Doesn't Sessions job need Congress Approval? I can see him firing him, I cant see Congress approving anyone new until the investigation is over.
They've already said if Mueller gets fired, they will hire him to conclude his investigation.
~
Conspiracy charges usually come with some substantial proof as well.
In the armed robbery example, the police might have also found disguises that was mentioned in the planning, as well as a blow torch which was purchased recently to get into the safe.
To keep the public safe (explosives and fore arms were part of the assault) they acted prior to is carrying out our plan.
Sealed indictments pose several interesting political angles.
If Trump is named as an unindicted co-conspirator and he starts pardoning fellow conspirators, every instance is a new crime of obstruction of justice. It would also an admission of guilt for the person pardoned--in other words, an admission of guilt in a criminal conspiracy of which the person and Trump are a party.
When the Watergate Seven were indicted, they secretly named Nixon a co-conspirator because they feared he would start handing out pardons.
I find it disheartening that the very instant that the investigation makes its first charge, a major conservative media outlet decides that a long-running bipartisan figure like Mueller suddenly must be evil.
We should be able to agree that people like Manafort should be held accountable when they commit crimes.
It's also the furthest stretch to question his credibility, but a reason they resurfaced this story.
As mentioned the Russia/Uranium deal was a Canadian deal. The FBI would have zero jurisdiction over it as all the players are international and would have involved the CIA instead.
They literally had nothing else to fall back on. The sad thing, people will still believe it.
Doesn't Sessions job need Congress Approval? I can see him firing him, I cant see Congress approving anyone new until the investigation is over.
They've already said if Mueller gets fired, they will hire him to conclude his investigation.
Sessions job does require Congressional approval. Trump's impulsive though. Maybe he thinks he'd be able to control whoever is named acting director.
I have not seen the re-hire promise and I don't believe it. If he gets fired what's to stop Republican partisans from claiming "something something Hillary Clinton and Uranium something so it's good he's fired because he's compromised!". That's already happening.
Sealed indictments pose several interesting political angles.
If Trump is named as an unindicted co-conspirator and he starts pardoning fellow conspirators, every instance is a new crime of obstruction of justice. It would also an admission of guilt for the person pardoned--in other words, an admission of guilt in a criminal conspiracy of which the person and Trump are a party.
When the Watergate Seven were indicted, they secretly named Nixon a co-conspirator because they feared he would start handing out pardons.
People should be reading these Papdopolous documents. It talks about multiple campaign officials attempting to arrange trips to Russia to get info. He lied to the FBI about these emails and trips, and has now plead guilty to doing so. and is in all liklihood cooperating. Mueller's team knew the White House would say Manafort's money laundering didn't tie to collusion, so they let them run with that narrative for two hours, which left them completely exposed to a senior campaign foreign policy advisor pleading guilty to lying to the FBI about his (and the campaign's) contacts with Russian officials. Huckabee Sanders ua saying Papdopolous was a "low-level volunteer". Ha!!! Tell me, do low-level volunteers sit two seats to the left of Jeff Sessions at a meeting with the candidate??
No one of substance is going to cut a deal or name names yet because they are still waiting on those three magical words "immunity from prosecution". They are all sweating it, though, because if they aren't the first person called with an immunity deal then they might get thrown under the bus.
@deltago Back to the conspiracy question...even if I have a hand-drawn map of a bank and a blow torch in my garage (which I actaully have, by the way), if I haven't entered the bank I still haven't done anything illegal--it isn't against the law to have the layout of a building in your possession. At what point in the process does "a thought experiment about committing a crime" turn into "committing a crime"? Wouldn't that point be the actual execution of the plan? (note: I am not actually planning out any sort of illegal endeavor; rather, I am merely curious where the line ends)
@Mathsorcerer it's a question of intent. If you can demonstrate that your preparations were research for writing a novel for instance then you're correct that it's not a crime. If, however, you were actually intending to commit a crime then that is a crime itself (certainly in the UK and I think the same principles apply in the US though there may be some differences in detail).
The Criminal Attempts Act 1981 in the UK states that: "if, with intent to commit an offence to which [the act applies], a person does an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence, he is guilty of attempting to commit the offence". There's case law around what preparatory means in this context and it would be for a jury to consider the facts of a particular case. In your bank robbery example I agree that having a plan of the bank probably would not clear the threshold, but if you had practised with your blowtorch to see how long it would take to burn through a barrier like one found in the bank then it probably would.
