This is a very good statement from @jamil_n_jaffer—and rightly focused on the novelty of Mueller’s legal theory, a matter that has not yet gotten much attention and should.https://twitter.com/masonnatsec/status/964587708818640897 …
Note. we've already seen that theory here. In the Manafort indictment. And the parallels are very very interesting (not least bc Manafort was doing so much similar work in Ukraine). https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/02/17/what-did-mueller-achieve-with-the-internet-research-agency-indictment/ …
-
-
1/ While I see the parallels, I'm not sure that's right. To be sure, the Manafort indictment charges a conspiracy against the U.S., but it's a much more garden-variety thing to allege failing to register and structuring transactions as part of such an effort.
-
2/ The IRA indictment is different in that alleges a conspiracy to defraud the U.S. based on underlying efforts to prevent, among other things, the FEC from enforcing campaign finance laws. That's the interesting part. So agree on parallels but definite, key differences too.
-
I agree with
@jamil_n_jaffer. I am no expert on campaign finance law. But the legal theory here seems to be both novel, and if it catches on, enormously powerful. Among other things, it would criminalize “collusion”—which we’ve all been assuming is not a crime in and of itself. -
I get what he's arguing (and why it'd be powerful). I'm saying he's not seeing how that has already figured into the larger prosecution. https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/02/17/the-conspiracy-to-defraud-the-united-states-backbone-of-the-internet-research-agency-and-manafort-indictments/ …
-
Would you guys please stop having a well-informed, provocative, and civil discussion here? You’re messing everything up.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.