Thread/ Conspiracy Law - Eight Things You Need to Know.
One: Co-conspirators don’t have to explicitly agree to conspire & there doesn't need to be a written agreement; in fact, they almost never explicitly agree to conspire & it would be nuts to have a written agreement! 1/
(Conspiracy Law) Two: Conspiracies can have more than one object- i.e. conspiracy to defraud U.S. and to obstruct justice. The object is the goal. Members could have completely different reasons (motives) for wanting to achieve that goal. 2/
(Conspiracy Law) Three: All co-conspirators have to agree on at least one object of the conspiracy. 3/
(Conspiracy Law) Four: Co-conspirators can use multiple means to carry out the conspiracy, i.e., releasing stolen emails, collaborating on fraudulent social media ops, laundering campaign contributions. 4/
(Conspiracy Law) Five: Co-conspirators don’t have to know precisely what the others are doing, and, in large conspiracies, they rarely do.
(Conspiracy Law) Six: Once someone is found to have knowingly joined a conspiracy, he/she is responsible for all acts of other co-conspirators. 6/
(Conspiracy Law) Seven: Statements of any co-conspirator made to further the conspiracy may be introduced into evidence against any other co-conspirator. 7/
(Conspiracy Law) Eight: Overt Acts taken in furtherance of a conspiracy need not be illegal. A POTUS' public statement that "Russia is a hoax," e.g., might not be illegal (or even make any sense), but it could be an overt act in furtherance of a conspiracy to obstruct justice./8.
*Twitter Bar Exam Conspiracy Law Summary*
Need not succeed
No writing needed
Many goals, agree on 1
Use many means
Don't have to know everything
If join, on hook for all acts
Can use statements of one v. other
Overt acts to further can be legal &
Quid pro quo is NOT an element!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Correct, @AndrewFeinberg. The judge has ordered cancellation of all [NYS] business certs of "any entity controlled or beneficially owned by Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Jr, Eric Trump, Alan Weisselberg, & Jeffrey McConney. An independent receiver will manage the dissolutions.
Many questions along the lines of what if he does this or that? It's smart to have those questions, but there's no way to answer them yet. This will be a step-by-step process, but the courts and NYSAG attys did not just fall off the turnip truck. They know how to deal with trump.
Note that the court specifically orders that Barbara Jones will continue to act as an independent monitor of the Trump Org until further notice. Barbara Jones is not someone you would want to have monitoring you.
Again: Before Short & Jacob appeared in the GJ, they were interviewed multiple times by agents & prosecutors, who would've organized all available records & witness reports to prepare. In the GJ, both they & prosecutors would have known what the questions & answers would be.
Also, prosecutors would've made sure Short's and Jacob's proposed testimony was double-checked and corroborated in all ways possible before they were asked questions in the GJ. Not every assertion can be corroborated, but each is analyzed for accuracy, truth and credibility.
Prosecutors don't bring all lay witnesses before the GJ. In fact, they often call very few witnesses to the GJ, instead using case agents to summarize testimony. If/when Short & Jacob are called as witnesses in a trial, the defense wd be given transcripts of their GJ testimony.
I am glad to see both @JRubinBlogger and @tribelaw adopting in this piece on June 14, precisely the point I made on June 13, which was noted and retweeted by @JRubinBlogger that day, but it would have been decent and fair to credit me with that point.
Further, the point is not "sidestepping" the issue of intent. The intent that must be proved wrt a conspiracy to defraud the U.S. by impeding the execution of a lawful government function is precisely that: The intent to impair the execution of a lawful government function.
Proof of intent to impair a lawful government function wrt Trump et al's conspiracy to impede Congress's vote tally doesn't require proving Trump knew he'd lost or was willfully blind to the loss; intent to impair is proved thru evidence of his deceitful acts & abuse of power.
There were NOT two conspiracies. At Trump's level, the various means to overthrow the election were fully intertwined and they all led up to the 1/6 insurrection. It's not at all inconceivable that a POTUS who orchestrated such events should be charged with seditious conspiracy.
It is inconceivable that a POTUS who orchestrated these events would NOT be charged. The Tarrio et al indictment charges the defendants with conspiring with others "known and unknown." It is not limited to the Proud Boys.
Please don't take this as a criticism of Merrick Garland or a platform for you to criticize Merrick Garland. I think things are proceeding along quite well. This is the largest and most important case the DOJ has ever handled and the progress has, in fact, been stunningly swift.
You don't contact possible defs til the end. You get all docs you can & talk to other witnesses 1st so you don't waste an interview and possibly reveal info that can enable coordination of testimony and endanger witnesses. WaPo's story proves nothing about DOJ's investigation.👇🏾
Often, you don't contact possible defs at all except, thru their atty assuming they have one, to say you're about to present an indictment, would they like to make a statement or testify to the GJ? Similarly, you don't do search warrants at places or under circumstances that
would prematurely reveal the investigation. You do them the day of the arrests, many of them. Much of the media talk about how investigations work, what we should know by now, and what it means that we don't know is flat-out wrong, upside-down and backward. It's also surreal.