No one of substance is going to cut a deal or name names yet because they are still waiting on those three magical words "immunity from prosecution". They are all sweating it, though, because if they aren't the first person called with an immunity deal then they might get thrown under the bus.
deltago Back to the conspiracy question...even if I have a hand-drawn map of a bank and a blow torch in my garage (which I actaully have, by the way), if I haven't entered the bank I still haven't done anything illegal--it isn't against the law to have the layout of a building in your possession. At what point in the process does "a thought experiment about committing a crime" turn into "committing a crime"? Wouldn't that point be the actual execution of the plan? (note: I am not actually planning out any sort of illegal endeavor; rather, I am merely curious where the line ends)
Assume you dont have a blow torch and go out and buy one after the planning along with all he other tools we listed we needed.
It's the post plan/pre operation time when these charges can stick.
Or lets just say you were looking to hire a hit man. Did your shopping and chose one but he hadn't finished the contract because he was actually an undercover cop. Conspiracy to commit murder. You didn't attempt it and the person wasn't murdered but you wanted them murdered.
Getting lost in all this is that Whitefish is losing their Puerto Rico contract and it's being investigated by the FBI. I can only assume this is a result of reading @Mathsorcerer's research and that he will be contacted to be a expert witness.
Yeah, probably not...but if it happens I will let you all know. One reporter (I forget which news agency he was from) actually drove to Whitefish and found the corporate headquarters, which was essentially an upscale log cabin out in the woods. No one was present...on a normal weekday during typical corporate hours...and when they tried to leave some other guy in a large white truck pulled up behind them on the little road, blocking them from leaving until a deputy arrived to sort it out.
Thank you, @Grond0 and @deltago --that should clarify "conspiracy" from a criminal justice point of view. Clearly, the two under indictment both planned and carried out scheme(s) by which they could hide money which would normally be classified as "taxable income". The U. S. Federal Government has a long history of taking down people via tax evasion when they cannot clearly prosecute them for other crimes.
Money still buys a lot of justice--Manafort and Gates are under house arrest. Okay...if I live in a mid-sized mansion or a luxury high-rise condo in a major urban center, "house arrest" really means "take some free vacation time--watch some movies, order 5-star delivery, swim in the infinity edge pool, hit the in-house gym, etc". That isn't "arrest", it is "time out with all your toys".
edit/add: speaking of conspiracy...A new study seems to link acetaminophen use during pregnancy to ADHD. Translation: pharmaceutical manufacturers (specifically McNeil Consumer Healthcare, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson and the manufacturer of the brand name Tylenol) have a new pain medication they want to market but they need to scare people away from the current pain reliever of choice so they can start selling the new product.
People should be reading these Papdopolous documents. It talks about multiple campaign officials attempting to arrange trips to Russia to get info.
Court papers showed that Papdopolous was told about Russians possessing 'dirt' on "Shadow President"(lol) Hillary Clinton on April 26, 2016 well before it was public that the DNC and John Podestas emails had been hacked. Wikipedia tells us that the 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak is a collection of Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails leaked to and subsequently published by WikiLeaks on July 22, 2016.
Papdopolous has been cooperating with the investigation so I'd expect more shoes to drop for the "multiple campaign officials" named in the documents.
Yeah, you have no idea how sick I'm going to get of typing that name. I think we should all agree to shorten it to Papa for the sake of preventing carpal tunnel.
Now then, Mueller has had Papa dead to rights for MONTHS for lying to the FBI. No one knew about it. No leaks, airtight. He sat on it and waited to spring the guilty plea til after Manafort gave himself up. Most likely to not only see how the Administration would act when thrown off their game, but to let Manafort know he's toast if he doesn't flip. Based on his strategy and the team he has assembled, Mueller is treating Trump and those around him like a criminal syndicate. This was his opening salvo, and it was loaded. It's clear from the Papa plea he is months ahead on this stuff. There is far more ammo in this barrel.
There is some heavy speculation (based on reporters talking with former Trump campaign members) that the supervisor mentioned in the Papa documents as encouraging him to take the meetings with the Russians may be none other than Sam Clovis. Not only was Clovis a campaign co-chair, he is up next week for confirmation as Trump's nominee to be an Undersecretary in the Department of Agriculture:
I honestly do not believe Trump is going to get charged with anything. I've seen no indication that he himself was involved in Russian interference and little reason to believe that Russian agents or American criminals would share their secrets with Trump. The closest I've seen is what might have been a tentative probe at Trump Jr.
I genuinely do not mind if the investigation finds no criminal activity on Trump's part, or even legal-but-not-ethical conduct on his part, or if the investigation has no impact on Trump at all. I've long suspected that Manafort and other members of the Trump administration and campaign had committed crimes, and as long as the investigation is bringing those people to justice, I'm happy with it.
I don't want the investigation to take down Trump; I just want Mueller to root out whatever criminals he can find.
I honestly do not believe Trump is going to get charged with anything. I've seen no indication that he himself was involved in Russian interference and little reason to believe that Russian agents or American criminals would share their secrets with Trump. The closest I've seen is what might have been a tentative probe at Trump Jr.
