148

Trump's tweets count as an 'overt act' in the Georgia case. What does that mean? (www.npr.org)

submitted 1 year ago by ATQ@lemm.ee to c/politics@lemmy.world

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

top 7 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 53 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Nougat@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago

Lock him up! Lock him up! Lock him up!

[-] autotldr 19 points 1 year ago

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!

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

It’s an important distinction for the general public to understand in this case, Cloud noted.

Yeah, good luck with that one...

[-] Nougat@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

https://kbin.social/m/politics@beehaw.org/t/353111/Opinion-Fani-Willis-puts-violence-front-and-center#entry-comment-1703707

this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2023

148 points (98.1% liked)

politics

19090 readers

3985 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News