Include possible coconspirators. What youre watching is the cover of that page of the indictment if we can put that up on the screen. That would be great. Here with more, we go back to Law Professor and fox news computer jonathan turley. Jonathan, im looking at that. If youre looking at the document that made it to the media talking about ten specific indictments. How do you read it as your background as the great Law Professor that you are . Youre talking about ten indictments, it has not profile of a racketeering case. Thats where willis gained her fame as a local prosecutor. You often will have large numbers of people linked in a conspiracy. To make out that case you have to esta conspirators. Few crimes are on a predicate crime list, the basis for racketeering charges. In this case theyre likely to use crimes like fraud and combine all these ago force in a large comprehensive conspiracy. Thats the most likely thing here. The problem is not that racket, the rico statutes were design
Unindicted co conspirators. What youre watching on your screen is the cover of that page of the indictment if we can put that up on the screen that would be great here. Now, with more we go back to Law Professor and Fox News Contributor Jonathan Turley. Jonathan im looking at that. If you look at the document that made it to the media talking about 10 specific indictments, how do you read it . Using your background as the great Law Professor, you are. Ah well, when youre talking about 10 of diamonds, it has that classic profile of racketeering case thats where willis really gained her fame as a local prosecutor, you often will have large numbers of people linked in a conspiracy to make out that case, you have to establish a pattern. Just a relatively few crimes are may predicate crime list. That is a list of crimes that are the basis for racketeering. I charges in this case they are likely to use crimes like fraud and combine all of these actors in a large sort of comprehensive conspir
party can call the shots on the hill for the next couple of years. right now we have a split senate right counsel the middle folks, 50 democrats, 50 republicans with the vice president able to cast that deciding vote. now, bun seat here could really change everything. the biden agenda would hang in the balance. bret: voters have been lining up at the polls throughout the day today. georgia s polls close in the next hour and pennsylvania, the hour after that. martha: but not all states count and report their votes the same way. here s where it s going to get pretty tricky and we will guide you through this tonight. georgia, pennsylvania, and wisconsin are known to be historically slow counting states. they start opening the mail-in ballots at 7:00 a.m. on election day. other states like florida and texas, they start processing those ballots that come in before election day. therefore, it will happen there probably much faster. bret: virginia is quick, too. that s why we
but the question is, is it a crime to raise them? is it a crime, even if these allegations were untrue, to make them, to a state legislature or to a court or to the public at large. the concern is that you can create a chilling effect. keep in mind, that after this election, democratic lawyers like mark elias brought challenges alleging that machines in new york flipped votes that there was machine problems there that changed the outcome essentially. no one said that was a crime and it wasn t a crime. this is are challenges that occur in close elections, the question is, do they have anything more here? can they show that these were knowingly false claims and that officials were told to violate their oaths?
is, is it a crime to raise them? is it a crime even if these allegations were untrue to make them do a state legislature or do accord or to the public at large? which the concern is that you can create a chilling effect. keep in mind that after this election, democratic lawyers like marc elias broad challenges alleging that machines in new york flipped votes that there was machine problems there that changed the outcome essentially i know. one said that that was a crime and it wasn t a crime. these are challenges that occur in close elections. the question is, do they have anything more here? can they show they are these were knowingly false claims, and they had officials were told to violate their oaths. but it s got to be more than telling