I said she admitted to the acts (such as issuing the news release(s) and directly contacting the Sheikh's followers in the Middle East to pass his views along to them). What you listed are the charges, which are conclusions which refer to the acts.

Any criminal charge is a claim that
A. Certain acts occurred; and
B. That those acts contravened certain statutes.

In this case she freely admitted the acts, so the Government wouldn't really have had to prove them otherwise, although I'm sure they did, as a matter of trial strategy.

Then the only question for the court and jury was whether those acts violated the statutes cited.

The decision on that score comes to such questions as, "Given the acts, can one conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that she agreed with someone to accomplish a violation of the law? And was even one action taken in furtherance of that agreement?" If the jury can conclude that, that's a conspiracy conviction.

I have not read the indictment, nor yet the transcript of the trial (if it has been transcribed yet), so I can't give you chapter and verse on an allegation of fraud. She didn't have to admit to "conspiracy" or to "fraud"; those are ultimate legal conclusions, which are for the trier of fact. "Providing support to terrorists" is another conclusion, based on the objective facts. Clearly, if she had admitted to "fraud", or to "conspiracy", or go "supporting terrorists", there would be no need for a trial. Indeed, by her pleas of not guilty she denied those things. That's why we have trials.

Dave Oesterreich