Barr Slams New York Times Reporting On Durham Probe

An ex-Attorney General William Barr The were chastised New York Times Special counsel reporting is critical to its accuracy John Durham‘s investigation into potential misconduct in the Trump-Russia probe.

Barr broke his silence while speaking to a reporter after delivering a speech in Sacramento, California, on Wednesday. He challenged aspects of an article published last week detailing alleged problems in Durham’s endeavor. “They ignored some fundamental facts as to why some of the information that Durham was seeking was very important information,” According to the, Barr was charged Los Angeles Times. He said that the article was missing “obvious reasons” for Durham’s investigation.

The New York Times “stands behind this story and the reporting it contains,” A spokesperson for the newspaper replied. Barr declined to comment in the original article.

In May 2019, shortly after special counsel Robert Mueller released his report, Barr appointed then-U.S. Attorney Durham to investigate the origins and conduct of the FBI inquiry into alleged ties between former President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia. In the final months Trump’s presidency, Barr elevated Durham from special counsel to give him additional protections and the ability to continue his work when President Joe Biden became president. Trump and his allies often champion Durham’s investigation as a means to unravel a suspected “Russiagate” An attack on the former president. Democrats and others criticize the inquiry as politically corrupted and meant to discredit Mueller, the FBI’s top officials, and other members of the public.

The New York Times report gave fuel to Durham’s detractors in Congress. Dick Durbin (D-IL), Chairman of Senate Judiciary Committee Threatened to initiate an investigation The House Democrats and Justice Department Inspector General were pressed to comply. Start a review To determine if Barr or Durham is the best choice “violated any laws, DOJ rules or practices, or canons of legal ethics.”

Goldman: Ted Lieu and I sent you a letter requesting that you conduct an investigation into Durham’s investigation to see if Mr. Barr or Mr. Durham violated any department policies, regulations, or law. Are you reviewing this letter? pic.twitter.com/fXPvuk8ots

— Acyn (@Acyn) February 1, 2023

The New York Times conducted a long review on the article published January 26, and it was published. “found that the main thrust of the Durham inquiry was marked by some of the very same flaws — including a strained justification for opening it and its role in fueling partisan conspiracy theories that would never be charged in court.” The article also outlined how Durham’s investigation “became roiled by internal dissent and ethical disputes,” leading to resignations by some dissatisfied prosecutors on the team, including Durham’s No. 2 Nora Dannehy, who allegedly disliked how Barr spoke ominously about the probe’s findings in public.

Barr, who appeared at the California News Publishers Association meetingThe notion that Durham was a problematic choice for the job was rejected by the president.

“The idea that there was a thin basis for doing it doesn’t hold water,” Barr stated. “Because it wasn’t started as a criminal investigation. One of the duties of the attorney general is to protect against the abuse of criminal and intelligence powers, that they’re not abused to impinge on political activity, so I felt it was my duty to find out what happened there.”

In addition, Barr defended himself in response to one of the most explosive claims in the article — that Durham once expanded his inquiry to include a criminal investigation into “suspicious financial dealings” Trump was linked to the tip of Italian officials. The report stated that the details were not clear and did not recommend Durham being charged.

Barr insists on the tip “was not directly about Trump” and argued it was appropriate to rope it into Durham’s investigation because “it did have a relationship to the Russiagate stuff. It was not completely separate from it. And it turned out to be a complete non-issue.”

Durham has so far secured one guilty plea. That of Kevin Clinesmith, an ex-FBI lawyer, who was accused falsifying a document to renew FISA surveillance powers on Carter Page, Trump’s former foreign policy adviser. Clinesmith was released from prison and could face a one-year bar suspension. Last year, Durham endured setbacks when prosecutions against former Hillary Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann and Igor Danchenko, a key source for British ex-spy Christopher Steele’s anti-Trump dossier, ended in acquittal in Washington, D.C., and Northern Virginia, respectively.

Whenever Durham’s report is complete, Attorney General Merrick Grland stated He would “like as much as possible to be made public,” However, he stressed that Privacy Act concerns will need to be addressed and that classification is something to consider.

“I think [Durham]’s going to explain, to the extent he’s allowed to put it out, the whole genesis of [the Russia interference claims] and how it all occurred,” Barr stated, According to the Los Angeles Times. “So what’s wrong with that? Review something.