I genuinely do not mind if the investigation finds no criminal activity on Trump's part, or even legal-but-not-ethical conduct on his part, or if the investigation has no impact on Trump at all. I've long suspected that Manafort and other members of the Trump administration and campaign had committed crimes, and as long as the investigation is bringing those people to justice, I'm happy with it.
I don't want the investigation to take down Trump; I just want Mueller to root out whatever criminals he can find.
So there was a flurry of criminal activity swimming around his campaign (HIS campaign, it was the Trump campaign) and he not only doesn't know anything about it, but is also not responsible for it?? Again, this is day 1. His campaign chairman is indicted facing 15 years in prison. So is his deputy (who was visiting the White House LONG after the election). You have a foreign policy adviser (and no matter what they say about him being "minor", it isn't true, I just heard audio on MSNBC of Trump himself bragging about having him on board) who was caught red-handed lying to the FBI and attempting to (hilariously) scrub his Facebook account after the meeting.
Trump fired Comey because of the Flynn investigation. He admitted it in an interview to Lester Holt. Jeff Sessions has lied to Congress on no less than 3 occasions in regards to his meetings with Russian officials. Mike Pence lied about when he found out about Michael Flynn. Manafort clearly lied right up to his indictment today. Don Jr. lied about his meeting with the Russian lawyer. Jared Kushner was attempting to set up a back channel to the Kremlin in the White House that subverted the State Department. Kushner and Flynn left massive amounts of Russian contacts off their security clearance disclosure forums. These are just the incidents in the past 10 months I can think of off the top of my head. So, if there is really nothing there, I continue to ask.....why is everyone connected to this story and inquiry lying their ass off at every single opportunity??
@jjstraka34: This is my reasoning in a nutshell: If I were committing a crime, or if I were a Russian agent, I would not make my activities known to Trump for two reasons:
1. Trump might well blab about it because he has no filter. 2. Trump is not competent enough to help me in any way.
Letting Trump in on my secret would put me at risk without gaining me any benefit. I do not need him to know anything; if I needed help in my activities, I would look elsewhere for help. Nor would I trust him to bail me out if I got in trouble.
I realize Manafort worked very closely with Trump for months on end during the campaign. But you overestimate Trump's intelligence by assuming he would know what his closest associates were up to.
My explanation for the presence of criminals in Trump's inner circle is simple: the intelligent, honest, experienced, good people who would normally join a Republican administration were disgusted by Trump (pick a reason) and either left early or refused to work for him in the first place. When those people were gone, the only people who were willing to work for Trump are the unintelligent, the dishonest, and the inexperienced.
It's well worth pointing out that Trump created this entire situation by firing James Comey and ADMITTING why he did it on national television. It was so brazen I think people are tending to overlook it. He fired Comey to stop the investigation into Flynn. Flynn WILL be indicted.
If Trump had let Comey go about his business, it's quite possible this might have stalled at Manafort and Flynn. But he was worried enough about Comey getting to Flynn that he fired Comey, which created Mueller. And it also expanded the scope of what Trump could be investigated for. Now it wasn't just collusion with Russians, but also obstruction of justice and WHATEVER ELSE Mueller comes across as he is looking into both of those possibilities. If the investigation has started to creep, or has become FAR more broad than it would have originally, Donald Trump has one person to blame for that, and he sees that person when he looks in a mirror.
Carter Page is the most bizarre individual in this case, and why this idiot keeps going on Chris Haye's MSNBC show everytime a big Russia story hits is far beyond my comprehension for human behavior. I swear to god this guy is an honest to goodness Russian agent who is playing dumb on purpose. That or Trump picked a certified lunatic to be one of the members of his foreign policy team on the campaign:
And on State TV a few minutes ago, Sean Hannity, I shit you not, just called Hillary "President Clinton". Like I said, they are doing this on purpose. They think their viewers are dumber than pond scum. This is a real-life version of "We've always been at war with Eastasia". This is an inadvertent social experiment to tell us just how stupid a 1/3rd of the country is. FOX News is disassociating a significant portion of the population from their tether with reality. The goalposts in regards to conservative excuses in regards to this issue are now just simply sprinting from from stadium to stadium with a blindfold on.
Newt Gingrich, on the same show, just called Mueller an "out of control prosecutor". Here is what he said about Mueller when he was appointed when it suited the narrative at the time:
How many times have I said it.....they know their viewers and voters have no capability of remembering anything beyond a 24-hour news cycle. Also this:
And on State TV a few minutes ago, Sean Hannity, I shit you not, just called Hillary "President Clinton"
You're... kidding.
"President Clinton?" How can he say that? How can anyone believe that? How?
