Special counsel John Durham may have sufficient grounds to seek charges against multiple parties for conspiracy to lie to the government, although he may refrain from doing so, according to a former FBI special agent and federal prosecutor.
Durham is already saying there was a “joint venture” between various parties, including agents of the 2016 presidential campaign of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the lawyers retained by the campaign, and their associates and subcontractors. The goal of the venture was to collect dirt in 2016 on then-presidential candidate Donald Trump in order to help Clinton. That isn’t illegal.
Durham also has outlined evidence that suggests he may in the future charge that a part of the venture was to peddle the dirt to the U.S. government with the understanding that lies—at least lies by omission—would be told during this process. That could be a criminal conspiracy. Yet whether such charges are forthcoming doesn’t depend only on whether a law was technically broken, according to Marc Ruskin, a former FBI special agent and assistant district attorney.
“I think that a strong argument can be made that there would be sufficient justification for a conspiracy charge and that it shouldn’t be a surprise if one is brought. But also, there are a lot of … strategic factors that go into a determination by a prosecutor as to what charges to make,” he told The Epoch Times.
If Durham, for example, intends on pursuing more serious charges or expects to have a more solid footing on a different charge, he may avoid bringing lesser or weaker charges that “may prove to be a distraction,” Ruskin said.
Durham has so far brought three indictments, one of which resulted in a guilty plea. He hasn’t charged conspiracy, which is a federal felony with penalties depending on the seriousness of the underlying crime.
Criminal conspiracy is legally defined rather differently than how people may understand the term colloquially, Ruskin noted. The government only needs sufficient circumstantial evidence that at least two people had an understanding that they would do something that violates federal law. But they don’t actually have to follow all the way through on breaking the law. At a minimum, only one of them needs to perform an “overt act” in furtherance of the plan.
By Petr Svab
