On August 1, Chris Matthews, MSNBC’s noted political analyst, wrapped up his “Hardball” program with a search for “options.”
Specifically, he wanted to learn what it would take to avoid another round of Republican extortion tactics.
“I want to know what steps the president ‘could’ have taken to avoid this hostage-taking.
“…Is there another way than either buckling to the Republicans or letting the government and the country crash?
“How does he use the power of the presidency, the logic, emotion and basic patriotism of the people to thwart those willing to threaten, disrupt, even possibly destroy to get their way?”
Now, the remedy:
In 1970, Congress passed the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1961-1968.
Congress’ goal was to eliminate the ill-affects of organized crime on the nation’s economy. To put it bluntly, RICO was intended to destroy the Mafia.
In the 1980s, however, civil lawyers noticed section 1964(c) of the RICO Act. This allows civil claims to be brought by anyone injured in their business or property by reason of a RICO violation.
Anyone who prevailed in a a civil RICO suit would automatically receive judgment of three times their actual damages and would be awarded their costs and attorneys’ fees.
Originally, the RICO Act was aimed at the Mafia and other organized crime syndicates. But in United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576 (1981), the Supreme Court held that RICO applied to both legitimate and illegitimate RICO enterprises.
Previously, many lower courts had tried to limit RICO to recognized “criminal” enterprises. After Turkette, RICO could also be used against corporations, political protest groups, labor unions and loosely knit-groups of people.
Today, RICO is applied to not only the Mafia but to individuals, businesses, political protest groups, and terrorist organizations. In short, a RICO claim can arise in almost any context.
RICO opens with a series of definitions of “racketeering activity” which can be prosecuted by Justice Department attorneys. Among those crimes: Extortion.
Extortion is defined as “a criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person(s), entity, or institution, through coercion.”
The RICO Act defines “a pattern of racketeering activity” as “at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the effective date of this chapter and the last of which occurred within ten years…. after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity.”
And should President Obama believe that RICO isn’t sufficient to deal with extortionate behavior, he can rely on the USA Patriot Act of 2001, passed in the wake of 9/11.
In Section 802, the Act defines domestic terrorism. Among the behavior that is defined as criminal:
“Activities that…appear to be intended…to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion [and]…occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”
The remedies for punishing such criminal behavior are now legally in place. President Obama need only direct the Justice Department to apply them.
- President Obama could direct Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate whether recent actions by Republican Congressman—and their Tea Party cohorts—broke Federal anti-racketeering and/or anti-terrorism laws.
- Holder, in turn, would order the FBI to conduct that investigation.
- If the FBI found sufficient evidence that these laws had been violated, Holder could empanel criminal grand juries to indict those violators.
The fact that members of Congress would be criminally investigated and possibly indicted would not violate the separation-of-powers principle. Congressmen have in the past been investigated, indicted and convicted for various criminal offenses.
Such indictments and prosecutions–and especially convictions–would serve notice on current and future members of Congress that the lives and fortunes of American citizens may not be held hostage as part of a negotiated settlement.
Not only would this be legally defensable, there are solid moral grounds for it. Niccolo Machiavelli, the father of political science, devotes a chapter to “Promises Enacted By Force Need Not Be Honored” in his masterpiece, The Discourses.
Specifically, he writes:
“…There is no disgrace in disregarding promises that have been exacted by force. Promises touching public affairs, and which have been given under the pressure of force, will always be disregarded when that force no longer exists, and this involves no dishonor.”
There is, in short, “another way than either buckling to the Republicans or letting the government and the country crash.” It is to replace the law of fear with the rule of law.
Bureaucracybuster's Blog 
2016 REPUBLICAN CONVENTION, ABC NEWS, AFFORDABLE CARE ACT (ACA), BARACK OBAMA, BILL CLINTON, CBS NEWS, CHRIS MATTHEWS, CNN, CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS, DEBT CEILING, DONALD TRUMP, EXTORTION, FACEBOOK, HARDBALL, JOHN F. KENNEDY, JUDGE MERRICK GARLAND, MAFIA, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEWT GINGRICH, NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI, OBAMACARE, Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, REPUBLICANS, RICHARD WOLFFE, ROBERT PAYNE, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LIFE AND DEATH OF ADOLF HITLER, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE PRINCE, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, U.S. SENATE, U.S. SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL, U.S. SUPREME COURT, USA PATRIOT ACT, WARREN BUFFETT
REPUBLICANS: EXTORTION IS US: PART ONE (OF FOUR)
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on March 22, 2016 at 12:01 amOn March 16, Donald Trump, the front-runner for the Republican Presidential nomination, issued a warning to his fellow Right-wingers: If he didn’t win the GOP nomination at the convention in July, his supporters would literally riot.
