Thursday, October 3, 2013

Conspiracy Is A Crime, Conservatives Commit Conspiracies, Therefore...?

Conspiracy is a crime.
Conservatives commit conspiracies.
Therefore Conservatives are criminals.

An easy syllogism to rememember, but how may of us know what a conspiracy is?

From Wikipedia, some excerpts from their entry:

"In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future. Criminal law in some countries or for some conspiracies may require that at least one overt act must also have been undertaken in furtherance of that agreement, to constitute an offense. There is no limit on the number participating in the conspiracy and, in most countries, no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect (compare attempts which require proximity to the full offence). For the purposes of concurrence, the actus reus is a continuing one and parties may join the plot later and incur joint liability and conspiracy can be charged where the co-conspirators have been acquitted or cannot be traced. Finally, repentance by one or more parties does not affect liability but may reduce their sentence.

"United States

"Conspiracy has been defined in the US as an agreement of two or more people to commit a crime, or to accomplish a legal end through illegal actions.[17][18] For example, planning to rob a bank (an illegal act) to raise money for charity (a legal end) remains a criminal conspiracy because the parties agreed to use illegal means to accomplish the end goal. A conspiracy does not need to have been planned in secret to meet the definition of the crime. One legal dictionary,, provides this useful example on the application of conspiracy law to an everyday sales transaction tainted by corruption. It shows how the law can handle both the criminal and the civil need for justice.

"[A] scheme by a group of salesmen to sell used automobiles as new, could be prosecuted as a crime of fraud and conspiracy, and also allow a purchaser of an auto to sue for damages [in civil court] for the fraud and conspiracy.

"Conspiracy law usually does not require proof of specific intent by the defendants to injure any specific person to establish an illegal agreement. Instead, usually the law only requires the conspirators have agreed to engage in a certain illegal act. This is sometimes described as a 'general intent' to violate the law.

"Under most U.S. laws, for a person to be convicted of conspiracy not only must he or she agree to commit a crime, but at least one of the conspirators must commit an overt act (the actus reus) in furtherance of the crime. However, in United States v. Shabani the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that this 'overt act' element is not required under the federal drug conspiracy statute, 21 U.S.C. section 846.

"The conspirators can be guilty even if they do not know the identity of the other members of the conspiracy. See United States v. Monroe, 73 F.3d 129 (7th Cir. 1995), aff'd., 124 F.3d 206 (7th Cir. 1997).

The origin of Fox News - Memo from Roger Ailes.

"California criminal law is somewhat representative of other jurisdictions. A punishable conspiracy exists when at least two people form an agreement to commit a crime, and at least one of them does some act in furtherance to committing the crime. Each person is punishable in the same manner and to the same extent as is provided for the punishment of the crime itself. [2]

"One example of this is The Han Twins Murder Conspiracy case, where one twin sister attempted to hire two youths to have her twin sister killed.

"One important feature of a conspiracy charge is that it relieves prosecutors of the need to prove the particular roles of conspirators. If two persons plot to kill another (and this can be proven), and the victim is indeed killed as a result of the actions of either conspirator, it is not necessary to prove with specificity which of the conspirators actually pulled the trigger. (Otherwise, both conspirators could conceivably handle the gun—leaving two sets of fingerprints—and then demand acquittals for both, based on the fact that the prosecutor would be unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, which of the two conspirators was the triggerman). A conspiracy conviction requires proof that a) the conspirators did indeed conspire to commit the crime, and b) the crime was committed by an individual involved in the conspiracy. Proof of which individual it was is usually not necessary.

"It is also an option for prosecutors, when bringing conspiracy charges, to decline to indict all members of the conspiracy (though their existence may be mentioned in an indictment). Suchunindicted co-conspirators are commonly found when the identities or whereabouts of members of a conspiracy are unknown; or when the prosecution is only concerned with a particular individual among the conspirators. This is common when the target of the indictment is an elected official or an organized crime leader; and the co-conspirators are persons of little or no public importance. More famously, President Richard Nixon was named as an unindicted co-conspirator by the Watergate special prosecutor, in an event leading up to his eventual resignation.

"Conspiracy against rights

"The United States has a federal statute dealing with conspiracies to deprive a citizen of rights secured by the U.S. Constitution.[19]

"International law

"Conspiracy law was used at the Nuremberg Trials for Nazi leadership who were charged with participating in a 'conspiracy or common plan' to commit international crimes. This was controversial because conspiracy was not a part of the European civil law tradition. Nonetheless, the crime of conspiracy continued in international criminal justice, being incorporated into the international criminal laws against genocide.

"It should however be noted, that of the Big Five, only the French Republic exclusively subscribed to the civil law; the USSR subscribed to the socialist law, the U.S. and the U.K. followed thecommon law; and the Republic of China did not have a cause of action at this particular proceeding. (In addition, it upheld both the civil and the customary law). In any event, the jurisdiction of theInternational Military Tribunal was unique and extraordinary at its time, being a court convened under the law of nations and the laws and customs of war, was the first of its sort in human history, found several defendants before it not guilty, and, of the guilty parties, it is certainly arguable that of the conspiracies plotted, many bore fruit.


