re: Doesnt brennan constantly squawking on cnn reset the clock on SOL?

This is too hard for guys like Vacherie to comprehend. It's easier to jump around and cherry pick.

quote:

---

As per the DOL “the crucial question in this regard is the scope of the conspiratorial agreement, and the conspiracy is deemed to continue until its purpose has been achieved or abandoned…and individuals “withdrawal” from a conspiracy starts the statute of limitations”

---

There is no evidence that the conspiracy continued past those meetings prior to Trump's inauguration.

Brennan making comments as a private citizen 8.5 years later, in response to comments made by the current government, shows, what, exactly towards the connectivity of the purported conspiracy?

As boosie pointed out, this absurd reading would mean that at any point after a purported conspiracy, the government could file charges and a plea of not guilty would, technically, further the conspiracy. That would render SOL meaningless.

quote:

---

opining on a public forum about the issue at hand pretty clearly satisfies the second leg of this. I

---

But, it doesn't. See above. If responding to commentary and pleading a defense restarts the SOL, then the SOL does not exist, for all intents and purposes. That is absurd.

And this is complete ignoring the lack of connectivity from January 2017 to July 2025.

DOJ manual on conspiracy

quote:

---

Conspiracy is a continuing offense. For statutes such as 18 U.S.C. § 371, which require an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, the statute of limitations begins to run on the date of the last overt act. See Fiswick v. United States, 329 U.S. 211 (1946); United States v. Butler, 792 F.2d 1528 (11th Cir. 1986). For conspiracy statutes which do not require proof of an overt act, such as RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961) or 21 U.S.C. § 846, the government must allege and prove that the conspiracy continued into the limitations period. The crucial question in this regard is the scope of the conspiratorial agreement, and the conspiracy is deemed to continue until its purpose has been achieved or abandoned. See United States v. Northern Imp. Co., 814 F.2d 540 (8th Cir. 1987); United States v. Coia, 719 F.2d 1120 (11th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 973 (1984).

An individual's "withdrawal" from a conspiracy starts the statute of limitations running as to that individual. "Withdrawal" from a conspiracy for this purpose means that the conspirator must take affirmative action by making a clean breast to the authorities or communicating his or her disassociation to the other conspirators. See United States v. Gonzalez, 797 F.2d 915 (10th Cir. 1986).

---

Now, people keep relying on the last part and not reading the underlying case. So I'll provide it for you. LINK

quote:

---

The contested withdrawal instruction said:

A defendant who is a member of a criminal conspiracy may withdraw from the conspiracy without criminal liability before the commission of any overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. In order to effectively withdraw before the commission of an overt act, a conspirator must make a complete disclosure to proper authorities or effectively communicate his withdrawal to all other co-conspirators.

However, once an overt act in furtherance of the object of a conspiracy has been committed, withdrawal is no longer available as a defense to the conspiracy.

---

quote:

---

Defendant argues that it was wrong to say a coconspirator cannot withdraw once any coconspirator has committed an overt act. But a person is guilty of conspiracy if he agrees with one or more other persons to violate the law, and then any one of the conspirators commits an overt act in furtherance of the object of the agreement. See United States v. Kendall, 766 F.2d 1426, 1431 (10th Cir. 1985). Once any conspirator commits such an overt act, the crime of conspiracy is complete; and no member of the conspiracy can withdraw from that crime.1 Effective withdrawal is limited to future crimes the remaining conspirators might commit. Glazerman v. United States, 421 F.2d 547, 551-52 (10th Cir. 1970); see also United States v. Read, 658 F.2d 1225, 1232 (7th Cir. 1981); W. LaFave & A. Scott, Handbook on Criminal Law Sec. 62, at 486 (1972); Note, Withdrawal from Conspiracy: A Constitutional Allocation of Evidentiary Burdens, 51 Fordham L. Rev. 438, 441-45 (1982).

---

quote:

---

As noted above, when a withdrawal does occur, in the sense of disassociation from the acts of a conspiracy, the withdrawing conspirator is exonerated only with respect to future acts. Gonzalez was indicted only for acts he committed before his April 1983 withdrawal, and his withdrawal could not exonerate him with respect to those acts. There is no suggestion in Parnell to the contrary

---

Withdrawal only applies if it is done prior to the purported overt acts. As the court says, it's limited to FUTURE crimes that other conspirators go on to commit post-withdrawal. Nobody is arguing, within the framing of the allegations, that Brennan withdrew prior to the overt acts of the conspiracy. Of all the claimed participants, Brennan is accused of committing the most overt acts of all of them.

The SOL begins to run after the last overt act.

Responding to a news story is not an overt act of a conspiracy.

quote:

---

We saw this same issue with your misunderstanding of collusion and fraud as it relates to an effective control environment, specifically in the 2020 federal election.

---

Fine they can haul him in front for a dog and pony show into the next decade weekly for all I care. He's not going to be prosecuted in a court.