Rico is not a crime
I hope potus 45 is paying attention to this democrat's nonsense; Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).
More Blogs... Read Next
About this Blog
by sdarlagg
created Mar 21
532 Views
Last Viewed: Apr 24
Last Commented: Mar 28
sdarlagg has 76 other Blogs
sdarlagg Blogs (76)
Feeling Creative?
Report Blogs that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the Blog Abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to Report Blog Abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
Comments (29)
Defendants can't be charged with an Act because an Act is a document.
You can't be arrested on a suspicion of an Act.
You can't be arrested on suspicion of a document.
You can't be investigated for an Act, or for a document.
It obviously makes no sense.
You can be arrested on suspicion of a crime.
You can be charged with a crime.
You can be investigated for a crime.
AOC was asking what impeachable crime was being investigated by the impeachment inquiry because if you have no idea what the crime might be, you have nothing to investigate.
Since the 'evidence' of an impeachable crime turned out rather embarrassingly to be some chap with Russian connections telling porkies, the impeachment inquiry has not stated any charges for the basis of an investigation. As such, they have nothing to investigate and should close the inquiry.
It's not protocol, nor reasonable to investigate just in case a crime was committed. That is the basis for a Monty Python skit, not an impeachment inquiry.
Do you understand the question AOC was asking now?
Do you understand the question AOC was asking now?
So does this mean Hunter did a good job at Burisma despite oil and gas not being his field?
You can be arrested for or on suspicion of committing a crime under an Act.
The precise Act reference need not be given at time of arrest but a clear reason for the arrest must be given.
Example: Drunk driving under The Road Traffic Act.
It means that a group of people are being charged as an organised group, rather than as individuals.
Each of them will have allegedly committed different crimes, but as a group they were working with a common illegal goal.
As such, each of them will charged with all the crimes of the group.
This methodology has two important aims: firstly, the leader of the group who may order crimes can be held accountable for those crimes as if they committed them; secondly, the minor players are more likely to agree to plea and testify for the prosecution rather than suffer a harsh punishment wholly disproportionate to their crime, thus corroborating the evidence in the case.
So does this mean Hunter did a good job at Burisma despite oil and gas not being his field?
RICO was originally conceived as a tool to go after mafia kingpins who kept their hands clean by parking ill-gotten gains in shell corporations and leaving the dirty work to underlings.
The law does not require prosecutors to prove that defendants directly engaged in criminal activity, just that they were part of a larger organization that did.
That means prosecutors would not necessarily have to prove Trump personally broke the law but knowingly coordinated with others who did.
RICO was originally conceived as a tool to go after mafia kingpins who kept their hands clean by parking ill-gotten gains in shell corporations and leaving the dirty work to underlings.
The law does not require prosecutors to prove that defendants directly engaged in criminal activity, just that they were part of a larger organization that did.
That means prosecutors would not necessarily have to prove Trump personally broke the law but knowingly coordinated with others who did.
For example, you can't observe a professional hit and declare the spouse, or business partner ordered it without evidence that they did. You have to prove that active conspiracy to murder.
Hunter joined Burisma in 2014, long before Joe had aspirations to become President.
You always fall for the right wing lies.
Do some research, the truth is out there.
Hunter joined Burisma in 2014, long before Joe had aspirations to become President.
You always fall for the right wing lies.
Do some research, the truth is out there.
Mike Pence did throw his hat into this election...as did Gore after Clinton...Who BTW was the last president who could compromise...
I had the best time last night at dinner with my friend for her birthday...We had a cool waiter..Years ago, his family had ties with the mafia...
His impressions of Trump and Biden...made my night...
Like he said...almost all politicians are corrupt....it is the one’s who the media adore..that get an out of jail free card..
AOC = fundamental lack of knowledge
Try again...
You remind me of someone...
ALL news is entertainment these days...The Walter Cronkite days are long gone...
It’s all opinionated...the truth is in the middle...
