Since we’ve gone there, we may as well attempt a very basic outline of what RICO is about, how it could apply to the Durham investigation, and why I don’t see that—to this point. Rather that follow my usual course of using Wikipedia, I’ve found a simple page outlining the basics that will serve out purpose. Here it is—I’ll be skipping over certain aspects that I take for granted in the Russia Hoax investigation, such as the effect on interstate commerce, so this is by no means a complete presentation:
Now it seems we enter the phase in the Sussman trial where we find out if Obama judge Christopher Cooper is going to give us his own version of The Emmet Sullivan Experience. I'll believe he won't the minute he proves he won't, and not one minute sooner.
In her typically excellent take on things, Margot Cleveland hints at this general theme with this:
___________________________
Backer [says], "The Clinton Campaign and the DNC want to have their cake and eat it too, but they cannot simultaneously say they won’t contest the reasoning behind the FEC fine and settlement agreement [which ruled that communications with Perkins-Coie were on a political matter and therefore not privileged] and also run to federal court and say, ‘No, no, no, everything we do is privileged.’”
That, however, is precisely what Hillary for America and DNC are doing, leading one to wonder if the real issue in play is not attorney-client privilege, but the privilege of being a Democrat.
Ah, yes, the privilege of being a Democrat. A fabulous gig if you can get it.
Anyway, if anyone out there can recall even one time over the last several years when a Dem judge at any level chose the rule of law over tribal loyalty -in a big case, when the outcome really and truly mattered to the swamp- I'd love to be reminded of it. Until then, I'll keep patiently waiting for it to happen for the very first time, holding my breath precisely ... never.
Thanks for the explanation, as i think we are all puzzled/curious about the shape this investigation will/could take. I recommend John Solomon’s interview with Kash Patel on his Friday podcast for some additional thoughts.
So you might say: where is the use of force? Well, maybe Durham has some info on what happened to Seth Rich, Harrison Deal, Bing Liu, or any of a number of other deaths that the news media has firmly committed to classifying as mere coincidence.
I'm happy if Durham is pursuing conspiracy charges because of the extended SOL.
But one thing puzzling me is his use of 'Joint Venture'.
I can't find it in a quick search of federal law.
Is it perhaps Durham's way of making it understood that he's not trying to establish a 'criminal enterprise', thus signaling there is no danger of a RICO charge?
Selfishly, I'd like to see a RICO because then the govt can go after the personal wealth of the malefactors. And that would send one hell of a message to all the swamp critters in WDC that make their livings doing much of what these conspirators did.
I was puzzled by the use of that term, rather than "enterprise", too. You may be right. Under RICO "enterprise" would be the correct term. Also, as I explained way back when, the FBI uses that term to describe the same basic concept. For example, Crossfire Hurricane was considered an "enterprise" investigation because the Gang of Four (Flynn, Manafort, Page, Papadopoulos) were considered an "enterprise" within the Trump campaign. Same idea as RICO, but none of the benefits.
It makes me wonder if he's only using "joint venture" in his description of their activities as a pointer towards "criminal enterprise" since, at least so far, he's not actually charging anyone with "criminal enterprise" ... yet. So it's kind of a placeholder, perhaps an intended early tip of a potential hand he's holding, a warning, a point of leverage Unfortunately, this is probably no more than wishful thinking on my part.
Now it seems we enter the phase in the Sussman trial where we find out if Obama judge Christopher Cooper is going to give us his own version of The Emmet Sullivan Experience. I'll believe he won't the minute he proves he won't, and not one minute sooner.
In her typically excellent take on things, Margot Cleveland hints at this general theme with this:
___________________________
Backer [says], "The Clinton Campaign and the DNC want to have their cake and eat it too, but they cannot simultaneously say they won’t contest the reasoning behind the FEC fine and settlement agreement [which ruled that communications with Perkins-Coie were on a political matter and therefore not privileged] and also run to federal court and say, ‘No, no, no, everything we do is privileged.’”
That, however, is precisely what Hillary for America and DNC are doing, leading one to wonder if the real issue in play is not attorney-client privilege, but the privilege of being a Democrat.
[thefederalist.com/2022/04/25/letter-no-hillary-clinton-cant-try-to-hide-2016-oppo-research-from-the-special-counsel]
___________________________
Ah, yes, the privilege of being a Democrat. A fabulous gig if you can get it.
Anyway, if anyone out there can recall even one time over the last several years when a Dem judge at any level chose the rule of law over tribal loyalty -in a big case, when the outcome really and truly mattered to the swamp- I'd love to be reminded of it. Until then, I'll keep patiently waiting for it to happen for the very first time, holding my breath precisely ... never.
Thanks for the explanation, as i think we are all puzzled/curious about the shape this investigation will/could take. I recommend John Solomon’s interview with Kash Patel on his Friday podcast for some additional thoughts.
IANAL, but also being a reader of liberal forums there's a lot of misinformed talk of sedition and conspiracy.
Maybe the sorts of conspiracy Durham is alluding to are going to be along the lines of sedition?
https://docs.uscode.justia.com/1999/title18/USCODE-1999-title18/pdf/USCODE-1999-title18-partI-chap115-sec2384.pdf
So you might say: where is the use of force? Well, maybe Durham has some info on what happened to Seth Rich, Harrison Deal, Bing Liu, or any of a number of other deaths that the news media has firmly committed to classifying as mere coincidence.
I'm happy if Durham is pursuing conspiracy charges because of the extended SOL.
But one thing puzzling me is his use of 'Joint Venture'.
I can't find it in a quick search of federal law.
Is it perhaps Durham's way of making it understood that he's not trying to establish a 'criminal enterprise', thus signaling there is no danger of a RICO charge?
Selfishly, I'd like to see a RICO because then the govt can go after the personal wealth of the malefactors. And that would send one hell of a message to all the swamp critters in WDC that make their livings doing much of what these conspirators did.
I was puzzled by the use of that term, rather than "enterprise", too. You may be right. Under RICO "enterprise" would be the correct term. Also, as I explained way back when, the FBI uses that term to describe the same basic concept. For example, Crossfire Hurricane was considered an "enterprise" investigation because the Gang of Four (Flynn, Manafort, Page, Papadopoulos) were considered an "enterprise" within the Trump campaign. Same idea as RICO, but none of the benefits.
It makes me wonder if he's only using "joint venture" in his description of their activities as a pointer towards "criminal enterprise" since, at least so far, he's not actually charging anyone with "criminal enterprise" ... yet. So it's kind of a placeholder, perhaps an intended early tip of a potential hand he's holding, a warning, a point of leverage Unfortunately, this is probably no more than wishful thinking on my part.
thanks to both
- it is a mystery for now.
Perhaps we'll know before another 4 years....