I've heard people say some folks live in an "alternate reality," but...
That's it. That's a man who genuinely does live in a completely different world from actual reality.
I don't know how else to explain that. I just don't.
I can explain it, and it has nothing to do with Hannity thinking she is actually President. Hannity and most conservative commentators are WELL aware what brand of bullshit they are peddling. They may have conservative politics, but they aren't as personally batshit crazy as we make them out to be. But they ARE counting on their viewers and listeners to be batshit crazy.
The only thing that can justify the psychotic obsession of right-wing voters have with Hillary Clinton is to imply that she somehow still has power. So, do most people listening to Hannity (or Hannity himself) truly believe Hillary is President?? No, but they are pushing the idea into people's heads that she might as well be, that she is still the power in the shadows destroying their lives. And let's get real, THIS is the script they were going to run with for the next 4 years before Trump won. They were counting on Hillary. Why throw it out just because she isn't President??
This is the 4th example that has been presented since this weekend of FOX News personalities implying there is a Clinton Administration or Clinton Presidency. It isn't accidental. It is subliminal propaganda.
There is some heavy speculation (based on reporters talking with former Trump campaign members) that the supervisor mentioned in the Papa documents as encouraging him to take the meetings with the Russians may be none other than Sam Clovis. Not only was Clovis a campaign co-chair, he is up next week for confirmation as Trump's nominee to be an Undersecretary in the Department of Agriculture:
Papadopoulos was arrested on July 27 there's speculation that he's been wearing a wire for a while now as it's been said he has been cooperating with authorities. I can't say for sure but making an educated guess that Mueller feels he has enough now that he can start to come forward with findings like these initial charges.
As for Undersecretary in the Department of Agriculture, we'll probably see Clovis decide to withdraw his name. He'll have a change of heart (meaning he knows he's hosed and has to go try and hide from the spotlight).
So here's a quick recap: US intelligence agencies have confirmed that emails from the Democratic National Committee and from Clinton campaign chair John Podesta were stolen by Russian hackers.
What we learned today is that a Russian linked Professor told Papadopoulos about the thousands of emails with "dirt" on or about April 26, 2016. Did Papa tell others? Of course he did! He'd use that to ingratiate himself - "look at me I'm soo important!" and the paperwork mentions he was in contact with a supervisor on the campaign (Clovis? Sessions?). It’s worth noting that Trump advisor Roger Stone sent a series of tweets suggesting he knew the stolen Podesta emails were coming weeks in advance. There's no way this guy kept it all to himself. Also ->
In June 2016, Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort met with a Russian operative who promised them dirt on Clinton. Trump Jr. then set up a meeting, and on an email thread titled “Russia - Clinton - private and confidential,” he invited Kushner and Manafort. Trump Jr., who has changed his story a couple times, says they didn't get what they wanted, maybe that's true because ->
On July 27, 2016, Trump, perhaps frustrated with not getting the exact dirt he was told to expect but knowing it might be out there, publicly asked the Russian government to find and release other emails Clinton deleted. “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.” Around this time he also promised something soon about Hillary would be coming out I believe at this same press conference. I'll find a link later.
This is the 4th example that has been presented since this weekend of FOX News personalities implying there is a Clinton Administration or Clinton Presidency. It isn't accidental. It is subliminal propaganda.
John Kelly is as much of a monster as his boss, which I've always known, but, here he is, talking about how the Civil War was due to an "inability to compromise". Another Confederate apologist at the top of the government:
Here's a history lesson about "compromise". It is literally in the goddamn historical title. Compromise with the South was MORE than tried. And I'm not the least bit surprised John Kelly thinks the lives of black slaves were up for debate or negotiation.
I seriously wonder if the Compromise of 1850 or the Kansas/Nebraska Act is even taught in public school history classes anymore. It was cursory even in the mid-90s when I was in attendance, but my guess is it has been completely erased. I'd venture to guess 90% of the population wouldn't know what either was.
What should have been compromised on?? How many more decades were slaves supposed to wait to be freed?? 20 more years, 30?? Thus delaying the implementation of segregation and Jim Crow however long that time period was?? If John Kelly had been there to "compromise", we might still be living in a country where we were debating separate drinking fountains in 2017.
And, I'll say it again just for the sake of posterity. The main effort to placate the South was literally called the goddamn COMPROMISE OF 1850!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wanna talk more "compromise". Let's go to the board, shall we??:
That's right ladies and gentleman (and racist idiots like John Kelly). That's the part of the original United States Constitution that held that black people were 3/5 of a human being. I'm so sick of this shit I could puke. Somehow this man became a General and White House Chief of Staff. It doesn't say anything good about the country.
