Bill Barr volunteers his disturbing view of John Durham’s mission.
Latest in John Durham
The Michael Sussmann case was an attempt to supplant the traditional understanding of the Trump-Russia story with an insurgent model in which the more important story than the Trump-Russia relationship was the conduct of the investigation of it.
The prosecution of Michael Sussmann’s indictment may seem unconnected to the precipitous drop in the volume of the intelligence community’s use of complex investigative techniques. The two are, in fact, closely connected.
The indictment of Michael Sussmann is far removed from the supposedly grave FBI misconduct Durham was supposed to reveal. It’s also a remarkably weak case.
The indictment alleges that Sussmann lied about his client in a 2016 meeting about former President Trump and Russia.
William Barr has played a dirty trick on his successor—one that will put the next attorney general in a genuine bind.
Among other things, the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on Russian election interference and New York Times reporter Michael Schmidt’s book on the Russia investigation shed light on U.S. Attorney John Durham’s ongoing probe.
The investigation as it developed should not have been conducted by a federal prosecutor, and Attorney General Barr’s public commentary has seriously (and somewhat mysteriously) damaged the credibility of whatever Durham uncovers.
The New York Times and other media outlets, citing anonymous sources, recently reported that the Department of Justice inquiry into the origins of the Russia investigation has “shifted” from an administrative review to a criminal investigation.
On Wednesday, SDNY Judge J. Paul Oetken ruled on the New York Times’ and DOJ’s cross-motions for summary judgment in a FOIA suit seeking documents related to federal prosecutor John Durham’s 2008 to 2012 investigation of the CIA’s detainee interrogation program.