Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
I did indeed. Contrary to the wingnut opinions casting aspersions against the overt acts (that they are not all criminal acts), the law is clear that they need not themselves be criminal acts, but acts taken to further the conspiracy. OTOH, predicate acts (under Georgia (and Fed)) RICO laws must be criminal and those charged in the indictment are (while no non-criminal overt acts were charged).
This is yet another non-issue that represents a misunderstanding or deliberate obfuscation of the relevant law to rile the rubes (it seems to again have worked again on you).
|
I don't disagree with the first part of your assessment. As to your second paragraph, venture forth and fornicate with thyself.
Examples:
Act 1.
On or about the 4th day of November 2020, DONALD JOHN TRUMP made nationally televised speech falsely declaring victory in the 2020 presidential election. Approximately four days earlier, on or about October 31, 2020, DONALD JOHN TRUMP discussed draft speech with unindicted coconspirator
Individual l, whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, that falsely declared victory and falsely claimed voter fraud. The speech was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Act 22
On or about the 3rd day of December 2020, DONALD JOHN TRUMP caused to be tweeted from the Twitter account @RealDonaldTrump, "Georgia hearings on @OANN. Amazing!" This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
So, the prosecutor claims that preparation for an election night speech and the delivery of that speech are overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. All candidates do this. The speech was Trump stating his belief (whether you or I think it was honest or not isn't relevant) that there was something irregular about the vote tallies. Is this not protected speech? And yes, I get the fact that a RICO charge is usually a laundry list of "acts". But at what point is a speech a first amendment right, and at what point does it become and overt act?
At what point is a tweet protected speech versus an overt act? It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that, for example, the tweet was conspiratorial, correct? It seems that it would be tough to prove that a public tweet directed at no one in particular was "an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy."