Doubling down on the stupid. Cite a bunch more of the criminal code, then this argument will look real smart.
Start by opening up these documents in a separate window:
I don't have time to show you everything about prosecution, but I can show you the basics (disclosure: I was never an AUSA, but I was a DDA for several years). First, let's pick a crime off of the list I gave you – preferably something well-traveled. How about obstruction of justice under
18 U.S.C. § 1503, which criminalizes conduct that "corruptly or by threats or force or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice." Then turn to instruction number 8.131 and modify it accordingly:
Defendant Peter Strzok is charged in Count 1 of the indictment with obstruction of justice in violation of Section 1503 of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
- First, the defendant influenced, obstructed, or impeded, or tried to influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice; and
- Second, the defendant acted corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening communication, with the intent to obstruct justice.
The government need not prove that the defendant’s sole or even primary intention was to obstruct justice so long as the government proves beyond a reasonable doubt that one of the defendant’s intentions was to obstruct justice. The defendant’s intention to obstruct justice must be substantial.
Keep in mind that the "corruptly" requirement is usually among the hardest to prove, but Strzok's text messages make it much easier. Strzok was in charge of the "Russian collusion" investigation for a period of time, then hopped over to Mueller's probe once it opened. He drafted and submitted affidavits, conducted witness interviews, and altered documents in order to "stop" Trump; to wit, by intimating that Trump had illegally "colluded" with the Russian government to beat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. For example, he conducted the interview of Gen. Michael Flynn and the accompanying FD-302 report which later served as the basis for Flynn's prosecution. Despite this, Strzok's candid text messages during the run up to the election mentioned "Russia" relatively few times, and by Strzok's own admission, he did not believe there was any "there there." While it might be common practice in the FBI to use investigative resources to "squeeze" witnesses to induce them to "flip" on their targets, such behavior has a tendency to "influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice," especially when there's no underlying crime to "sing" about.
Note that Strzok coordinated with many people in this effort, including, but not limited to his mistress, Lisa Page, and his immediate supervisor, Andrew McCabe. Accordingly, we can throw in a conspiracy charge too under
18 U.S.C. § 371. This of course is a distinct crime, but it has the added benefit of sucking in his co-conspirators (which may or may not include Mueller and his "team," depending on what Mueller knew and why he hired Strzok) and their actions to "stop" Trump. It also allows prosecutors to charge the crimes in pretty much any district where some or all of the "overt acts" occurred (this can be as simple as mailing something, or a layover on a plane).
See Fed. R. Crim. P. 18. For example, by bringing the indictment in Utah, we can avoid the toxic vicinage of Washington D.C., much of which is connected to the federal government and / or sympathetic toward Liberal activists (especially anyone who would "stop" Trump).
Anyway, let's take a look at
18 U.S.C. § 1961, the infamous criminal "RICO" statute ("RICO" is an acronym for "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations"). A RICO charge is kind of like a conspiracy charge, but it's geared specifically toward organized crime. According to the
"Public Corruption" guide linked above, "18 U.S.C. § 1961
et seq., makes it a crime 'to conduct or participate' in the affairs of an enterprise 'through a pattern of racketeering activity.' 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). The statute also criminalizes a conspiracy to engage in such conduct.
Id. § 1962(d). The RICO conspiracy provision does not require proof of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. The statute defines the term 'racketeering activity' to include extortion, bribery, and" . . .
obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. § 1503!
Whammy.
So what's Strzock's exposure off of all this? Let's see, that'll be umm... 0 criminal history points (I'm assuming), and minimum level 14 for obstruction of justice, or level 19 if we get the RICO, add 2 levels for altering or destroying records, and... Ughh. Whatever, you do the math. Here's the
federal sentencing guidelines and the
sentencing table. Bottom line: his life is basically over.
So there you have it. I'm right, and you're wrong. If you want to hitch your wagon to rolling dumpster fire, be my guest.