AOC = fundamental lack of knowledge
"DID BIDEN BREAK THE LAW"? THE ANSWER IS NO LAW WAS BROKEN
AOC = fundamental lack of knowledge
1:56 NOW, SOME OF THE CHARGES
1:57 INVOLVING MR. TRUMP DOWN IN
1:59 GEORGIA ARE RICCO-RELATED.
Do you see the word 'CHARGES'?
'Charges' are the crimes that people are charged with.
'RICCO-RELATED' at the end of the sentence refers to the RICO Act. The RICO Act is not a criminal charge. It is a document that sets out the type of crimes that are in this category which is what AOC was also saying.
When the Fox 'expert says:
2:37 18 USC 1961 THROUGH 68.
He is stating the code of the RICO Act —18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68. He is not stating a specific crime.
The Fox 'expert says:
2:54 VERY WORD RACKETEERING IN ITS
2:58 ACRONYM CONJURES UP SERIOUS
3:00 CRIMINALITY.
Criminal charges are not to do with the imagination. They are specific.
AOC was asking what crimes Tony Bobulinski had personally witnessed and what charges the impeachment inquiry are specifically investigating. She was not asking how people feel about the RICO Act and what it invoked in their imaginations.
An impeachment inquiry is about investigating crimes. It is not a group therapy session.
Ofcourse Buden did somethng wrong,
but no worries he will be off the hook.
Your crooked politician is off the hook Jac.
As Hillary before him.
These people are connected.
1:56 NOW, SOME OF THE CHARGES
1:57 INVOLVING MR. TRUMP DOWN IN
1:59 GEORGIA ARE RICCO-RELATED.
Do you see the word 'CHARGES'?
'Charges' are the crimes that people are charged with.
'RICCO-RELATED' at the end of the sentence refers to the RICO Act. The RICO Act is not a criminal charge. It is a document that sets out the type of crimes that are in this category which is what AOC was also saying.
When the Fox 'expert says:
2:37 18 USC 1961 THROUGH 68.
He is stating the code of the RICO Act —18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68. He is not stating a specific crime.
The Fox 'expert says:
2:54 VERY WORD RACKETEERING IN ITS
2:58 ACRONYM CONJURES UP SERIOUS
3:00 CRIMINALITY.
Criminal charges are not to do with the imagination. They are specific.
AOC was asking what crimes Tony Bobulinski had personally witnessed and what charges the impeachment inquiry are specifically investigating. She was not asking how people feel about the RICO Act and what it invoked in their imaginations.
An impeachment inquiry is about investigating crimes. It is not a group therapy session.
I quoted the US statute code for the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act —18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68.
Here's the manual for federal prosecutors:
If you go to page 1 you'll see an outline of the crimes that come under the RICO statute.
I quoted the US statute code for the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act —18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68.
Here's the manual for federal prosecutors:
If you go to page 1 you'll see an outline of the crimes that come under the RICO statute.
Violate the act you commit a crime.
Violate the act you commit a crime.
You can't claim someone has violated the Act, but have no idea what crime they may, or may not have committed.
The RICO Act is very specific about which combination of crimes come under it's jurisdiction. You'd know that if you had read anything from the link I cited as you asked.
I realise there are no pictures in the RICO manual, but surely you can see that holding an impeachment inquiry where no one has any idea what crime may have been committed, is not what you might expect from grown-arsed politicians who are being paid relatively handsomely for their expertise.
You can't claim someone has violated the Act, but have no idea what crime they may, or may not have committed.
The RICO Act is very specific about which combination of crimes come under it's jurisdiction. You'd know that if you had read anything from the link I cited as you asked.
I realise there are no pictures in the RICO manual, but surely you can see that holding an impeachment inquiry where no one has any idea what crime may have been committed, is not what you might expect from grown-arsed politicians who are being paid relatively handsomely for their expertise.
The title says "Rico is not a crime". No mention of Biden or Trump.
The title says "Rico is not a crime". No mention of Biden or Trump.
Does that sound familiar Riz?
You do know the discussion between the witness and AOC was about whether Hunter and his dad had done something illegal yes?
And she went techncal as an attempted deflection
in the most silly way- leaving a few jaws dropped.