SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: garrettjax who wrote (762014)4/26/2022 9:11:39 PM
From: didjuneau   of 793755
 
Thanks. This is what is confusing to me - the distinction in RICO of involvement.
What's more, is that in a RICO conspiracy, an overt act is not required to be a part of the conspiracy. Just knowing about what's behind the curtain could get a lot of people in trouble.
So maybe you'd be in the conspiracy if you knew and didn't tell, but someone, somewhere has to be determined to be the last overt act violator? That could be a lot of things, including someone committing perjury recently. Would that drag the whole conspiracy out with that act - resetting the 5 year clock? Seems like that is what is implied in the article you found. Marc Elias gave testimony to the Grand Jury more recently, so if his statement that he was providing legal service is found to be false - because he wasn't vetting anything that was getting leaked to the press - then there's another clock reset. It would "toll the statute of limitations" on the conspiracy. Ratcliffe uses that phrase in the interview.

I think that Spygate would be classified as coming under RICO. I haven't seen it discussed. Ratcliffe said an entire law firm could be subject to indictment. Sounds like RICO.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext