1. As a public service to @RonJohnsonWI: why he needs a lawyer. His actions described by Sondland can be argued to be an overt act of a continuing criminal conspiracy. He may not *think* so, but Ive watched many people go to jail for crimes they didnt believe were crimes....
@RonJohnsonWI 2...the key element here is what is known as a "Klein conspiracy." This involves a seminal decision by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in the 1957 case of US v. Klein. This entails what is known as “Interference with Governmental Functions.” A good prosecutor can argue that...
@RonJohnsonWI 3....Johnson's failures to disclose - including in his television appearances once all this broke - constitute overt acts in a continuing conspiracy to obstruct investigations of a bribery case. Johnson doesnt even have to know what Trump is doing in an ongoing conspiracy...
@RonJohnsonWI 4...this is the conspiracy standard of "right hand doesnt have to know what left hand is doing." Every obstructive act by anyone in the Administration lands on Johnson if Johnson's actions are deemed an overt act within a conspiracy - even the ones he knows nothing about....
@RonJohnsonWI 5...the case law on this is comprehensive. Violating the "defraud" prong in a Klein conspiracy can be accomplished by conspiring “to cheat the U.S. government of money or property, or to interfere with its operations.” US v.Whiteford, (2012) US v. McKee (2007))....
@RonJohnsonWI 6...case law and statute are quite clear that obstructing a Congressional hearing falls directly into an "interfere with operations" standard. Johnson *knows* there is an ongoing obstruction - Sondland made that clear today when he stated he was blocked from reviewing his own...
@RonJohnsonWI 7...records by State - and that he said should have been turned over to the committee. Johnson, for how he dealt with this, can be deemed to be wrapped up in that obstruction under the conspiracy statute. What makes this worse for Johnson, 18 U.S.C. § 371....
@RonJohnsonWI 8...which requires an overt act in furtherance of conspiracy, has been interpreted in Fiswick v. US (1946) & US v. Butler, (1986), to mean that the statute of limitations starts to run *after the last overt act.* Voting to acquit is, without doubt, an overt act if prosecutors...
@RonJohnsonWI 9...decide there is, in fact, a conspiracy to obstruct a bribery investigation by State, DOJ, White House etc, and that Johnson has been dragged into this with his actions with Sondland and subsequent public statements. But the vote would not be the last point. Every time he...
@RonJohnsonWI 10...makes a public statement about this case - in which he does anything to absolve actions by others - he reset the timing of the statute of limitations because his statement could be deemed another overt act. And given that the statute is 5 years - he is going to have to...
@RonJohnsonWI 11...pray that there is never a democratic president during that time who would appoint an AG who is not corrupt. Again, none of this means he is guilty of a crime. But what it does mean is that a good prosecutor who wants to take down a big fish could easily argue that....
@RonJohnsonWI 12...@RonJohnsonWI is completely wrapped up in the conspiracy to obstruct, as exercised by the Trump Administration, even if he knew next to nothing about it. So, Senator: Get a lawyer. You might need one.
