re: Brennan Attys Confirm He's Target of S FL Grand Jury Investigation

There are about 10 threads discussing that subject.

You know this because you quoted text from one.

Keep reading that thread and I explain it about 20 ways in detail. Don't derail this thread because you're purposely ignorant.

What about RICO? what are the SOL on Rico? And how do you determine "last act"

quote:

---

And how do you determine "last act"

---

If you're building a RICO case with this story, the issue isn't going to be the last act. It's the ones connecting the first and last.

Lots of connective tissue to establish over 9 years and different actors

quote:

---

When asked how they could possibly find venue in the Southern District of Florida for an investigation of alleged false statements that were made in a congressional committee room in Washington, D.C., the prosecutors refused to answer."

---

How about the statements were made and broadcast over the airwaves. Nobody seems to be applying arbitrary rules that regular people get nailed on when the government doesn't want to indict people. These elite people get to skate when inflated charges against regular people stick.

This isn't a RICO case. Never was, even if the twitter folks wanted it. It's conspiracy against rights.

18 241

Thanks, Bronco. Conspiracy against rights makes more sense.

Of course, AI isn't infallible, but it can be a good starting place. Here's what my ChatGPT said (somebody else, please share what their AI app said):

Short answer: No—there is no realistic legal basis to prosecute John Brennan for “conspiracy against rights” (18 U.S.C. § 241) based on any publicly known facts, including the Mar-a-Lago search or related events.
Here’s the precise legal analysis.
1. What “conspiracy against rights” actually requires (18 U.S.C. § 241)
To prosecute someone under § 241, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that:
Two or more persons conspired
With specific intent
To injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate
A person in the free exercise of a constitutional or federal right
This statute is not about negligence, bias, or bad judgment.
It requires willful, knowing intent to deprive someone of a right.
Courts interpret this very narrowly.
2. Why Brennan does not meet these elements
A. No official authority or participation
At the time relevant to your question (e.g., Mar-a-Lago):
Brennan was a private citizen
He had no law-enforcement authority
No role in:
warrants
prosecutions
searches
charging decisions
A § 241 prosecution requires active participation in the conspiracy—not commentary, opinion, or outside advocacy.
There is no evidence Brennan participated in or directed any deprivation of rights.
B. Lawful judicial process defeats § 241 claims
A court-approved search warrant, supported by:
sworn affidavits,
judicial review,
statutory authority,
cannot constitute a § 241 violation unless prosecutors can prove:
the process was knowingly fraudulent and
the defendant intended to deprive rights through that fraud.
No court has found:
the Mar-a-Lago warrant unconstitutional,
the affidavit perjurious,
or the search unlawful.
Without an underlying illegal deprivation, § 241 fails.
C. Intent is the fatal problem
Even if someone believes Brennan:
disliked Trump,
made partisan statements,
defended law-enforcement actions publicly,
that does not establish the specific criminal intent required under § 241.
Courts repeatedly hold:
Political animus or bias alone is not proof of intent to deprive constitutional rights.
3. When § 241 does apply (contrast cases)
Successful § 241 prosecutions typically involve:
police officers fabricating charges
officials beating detainees
election officials stuffing or destroying ballots
intimidation preventing people from voting
overt acts clearly aimed at denying rights
They involve direct, coercive conduct, not intelligence analysis, media commentary, or institutional decisions reviewed by courts.
4. Investigations already resolved this issue
Multiple oversight mechanisms examined intelligence-community and DOJ conduct over recent years, including:
DOJ Inspector General reviews
congressional investigations
judicial proceedings
None produced:
criminal referrals under § 241
findings of intentional rights deprivation
evidence implicating Brennan in conspiracies
Bottom line
As a matter of law:
Brennan lacked authority or involvement
No constitutional right was unlawfully deprived
No criminal intent can be shown
§ 241 does not apply
A prosecution would be dismissed at the indictment stage.
If you’d like, I can:
break down who could theoretically be liable under § 241 and under what facts
explain why courts guard § 241 so tightly
compare this to historical prosecutions where § 241 actually succeeded
Just tell me how far you want to take it.

Nothing will happen.

Would not be sad to hear he croaks due to massive constipation,..

quote:

---

Judge shopping.......you can't make this shite up kinda scare that this ain't gonna happen in DC, go wipe the tears

---

Unfortunately, it's much more difficult to forum shop in criminal cases than civil.

Nothing will come of an attempt to prosecute Brennan in South Florida for crimes he might have committed in Virginia (CIA headquarters) or D.C.