HUGE: Durham participated in Barr's scheme to create evidence for Trump's Senate acquittal.

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Tweet text:
Christopher C. Alberto
@ChrisAlbertoLaw
HUGE: Durham participated in Barr’s scheme to create evidence for Trump’s Senate acquittal. A Sept 25 statement falsely said Durham’s “spying” probe expanded into Ukraine, suggesting Trump had a legit reason to press Ukraine for a probe. Jury tampering etc
Office of the Attorney General
Contributing to Barr’s Effort to Undermine Impeachment, US Attorney John Durham Violated DOJ...
John Durham—the United States attorney tasked by Attorney General William Barr to conduct a wide-ranging inquiry into the origins of the Justice Department’s and FBI’s Russia inquiries—contributed to…
washingtonspectator.org

https://washingtonspectator.org/us-attorney-durham-breaks-rules/

John Durham—the United States attorney tasked by Attorney General William Barr to conduct a wide-ranging inquiry into the origins of the Justice Department’s and FBI’s Russia inquiries—contributed to a September 2019 statement released by Barr and the Justice Department intended to undermine efforts to impeach President Trump. Durham approved portions of the statement describing his own investigation, in language first proposed by aides to Barr, and then contributed a version of his own, according to three people knowledgeable about the matter. One of these individuals allowed me to review emails and other related records detailing exchanges between Durham and aides to the attorney general related to the preparation of the statement.

Durham’s previously unreported role in preparing the statement raises questions as to whether Durham, who is the United States attorney for Connecticut, violated Justice Department guidelines and policies that prohibit prosecutors from discussing ongoing criminal investigations. These guidelines stipulate that prosecutors should “not confirm the existence or otherwise comment about ongoing investigations” or even merely confirm “the existence of an ongoing investigation or comment on its nature or progress before charges are publicly filed.” Federal prosecutors ordinarily consider such standards to be an “inviolable rule”—and for good reason: Commenting on an ongoing investigation can unfairly damage the reputations of individuals who have been investigated but never charged; place cooperating witnesses in danger; and prejudice prospective jurors against, and violate the due process rights of, potential defendants.

In December 2019, when Durham made additional public comments regarding his investigation, his actions were met with swift and severe criticism by former Justice Department officials, private oversight and ethics groups, and members of Congress. In this similar instance, Durham issued a public statement asserting that he disagreed with a single, relatively minor finding of an investigation carried out by the Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, who conducted his own inquiry of many of the same matters Durham was looking into. The Washington Post ran a front-page story, which—while noting that Durham, a 35-year veteran of the Justice Department, enjoyed a “stellar” reputation—said Durham’s public comments raised questions as to whether he was “carrying out a conservative political errand.”

Former Attorney General Eric Holder, who served during the Obama administration and knew and worked with Durham for over a decade, commented that he was “troubled by [Durham’s] unusual statement,” counseling him: “Good reputations are hard-won in the legal profession, but they are fragile; anyone in Durham’s shoes would do well to remember that, in dealing with this administration, many reputations have been irrevocably lost.”

Durham’s own comments regarding his investigation were coordinated to coincide with comments made by the attorney general. Barr has frequently commented on Durham’s investigation to an extent unprecedented for an attorney general, not just in terms of the sheer number of comments he has made but also because his comments have been political in nature. Barr has attacked the president’s political adversaries and exploited his comments to attempt to undermine the president’s impeachment and, later, to assist in the president’s reelection campaign. In doing so, Barr clearly violated Justice Department guidelines and policies prohibiting such public comments.

[TwilightZone]

1. Kind of ironic since the GOP Senate was never going to consider any evidence one way or the other.

It would be doubly ironic if he was prosecuted and jailed for something that was never going to be needed.

Not holding my breath, of course.

[Fiendish Thingy]

2. Two words: Independent Prosecutor. Nt