OK, time for law school (minus) 101: when is a plan by two or more persons to commit a crime not a conspiracy? Something is missing, here.
Ok. So your position is that knowing that the solicitation material suggested their donations would go to candidates is insufficient because there’s a reasonable possibility that they understood that generic solicitation to not apply to them. Yes?
There are no other reasonable inferences to be drawn. Get real.
Whenever the definition of conspiracy contained within the state’s statute does not apply to the crime in question, whether by intent or by oversight.
eta: to state it in the reverse, and more accurately in reality, nothing is a crime unless it’s defined as a crime, and then only to the extent which it is defined as a crime. So, if the crime of conspiracy doesn’t exist in a jurisdiction, then conspiracy is not a crime. Likewise, if there is a crime called conspiracy but it’s written in such a way that only conspiracy to commit murder is a crime, then only conspiracy to commit murder is a crime, and conspiracy to commit theft would not be. And, if for some reason, the conspiracy statute incorporated everything in one criminal code, but forgot to include crime sin some other code, then conspiracy to commit those acts would not a be a crime.
Yes. The same generic pamphlets were used for corporate and for individual solicitations.
That is too many for me, I fold.
It’s not clear to me why you think that fact is helpful, but perhaps I’ll sleep on it.
I suppose that now that corporations are people, we should expect them to become sentient and existentially aware. I grasp, therefore I am…
If corporations are people, are we allowed to use capital punishment on them?
After all, this is Texas…
Because it highlights the existence of an alternate explanation, one not consistent with guilt. And the prosecution’s evidence must eliminate all reasonable explanations except those consistent with guilt.
Hilarious. Now you want capital punishment for election law actions that aren’t even a crime. That seems brutal, even for a Stalin-type leftist.
What happened to your answer to this post?
I understand the conclusion you draw from it. I don’t see why you think it supports that conclusion. What alternate explanation is it highlighting?
This is the Pit, not a courtroom. You aren’t in charge here.
I make a play on words & now I’m a Stalinist…
That, because the pamphlets were given to individuals, the corporate folks who read them assumed they were intended specifically for individuals and that corporations would be governed by a different set of rules than those offered in the pamphlet.
That the corporate contributors were aware the words about contributions going to candidates were directed at individual donors.
That’s a perfectly reasonable explanation. The state’s evidence needed to eliminate it.
Forget the “play” on “words,” if that’s what it really was. Stalin was a leftist, you’re a leftist, so I was just making a “play” on “words” myself, come to think of it!
How about the “slam-dunk defense” comment? Or is this the Pit, so you’re allowed to say whatever you please without challenge or contradiction?
Because I think you have misread the concept of the Pit. If you make a stupid statement, the Pit affords me an even wider range of responses than GD would.
“Stalinist”? Bricker, either more coffee or less.
That’s *reasonable *in your world? 
Couldn’t they, like…oh, I don’t know, pick up the phone? There, on the desk? They have people for that sort of thing, don’t they? Called “lawyers”, IIRC.