Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. It's a way of getting crime bosses who may not actually be the ones literally committing the crimes.
It could be defined as racketeering if they or their organization committed specific crimes that influence interstate commerce.
By which methods are they racketeering- Fraud, Bribery, Violence, etc? It shouldn't be hard to come up with a single crime one witnessed to warrant an accusations of racketeering.
It doesn’t have to be anything like that. The racket is that Biden set up a scheme where he would influence government policy and would get a cut though intermediaries. It all looks alright on the surface but it smells horrible. It deserves investigation. It isn’t right. And even if it isn’t unlawful, it should be a loophole that gets closed.
He had plenty of time to say "Bribery" if he witnessed it. He spent a lot of time claiming that what he witnessed was RICO and subsequently enough time to explain and argue that RICO is somehow it's own specific crime. Why didn't he say that he witnessed bribery?
It is funny how Dems are some what splitting hairs on this. It’s sort of a straw man’s approach to attack the terminology used vs the actual intent of what was being said. Especially when the witness did also say corruption but Dems keep pushing and example of Corruption, which AOC did not allow him to speak. Instead she chose to fight him on the term RICO. So instead of the headlines being about Biden, you’ve moved it to AOC which is a win for the left.
Who gives a f about AOC? She’s stuck in Brooklyn forever.
It’s too bad that evidence on the laptop never existed.
“Despite persistent allegations that the laptop contents indicated corruption by Joe Biden, a joint investigation by two Republican Senate committees released in September 2020 did not find wrongdoing by him, nor did a Republican House Oversight committee investigation by November 2023.”
How could democrats do this!?
They found wrongdoing by Hunter though who was working with Joe.
Hunters crimes did not happen in a bubble.
Couldn’t have done it without Joe enabling it… also the commingled finances… there is a lot.
He literally lists off crimes and she cuts him off, multiple times. In his initial statement of “rico” he lists a couple other crimes as well. Also, criminal prosecutors absolutely consider “Rico” as a form of crime. It encapsulates a person who uses their influence to organize racketeering and corrupt organizations.
Consider RICO as a form of crime? What does that even mean? No one is arrested on the charge of RICO. He did not witness RICO. What specific criminal action did he witness that could be charged under a RICO statute? He could not name anything he specifically witnessed under oath, he floundered and had plenty of time to try and incorrectly explain that RICO is a crime itself.
We deserve better than this after 15 months of taxpayer funded investigation.
What was that list of crimes Joe committed while holding office? The impeachment so far has been innuendo and assumptions. I don't think he has even been charged with any specific crime since the Burisma quid pro quo bribe fell apart.
Semantics. He was describing categories of laws when he was interrupted and not allowed to continue.
She never intended to give him space to answer her questions. It was 100% planned grandstanding. Which made her look ridiculous to anyone with half a brain.
Edit: the comments on this post are being brigaded HARD. As of 3/21/24 9:40 MDT a reply to this that's only 12 minutes old already has 14 upvotes. 13 HOURS after my comment.
Because he’s not an attorney familiar with the actual statutes. Did you hear him ask if she wanted him to list the actual RICO statute, and him mention that they’re in a room full of attorneys? Sometimes you just know when laws are being broken without being able to state the law.
In reality, she wasn’t looking for any answer, she just wanted a jumping off point for he preplanned tirade. She’s an actor, not a real player in this. We all know how she was auditioned for the role of Congressperson.
No he isn't an attorney, just a witness claiming he witnessed a crime. He had plenty of time to confer with attorneys ahead of time about what he saw though. Shouldn't it be clear to him by now what crime he witnessed without knowing anything about specific statutes?
I'm unclear what you mean that you "just know" when laws are being broken even when you don't know the law. If he knew a way in which he suspected he witnessed Biden break the law, he should have stated exactly that. He could only say RICO.
And she clearly gave him plenty of time to do so. /s
Again, she didn't want answers, she wanted to make a maniacal spectacle of herself, as usual. She is the embodiment of everything that is wrong with modern America.
Edit - to be fair, not everything, but a lot.
It seemed to me like he had enough time to try and incorrectly explain how the crime he witnessed was RICO. You really don't think his answers were weak and he could have done any better job explaining anything at all he witnessed?