But wait, what do we have for them, Johnny?? Is it a brand new car?? No, it's the Compromise of 1877, which ended Reconstruction and ushered in another 100 years of systematic state oppression:
What a load of utter nonsense. No compromise with the South. The history of the slavery and persecution of African-Americans in this country is NOTHING BUT compromises with the South:
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science.
Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy
Here's a story indicating the progress being made by the major internet companies to accepting that Russian presence on social media has been a significant element in forming public opinion.
Here's a story indicating the progress being made by the major internet companies to accepting that Russian presence on social media has been a significant element in forming public opinion.
I spend alot of time on Twitter, because it is especially useful for breaking news and people interested in breaking down that news. I use the retweet/favorite function to archive stuff I think is useful or important. It is FILLED with Russian bots, who are easy to spot. Donald Trump's followers on the service may include up to half bots of various kinds.
Facebook is an exercise in mass narcissism. Before Facebook, it was impossible to imagine you'd need to know how the morning of everyone you ever met is going. Or being constantly bombarded with pictures that all garner the same comments "Lovely picture, such a lovely family, you look so beautiful, handsome etc etc etc". The narcissism is fed, so when someone on Facebook comes across a news story, they feel they alone have been handed the Rosetta Stone that explains everything. Since they've gotten nothing but positive feedback from sharing every aspect of their lives, they have no qualms sharing a news story with everyone they know. And since everyone is friendly, no one questions anything (as opppsed to Twitter, where responses are filled with pushback and questions all the time). This is how a segment of the American population comes to believe that Hillary Clinton was involved in a pedophile ring being run out of the basement of a DC pizza parlor (that has no basement) or that Seth Rich was murdered by DNC operatives. It's the Nigerian email scam by way of Mr. Smith from The Matrix.
Here's a story indicating the progress being made by the major internet companies to accepting that Russian presence on social media has been a significant element in forming public opinion.
This is more of a Facebook problem than a Trump campaign/administration problem. Facebook gladly cashed the checks of organizations/individuals working in or for Russia and let them put up their content. Social media platforms have a problem, though, in that they are corporations and therefore exist to make money, meaning that they do not have the time or resources to vet every person or group who wishes to pay for their content to be hosted. Obviously they won't allow content which is illegal or encourages people to engage in illegal activity but it also isn't their place to censor content, either (even though they can--you don't have a First Amendment right on Facebook), so if a group puts up an ad or post trying to convince you of something on a controversial topic as long as it isn't trying to push something illegal there is no reason for the social media platform to delete it, even if it is distasteful or unpopular.
On the other hand, if you are forming your political opinions based on what you are seeing on social media then the problem isn't Russia or the social media platform; rather, in this case the problem is *you*.
*************
Only now are politicians lining up to call the opioid crisis an actual crisis--where were they 5, 10, or 15 years ago, hm? Anyway, the thinking right now is that various State Attorneys General will move to sue pharmaceutical manufacturers but they are only part of the problem. They need to go after the doctors who were incorrectly prescribing these medications (of course, these doctors were sometimes given incentives to push as many pills as they could) and the pill mills, the pharmacies which were more than happy to fill orders (in one story I read one pharmacy in a small West Virginia town was filling enough orders to prescribe 34 pills to each person in the town every day). As of 2015, deaths due to drug overdose surpassed both "vehicle accident" and "gun-related" as a cause of death.
On the other hand, if you are forming your political opinions based on what you are seeing on social media then the problem isn't Russia or the social media platform; rather, in this case the problem is *you*.
I accept that there is an individual responsibility, but I don't believe that's the whole story. You can make the case that doing anything harmful to yourself is your own decision and society shouldn't second-guess that. However, I don't think that's reasonable.
In some cases laws are designed purely to protect individuals (seat-belts for instance). In other cases governments try and use the law to change social attitudes (on smoking or homo-sexuality for instance). In still others governments rely more on moral pressure and persuasion (obesity for instance). In all those cases though the majority of people, though not all, would agree that government does have a role. It was interesting that the second half of your post was about the opiod epidemic - I suspect that's something which is in the process of change to a position where most people agree government has a role in that as well.
In the case of social media I don't think it's reasonable to say that this is just an issue for individuals. In the specific issue of foreign interference in elections the current investigations show that's not the case in the US, but I think there are also wider concerns about foreign attempts to change social attitudes. I also think there may be a case for reviewing the wider context in which information is presented, e.g. - what education is provided to children about accessing and using information. - whether there should be any requirement for political balance for those providing information to the general public (after all there are all sorts of laws about what businesses can and can't do when selling goods to the public such as prohibiting sales only to white people). Should information be treated so differently to physical goods?
Comments
They've already said if Mueller gets fired, they will hire him to conclude his investigation.
~
Conspiracy charges usually come with some substantial proof as well.
