True, but how is "in furtherance" defined? Also, if the lie was done to protect the original conspiracy, then that would be analogous to someone who is an accessory after the fact.
I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on RICO law, and know pretty much nothing about Georgia's version of that. But I think there are due process requirements that prevent it from going too far.
So for example, let's say you have an overzealous Trump campaign worker who decides to knock off a bank to obtain additional funds for Trump's campaign. He decides to do that on his own without notifying anyone else, or asking anyone else's permission.
Clearly, that's a criminal act, and it was intended to help the campaign. So would that be a criminal act in furtherance of a "conspiracy" to elect Trump that essentially makes the entire campaign guilty of a conspiracy? Can't be, right? That would have to fail on constitutional due process grounds.
So my more-or-less lay opinion on this must be that there are both 1) an express or implied agreement among the conspirators to accomplish an illegal act, goal or purpose, and 2) criminal acts committed in furtherance of that purpose with at least the general knowledge, awareness, or approval of other members of the conspiracy. I admittedly sort of made that up but I'll bet it is pretty close.
Anyway, those two alleged illegal acts don't sound to me like they fit 2), and I also questioned whether the goal of the alleged conspiracy met 1).
I simply do not believe that trying to convince federal or state officials to pursue allegations of election fraud, or to attempt to persuade others to stop the certification of an election you believe is fraudulent, is illegal. And I think ultimately, if the case makes it that far, the Supreme Court is going to wipe out all of this on those grounds.
