Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (4104)	12/30/2008 6:28:31 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103300

If you actually commit the underlying crime you can be charged with the crime, and with the conspiracy to commit it (assuming you did conspire). If you conspire to commit the crime but don't go through with it, if you conspire, and if you take any action to further the conspiracy, than you can be charged with conspiracy. Whether or not what Blago did is enough to count as action further the conspiracy is the relevant question in terms of his possible conviction.

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (4104)	12/30/2008 6:33:54 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103300

LOL! (So... what do you actually expect his high-priced legal mouthpiece would say? If he doesn't say that he ain't earning his fees! <GGG>)

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (4104)	12/30/2008 9:55:32 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103300

The essence of a conspiracy offense is the making of the agreement itself (followed by the commission of any overt act), it is not necessary for the Government to prove that the conspirators actually succeeded in accomplishing their unlawful plan. What the evidence in the case must show beyond a reasonable doubt is: First: That two or more persons, in some way or manner, came to a mutual understanding to try to accomplish a common and unlawful plan, as charged in the indictment; Second: That the person willfully became a member of such conspiracy; Third: That one of the conspirators during the existence of the conspiracy knowingly committed at least one of the methods (or 'overt acts') described in the indictment; and Fourth: That such 'overt act' was knowingly committed at or about the time alleged in an effort to carry out or accomplish some object of the conspiracy. An 'overt act' is any transaction or event, even one which may be entirely innocent when considered alone, but which is knowingly committed by a conspirator in an effort to accomplish some object of the conspiracy. A person may become a member of a conspiracy without knowing all of the details of the unlawful scheme, and without knowing who all of the other members are. So, if a person has an understanding of the unlawful nature of a plan and knowingly and willfully joins in that plan on one occasion, that is sufficient to convict him for conspiracy even though he did not participate before, and even though he played only a minor part. lectlaw.com