In the armed robbery example, the police might have also found disguises that was mentioned in the planning, as well as a blow torch which was purchased recently to get into the safe.
To keep the public safe (explosives and fore arms were part of the assault) they acted prior to is carrying out our plan.
They need more proof besides us talking.
If Trump is named as an unindicted co-conspirator and he starts pardoning fellow conspirators, every instance is a new crime of obstruction of justice. It would also an admission of guilt for the person pardoned--in other words, an admission of guilt in a criminal conspiracy of which the person and Trump are a party.
When the Watergate Seven were indicted, they secretly named Nixon a co-conspirator because they feared he would start handing out pardons.
We should be able to agree that people like Manafort should be held accountable when they commit crimes.
As mentioned the Russia/Uranium deal was a Canadian deal. The FBI would have zero jurisdiction over it as all the players are international and would have involved the CIA instead.
They literally had nothing else to fall back on. The sad thing, people will still believe it.
I have not seen the re-hire promise and I don't believe it. If he gets fired what's to stop Republican partisans from claiming "something something Hillary Clinton and Uranium something so it's good he's fired because he's compromised!". That's already happening.
@deltago Back to the conspiracy question...even if I have a hand-drawn map of a bank and a blow torch in my garage (which I actaully have, by the way), if I haven't entered the bank I still haven't done anything illegal--it isn't against the law to have the layout of a building in your possession. At what point in the process does "a thought experiment about committing a crime" turn into "committing a crime"? Wouldn't that point be the actual execution of the plan? (note: I am not actually planning out any sort of illegal endeavor; rather, I am merely curious where the line ends)
The Criminal Attempts Act 1981 in the UK states that: "if, with intent to commit an offence to which [the act applies], a person does an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence, he is guilty of attempting to commit the offence". There's case law around what preparatory means in this context and it would be for a jury to consider the facts of a particular case. In your bank robbery example I agree that having a plan of the bank probably would not clear the threshold, but if you had practised with your blowtorch to see how long it would take to burn through a barrier like one found in the bank then it probably would.
It's the post plan/pre operation time when these charges can stick.
Or lets just say you were looking to hire a hit man. Did your shopping and chose one but he hadn't finished the contract because he was actually an undercover cop. Conspiracy to commit murder. You didn't attempt it and the person wasn't murdered but you wanted them murdered.
Thank you, @Grond0 and @deltago --that should clarify "conspiracy" from a criminal justice point of view. Clearly, the two under indictment both planned and carried out scheme(s) by which they could hide money which would normally be classified as "taxable income". The U. S. Federal Government has a long history of taking down people via tax evasion when they cannot clearly prosecute them for other crimes.
Money still buys a lot of justice--Manafort and Gates are under house arrest. Okay...if I live in a mid-sized mansion or a luxury high-rise condo in a major urban center, "house arrest" really means "take some free vacation time--watch some movies, order 5-star delivery, swim in the infinity edge pool, hit the in-house gym, etc". That isn't "arrest", it is "time out with all your toys".
edit/add: speaking of conspiracy...A new study seems to link acetaminophen use during pregnancy to ADHD. Translation: pharmaceutical manufacturers (specifically McNeil Consumer Healthcare, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson and the manufacturer of the brand name Tylenol) have a new pain medication they want to market but they need to scare people away from the current pain reliever of choice so they can start selling the new product.
Wikipedia tells us that the 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak is a collection of Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails leaked to and subsequently published by WikiLeaks on July 22, 2016.
Papdopolous has been cooperating with the investigation so I'd expect more shoes to drop for the "multiple campaign officials" named in the documents.
Now then, Mueller has had Papa dead to rights for MONTHS for lying to the FBI. No one knew about it. No leaks, airtight. He sat on it and waited to spring the guilty plea til after Manafort gave himself up. Most likely to not only see how the Administration would act when thrown off their game, but to let Manafort know he's toast if he doesn't flip. Based on his strategy and the team he has assembled, Mueller is treating Trump and those around him like a criminal syndicate. This was his opening salvo, and it was loaded. It's clear from the Papa plea he is months ahead on this stuff. There is far more ammo in this barrel.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-campaign-adviser-pleaded-guilty-to-lying-about-russian-contacts/2017/10/30/d525e712-bd7d-11e7-97d9-bdab5a0ab381_story.html?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.b61db73bf0bc
I genuinely do not mind if the investigation finds no criminal activity on Trump's part, or even legal-but-not-ethical conduct on his part, or if the investigation has no impact on Trump at all. I've long suspected that Manafort and other members of the Trump administration and campaign had committed crimes, and as long as the investigation is bringing those people to justice, I'm happy with it.
I don't want the investigation to take down Trump; I just want Mueller to root out whatever criminals he can find.
