Statute of Limitations for Conspiracy
Segment #567
Clapper, Brennan, and Comey have all continued to speak publicly about the alleged conspiracy against Trump. Meanwhile Bondi, Patel, and Bongino are methodically gathering evidence, lining up whistleblowers, and periodically poking the bear by releasing progress reports. Clapper, Brennan, and Comey keep taking the bait. I feel certain their lawyers are telling them to shut the hell up. Arrogance and hubris know no limits for this trio. The consumers of left leaning media have no idea of most of these damning irrefutable acts which have been out there for years. The indoctrinated think we are knuckle dragging toothless hillbillies. They don’t have a clue what’s coming. Standby for more lawsuits against the media.
The legal question of whether a statute of limitations is extended by ongoing statements from individuals like James Comey, John Brennan, and James Clapper is complex. Here's a breakdown of the relevant legal principles:
Statute of Limitations for Federal Crimes
General Rule: The general statute of limitations for most non-capital federal offenses is five years. This means that a prosecution must be initiated within five years of the offense's commission.1
Conspiracy: A key exception exists for conspiracy.2 A conspiracy is considered a "continuing offense."3 The statute of limitations for a conspiracy charge begins to run from the date of the last overt act committed in furtherance of the conspiracy, not from the date the conspiracy was first formed.4 This means if a conspiracy is ongoing, the statute of limitations has not yet expired.
How Alleged Actions Could Affect the Statute of Limitations
Ongoing Conspiracy: If a prosecutor could prove that a conspiracy, allegedly started in 2017, is still active and that Comey, Brennan, and/or Clapper are committing overt acts to further it (e.g., through public statements or other actions), the statute of limitations would be continuously reset. The clock for prosecution would only begin ticking after the last of these acts.
Perjury: If an individual testifies under oath and is found to have committed perjury, this is a separate crime with its own statute of limitations. The act of giving false testimony would constitute a new, distinct offense, and the five-year clock would start from the date of that testimony. Therefore, a person's testimony could create a new opportunity for prosecution, even if the statute of limitations for the original underlying crime has expired.
Fraudulent Concealment: In some cases, the statute of limitations can be "tolled" (paused) if a defendant actively conceals their wrongdoing.5 This "discovery rule" may apply in certain fraud cases, where the statute of limitations doesn't begin until the fraud is discovered or reasonably should have been discovered. This is a separate legal concept from an ongoing conspiracy.
In summary, the key factor would be whether the public statements and testimony are considered part of a new, ongoing crime (like perjury) or are viewed as "overt acts" in furtherance of an existing, ongoing conspiracy. If either of these legal theories holds up, it could potentially extend the period during which a prosecution could be brought.
The scenario you're describing, where the Department of Justice (DOJ) might be "setting a trap" by compelling testimony under oath, involves several complex legal principles. The effectiveness of a potential strategy like this and the protections afforded by a pardon depend on the specific circumstances and the type of crime being investigated.
The "Trap" of Testifying Under Oath
The core idea behind this "trap" is based on the crime of perjury, which is the act of lying under oath.1
Perjury as a Separate Crime: Even if the statute of limitations has expired for an original crime (e.g., a conspiracy), an individual can still be prosecuted for perjury if they lie while testifying about that crime. This creates a new, distinct offense with its own statute of limitations, which typically runs for five years from the date the false testimony was given.
The Fifth Amendment: Individuals have a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, which allows them to refuse to answer questions if their answers could be used against them in a criminal proceeding.2 However, this right is not absolute. If a person is given immunity or is pardoned for a crime, they can no longer claim the Fifth Amendment for that specific offense because they are no longer at risk of prosecution for it. This is where a pardon becomes a key factor.
A Hypothetical Scenario: The DOJ could subpoena individuals like Comey, Brennan, and Clapper to testify. If they have already been pardoned for any actions related to a past investigation, they could not invoke their Fifth Amendment right regarding those actions. This could put them in a difficult position: they would have to either tell the truth, which could potentially incriminate others, or lie, which would expose them to a new charge of perjury.
The Protections of a Presidential Pardon
A presidential pardon is a powerful tool, but it has specific limitations.
Scope of the Pardon: A pardon can only be issued for federal offenses. It does not protect against state-level crimes. It's crucial to understand the language of the pardon itself to know exactly what is covered. A pardon can be issued for a specific crime or for a class of crimes.
Acceptance of a Pardon: Historically, accepting a pardon has been seen as an admission of guilt.3 This is because a pardon is a forgiveness of a crime, and you can't be forgiven for something you didn't do. For this reason, a person who maintains their innocence might choose to reject a pardon. However, the legal implications of this are complex and have been the subject of debate.
No Protection from Perjury: A pardon for a past crime does not provide immunity from committing a future crime, such as perjury. If a person is pardoned for an alleged conspiracy, but then lies about that conspiracy in a congressional hearing or under a new subpoena, they can still be prosecuted for the act of lying under oath.
Pardons are Irrevocable: Once a presidential pardon is officially delivered and accepted, it cannot be revoked.4 This is a critical legal principle that ensures the finality of a pardon.
The Legal Standing of an Investigation
A pardon for a specific crime does not prevent an investigation from continuing. Law enforcement can still investigate and gather evidence to understand the full scope of a matter, even if key individuals have been pardoned. This can be done for several reasons, including:
To determine if other, un-pardoned crimes were committed.
To establish a complete historical record.
To investigate and potentially prosecute other individuals involved who were not pardoned.