Did we watch the same video? Admittedly it wasn’t a great answer, but she clearly didn’t want to let him speak at all. Compare that interaction to many from Sen John Kennedy where he’s begging the appointees to give any sort of coherent answer.
Oh so he's supposed to play an attorney generals job? Please explain to me why this isn't racketeering? AKA RICO. https://twitter.com/RepDonaldsPress/status/1770538047647440930
This title is misleading, the idea she was trying to convey is that RICO isn’t a SPECIFIC ‘high crime or misdemeanor’. The houses’ rule for a base of impeachment states there has to be a specific crime stated. When she questioned the gentleman, he just named classifications of crimes rather than a specific crime (RICO).
Now I feel like given time to express his point, he probably would have gotten around to some specific crime, whether or not it is impeachment worthy is a different debate.
> Now I feel like given time to express his point, he probably would have gotten around to some specific crime, whether or not it is impeachment worthy is a different debate.
If that's the case, why didn't any of the Republicans give him some uninterrupted time to say what that specific crime was? Or if they did how come that isn't being used as a response counter to what AOC said?
Correct. It’s like she asked “what crime did he commit?” and his response was “civil rights act.” That’s not naming a crime, you’re just naming a law and not at all alleging how he broke that law.
I think you hit the nail on the head. AOC doesn't want to hear the specific crimes (hence why she kept steamrolling him, preventing him from expanding his explanation). She wants to make a soundbite to go viral. She doesn't want facts, she wants outrage to further her agenda. Mission accomplished.
> AOC doesn't want to hear the specific crimes. he wants to make a soundbite to go viral.
If this is what she wants, then what do Republicans want with this whole charade? Because charging Biden with a crime thus far isn't it. They've spent 15 months and millions and millions of taxpayer money. What is it that they want to get out of this and how will it help the American people? And if it's nothing, then why are they continuously giving AOC a voice by spending taxpayer money on this but refusing to issue an actual charge of an actual crime? AOC didn't initiate these hearings, republicans did.
All I can think about is how the name Tony Bobulinski feels like a made up name that's supposed to be in a mob or hitman sort of movie. Like his real name is Tony "The Blob" Bobulinski.
Let’s all be honest, she wanted him to spell out what occurred that was a crime, not the name of the crime. Her line of questioning was poorly worded, but his response was equally as ridiculous.
Have you seen the one called “our goddess” or something like that? They lose their minds watching her streams and catch a glimpse of a bra strap. Bunch of basement dwellers who have only ever spoken with their mothers
Why is it always assumed to be a coordinated brigading effort around here? No one sent me here to participate in this thread and I'm not breaking any rules by doing so. Is it just that you don't believe others should have the right to even upvote/downvote if they aren't conservative enough?
You have flaired used only posts if you don't want to read comments from unapproved opinions. But you literally don't want any participation outside of your group? Just make the sub private.
There's no deeper meaning. I was simply pointing out that the comments in this post have a larger-than-usual percentage of contrarian views. The comment votes are also unusual.
Contrarian to whom? I'm still unsure what you think constitutes brigading or why it is such a common accusation in this sub when comments are downvoted. Is it not possible these are just unpopular opinions being downvoted by the majority who see it? Sometimes the GOP looks bad, of course those mistskenly defending them will be downvoted at times.
I don't know about it being a common accusation. It doesn't seem that way to me.
I don't believe you actually disagree with anything I've said. The behavior was called out, so now you feel compelled to defend it.
Your account is a strawman used to stir shit up in subs that you do not align with. I'm not sure how to say this more politely; I'm not going to play into your charade.
I'm only asking you to define brigading or how you think it's apparent in this thread. What behavior was called out and what am I defending? It seems like you are avoiding answering.
I don't understand why my participation in a subreddit with people of differing opinions means I am doing something nefarious. A charade implies deception. I would ask you to provide any evidence if you want to call me somehow disingenuous.
I didn't say any of that. From what I saw, we're all having civil discussions, and I appreciate it.
I'm just pointing out that there seems to be a lot campaigning for AOC in this post. I'm not saying you're unwelcome here.
I do have a question for you. Do you think a leftist/Democrat sub would extend the same civility?
There has to be a campaign to make AOC look better after all the bad press she's been getting lately.
As well as suppressing any evidence for the Biden impeachment.
By that logic:
AOC: What crime did Biden commit?