Conservative Sheeplets will jump quickly to the defense that no crimes have been committed by them, that Conservatives have just dealt in "political strategy," which is quite laugable as we see in an article, "Teabagger Shutdown is not a "Political Strategy," but Violation of Constitution, Duties & Oath," at the

"As President Obama stated, the GOP teabaggers 'threatened a government shutdown or worse unless I gut or repeal the Affordable Care Act.' Teabaggers call the shutdown a 'political or legislative strategy,' trying to transform their unconstitutional conduct into just politics as usual. ACA went through our Constitutional legislative process and was signed into law. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld ACA. The 2012 presidential election presented voters with the choice to vote for the nixing of ACA by electing Romney. The House also tried to repeal ACA with votes. Having failed with the lawful means to repeal ACA, the GOP teabaggers focused on a shutdown and defunding to repeal ACA, a process not sanctioned by our Constitution. We should call them out as law violators, not provide them cover by calling this 'political strategy.' If the GOP continue to push the envelope in order to create this "new" constitutional doctrine, then no law will ever be safe.

"By our U.S. Constitution and by statute, the members of the House take an Oath of Office, swearing to 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.'
The Great Murderer.

"Congress passes or repeals laws, such as the Affordable Care Act, with the legislative process and votes, authority vested in Congress by a little thing called the Constitution. Conservative Republicans are so very fond of telling everyone else how no one loves the Constitution more than they do.

Well, Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution states:
"'Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it….'
"This is how the Affordable Care Act became law. The Congress voted for the ACA in 2010 and President Obama signed the ACA into law two days later. There's even a video to show the signing of the bill into law!

"If the teabaggers need a refresher course regarding how a bill becomes a law, the clerk of the house has a nice outline used to educate kids. This educational guide concludes that once a bill becomes law via this legislative process, it is "enforced by the government."

"Last summer, two days after the House voted again to delay key provisions of ACA, Boehner said Congress 'should not be judged on how many new laws we create' but on 'how many laws ... we repeal.' Since ACA became law, the House GOP voted '42 times to defund, repeal or otherwise hobble Obamacare,' but the measures died in the Senate.

"In 2012, another branch of government, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the ACA:
"'The court’s 5 to 4 ruling was a stunning legal conclusion to a battle that has consumed American politics for two years. Roberts’s compromise offered a dramatic victory for Obama and Democrats’ decades-long effort to enact a health-care law and a bitter defeat for Republicans and tea party activists, who had uniformly opposed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.'
"So, the GOP teabaggers turned to the election process. In the 2012 presidential election, Romney promised to repeal ACA if elected, but the voters chose Obama:
"'Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney made repeal of the health-care law a central part of his campaign. “Our mission is clear: if we want to get rid of Obamacare, we are going to have to replace President Obama,” Romney said the day of the court ruling. “That is my mission. That is our work. And I’m asking the American people to join me.” And yet, voters reelected Obama with a decisive victory over Romney.'
"Even speaker Boehner stated, after the 2012 election, that ACA is the 'law of the land,' yet he continues to try to repeal it by unconstitutional means.

"Having failed again, the GOP in January of this year plotted out a new 'legislative strategy' adopted in an agreement called The Williamsburg Accord. After losing in the Congressional lawmaking process, the Courts and with the voters, the teabaggers agree to hold the country hostage with threats of a shutdown :
"'Republicans have fallen out, often sharply, over which hostages to ransom, with the most conservative ones favoring a government shutdown threat and the more pragmatic wing, oddly, endorsing a debt default threat. They have also struggled to define the terms of their ransom. The Williamsburg Accord initially envisioned forcing Obama to sign spending cuts, or some form of the Paul Ryan budget. During the summer, Republicans flirted with making Obama lock in lower marginal tax rates. Recently, Republicans settled on pressuring him to kill his health-care law. But the general contours of the legislative strike, and the plan of obtaining policy victories without offering any policy concessions, has enjoyed general agreement within the party.'
"So now teabaggers want to repeal ACA by defunding it backed by shutdown. Robert Reich explained to New Gingrich why our constitutional system does not allow repeal by defunding a law. Rather, the constitutional process to repeal a law requires both houses to enact a new bill that repeals the old and then President Obama must sign it:
"'Had we had more time I would have explained to the former Speaker something he surely already knows: The Affordable Care Act was duly enacted by a majority of both houses of Congress, signed into law by the President, and even upheld by the Supreme Court.' 
The Constitution of the United States does not allow a majority of the House of Representatives to repeal the law of the land by de-funding it (and threatening to close the entire government, or default on the nation’s full faith and credit, if the Senate and the President don’t come around)
If that were permissible, no law on the books would be safe. A majority of the House could get rid of unemployment insurance, federal aid to education, Social Security, Medicare, or any other law they didn’t like merely by deciding not to fund them.'
"The MSM characterize the teabaggers' conduct as a 'GOP shutdown strategy.' Polling concludes that 'American Voters Reject GOP Shutdown Strategy.' Some GOP members say shutting down the government over Obamacare is a bad strategy.

Words matter...

"Words matter. The GOP teabaggers' conduct violates the oath of office and the Constitution. Their conduct is unlawful. Not a political strategy that gives them cover as if this were politics as usual.

"As Robert Reich stated:
"'The Republicans who are now running the House of Representatives are pushing a dangerous new constitutional doctrine. They must be stopped. There should be no compromising with fanatics.'
"Indeed, Texas Gov. Rick Perry called implementing ACA a 'criminal act.' Right. Implementing the law of the land is criminal, trying to repeal or defund the law by unconstitutional means is just permissible political strategy."



Checkmate, Conservatives!


"Promiscuity is like never reading past the first page. Monogamy is like reading
the same book over and over."

Mason Cooley. (American aphorist. 1927 – 2002.)