Facts Cannot be Denied, Ignored, or Called “Fake News”
Excellent article here from CNN in part (with the graph above).
Trump promotes conspiracy theories
even though lawmakers and government officials have called for inquiries into
Epstein's death, but none have gone so far as to even suggest that political
rivals were behind it like Trump, et al have.
Trump, unlike any other President
before him, repeatedly promotes evidence-free conspiracy theories and
falsehoods without regard for the consequences of his rhetoric.
· Early in his presidency, Trump claimed without evidence
that millions of people voted illegally in the 2016 election (yet he won).
· He fed conspiracy theories about the “Deep State” of
government officials working against him.
· He falsely smeared former special counsel Robert
Mueller's investigation as a “Witch Hunt.”
· He has called the investigation into Russian
interference in the 2016 campaign “treason” – among many other words.
Trump was not the only
official in his administration to promote the Epstein-Clintons conspiracy
theory. Lynne Patton, a senior
official at HUD and a longtime Trump family aide and friend, also gave voice to
the conspiracy theory on her Instagram account earlier in the day.
(Note: Recall that Trump said he would only hire the best and most-qualified people ever to serve – so he told the public. Okay, take this Ms. Patton: She was a low-level executive in the Trump
Organization. Her resume suggests she had a law degree (she doesn't) in reference to Yale University,
where she was never in a degree program. Prior to her HUD appointment, she did
not appear to have any relevant education or job experience to perform the
duties her current job requires. Oops.)
Also, and right on cue, White
House senior counselor, Kellyanne “Alternative
Facts” Conway appeared on Fox News defending Trump in true fashion saying: “I think the President just wants everything
to be investigated. Just the day before, there was some unsealed information
implicating some people very high up. I will say that there's always this rush
to (say), ‘We need transparency. We need accountability’ when it involves
fictional accusations like collusion with Russia to swing an election. This
seems to be very concrete and that Jeffrey Epstein has done some very bad
things over a number of years. So let's continue to investigate that.”
More background and legal references
for the Epstein case, but first this quick update from AG Barr here).
General definition of criminal
conspiracy: A criminal conspiracy
exists when two or more people agree to commit almost any unlawful act, then
take some action toward its completion. The action taken need not itself be a
crime, but it must indicate that those involved in the conspiracy knew of the
plan and intended to break the law.
A person may be convicted of conspiracy
even if the actual crime was never committed. Both federal law and state law
define the crime of conspiracy. Whether a person is charged under federal or
state law depends upon the specific circumstances.
Often, the federal
government will prosecute persons allegedly involved in a conspiracy that spans
multiple states, whereas a state government will generally handle matters that
are entirely contained within its borders. If the crime underlying the
conspiracy is a federal crime, this too may lead to federal, rather than state,
prosecution.
For example, Jason,
Alice, and Hank plan to rob a bank. They: (1) visit the bank first to assess
its security, and then they (2) pool their money and buy a gun. All three can
be charged with conspiracy to commit robbery, regardless of whether the robbery itself is ever
attempted or completed.
Conspiracy: A conspiracy occurs when two or more people agree to
commit an illegal act and take some step toward its completion. Conspiracy is
an inchoate
crime because it does not
require that the illegal act actually have been completed.
For instance, a
group of individuals can be convicted of conspiracy to commit burglary even if
the actual burglary never happens. Conspiracy is also unique in that,
unlike attempt, a defendant can be charged with both conspiracy to commit
a crime, and the crime itself if the crime is completed.
Elements of a Conspiracy: Conspiracy first requires a showing that two or more people were in
agreement to commit a crime. This agreement does not have to be formal or in
writing. For instance, if two sisters agree to rob a bank and ask their brother
to drive them to the bank without informing him of their intent to commit a
crime, he cannot be charged with conspiring in the robbery. As long as an
individual understands that the act being planned is a criminal one and
proceeds nonetheless, he can be charged with conspiracy.
In most states, conspiracy
requires an “overt act” taken in furtherance of the crime. This overt act does
not have to be the crime itself, nor does it have to be an act that is illegal.
Rather, the act must merely be a step taken in furtherance of the criminal
objective, such as buying a weapon or holding a meeting to plan an attack.
The
act must also take place after the group of individuals has agreed to conspire.
Actions taken before the agreement do not fulfill this requirement. While an
“overt act” implies an affirmative action, some courts have held that silence
can be an overt act where it is intentional, planned, and done in furtherance
of the conspiracy.
Defenses to Conspiracy: Like
other inchoate crimes such as attempt, a defendant charged can raise the defense of abandonment
or withdrawal.
A defendant must
show that he affirmatively communicated his withdrawal to his co-conspirators
and took some positive action to withdraw from the conspiracy. The defendant
must have withdrawn it prior to its completion. Importantly, the defendant must
have definitively cut ties with his fellow co-conspirators. If he continues to
communicate with them or assist them in any way, this may prevent him from
raising the defense of withdrawal.
The defense of entrapment. Entrapment means that the defendant was persuaded to
participate in the conspiracy by a law enforcement officer or government agent
and that he or she would not otherwise have become involved in the conspiracy.
The
defendant must show: (1) the idea for the conspiracy came from an officer and
not the defendant, (2) defendant was persuaded to participate in the conspiracy
by an officer, and (3) before being persuaded, the defendant had no intention
of committing the crime.
My 2 cents: We still have a very long way to go on this very bizarre
case that’s for sure. Stay tuned.
Thanks for stopping by.
No comments:
Post a Comment