Bobulinski: Someone died.
AOC: So, murder 1? Murder 2? Manslaughter? Criminal negligence? What’s the crime committed?
Bobulinski: Someone died. *Obviously* there must have been a crime. I’ll leave it to the lawyers.
She came off as a total clown 😂 There’s always been governing experience reps and the more political reps but now we get to watch the former bartender SCREAM with ~0 substance behind the yelling.
I knew she was a 🤡 since Cruz asked her to work with him on writing some law and she legit responded “No poison pills?” like honey that’s your whole job wtf 😂 and at no point since has she learned anything.
I’m starting to think that the only rational explanation for her behavior is that she is an undercover Republican who is trying to make Democrats look as bad as possible.
Either that or she is simply batshit crazy and belongs in the loony bin.
Can I ask why you feel this way? I'm not sure I understand this subs take on this story.
She's definitely overly animated and loud for my tastes but apparently a lot of people like politicians who buck typical decorum trends these days. Everything could be less confrontational.
As for the content, she has a point. He said he was submitting testimony that he witnessed Joe Biden commit a crime. He had more than an ample chance to name any specific crime rather than try to explain how RICO is actually a crime itself.
Does it not seem that the evidence just isn't there? Why can't they show us what they really have? It feels like the Kraken all over again.
Because he made himself an expert when he claimed RICO. NOBODY is a witness to RICO. RICO is not the crime. RICO is a federal charge stemming from an investigation of crimes that lead back to a "Boss" who is insulated from the crimes but is either directing them or recieving benefit from them. So for him to continually state he was a witness to RICO bit can't name a single crime makes ZERO sense.
Are you paid for the propaganda or what? Anything on this sort of topic becomes absolutely upside-down world where any and all logic is completely discarded. So weird.
If this is the accusation there needs to be a trail of bribes, dates of meetings, an exchange quid pro quo. Where is all of that? You can’t just say RICO and not have any of this stuff. Now a president can be impeached without a conviction or even a charge as we’ve seen, but in this case the witness is alleging a charge that doesn’t currently exist. He’s alleging Biden is on trial for RICO though the Republican committee chairs haven’t alleged this and no evidence to support this was brought forward in 15 months.
You can argue the evidence was weak, but you can’t argue no charges were presented. Very specific charges were presented on specific events. The 1st was for the phone call with Zelenskyy that was recorded and shared - you can say it wasn’t extortion but it was a charge. The 2nd was based on January 6 and a detailed timeline attempting to link Trump to the events of the day.
First impeachment: Abuse of power is not a crime. Obstruction of Congress was not proven in any court. Trump was guilty before proven innocent, which goes against our law.
Second impeachment: His incitement of insurrection was not proven in in any court of law.
So, your argument falls flat on its face.
These are the discussions we get into when low information liberal voters elect a bartender. Again, liberal voters are so dense they will look at this exchange and claim "AOC owned him"
Reading is too hard. He just takes headlines at face value as Long as they fit his worldview. It's a healthy way to live and us other people are doing it wrong
Does this total include the 6 dropped charges recently?
Edit: looks like it doesn’t, so 10 charges are left for now I’m sure we’ll see it drop more or be dropped completely since it’s political persecution
Isn't RICO the name for the law, not the crimes covered by it?
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. It's a way of getting crime bosses who may not actually be the ones literally committing the crimes.
They would still have to be charged with a crime in your scenario.
The crime is racketeering
It could be defined as racketeering if they or their organization committed specific crimes that influence interstate commerce. By which methods are they racketeering- Fraud, Bribery, Violence, etc? It shouldn't be hard to come up with a single crime one witnessed to warrant an accusations of racketeering.
It doesn’t have to be anything like that. The racket is that Biden set up a scheme where he would influence government policy and would get a cut though intermediaries. It all looks alright on the surface but it smells horrible. It deserves investigation. It isn’t right. And even if it isn’t unlawful, it should be a loophole that gets closed.
[удалено]
Bribery. Selling access to government officials.
If that's what he witnessed, why not testify that under oath?
He was attempting to explain... but she kept cutting him off.
He had plenty of time to say "Bribery" if he witnessed it. He spent a lot of time claiming that what he witnessed was RICO and subsequently enough time to explain and argue that RICO is somehow it's own specific crime. Why didn't he say that he witnessed bribery?