Trump fired Comey because of the Flynn investigation. He admitted it in an interview to Lester Holt. Jeff Sessions has lied to Congress on no less than 3 occasions in regards to his meetings with Russian officials. Mike Pence lied about when he found out about Michael Flynn. Manafort clearly lied right up to his indictment today. Don Jr. lied about his meeting with the Russian lawyer. Jared Kushner was attempting to set up a back channel to the Kremlin in the White House that subverted the State Department. Kushner and Flynn left massive amounts of Russian contacts off their security clearance disclosure forums. These are just the incidents in the past 10 months I can think of off the top of my head. So, if there is really nothing there, I continue to ask.....why is everyone connected to this story and inquiry lying their ass off at every single opportunity??
1. Trump might well blab about it because he has no filter.
2. Trump is not competent enough to help me in any way.
Letting Trump in on my secret would put me at risk without gaining me any benefit. I do not need him to know anything; if I needed help in my activities, I would look elsewhere for help. Nor would I trust him to bail me out if I got in trouble.
I realize Manafort worked very closely with Trump for months on end during the campaign. But you overestimate Trump's intelligence by assuming he would know what his closest associates were up to.
My explanation for the presence of criminals in Trump's inner circle is simple: the intelligent, honest, experienced, good people who would normally join a Republican administration were disgusted by Trump (pick a reason) and either left early or refused to work for him in the first place. When those people were gone, the only people who were willing to work for Trump are the unintelligent, the dishonest, and the inexperienced. Correction: Papadopoulos.
If Trump had let Comey go about his business, it's quite possible this might have stalled at Manafort and Flynn. But he was worried enough about Comey getting to Flynn that he fired Comey, which created Mueller. And it also expanded the scope of what Trump could be investigated for. Now it wasn't just collusion with Russians, but also obstruction of justice and WHATEVER ELSE Mueller comes across as he is looking into both of those possibilities. If the investigation has started to creep, or has become FAR more broad than it would have originally, Donald Trump has one person to blame for that, and he sees that person when he looks in a mirror.
And on State TV a few minutes ago, Sean Hannity, I shit you not, just called Hillary "President Clinton". Like I said, they are doing this on purpose. They think their viewers are dumber than pond scum. This is a real-life version of "We've always been at war with Eastasia". This is an inadvertent social experiment to tell us just how stupid a 1/3rd of the country is. FOX News is disassociating a significant portion of the population from their tether with reality. The goalposts in regards to conservative excuses in regards to this issue are now just simply sprinting from from stadium to stadium with a blindfold on.
Newt Gingrich, on the same show, just called Mueller an "out of control prosecutor". Here is what he said about Mueller when he was appointed when it suited the narrative at the time:
How many times have I said it.....they know their viewers and voters have no capability of remembering anything beyond a 24-hour news cycle. Also this:
Give it 72-hours and they'll be saying Paul Manafort is an alien from Saturn who has been having an affair with Hillary Clinton for the past 20 years.
"President Clinton?" How can he say that? How can anyone believe that? How?
I've heard people say some folks live in an "alternate reality," but...
That's it. That's a man who genuinely does live in a completely different world from actual reality.
I don't know how else to explain that. I just don't.
The only thing that can justify the psychotic obsession of right-wing voters have with Hillary Clinton is to imply that she somehow still has power. So, do most people listening to Hannity (or Hannity himself) truly believe Hillary is President?? No, but they are pushing the idea into people's heads that she might as well be, that she is still the power in the shadows destroying their lives. And let's get real, THIS is the script they were going to run with for the next 4 years before Trump won. They were counting on Hillary. Why throw it out just because she isn't President??
This is the 4th example that has been presented since this weekend of FOX News personalities implying there is a Clinton Administration or Clinton Presidency. It isn't accidental. It is subliminal propaganda.
As for Undersecretary in the Department of Agriculture, we'll probably see Clovis decide to withdraw his name. He'll have a change of heart (meaning he knows he's hosed and has to go try and hide from the spotlight).
So here's a quick recap:
US intelligence agencies have confirmed that emails from the Democratic National Committee and from Clinton campaign chair John Podesta were stolen by Russian hackers.
What we learned today is that a Russian linked Professor told Papadopoulos about the thousands of emails with "dirt" on or about April 26, 2016. Did Papa tell others? Of course he did! He'd use that to ingratiate himself - "look at me I'm soo important!" and the paperwork mentions he was in contact with a supervisor on the campaign (Clovis? Sessions?). It’s worth noting that Trump advisor Roger Stone sent a series of tweets suggesting he knew the stolen Podesta emails were coming weeks in advance. There's no way this guy kept it all to himself. Also ->
In June 2016, Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort met with a Russian operative who promised them dirt on Clinton. Trump Jr. then set up a meeting, and on an email thread titled “Russia - Clinton - private and confidential,” he invited Kushner and Manafort. Trump Jr., who has changed his story a couple times, says they didn't get what they wanted, maybe that's true because ->
On July 27, 2016, Trump, perhaps frustrated with not getting the exact dirt he was told to expect but knowing it might be out there, publicly asked the Russian government to find and release other emails Clinton deleted. “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.” Around this time he also promised something soon about Hillary would be coming out I believe at this same press conference. I'll find a link later.
subliminalcoordinated propagandaHere's a history lesson about "compromise". It is literally in the goddamn historical title. Compromise with the South was MORE than tried. And I'm not the least bit surprised John Kelly thinks the lives of black slaves were up for debate or negotiation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1850
I seriously wonder if the Compromise of 1850 or the Kansas/Nebraska Act is even taught in public school history classes anymore. It was cursory even in the mid-90s when I was in attendance, but my guess is it has been completely erased. I'd venture to guess 90% of the population wouldn't know what either was.
What should have been compromised on?? How many more decades were slaves supposed to wait to be freed?? 20 more years, 30?? Thus delaying the implementation of segregation and Jim Crow however long that time period was?? If John Kelly had been there to "compromise", we might still be living in a country where we were debating separate drinking fountains in 2017.
And, I'll say it again just for the sake of posterity. The main effort to placate the South was literally called the goddamn COMPROMISE OF 1850!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wanna talk more "compromise". Let's go to the board, shall we??:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise
That's right ladies and gentleman (and racist idiots like John Kelly). That's the part of the original United States Constitution that held that black people were 3/5 of a human being. I'm so sick of this shit I could puke. Somehow this man became a General and White House Chief of Staff. It doesn't say anything good about the country.
But wait, what do we have for them, Johnny?? Is it a brand new car?? No, it's the Compromise of 1877, which ended Reconstruction and ushered in another 100 years of systematic state oppression:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1877
What a load of utter nonsense. No compromise with the South. The history of the slavery and persecution of African-Americans in this country is NOTHING BUT compromises with the South:
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science.
Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy
Facebook is an exercise in mass narcissism. Before Facebook, it was impossible to imagine you'd need to know how the morning of everyone you ever met is going. Or being constantly bombarded with pictures that all garner the same comments "Lovely picture, such a lovely family, you look so beautiful, handsome etc etc etc". The narcissism is fed, so when someone on Facebook comes across a news story, they feel they alone have been handed the Rosetta Stone that explains everything. Since they've gotten nothing but positive feedback from sharing every aspect of their lives, they have no qualms sharing a news story with everyone they know. And since everyone is friendly, no one questions anything (as opppsed to Twitter, where responses are filled with pushback and questions all the time). This is how a segment of the American population comes to believe that Hillary Clinton was involved in a pedophile ring being run out of the basement of a DC pizza parlor (that has no basement) or that Seth Rich was murdered by DNC operatives. It's the Nigerian email scam by way of Mr. Smith from The Matrix.
On the other hand, if you are forming your political opinions based on what you are seeing on social media then the problem isn't Russia or the social media platform; rather, in this case the problem is *you*.
*************
Only now are politicians lining up to call the opioid crisis an actual crisis--where were they 5, 10, or 15 years ago, hm? Anyway, the thinking right now is that various State Attorneys General will move to sue pharmaceutical manufacturers but they are only part of the problem. They need to go after the doctors who were incorrectly prescribing these medications (of course, these doctors were sometimes given incentives to push as many pills as they could) and the pill mills, the pharmacies which were more than happy to fill orders (in one story I read one pharmacy in a small West Virginia town was filling enough orders to prescribe 34 pills to each person in the town every day). As of 2015, deaths due to drug overdose surpassed both "vehicle accident" and "gun-related" as a cause of death.
In some cases laws are designed purely to protect individuals (seat-belts for instance). In other cases governments try and use the law to change social attitudes (on smoking or homo-sexuality for instance). In still others governments rely more on moral pressure and persuasion (obesity for instance). In all those cases though the majority of people, though not all, would agree that government does have a role. It was interesting that the second half of your post was about the opiod epidemic - I suspect that's something which is in the process of change to a position where most people agree government has a role in that as well.
In the case of social media I don't think it's reasonable to say that this is just an issue for individuals. In the specific issue of foreign interference in elections the current investigations show that's not the case in the US, but I think there are also wider concerns about foreign attempts to change social attitudes. I also think there may be a case for reviewing the wider context in which information is presented, e.g.
- what education is provided to children about accessing and using information.
- whether there should be any requirement for political balance for those providing information to the general public (after all there are all sorts of laws about what businesses can and can't do when selling goods to the public such as prohibiting sales only to white people). Should information be treated so differently to physical goods?