The Blitzkrieg On Bill Barr And John Durham Is Just Beginning

The New York Times is afraid of the revelations made by Special Counsel John Durham during his three-year investigation into intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies. The outlet has stopped publishing because of this. “All the News That’s Fit to Print” To pilot a month-long Probe To tarnish Durham, former Attorney General William Barr. Only to follow a few more days later with an op-ed You can’t help but repeat the absurd. 

The first swing at Barr and Durham came on Thursday when The New York Times’ leading Russia-collusion hoaxers, Charlie Savage, Adam Goldman, and Katie Benner, published “How Barr’s Quest to Find Flaws in the Russia Inquiry Unraveled.” As I Details Monday’s hit piece was composed of “one part chutzpah and two parts mendacity,” with the authors — among other things — declaring the special counsel’s investigation a failure even before Durham released his final report, and only then by ignoring the already public evidence of misconduct by members of the Crossfire Hurricane team.

The New York Times was clearly planning a double punch. They ran on Monday an editorial board member David Firestone’s op-ed entitled “The New York Times”. “Bill Barr’s Image Rehab Is Kaput.” Firestone’s blow failed to land as well, with the former Times reporter and editor merely repeating many of the original misguided attacks on Barr.

For instance, Firestone referenced Savage, Goldman, and Benner’s reporting that Barr would regularly meet with Durham to discuss his progress and would advocate “on his behalf with intelligence officials,” Firestone declared such involvement illegal “attorneys general are not supposed to interfere in a special counsel’s investigation.” 

While Firestone avoided the more comical complaint Savage and his crew presented on Thursday — that Barr and Durham “sometimes dined and sipped Scotch together” — the premise that Barr acted inappropriately in regularly meeting with Durham to discuss his investigation is fatally flawed for two reasons. 

First, Barr did not appoint Durham as a special counsel until Oct. 19, 2020, with Durham’s work from May 2019 until then unrelated to the regulations governing special counsel appointments. And the Times’ original reporting noted that those “weekly updates and consultations about his day-to-day work” These were the only ones. “at times” It is likely that this ended well before Barr appointed Durham to be special counsel.

There is no conflict of interest

Even if Barr continued to meet with Durham regularly from Oct. 19, 2020 to the time Barr left as attorney general two month later, what does that mean? Barr did not grant Durham protections as a special counsel due to any conflict of interests that required Barr avoid discussing the investigation. 

While the relevant regulation, 28 C.F.R. § 600.1, provides for the appointment of a special counsel when the attorney general determines a “criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted” The investigation or prosecution “would present a conflict of interest for the Department,” In the same section, the special counsel can also be named. “other extraordinary circumstances” exist. 

Barr appointed Durham to the position of special counsel.