“I think we’ll win before getting to the convention. But I can tell you if we didn’t, if we’re 20 votes short or if we’re 100 short and we’re at 1,100 and somebody else is at 500 or 400…I don’t think you can say that we don’t get it automatically. I think you’d have riots.
“I think you would see problems like you’ve never seen before. I think bad things would happen. I really do. I wouldn’t lead it, but I think bad things would happen.”
Donald Trump
An NBC reporter summed it up as follows: “As Trump indicated, there is a very real possibility he might lose the nomination if he wins only a plurality of delegates thanks to party rules that allow delegates to support different candidates after the initial ballot.
“In that context, the message to Republicans was clear on [March 16]: Nice convention you got there, shame if something happened to it.”
Anyone who’s ever watched a Mafia movie has heard similar threats: “You really ought to think about paying that protection money. Nice family you got–it would be a shame if anything happened to ’em.”
Paul Ryan, Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives, was quick to respond.
On March 17, he said that it was “unacceptable” for Trump to suggest there would be rioting if he was not chosen as the Republican nominee.
“Nobody should say such things in my opinion because to even address or hint to violence is unacceptable.”
Paul Ryan
And Ohio governor and Republican presidential candidate John Kasich chinned in. “Leaders don’t imply violence,” Kasich told “Face the Nation” on March 20.
“When he says that there could be riots, that’s inappropriate. I think you understand that, okay? Secondly, while we have our differences and disagreements, we’re Americans. Americans don’t say, ‘Let’s take to the streets and have violence.’
John Kasich
“I don’t even want to use the word ‘riots’ or ‘violence.’ That’s inappropriate. Our kids are watching. Now…that doesn’t mean I’m not running a positive campaign, but those kind of comments are way out of bounds. Frankly, they’re outrageous,” said Kasich.”
Yet, for all their public outrage, Republicans are no strangers to the uses of extortion and threats. Their tactics are straight out of the playbook of Adolf Hitler.
Robert Payne, author of the bestselling biography, The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler (1973), described the “negotiating” style of the Nazi dictator thus:
“Although Hitler prized his own talents as a negotiator, a man always capable of striking a good bargain, he was totally lacking in finesse. He was incapable of bargaining. He was like a man who goes up to a fruit peddler and threatens to blow his brains out if he does not sell his applies at the lowest possible price.”
In 1994, Newt Gingrich, then Speaker of the House of Representatives, shut down the Federal Government. Officially, the reason was a budget impasse with President Bill Clinton.
Unofficially–and in reality–the reason was altogether different: Clinton had forced him to sit in the back of Air Force One on a trip to Israel for the funeral of former prime minister Yitzhak Rabin.
“This is petty,” Gingrich confessed to startled reporters. “I’m going to say up front it’s petty, But I think it’s human.
“When you land at Andrews [Air Force Base, in Washington, D.C.] and you’ve been on the plane for 25 hours and nobody has talked to you and they ask you to get off by the back ramp….You just wonder, where is their sense of manners, where is their sense of courtesy?”
Gingrich’s childish verbal tirade was a public relations disaster for the Republicans. “Cry Baby,” screamed the New York Daily News, next to a picture of Gingrich in a diaper.
When House Democrats brought a poster-sized image of the cartoon onto the floor, the Republican majority forced them to remove it.
But the damage was done, and Republicans paid a fearful price at the polls for the shutdown and Gingrich’s candor about the reason for it, losing heavily in the House and Senate.
Still, the Republicans continued their policy of my-way-or-else.
In April, 2011, the United States government almost shut down over Republican demands about subsidized pap smears.
During a late-night White House meeting with President Barack Obama and key Congressional leaders, Republican House Speaker John Boehner made this threat:
His conference would not approve funding for the government if any money were allowed to flow to Planned Parenthood through Title X legislation.
Facing an April 8 deadline, negotiators worked day and night to strike a compromise–and finally reached one.
Three months later–on July 9–Republican extortionists again threatened the Nation with financial ruin and international disgrace unless their demands were met.
Sign of The Black Hand
President Obama had offered to make historic cuts in the federal government and the social safety net–on which millions of Americans depend for their most basic needs.
But House Speaker John Boehner rejected that offer. He would not agree to the tax increases that Democrats wanted to impose on the wealthiest 1% as part of the bargain.
John Boehner
Share this: