Tag Archives: Agent provocateur

Dec 12 2018

Canada Grants Bail to Huawei Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on December 11, 2018 by

The CFO of Huawei has been released on bail pending her extradition hearing to the United States. Ms. Meng will have to wear and ankle monitor and travel with security agents until her next hearing on February 6th.

(Via NBC) A Vancouver judge set a $10 million CAD bail ($7.5 million U.S.) for Huawei Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou Tuesday, capping a week of increasing trade tensions and strong market reactions around the dispute between the Department of Justice and one of China’s largest hardware companies.

The United States had asked the Vancouver court to deny bail for Meng, whose father is a billionaire and a founder of Huawei, calling her a flight risk. Canada has been expected to extradite Meng to the United States over charges that the company improperly took payments from Iran in violation of sanctions against the country.

Meng’s next moves will be closely watched, but it is likely with her corporate and family connections that she will be able to make bail. The $10 million CAD includes $7 million CAD cash and $3 million CAD more from five or more guarantors, presented by Meng and her attorney’s as sureties that she would remain in the country.

As conditions of the bail agreement, Meng must surrender her passports, wear a GPS tracking device and be accompanied by security detail whenever she leaves her residence.

“We have every confidence that the Canadian and U.S. legal systems will reach a just conclusion in the following proceedings,” Huawei said in a statement following the bail hearing. “As we have stressed all along, Huawei complies with all applicable laws and regulations in the countries and regions where we operate, including export control and sanction laws of the UN, U.S. and EU.”  (read more)

Dec 12 2018

President Trump Signs HR 390 and Delivers Remarks to the Media…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on December 11, 2018 by

President Trump signs H.R. 390: The “Iraq and Syria Genocide Relief and Accountability Act of 2018,” which authorizes assistance to entities engaged in aiding individuals and communities in Iraq or Syria who are being, or are likely to be, targeted for genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes.

After signing the bill [@03:00] President Trump took questions from the media.

Dec 12 2018

Flynn Sentencing Memo Outlines the Set-up Created by Andrew McCabe…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on December 11, 2018 by

The defense team for Michael Flynn presents their sentencing memo [see here] to support the special counsel recommendation.  However, within the memo the Flynn team smartly uses pre-approved (by Special Counsel) language to highlight how the FBI structured the set up  Yes, Flynn’s lawyers had to get permission to write this:

(pdf link)

The FBI knew the content of the Flynn call with Sergey Kislyak because they were listening in.  The FBI were intercepting those communications.  So when Pence said no-one had any contact on January 15th, the FBI crew IMMEDIATELY knew they had a bombshell issue to exploit.

We see the evidence of the FBI knowing they had an issue to exploit, and being very nervous about doing it, in the messages between Lisa Page and FBI Agent Peter Strzok who would end up doing the questioning of Flynn.

The day before the Flynn interview:

♦January 23, 2017, the day before the Flynn interview, Peter Strzok says: “I can feel my heart beating harder, I’m so stressed about all the ways THIS has the potential to go fully off the rails.” Weird!

♦Page replies: “I know. I just talked with John, we’re getting together as soon as I get in to finish that write up for Andy (MCCABE) this morning.” Page agrees with Strzok about being stressed that “THIS” could go off the rails… (Strzok’s meeting w Flynn the next day)

Why would Page & Strzok be stressed about “THIS” potentially going off the rails?  The answer is simple: they knew the content of the phone call between Mike Flynn and Sergey Kislyak because they were listening in, and they were about to exploit the Pence statement to CBS.  That’s why they were so nervous.  They were planning and plotting with Andrew McCabe about how they were going to exploit the phone-tap.

I’m not convinced that Flynn lied.  There’s a good possibility Flynn was honest but his honesty contradicted Pence’s national statement on CBS; and he likely tried to dance through a needle without being overly critical of VP-elect Pence misspeaking.   Remember, the alternative, if Flynn is brutally honest, is for the media to run with a narrative about Vice-President Pence is now a national liar in the media.

That’s why the issue of how the FBI interviewers write the 302 summary of the interview becomes such an important facet.   We see that dynamic again playing out in the messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok with Andrew McCabe providing the guidance.

♦February 14th, 2017, text messages – here is a note about the FBI reports filed from the Flynn interview.  Peter Strzok asks Lisa Page if FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe is OK with his report: “Also, is Andy good with F-302?”

Lisa Page replies: “Launch on F 302”.

That would be Flynn’s 302.  The FBI interpretation of the Flynn interview, is now the way the FBI can control the interview content…. and, specifically because the only recourse Flynn would have to contradict that FBI interpretation would be to compromise the Vice President… Flynn cannot challenge the structure of the narrative within the 302 outline.

See what happened?

It is important to note the operational DOJ and FBI never pursued Flynn.  It was the special counsel, Robert Mueller’s group, who targeted Flynn with instructions and support from Rod Rosenstein.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller, in later effort to help the scheme team cover-up the entire surveillance operation, charged Flynn (full pdf) with falsely telling FBI agents that he did not ask the ambassador “to refrain from escalating the situation” in response to the sanctions.

According to the plea, while being questioned by FBI agents on January 24, 2017, Flynn also lied when he claimed he could not recall a subsequent conversation with Kislyak, in which the ambassador told Flynn that the Putin regime had “chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of [Flynn’s] request.”

Furthermore, a week before the sanctions were imposed, Flynn had also spoken to Kislyak, asking the ambassador to delay or defeat a vote on a pending United Nations resolution.

The criminal complaint charges Flynn lied to the FBI by denying both that he’d made this request and that he’d spoken afterward with Kislyak about Russia’s response to it.

There was nothing wrong with the incoming national-security adviser’s having meetings with foreign counterparts or discussing such matters as the sanctions in those meetings.

However, lying to the FBI -or McCabe structuring the FBI position of the 302’s to give the appearance of Flynn lying- is the process crime that led to Flynn’s admissions.

Dec 12 2018

DOJ Submits Sentencing Memo for SSCI Leaker James Wolfe – Recommends Two Year Prison Term…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on December 11, 2018 by

The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a 35-page sentencing memo (full pdf below) recommending a two-year prison term for busted Senate Intelligence Committee Director of Security, James Wolfe.   The DOJ is seeking a term of imprisonment above the guidelines for the plea of lying to federal investigators.

The DOJ sentencing recommendation outlines the events surrounding the FBI investigation of Wolfe, and provides a more fulsome picture of the issues faced when a top-tier staff member of the legislative branch is suspected of leaking classified intelligence.

The DOJ notes the challenge presented when the executive branch is investigating a critical internal office of the legislative branch.   While James Wolfe was never actually charged with leaking classified documents, the type of leaks he participated in and the resulting media reports which drew from his information network – certainly implies there was classified documentary evidence leaked; the DOJ claims they cannot prove it.

Given the direct evidence of corrupt and politically motivated conduct by officials within the DOJ and FBI the sentencing memo is an interesting read with multiple facets for consideration.

Here’s the DOJ Sentencing Memo.  It’s worth reading, slowly:

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/395499292/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-UJ4eKkfwGKMU96aP4z31

.

The defense team for James Wolfe also filed their own sentencing memo [SEE HERE] which contains a lot of contradictory information when contrast with the DOJ outline of events.   The defense position is that Wolfe deserves no jail time and only probation with limited community service.

[pdf link of defense memo]

Additionally, James Wolfe gets support from key SSCI politicians Mark Warner, Dianne Feinstein and Richard Burr.  And there’s a lengthy hand-written letter from former Director of national intelligence, James Clapper, requesting leniency. [SEE HERE]

Dec 12 2018

Stormy Daniels and Michael Avenatti Ordered to Pay $293,055 to Trump Lawyers…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on December 11, 2018 by

(Link to Court Order)

Dec 12 2018

Panda Plays: China Lowers Auto Trade Tariffs – The Dance Continues….


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree house on December 11, 2018 by

Early this morning China transmitted and interesting tweet position that was/is a transparent display of their panda mask. In essence the panda play was a call for team USA to drop the zero-sum outlook and seek a win/win. Given the historic nature of Chinese negotiations the tweet was rather funny. However, it does highlight the dance.

Additionally, a few hours later President Trump tweeted about ongoing U.S-China trade discussions and something to watch for:

Moments ago we received the first indications of Chairman Xi’s panda play:

(Via Wall Street Journal) China agreed to reduce tariffs on U.S. autos to 15%, down from 40% currently, during a phone call with U.S. officials that opened the latest round of trade talks aimed at settling a trade dispute festering between the world’s two largest economic powers, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Chinese Vice Premier Liu He informed Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer of the move in a phone call late Monday, according to the person. It wasn’t clear when the change would take effect, but Washington is pushing Beijing to make concessions as soon as possible.  (read more)

Here’s the precursor tweet from China.  For those who are interested in following the dance, it is important to note this message was transmitted *after* the phone call between Premier Liu, Secretary Mnuchin and USTR Lighthizer.

Obviously those who follow standard negotiation tactics from China will note the transparent panda mask message behind this tweet.  China doesn’t do win/win, they never have.  Historically Beijing has no concept of win/win negotiations where each party gains a benefit; it is not part of their DNA strain to even fathom such an approach.  For China the negotiation strategy is simple: if it doesn’t benefit China, it is not done. Period.

China requesting a win/win is simply the dragon putting on a cunning panda mask and messaging to enhance their position through the utility of their purchased Wall Street multinational allies inside the U.S. [People like CoC President Tom Donohue]

However, here’s where it gets really interesting….. and also how we can reconcile the 25 minute lead-off discussion from Chairman Xi at the G20 dinner in Buenos Aires.

President Donald Trump outmaneuvered Chairman Xi and the ruling Chinese communist party over North Korea. Through a well executed -and profoundly unorthodox- strategy, President Trump severed the influence of Beijing over Kim Jong-un.

President Trump did not confront Chairman Xi on this directly, instead he led China down a path where Trump controlled all the options.  Now that the Korean relationship is moving toward reunification there is no way for China to put their influence back into play.

South Korea’s Moon Jae-in and North Korea’s Kim Jong-un are essentially united.

This was all done by President Trump smartly taking a unique approach and removing the Beijing influence.

President Trump then communicated directly with Kim Jong-un; and that meant no turning back.  As a direct result China lost their primary geopolitical weapon against U.S. economic policy.

Many people saw what happened in North Korea; and most recognized Trump had established a paradigm shift in the trilateral relationship; however, few expanded their review of Trump’s DPRK strategy to contemplate: what he achieved was only one phase toward the president’s primary objective – a full and comprehensive U.S-China reset.

The geopolitical and economic confrontation with China is President Trump’s legacy initiative.  This is his signature objective; everything else is less-than.

Chairman Xi has now witnessed the cunning strategy of his adversary.  China can no longer underestimate the strategy.  It is critical to understand how incredibly out-played China was over the North Korean issue.  President Trump neutered decades of Chinese duplicity.  Chairman Xi, and by extension, communist China, was outmatched.

Simultaneously, Chairman Xi got a taste of his own medicine.  In the DPRK contest President Trump mirrored the panda mask approach.  Trump praised Xi to a level that his approach was routinely criticized by U.S. media as over indulgent; but that criticism didn’t matter – it actually played directly into Trump’s strategy.

Chairman Xi could not initially fathom an opponent that would use criticism as a weapon and allow the appearance of domestic weakness as an international strategy.  Beijing was caught off guard, and Xi allowed his perspective of Trump to be clouded by historic standards therein.  Additionally, Chairman Xi watched as POTUS initiated trade conflicts with his own allies over steel, aluminum, soft-wood lumber, and even washing machines.

As Xi looked out his window, surely Trump was bluffing against South Korea, Japan, the EU (writ large), Canada and Mexico…. but Trump doesn’t bluff.  If Trump was willing to walk through the firestorm of western allied criticism (over his trade policy) what would this same person do in trade conflict against a geopolitical foe?

Trump walked away from TPP. Trump walked away from the Paris Treaty.  Trump walked away from the G7 communique in Canada.  Trump walked away from the G20 climate communique in Buenos Aires.  Hell, Trump withstood the firestorm of criticism over Kashoggi and leveraged Saudi Arabia into increased OPEC oil production which hurts all of China’s strategic allies (Russia, Iran, Venezuela etc).

How do you think Chairman Xi reflected upon the mounting demands from an economic adversary (Trump) knowing what Xi was witnessing from this independent Trump toward his own economic allies? See the scale of shifting perspective?

Not only is this U.S. president willing to go to the trade mattresses, he was willing to go to these damned mattresses while simultaneously executing a DPRK strategy that removed the primary arrow from Panda’s quiver.

Chairman Xi, and his economic council of advisors writ large, have to accept that President Trump -through his eagle talon action- actually wants the conflict with China, while he simultaneously praises them in public.

Hundreds of years worth of China’s well-honed cunning negotiation strategy is being used against them.

Do they feel rucky?

Dec 12 2018

Jim Jordan Questions Google CEO About Specific Example of Overt Political Bias From Executive…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on December 11, 2018 by

Backstory: According to an email chain between Google executives obtained by Fox News’ Tucker Carlson and Breitbart News, Google’s Multicultural Marketing development head Eliana Murillo sent out an email November 9th, 2016, detailing how Google had “supported partners like Voto Latino to pay for rides to the polls in key states,” which she characterized as a “silent donation.”

“We even helped them create ad campaigns to promote the rides (with support from HOLA folks who rallied and volunteered their time to help),” Murillo said. “We supported Voto Latino to help them land an interview with Sen. Meza of Arizona (key state for us) to talk about the election and how to use Google search to find information about how to vote. They were a strong partner, among many in this effort.”

Jim Jordan questions Google CEO Sundar Pichai about their specific political bias.

.

These answers ring especially hollow when you remember the video of Google CEO Sundar Pichai and all top executives discussing their sadness at the result of the 2016 election. See below:

When see the executive leadership of Google crying over their inability to influence the 2016 election; and when you hear them say they will double their efforts to make sure it doesn’t happen in 2018; everyone should be alarmed.

Google co-founder Sergey Brin, CEO Sundar Pichai, Senior VP for Global Affairs, Kent Walker, CFO Ruth Porat and Eileen Naughton, VP of People Operations talk about their horror and sadness over the outcome of the 2016 election. WATCH RECAP:

.

Below is the full video, which is also hosted on Brietbart.Com

Dec 12 2018

Custodial Risk, a Major Problem is Looming


Armstrong Economics Blog/Economics

Re-Posted Dec 12, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: I have been a reader for 10+ year, Socrates subs and reg for Orlando WEC. Thank you and as a Veteran, I admire your courage and service.

Ques: Under Dodd-Franks & Bail-In & Bankruptcy Priority; and, due to the Global Debt Crisis, is there a Custodial Risk for Investors a) who are “beneficial owners” (paid for the securities but holding securities in street name) but b) who are not the “Nominee Owner” (since normally the trade Clearing House or Custodian has the direct accounts at the Depository Trust Company).
Is the risk due to the Global Debt Crisis affected by custody by the biggest banks, namely JPMorgan, Citibank, Goldman Sachs & Bank of America – in view of the FDIC record of these four biggest Wall Street Banks holding at 6/30/2018 $ 188.58 TRILLION of nominal derivatives of which $ 142.23 TRILLION are interest rate contracts? FDIC reports two, JPM and Citibank, have $ 36.8 TRILLION of custodial assets. Further, OCC.GOV reports 99.4% of the nominal derivative obligations of these four banks are held for trading, not for hedging. Worldwide, Deutsche Bank, for example, is notorious for their derivative obligations, while non-bank dealers like oil companies and others also write derivatives.
In view of the M F Global seizure by JPM-Britain of USA sourced billions under City-of-London laws, is there a concern if the Custodial Companies have unsupervised authority to transfer title to securities to numerous other nations/laws?
Finally, for Securities Lending, since the near-cash securities collateral is also in “nominee ownership” (custodian) at the Depository Trust Company and similar depositories around the world, in a Global Debt Crisis is there a risk to the (paid up) “beneficial owner” of the collateral?
ANSWER: There is certainly a Custodial Risk going forward and many people are unaware of the broker/clearer risk. The derivative obligations are always thrown around in gross. The real risk is hard to quantify because you have to really net out all these positions. The Leham and Bears collapses were overnight because of posting these mortgage-backed securities ratings by S&P at AAA & others (see the Big Short) which enabled them to enter the REPO market. The derivative obligations are entirely different. This may not cause an overnight collapse but some sort of a work-out deal.
The safer custodian would be Bank of New York if you are talking about just parking assets rather than trading. The risk of a crisis seems to be more 2020-2021. The Fed & Treasury would most likely step in when we are talking about the United States. There is a greater risk in Europe because they are all caught up in the problem of transfer payments between states. In other words, the bail-in problem in Europe is more about the refusal to bail out banks say in Italy with tax-payer fund from Germany. That issue does not exist in the USA so there is less of a risk in the USA than in Europe.
If you are holding shares and you do leave them in the custody of a broker, they will keep them in “street name” so yes they can be taken as an asset of the firm as they did in M.F. Global. If the shares are to be held and you are not using them for collateral at a broker, it is best to take possession. Another trick is you can post them as collateral at a bank separate from a broker and borrow against them and use the cash for hedging. It is more complicated, but it would be best to do that sort of thing with a different entity.
As far as an American institution sweeping accounts and sending the money to London pretending that they are the “owner” of the funds to post in the REPO market, that remains an open risk because the SEC and CFTC never prosecuted M.F. Global allowing that scheme to remain in place. These two agencies always look the other way when the big houses commit fraud. What we must understand is that the banking system model is inherently subject to booms and busts because it is fundamentally flawed and began as a fraud. Once upon a time, you paid a bank to hold your money for safekeeping. Then the banks figured they could lend your money out and make a profit keeping just 10% or less to cover withdrawals. Then when a crisis would hit, they could not get the cash back in time to meet the demand for withdrawals and the bank would close and the assets (loans they made) were then liquidated at deep discounts.

The creation of the Federal Reserve was with the power to create money in times of crisis to meet the demand for withdrawals without having to dump assets in a panic. Then World War I came and instead of the Fed stimulating the economy by buying the corporate paper to directly create jobs, politicians instructed the Fed to buy ONLY government bonds. The Fed was never returned to what it was intended to do and today it can take over any corporation if it deems they are too big to fail no longer limited to banks.

After PhiBro took over Solomon Brothers, Goldman Sachs took over J. Aaron. Suddenly, the trading of commodities mentality became the mainstay of bankers on Wall Street. Then Robert Rubin of Goldman Sachs/US Treasury Secretary pushed to overrule Glass–Steagall. That opened the door for these banks to then be officially trading with other people’s money. The end was now in sight. Today, the trading banks are typically also primary dealers and when they blow up because they are liable for deposits on a demand basis yet invest long-term, they then turn to the government for bailouts threatening them that if they do not cover their losses, the government cannot sell its debt.

GlennIt was Martin Glenn who was the judge in New York on M.F. Global bankruptcy. He was the first one to engage in FORCED LOANS by abandoning the rule of law to help the bankers by protecting them from losses taking client accounts to cover M.F. Global’s losses. That is no different from what we saw in Cyprus. He simply allowed the confiscation of client funds when in fact the rule of law should have been that the bankers were responsible and M.F. Global’s losses should have been reversed. Never should the client’s funds be taken for M.F. Global’s losses to the NY Bankers. It was Judge Martin Glen who placed the entire financial; system at risk by trying to protect the bankers. He pampered these bankers making then the new UNTOUCHABLES. We have to be concerned that there really is no rule of law that will protect you in a crisis.

Categories: Economics, Rule of Law
Dec 12 2018

Michael Avenatti is Ordered to Pay almost $300,000 in Fees to Trump as Case is Dismissed


Armstrong Economics Blog/Politics

Re-Posted Dec 12, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

 

A California federal judge has awarded attorneys for President Donald Trump nearly $300,000 in fees for Michael Avenatti and his failed defamation claim brought by porn star Stormy Daniels for which he raised $600,000. U.S. District Judge S. James Otero held that when Stormy Daniels said in a TV interview that a man had confronted her in 2011 after alleging an affair with Trump in an attempt to silence her, Trump tweeted that the person who made the threats was a “non-existent man” and that her allegation was a “total con job.”

Otero had earlier indicated that the tweet was protected as free speech since it related to a matter of public concern and involved public figures. Daniels was “in the process of making her story known to the world,” Otero said. He said the president’s tweets appeared should be protected under the First Amendment. Such speech “lies at the heart of the First Amendment” and to try to restrict it would have a “chilling effect on candidates running for office.”

It looks like Michael Avenatti’s bid to become president in 2020 has gone down in flames. His claims that Trump is a Liar have not found any legal foundation. It seems to be allegedly just a ploy to make him famous

Dec 11 2018

How Gov’t Violates Human Rights using Conspiracy Theory


Armstrong Economics Blog/Rule of Law

Re-Posted Dec 11, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

Ireland is now claiming it needs to pass the Magnitsky Act to defend human rights. The greatest human rights violations take place in the legal system. It was Adolf Hitler’s notorious court that everyone said violated human right because it had a 90% conviction rate against people accused of being Jewish. Well Ireland, like the United States, has surpassed Adolf Hitler. Sexual offenses have the lowest conviction rates in Ireland’s circuit courts because it requires proof. The 89% conviction rate for sexual offenses in Ireland’s circuit courts compares with 100% for fatal offenses, 98% for offenses against property such as burglary and theft, and 93% for road traffic offenses. If we are really going to deal with human rights, the place to start is legal reform.

The crime of conspiracy was used by the Roman Emperor Maximinus I (235-238AD) which There must be an agreement between two or more persons. The mens rea of conspiracy is a separate issue from the mens rea required of the substantive crime. Conspiracy is the law of tyrants, for it allows the conviction of someone for a crime they did not commit, nor even attempted to commit but you claim they “intended” purely as a mental state to commit in the future. Maximinus engaged in legal persecution. He charged a noted Senator by the name of Magnus, with conspiracy against the emperor, found him guilty, executed him, and then arrested 4,000 others claiming they all conspired with him to intend to depose him. He then used the criminal law to claim they committed a crime of conspiracy, and that, of course, justified confiscating all their property as well.

A conspiracy law was created and used at the Nuremberg Trials for members of the Nazi leadership because they could not actually prove involvement in some cases which was NOT a crime before the trial. This violated every principle of law in any civilized country known as the Ex Post Facto Clause. In other words, you cannot violate a law before it becomes a law. You are supposed to have Due Process which requires the notice of what is a crime to knowingly violate such law. But the pressure to convict the Nazi leadership resulted in violating that Due Process right which is the fundamental guidance from the Bible. The story of Cain and Abel is the source. Cain kills his brother Abel and God knows what he has done. Nevertheless, he summons him and allows him to defend himself even though he knows what he had done. That is the Due Process right that we are all supposed to have. They abandoned that at Nuremberg because the leaders merely gave orders and did not personally execute anyone. So they needed to create a crime of Conspiracy to prosecute them. They charged Conspiracy for participating in a “conspiracy or common plan” to commit international crimes. This was controversial because the conspiracy was not a part of the European civil law tradition. Nonetheless, the crime of conspiracy continued in international criminal justice and was incorporated into the international criminal laws against genocide.

However, they use conspiracy for everything. In this manner, they do not have to prove anyone actually committed any act. This is what Mueller is doing. He charges everyone around Trump in order to compel them to testify against Trump and thus they are given a script that will state that Trump “agreed” to whatever crime they committed and that will prove CONSPIRACY.

Human rights will not begin until CONSPIRACY is eliminated from all crimes. In the case of Nuremberg, they simply need to enact a law that covers the issue of an order in a military context. Any other crime of conspiracy needs to be eliminated in every other context. In the USA, the 1948 Conspiracy Statute was where the punishment provision was completely rewritten to increase the penalty from 2 years to 5 years except where the object of the conspiracy is a misdemeanor. In addition, conspiracies allow for derivative liability where conspirators can also be punished for the illegal acts carried out by other members, even if they were not directly involved.  Thus, where one or more members of the conspiracy committed illegal acts to further the conspiracy’s goals, all members of the conspiracy may be held accountable for those acts. So if one person killed someone and others did not even know that would take place, they too are charged with murder. Where no one has actually committed a criminal act, the punishment varies.  Some conspiracy statutes assign the same punishment for conspiracy as for the target offense. That is where human rights are violated. You can be charged with conspiracy and sentenced to the same punishment as if you actually committed the act. That is why the prisons are full to the brim because prosecutor just charges conspiracy and do not have to prove you committed any act and just claim you agreed with someone else.

The irony is that people who make up conspiracy theories about government actors are called conspiracy nutjobs, yet this in 99% of how the government prosecutes its citizens.