious crimes and others are accessories to those crimes?

Here are only a few questions: when did

– Chuck Schumer and or

– Nancy Pelosi and or

– Paul Ryan and or

– Mitch McConnell and or

– Peter Strok and or

– Lisa Page and or

– Brennan or

– McCabe or

– Comey or

– Lynch or

– Rice or

– Hillary or

– Brazile or

– Wasserman-Schultz or

– Podestas or

– then POTUS Obama or

– Biden or

– Holder or

– Bill or

– CNN or

– MSNBC or

– the New York Times or

– Washington Post or

– any of the media personalities

– and media owners and management and outlets or

– any of the Senators or

– any from the House know about:

– the Russian collusion fake narrative and

– the fake dossier and

– the FISA warrant scam and

– Uranium One and

– all the Pay to Play money from foreign countries and

– Pay to Play money from Chinese and Russian corporations and

– Email-gate and

– Tech transfers to the Chinese and Russians and

– A billion in cash to the Caliphate, and

– Conspiracy to marginalize a duly elected POTUS?

In other words, did one or more of these folks either know and fail to step forward, or aid and abet, or actually participate, and in the process, and did they enrich themselves at the public trough?

1. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_(legal_term)#Relative_severity_of_penalties:

2. BARREL, an accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal.

3. The distinction between an accessory and a principal is a question of fact and degree:

4. The principal is the one whose acts or omissions, accompanied by the relevant mens rea (Latinfor “guilty mind”), are the most immediate cause of the actus reus(Latin for “guilty act”).

5. If two or more people are directly responsible for the actus reus, they can be charged as joint principals (see common purpose).

6. The test to distinguish a joint principal from an accessory is whether the defendant independently contributed to causing the actus reus rather than merely giving generalised and/or limited help and encouragement.

7. Contents

8. Elements

8.1. 1.1Relative severity of penalties

8.2. 1.2Conspiracy

8.3. 1.3Criminal facilitation

8.4. 1.4Knowledge of the crime

8.5. 1.5Exceptions

9. 2Usage

10. 3History

11. 4Specific laws

11.1. 4.6United States

12. 5See also

13. 6Notes and references

14. Elements

15. In some jurisdictions, an accessory is distinguished from an accomplice, who normally is present at the crime and participates in some way.

16. An accessory must generally have knowledge that a crime is being committed, will be committed, or has been committed.

17. A person with such knowledge may become an accessory by helping or encouraging the criminal in some way.

18. The assistance to the criminal may be of any type, including emotional or financial assistance as well as physical assistance or concealment.

19. Relative severity of penalties

20. The punishment … for accessories varies in different jurisdictions, and has varied at different periods of history.

21. In some times and places accessories have been subject to lesser penalties than principals (the persons who actually commit the crime).

22. In others accessories are considered the same as principals in theory, although in a particular case an accessory may be treated less severely than a principal.

23. In some times and places accessories before the fact (i.e., with knowledge of the crime before it is committed) have been treated differently from accessories after the fact (e.g., those who aid a principal after a crime has been committed, but had no role in the crime itself).

24. Common law traditionally considers an accessory just as guilty as the principal(s) in a crime, and subject to the same penalties.

25. Separate and lesser punishments exist by statute in many jurisdictions.

26. Conspiracy

27. In some situations, a charge of conspiracy can be made even if the primary offense is never committed, so long as the plan has been made, and at least one overt act towards the crime has been committed by at least one of the conspirators.

28. For example, if a group plans on forging bank checks, and forges the checks but ultimately does not attempt to cash the checks, the group might still be charged with conspiracy due to the overt act of forgery.

29. Thus, an accessory before the fact will often, but not always, also be considered a conspirator.

30. A conspirator must have been a party to the planning of the crime, rather than merely becoming aware of the plan to commit it and then helping in some way.

31. A person who incites another to a crime will become a part of a conspiracy if agreement is reached, and may then be considered an accessory or a joint principal if the crime is eventually committed.

32. In the United States, a person who learns of the crime and gives some form of assistance before the crime is committed is known as an “accessory before the fact”.

33. A person who learns of the crime after it is committed and helps the criminal to conceal it, or aids the criminal in escaping, or simply fails to report the crime, is known as an “accessory after the fact”.

34. A person who does both is sometimes referred to as an “accessory before and after the fact”, but this usage is less common.

35. Criminal facilitation

36. In some jurisdictions, criminal “facilitation” laws do not require that the primary crime be actually committed as a prerequisite for criminal liability.

37. These include state statutes making it a crime to “provide” a person with “means or opportunity” to commit a crime, “believing it probable that he is rendering aid to a person who intends to commit a crime.”^[1]

38. Knowledge of the crime

39. To be convicted of an accessory charge, the accused must generally be proved to have had actual knowledge that a crime was going to be, or had been, committed.

40. Furthermore, there must be proof that the accessory knew that his or her action, or inaction, was helping the criminals commit the crime, or evade detection, or escape.

41. A person who unknowingly houses a person who has just committed a crime, for instance, may not be charged with an accessory offense because they did not have knowledge of the crime.

42. Usage

43. The term “accessory” derives from the English common law, and been inherited by those countries with a more or less Anglo-American legal system. The concept of complicity is, of course, common across different legal traditions. The specific terms accessory-before-the-fact and accessory-after-the-fact were used in England and the United States but are now more common in historical than in current usage.

44. United States

45. U.S. jurisdictions (that is, the federal government and the various state governments) have come to treat accessories before the fact differently from accessories after the fact.

46. All U.S. jurisdictions have effectively eliminated the distinction between accessories before the fact and principals, either by doing away with the category of “accessory before the fact” entirely or by providing that accessories before the fact are guilty of the same offense as principals.

47. The Model Penal Code’s definition of accomplice liability includes those who at common law were called accessories before the fact; under the Model Penal Code, accomplices face the same liability as principals.

48. It is now possible to be convicted as an accessory before the fact even though the principal has not been convicted or (in most jurisdictions) even if the principal was acquitted at an earlier trial.^[2]

53. However, modern U.S. jurisdictions punish accessories after the fact for a separate criminal offense distinct from the underlying crime and having a different (and less severe) punishment.

54. Some states still use the term “accessory after the fact”; others no longer use the term, but have comparable laws against hindering apprehension or prosecution, obstruction of justice, tampering with evidence, harboring a felon, or the like.

55. Such crimes usually require proving

56. (1) an intent to hinder apprehension or prosecution and

57. (2) actual aid in the form of either

58. (a) harboring the criminal,

59. (b) providing specified means (such as a disguise) to evade arrest,

60. (c) tampering with evidence,

61. (d) warning the criminal of impending arrest, or

62. (e) using force or deception to prevent the arrest.^[3]

63. Federal law has followed both these trends.

64. The U.S. Code effectively treats as principals those who would traditionally have been considered accessories before the fact at common law:^[4]

65. Whoever

66. aids,

67. abets,

68. counsels,

69. commands,

70. induces or

71. procures

72. the commission of an offense,

73. is punishable as a principal.

74. Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense, is punishable as a principal.

75. However, federal law treats accessories after the fact differently from principals.

76. Accessories after the fact face a maximum of only half the fine and half the prison time that principals face.

77. (If the principal faces the death penalty or life imprisonment, accessories after the fact face up to 15 years’ imprisonment.)

78. Federal law defines accessories after the fact as persons who provide criminals with certain aid in order to hinder a criminal’s apprehension or prosecution:^[5]

79. Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed,

80. receives,

81. relieves,

82. comforts or

83. assists the offender

84. in order to

85. hinder or

86. prevent

87. his apprehension,

88. trial or

89. punishment,

90. is an accessory after the fact.

So Mr. Barr and Mr. Huber, here are only a few questions:

When did