I'm honestly curious. You're a bright guy, and you seem pretty confident, so I suspect I'm missing something here. Which activity among [money laundering, com

I'm honestly curious. You're a bright guy, and you seem pretty confident, so I suspect I'm missing something here. Which activity among [money laundering, computer hacking, conspiracy to traffic fraudulent identity documents, and conspiracy to traffic narcotics] requires murder-for-hire? Is there a fifth charge for which he was convicted that I've missed? Is there some non-intuitive legal definition of conspiracy to traffic narcotics, where conspiracy to traffic requires conspiracy to distribute plus conspiracy to commit murder, or something like that? Also, is there any legal or strategic reason to drop the charge for the predicate crime? It might make sense as a legal strategy to reduce attention on a shaky part of the case, but it seems that the defense would draw plenty of attention to a shaky key pillar of the case anyway.