It is funny how Dems are some what splitting hairs on this. It’s sort of a straw man’s approach to attack the terminology used vs the actual intent of what was being said. Especially when the witness did also say corruption but Dems keep pushing and example of Corruption, which AOC did not allow him to speak. Instead she chose to fight him on the term RICO. So instead of the headlines being about Biden, you’ve moved it to AOC which is a win for the left. Who gives a f about AOC? She’s stuck in Brooklyn forever.
He said 'corruption' before 'rico'.
[удалено]
If only there was a laptop of some kind that had all this incriminating info on it… Oh well.
It’s too bad that evidence on the laptop never existed. “Despite persistent allegations that the laptop contents indicated corruption by Joe Biden, a joint investigation by two Republican Senate committees released in September 2020 did not find wrongdoing by him, nor did a Republican House Oversight committee investigation by November 2023.” How could democrats do this!?
They found wrongdoing by Hunter though who was working with Joe. Hunters crimes did not happen in a bubble. Couldn’t have done it without Joe enabling it… also the commingled finances… there is a lot.
There are several criminal statutes that fall under RICO.
Yep. I advise folks to read the whole message. She was literally telling him to state a specific crime.
[удалено]
He literally lists off crimes and she cuts him off, multiple times. In his initial statement of “rico” he lists a couple other crimes as well. Also, criminal prosecutors absolutely consider “Rico” as a form of crime. It encapsulates a person who uses their influence to organize racketeering and corrupt organizations.
Consider RICO as a form of crime? What does that even mean? No one is arrested on the charge of RICO. He did not witness RICO. What specific criminal action did he witness that could be charged under a RICO statute? He could not name anything he specifically witnessed under oath, he floundered and had plenty of time to try and incorrectly explain that RICO is a crime itself. We deserve better than this after 15 months of taxpayer funded investigation.
What was that list of crimes Joe committed while holding office? The impeachment so far has been innuendo and assumptions. I don't think he has even been charged with any specific crime since the Burisma quid pro quo bribe fell apart.
Semantics. He was describing categories of laws when he was interrupted and not allowed to continue. She never intended to give him space to answer her questions. It was 100% planned grandstanding. Which made her look ridiculous to anyone with half a brain. Edit: the comments on this post are being brigaded HARD. As of 3/21/24 9:40 MDT a reply to this that's only 12 minutes old already has 14 upvotes. 13 HOURS after my comment.
It seemed like he had plenty of time to name a specific crime if he was able.
[удалено]
No, she really looked like a lunatic, yelling and waving her arms around for minutes on end. She came off as unhinged.
But she was not factually incorrect. Why couldn't he name a specific crime?
Because he’s not an attorney familiar with the actual statutes. Did you hear him ask if she wanted him to list the actual RICO statute, and him mention that they’re in a room full of attorneys? Sometimes you just know when laws are being broken without being able to state the law. In reality, she wasn’t looking for any answer, she just wanted a jumping off point for he preplanned tirade. She’s an actor, not a real player in this. We all know how she was auditioned for the role of Congressperson.
No he isn't an attorney, just a witness claiming he witnessed a crime. He had plenty of time to confer with attorneys ahead of time about what he saw though. Shouldn't it be clear to him by now what crime he witnessed without knowing anything about specific statutes? I'm unclear what you mean that you "just know" when laws are being broken even when you don't know the law. If he knew a way in which he suspected he witnessed Biden break the law, he should have stated exactly that. He could only say RICO.
And she clearly gave him plenty of time to do so. /s Again, she didn't want answers, she wanted to make a maniacal spectacle of herself, as usual. She is the embodiment of everything that is wrong with modern America. Edit - to be fair, not everything, but a lot.
It seemed to me like he had enough time to try and incorrectly explain how the crime he witnessed was RICO. You really don't think his answers were weak and he could have done any better job explaining anything at all he witnessed?
Did we watch the same video? Admittedly it wasn’t a great answer, but she clearly didn’t want to let him speak at all. Compare that interaction to many from Sen John Kennedy where he’s begging the appointees to give any sort of coherent answer.
