Monday, July 10, 2017

On The Origin of "Conspiracy Theory" - 7

Got Dirt on Hill?
The Trump trinity of actors has committed criminal conspiracy according to the facts revealed in breaking news this weekend (Trump’s Son Met With Russian Lawyer After Being Promised Damaging Information on Clinton).

Donald Trump Jr. along with Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort agreed to go to a lawyer, who does "business" with Kremlin operatives, to collect dirt on a competing presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton (one of the people they met was a spy - New York Supreme Court).

To those in these days of being spoon fed by main stream media agendas, a "conspiracy theory" is a mythical story that cannot possibly be real.

In the real world, millions of court cases involve a "conspiracy theory" as serious as a heart attack, and is commonly what happens when a federal prosecutor brings a case against a defendant in frequently used criminal conspiracy indictments.

Federal criminal prosecutions against conspiracy activity is quite easy to bring about, and prosecutors really like cases based on conspiracy theories:
Over one-quarter of all federal criminal prosecutions and a large number of state cases involve prosecutions for conspiracy.
Consider how a law school textbook might introduce the elements of traditional conspiracy law: Imagine that Joe and Sandra agree to rob a bank. From the moment of agreement, they can be found guilty of conspiracy even if they never commit the robbery (it’s called “inchoate liability”). Even if the bank goes out of business, they can still be liable for the conspiracy (“impossibility” is not a defense). Joe can be liable for other crimes that Sandra commits to further the conspiracy’s objective, like hot-wiring a getaway car (it’s called “Pinkerton” liability, after a 1946 Supreme Court case involving tax offenses). He can’t evade liability by staying home on the day of the robbery (a conspirator has to take an affirmative step to “withdraw”). And if the bank heist takes place, both Joe and Sandra can be charged with bank robbery and with the separate crime of conspiracy, each of which carries its own punishment (the crime of conspiracy doesn’t “merge” with the underlying crime). Why should conspiracy liability begin at the moment of “agreement,” before any crime is committed? Why can a conspirator be charged with both the inchoate offense of conspiracy and the robbery? Why should the law punish conspirators even if it’s impossible for them to commit the crime they planned? Why is withdrawal from a conspiracy so difficult?
(On The Origin of "Conspiracy Theory", quoting the Yale Law Journal). It isn't what Blind Willie McTell makes up as "fake news" at all.

The agreement between two or more individuals ("conspiracy") to take political dirt from foreign sources, and use it against a fellow American campaign competitor, violates U.S. election law (The latest Russia revelations lay the groundwork for a conspiracy case).

The previous post in this series is here.


  1. Nice. Looking forward to the next installment, thank you.

  2. "Ranit Akhmetshin, a Russian American lobbyist and former Soviet counterintelligence officer, told The Associated Press on Friday he took part in the meeting on June 9, 2016, along with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya. Akhmetshin said Veselnitskaya brought a folder full of documents, which he said she left behind after the meeting.

    The documents detailed the Democratic National Committee’s finances and funding sources, some of which Veselnitskaya described as unlawful, Akhmetshin told the AP."


  3. History is full of habitual authoritarian repetition (Persistent Fascism).