Trump has already claimed these charges are part of an effort to criminalize political speech and a violation of his First Amendment rights — a regular political rallying cry for the former president.
The indictment identifies much of the conduct as constituting “overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy,” which means they don’t have to be crimes on their own — and are not being described as such in the indictment, said Morgan Cloud, the Charles Howard Candler professor of law at Emory University.
Overt acts “can be anything that is done that’s for the purpose of advancing the goals of the conspiracy,” Cloud said.
It’s an important distinction for the general public to understand in this case, Cloud noted.
One of the best explanations of Trump’s January 6 conspiracy charges:
I go to the store and buy a crowbar. Not illegal.
I meet up with a friend and we talk about how a neighbour will be away on vacation soon. We talk about getting a crowbar to break into the place. Not illegal.
I meet up with a friend and talk about getting a crowbar to rob a place. I go to the store and buy a crowbar. This is now illegal. It has become a criminal conspiracy. Whether or not I actually rob the house does not matter. A criminal conspiracy has been committed.
If there is evidence the discussion about robbing happened and that buying a crowbar was part of that discussion and then I went and bought a crowbar, if all that can be shown in court, I am guilty of conspiracy.
Trump’s January 6 case is about him being part of discussions to prevent the peaceful transition of power and then performing actions that were part of that discussion. The actions he did were not illegal unless it can be shown they were part of a conspiracy and the prosecution seem to be confident they have that evidence in the form of voice mails, text messages, letters, and testimony from the people involved.
I meet up with a friend and we talk about how a neighbour will be away on vacation soon. We talk about getting a crowbar to break into the place. Not illegal.
Where that storyline stops, that is correct, the speech is not illegal.
I meet up with a friend and talk about getting a crowbar to rob a place. I go to the store and buy a crowbar. This is now illegal. It has become a criminal conspiracy. Whether or not I actually rob the house does not matter. A criminal conspiracy has been committed.
I believe that, under GA RICO, two qualifying criminal actions must have taken place (within a timeframe of four years) to advance the conspiracy. Neither “talking about robbing with a crowbar” or “buying a crowbar” on their own are criminal acts, and so this could not be charged as a conspiracy under GA RICO.
However, if you got another friend to come over, without knowledge of your first friend, and convinced that other friend to go steal a crowbar (coercing another person to commit a crime), and that person stole the crowbar (theft), even though the other friend had no idea about what your plans for that crowbar were, those would be two qualifying crimes in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy, which would be chargeable under GA RICO. And then your initial conversation where you first only talk about breaking into the house with a crowbar is illegal, as part of that conspiracy.
Even though your first friend had no knowledge about your talking to a third party about the crowbar stealing, or the actual crowbar stealing, they are still part of the conspiracy, and can still be charged under GA RICO. Even though your other friend had no knowledge of the first friend, or the intended purpose of the crowbar, they can still be charged under GA RICO. These two friends of yours don’t even have to have any knowledge of each other’s existence whatsoever.
TL;DR: RICO stuff is specifically designed to handle “will nobody rid me of this turbulent priest” situations, which is a tactic notoriously used by various organized crime entitles… as well as Trump and the companies he owns.
Lock him up! Lock him up! Lock him up!
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The indictment in Georgia against former President Donald Trump relies heavily on the state’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization law — a statute generally used to prosecute mob bosses and gang members.
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis centers her case on the idea that Trump and 18 others worked together “knowingly and willfully” as part of a broad conspiracy to attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election results.
Willis has used the state’s RICO law in cases involving street gangs to public school teachers cheating on standardized tests in Georgia.
“The RICO statute in general will require that the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there’s an ongoing pattern of racketeering activity,” Cloud said. "
For example, Trump and his allies allegedly made false statements to lawmakers in Pennsylvania claiming fraud in the state’s election, according to the indictment.
The acts cited in the indictment range from a speech Trump gave a day after the 2020 election falsely saying he won the election, to a call Rudy Giuliani made alleging fraud in Fulton County, to tweets Trump made on several occasions falsely alleging fraud and ballot stuffing and attacking public figures in the state.
The original article contains 739 words, the summary contains 196 words. Saved 73%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
It’s an important distinction for the general public to understand in this case, Cloud noted.
Yeah, good luck with that one…
https://kbin.social/m/[email protected]/t/353111/Opinion-Fani-Willis-puts-violence-front-and-center#entry-comment-1703707
