How the Durham inquiry backfired to reveal the weaponization of the Trump DoJ | Donald Trump

[ad_1]

When Trump’s justice department tapped a US attorney to review the source of the FBI’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, conservatives and many Republicans hoped it would end the idea that Donald Trump’s campaign was bolstered by Moscow and back his allegations that some FBI officials and others conspired against him.

But instead, as the years-long investigation winds down, it ends with accusations that the unethical actions of that special counsel – John Durham – and former attorney general William Barr “weaponized” the US Department of Justice (DoJ) to help Trump.

Former DoJ officials and top Democrats have voiced strong criticism that Durham and Barr acted improperly in the nearly four-year-old inquiry, citing an in-depth New York Times story that added to the other evidence that the inquiry appears to be politically motivated to appease Trump’s anger at an investigation he has deemed a “witch-hunt”.

The Times report provided disturbing new details, for example, about how a key prosecutor, Nora Dannehy, quit Durham’s team in 2020 over “ethical” concerns, including her close dealings with Barr, and discussions about releasing an unusual interim report before the 2020 election that could have helped Trump, but it never materialized.

Early critics of the Durham inquiry also noted that Barr had on several occasions, and contrary to long-standing DoJ policies, publicly suggested that the Durham inquiry would produce significant results, which would help vindicate those Trump’s charge led by several FBI and CIA officials. a political witch-hunt.

Additionally, Barr and Durham, in unusual public statements early in their investigation, tried to undermine a key conclusion of a report by the DoJ inspector general, Michael Horowitz, that the Russia investigation was based on sufficient evidence. facts to ensure the opening of the investigation in 2016.

Former DoJ officials said the Durham investigation appeared to be aimed from the outset at boosting Trump’s political fortunes.

“It was clear to people following the Durham investigation as it unfolded that it was highly irregular from the beginning,” said former deputy AG Donald Ayer who served in the George HW Bush administration “In fact there is good reason to believe whose purpose and primary function is to create fodder to advance Trump’s election prospects.”

Critics note that Barr tapped Durham to lead the investigation just a month after special counsel Robert Mueller released a major report documenting significant ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, and concluded that attempted of Moscow to influence the election to help Trump in a “sweeping” and “systematic” way, a conclusion that Barr and Trump took pains to downplay.

Despite Trump’s pressure and Durham’s wide-ranging investigation, including unusual trips abroad with Barr to interview officials in Italy and England about potential flaws in the Russia investigation, the inquiry has gained only a minor conviction of a mid-level ex-FBI officer for forging a document. There were also two embarrassing acquittals.

The Durham inquiry was marred by accusations of unethical actions by John Durham and former attorney general William Barr. Photo: Paul Kitagaki Jr/Zuma Press Wire/Rex/Shutterstock

The Times report also revealed that Durham had discovered evidence during his trip to Italy of possible criminal misconduct by Trump, but it was not known what it included and how far he pursued that element of the inquiry. .

Durham also reportedly spent time investigating a conspiracy and suspicious lead that appeared to connect an aide to billionaire George Soros, a top Democratic donor, to early investigations into Russian meddling and the campaign. Trump’s opponent, Hillary Clinton.

In addition to Nora Dannehy, who left Durham’s office in 2020, two other prosecutors on Durham’s team reportedly left later after expressing concerns about the wisdom of prosecuting an attorney associated with the campaign Clinton that ultimately led to an acquittal.

For former DoJ heads and top Democrats, the latest allegations about the political motives that drove Durham and Barr underscore earlier signs that the ‘investigator’s investigation’ was being mishandled.

“The Durham special counsel’s investigation was tainted from the start by attorney general Barr’s over-involvement and its reaching significant conclusions before it had done any meaningful investigation,” said ex-DoJ inspector general Michael Bromwich.

Bromwich added: “From the beginning, there was no pretense that this was an independent investigation where the facts would determine the outcome. The scorecard: an endless, four-year investigation; a single conviction based on a case handed down by the IG on a silver platter; and two embarrassing acquittals. There has never been such a record in the half-century history of independent counsels and special counsels.”

Top Democrats are also angry over the conduct of the Durham investigation and Barr’s role in the inquiry.

Congressman Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House oversight committee who served on the House January 6 select committee that investigated the Capitol insurrection, said:

“The entire course of the Durham inquiry suggests the height of prosecutorial misconduct. It is hard to imagine a better case study of the weaponization of Justice than what Barr is doing at the Durham inquiry.”

The chairman of the Senate judiciary committee, Richard Durbin, said: “These reports about abuses in the investigation by special counsel Durham – so extreme that even his longtime colleagues quit as protest – is just one of many instances where former President Trump and his allies have used the justice department. The justice department is supposed to work on behalf of the American people, not for the personal benefit of any president.”

Durbin added that the Senate judiciary committee “will examine these repeated episodes, and the regulations and policies that enabled them, to ensure that such abuses of power do not happen again.” .

In September, Durbin notified the DoJ that the judicial panel planned to look into explosive details in a book by Geoffrey Berman, the former head of the DoJ’s southern district office in Manhattan, about political meddling by Barr loyalists and Trump in several investigations.

Berman wrote that Barr unsuccessfully sought in 2019 to pressure him to overturn former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen’s conviction on campaign finance violations, and to block related investigations into potential campaign finance violations.

Barr also forced Berman to resign with the intention of replacing him with a Trump loyalist, but after Berman refused to step down Trump fired him.

Together, Berman’s charges, and the evidence gathered by the Times, paint a troubling picture of how Barr appeared to be bending over backwards to boost Trump politically, until after the 2020 election when Barr eventually recanted Trump’s claims of fraud are public.

The justice department did not respond to requests from the Guardian seeking comment from Durham, who is expected to write a final report on his inquiry later this year. Dannehy also did not respond to phone messages seeking comment.

Barr told the Los Angeles Times last week: “The idea that there’s a thin basis for labor [the Durham investigation] without holding water.” Barr added that “one of the duties of the attorney general is to protect against the abuse of criminal and intelligence powers, that they are not abused to interfere with political activity, so I felt it was my duty to find out what happened there. “.

Critics note that Barr’s defense is weak because Durham was tapped just a month after special counsel Robert Mueller released a sweeping report documenting significant ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, and concluded that Moscow tried to manipulate the election to help Trump in a “sweeping” and “systematic” way.

Barr’s defense of launching the Durham investigation also appears shaky, given public comments Barr made in congressional testimony at a Senate committee hearing in 2019. Barr was questioned several times by then-senator Kamala Harris whether Trump or any other White House official suggested or pressured him to launch his sweeping review. Barr was evasive, but acknowledged some “discussions” of the matter had taken place, adding “they have not asked me to open an investigation”.

For Raskin, the mounting evidence of misconduct in the Durham investigation comes at an ironic moment, as the House Republican majority created a special panel on the judiciary committee to look into the “weapon of government” that expected to focus heavily on the Biden administration and the Department of Justice and the FBI.

The Republican majority “created an arming committee that is an accurate and precise description of their own government reform activities to become a political weapon for Donald Trump and his inner circle”, Raskin said. . “Of course, they don’t have any interest in seeing the corruption of the justice system under Trump.”

[ad_2]