Was Paul Ryan (or others) an accessory after the fact?

Politics

[View here as a Twitter thread]

 Can we run that test to see if mid-sized fish, like Paul Ryan, was an accessory after the fact? Certainly. Take out your notebooks. It’s time for Twitter Law 101.

2/ The method is known to law students everywhere as IRAC: I: Issue (a question) R: Rule (the law) A: Analysis (apply the facts to the law) C: Conclusion issue: Was Ryan an accessory after the fact? (The underlying crime is a cyber attack & the dissemination of stolen email.)

3/ Rule: Look up the law & list the elements.  A person (1) knowing that an offense against the US has been committed, (2) receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender (3) in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment.

4/ To get a conviction, a prosecutor has to prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt. Next, we do the analysis. Here is where you research the “facts” and apply the facts to each element.

5/ My hunch, without researching the facts, is that you’ll be able to show Ryan knew a crime was committed. (Element 1) But I suspect you’ll have a hard time showing Element 2, and an even harder time showing that he acted from an INTENT to assist the perpetrators (Element 3).

6/ Now, someone like Nunes, on the other hand . . . that might be easier.

It’s worth noting that Trump probably violated 18 U.S. § 1513(e) when he revoked Brennan’s security clearance.https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1513 …
This is part of Trump’s pattern of disregarding norms and laws

7/ Adding: Federal prosecutors have a high conviction rate. This is partly because of the caliber of investigations. It’s also partly because they only bring charges they are sure they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt–meaning compelling evidence for each element.

Scroll to Top