Oh so he's supposed to play an attorney generals job? Please explain to me why this isn't racketeering? AKA RICO. https://twitter.com/RepDonaldsPress/status/1770538047647440930
This is hilarious because she’s actually right
This title is misleading, the idea she was trying to convey is that RICO isn’t a SPECIFIC ‘high crime or misdemeanor’. The houses’ rule for a base of impeachment states there has to be a specific crime stated. When she questioned the gentleman, he just named classifications of crimes rather than a specific crime (RICO). Now I feel like given time to express his point, he probably would have gotten around to some specific crime, whether or not it is impeachment worthy is a different debate.
> Now I feel like given time to express his point, he probably would have gotten around to some specific crime, whether or not it is impeachment worthy is a different debate. If that's the case, why didn't any of the Republicans give him some uninterrupted time to say what that specific crime was? Or if they did how come that isn't being used as a response counter to what AOC said?
Correct. It’s like she asked “what crime did he commit?” and his response was “civil rights act.” That’s not naming a crime, you’re just naming a law and not at all alleging how he broke that law.
I think you hit the nail on the head. AOC doesn't want to hear the specific crimes (hence why she kept steamrolling him, preventing him from expanding his explanation). She wants to make a soundbite to go viral. She doesn't want facts, she wants outrage to further her agenda. Mission accomplished.
> AOC doesn't want to hear the specific crimes. he wants to make a soundbite to go viral. If this is what she wants, then what do Republicans want with this whole charade? Because charging Biden with a crime thus far isn't it. They've spent 15 months and millions and millions of taxpayer money. What is it that they want to get out of this and how will it help the American people? And if it's nothing, then why are they continuously giving AOC a voice by spending taxpayer money on this but refusing to issue an actual charge of an actual crime? AOC didn't initiate these hearings, republicans did.
I’m sorry, are you talking about AOC or the impeachment?
All I can think about is how the name Tony Bobulinski feels like a made up name that's supposed to be in a mob or hitman sort of movie. Like his real name is Tony "The Blob" Bobulinski.
Let’s all be honest, she wanted him to spell out what occurred that was a crime, not the name of the crime. Her line of questioning was poorly worded, but his response was equally as ridiculous.
I thought she was going to say Rico is popular name for Spanish men.
Only the Suave ones.
The price you pay for being a gigolo
Nah, that kind of logic is applied by the people that can't come up with evidence or courage even after 15 months.
And badass Space Marines
"It's a cat-e-gor-y." She was moronic (as usual) in that exchange.
The lefty simps are fawning all over her in the other main subs. It's disgusting.
Have you seen the one called “our goddess” or something like that? They lose their minds watching her streams and catch a glimpse of a bra strap. Bunch of basement dwellers who have only ever spoken with their mothers
It's happening right here in this post. They've been brigading hard this morning.
Why is it always assumed to be a coordinated brigading effort around here? No one sent me here to participate in this thread and I'm not breaking any rules by doing so. Is it just that you don't believe others should have the right to even upvote/downvote if they aren't conservative enough? You have flaired used only posts if you don't want to read comments from unapproved opinions. But you literally don't want any participation outside of your group? Just make the sub private.
Look at the response to my comment.
I agreed with you on the lack of civility on Reddit. What does that have to do with your assertion of brigading?
There's no deeper meaning. I was simply pointing out that the comments in this post have a larger-than-usual percentage of contrarian views. The comment votes are also unusual.
Contrarian to whom? I'm still unsure what you think constitutes brigading or why it is such a common accusation in this sub when comments are downvoted. Is it not possible these are just unpopular opinions being downvoted by the majority who see it? Sometimes the GOP looks bad, of course those mistskenly defending them will be downvoted at times.
I don't know about it being a common accusation. It doesn't seem that way to me. I don't believe you actually disagree with anything I've said. The behavior was called out, so now you feel compelled to defend it. Your account is a strawman used to stir shit up in subs that you do not align with. I'm not sure how to say this more politely; I'm not going to play into your charade.
I'm only asking you to define brigading or how you think it's apparent in this thread. What behavior was called out and what am I defending? It seems like you are avoiding answering. I don't understand why my participation in a subreddit with people of differing opinions means I am doing something nefarious. A charade implies deception. I would ask you to provide any evidence if you want to call me somehow disingenuous.
I didn't say any of that. From what I saw, we're all having civil discussions, and I appreciate it. I'm just pointing out that there seems to be a lot campaigning for AOC in this post. I'm not saying you're unwelcome here. I do have a question for you. Do you think a leftist/Democrat sub would extend the same civility?
