Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F.
A prosecutors explanation
Conspiracies are often caught and punished severely before they are completed. And interestingly, to be liable for a conspiracy, one need only have been part of the agreement to commit a crime and committed an overt act (however small) in furtherance of it.
In other words, the question that the law looks to isn’t “What was the outcome?” (though that might be relevant in sentencing), it’s “What was your state of mind/intent?” and “What actions did you undertake that manifest this intent?”
This is the right approach, because otherwise criminals who had the most nefarious goals would get off lightly simply because law enforcement was good at their job, or because someone helped thwart it, or simply because they were too dumb to get away with it!
The question for Trump, therefore, isn’t whether his plan “worked.” It’s what he hoped to achieve (coerce a country for election assistance; generate propaganda about a sham investigation; use money appropriated by Congress as personal leverage)
He also took numerous steps to achieve this goal, beyond the phone call: ordered aid withheld; made it clear to subordinates that he wanted “deliverables”; directed Ukraine to deal with his personal lawyer; had his team draft a statement for Zelensky to deliver.
Minimizing the severity of Trump’s actions is an attempt to 1) narrow the focus to *only* the phone call (ignoring everything before and after); and 2) looking at the results, rather than commission, of the crime(s). Doesn’t work that way.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
As I said before re the Mueller report wherein he did not state that there was sufficient evidence to indict for obstruction. Nothing was proven to be obstructed. And the investigation showed that there was no underlying crime. So an intent to commit an illegal act would have to be proved. But if Trump's state of mind was that he knew he didn't commit conspiracy, then it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to show intent to commit a crime.
Same would apply here. If Trump believed that asking Ukraine to investigate (which he had a legal right to do) would help to expose corruption, and no underlying crime was proven to have occurred, (remember as well That Zelensky said he was not pressured and didn't know about the aid being withheld at the time of the call and that Trump said it was for other reasons), then it would be very difficult to prove an intent to commit a criminal act.
Threaded Mode