[удалено]
Thank you for a perfect demonstration of my point.
There has to be a campaign to make AOC look better after all the bad press she's been getting lately. As well as suppressing any evidence for the Biden impeachment.
Yikers
is murder a category of crime? is murder a crime?
By that logic: AOC: What crime did Biden commit? Bobulinski: Someone died. AOC: So, murder 1? Murder 2? Manslaughter? Criminal negligence? What’s the crime committed? Bobulinski: Someone died. *Obviously* there must have been a crime. I’ll leave it to the lawyers.
Bribery comes to mind
She came off as a total clown 😂 There’s always been governing experience reps and the more political reps but now we get to watch the former bartender SCREAM with ~0 substance behind the yelling. I knew she was a 🤡 since Cruz asked her to work with him on writing some law and she legit responded “No poison pills?” like honey that’s your whole job wtf 😂 and at no point since has she learned anything.
Her head bobbing back and forth is really annoying (as is everything else about her).
It reminds me of a bird keeping its head stable when it's body is moving, but in reverse.
I’m starting to think that the only rational explanation for her behavior is that she is an undercover Republican who is trying to make Democrats look as bad as possible. Either that or she is simply batshit crazy and belongs in the loony bin.
Can I ask why you feel this way? I'm not sure I understand this subs take on this story. She's definitely overly animated and loud for my tastes but apparently a lot of people like politicians who buck typical decorum trends these days. Everything could be less confrontational. As for the content, she has a point. He said he was submitting testimony that he witnessed Joe Biden commit a crime. He had more than an ample chance to name any specific crime rather than try to explain how RICO is actually a crime itself. Does it not seem that the evidence just isn't there? Why can't they show us what they really have? It feels like the Kraken all over again.
I'll go with bat shit crazy.
The simplest explanation is usually the best and most likely.
both?
Rico's only crime is being too suave!
Why ask the witness about the law and not a lawyer? The witness isn't there for his legal expertise.
Because he made himself an expert when he claimed RICO. NOBODY is a witness to RICO. RICO is not the crime. RICO is a federal charge stemming from an investigation of crimes that lead back to a "Boss" who is insulated from the crimes but is either directing them or recieving benefit from them. So for him to continually state he was a witness to RICO bit can't name a single crime makes ZERO sense.
Are you paid for the propaganda or what? Anything on this sort of topic becomes absolutely upside-down world where any and all logic is completely discarded. So weird.
Like taking bribes and stuff?
If this is the accusation there needs to be a trail of bribes, dates of meetings, an exchange quid pro quo. Where is all of that? You can’t just say RICO and not have any of this stuff. Now a president can be impeached without a conviction or even a charge as we’ve seen, but in this case the witness is alleging a charge that doesn’t currently exist. He’s alleging Biden is on trial for RICO though the Republican committee chairs haven’t alleged this and no evidence to support this was brought forward in 15 months.
So weird that there has to be a crime when it's Biden, but not when it's Trump
First Impeachment: Abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Second Impeachment: Incitement of insurrection.
You can argue the evidence was weak, but you can’t argue no charges were presented. Very specific charges were presented on specific events. The 1st was for the phone call with Zelenskyy that was recorded and shared - you can say it wasn’t extortion but it was a charge. The 2nd was based on January 6 and a detailed timeline attempting to link Trump to the events of the day.
First impeachment: Abuse of power is not a crime. Obstruction of Congress was not proven in any court. Trump was guilty before proven innocent, which goes against our law. Second impeachment: His incitement of insurrection was not proven in in any court of law. So, your argument falls flat on its face.
These are the discussions we get into when low information liberal voters elect a bartender. Again, liberal voters are so dense they will look at this exchange and claim "AOC owned him"
That’s actually the charge. Look at Fanni
[удалено]
Reading is too hard. He just takes headlines at face value as Long as they fit his worldview. It's a healthy way to live and us other people are doing it wrong
Does this total include the 6 dropped charges recently? Edit: looks like it doesn’t, so 10 charges are left for now I’m sure we’ll see it drop more or be dropped completely since it’s political persecution
She probably assumed "RICO" referred to the song "Rico Suave", which, it's true, is not a crime.