A letter written by a host of progressive Democrats – among
them U.S. Representatives Hank Johnson, D-GA, Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas,
Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., William Lacy Clay, D-Mo., Jared Huffman, D-Calif., Jan
Schakowsky, D-Ill., and five other progressive Democrats — marks the beginning
of a concerted attack on U.S. Attorney from the District of Connecticut John
Durham, appointed by Attorney General William Barr to investigate events
surrounding what might be called the prelude and aftermath of the completed
Robert Mueller report which, much to the disappointment of Democrats leading
the charge against President Donald Trump, did not find prosecutable instances
of collusion between Russia and the President.
According to a story in CTMirror,
the letter “said Barr and Durham should be ousted because they ‘inappropriately
interfered in independent Department of Justice investigations and
intentionally used (their) positions to mislead the American public in defense
of President Donald J. Trump.’ … The letter was prompted by the response of
Durham and Barr to Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s recently issued report
on his own investigation of the origins of the Russia probe.”
The accusation falls on very stony ground because it is not
possible to “interfere” in a COMPLETED investigation by commenting on the
investigation. This common sense rule applies
equitably to everyone, including editorial writers, reporters and reputation
tarnishers who have abandoned reason and common sense, such as the authors of
the letter referenced in the CTMirror story.
Both men, Barr and Durham, the story notes, “issued
statements critical of the Horowitz report,” which had been completed and
publicized before the comments had been made. Both Barr and Durham were careful
not to interfere in the Horowitz investigation, which was narrowly focused on
events surrounding an application to a FISA court that kicked off years of
hearings, investigations and commentary damaging to the Trump administration.
Durham’s remark on the report was brief and on point.
CTMirror notes, “Durham’s statement was opaque, saying ‘based
on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last
month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the
report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.’”
Durham is conducting his own investigation, far more wide-ranging than
Horowitz’s. The statement was necessarily "opaque" because the Durham report is
ongoing and likely will not be filed before spring.
The letter cited by CTMirror demands the resignation of Barr and Durham,
neither of whom, according to the letter “possess the
integrity necessary to serve in the Department of Justice.”
The letter, the story notes, was not signed by any of the
seven members of Connecticut’s all-Democrat U.S. Congressional Delegation.
However, “the letter’s demand for Barr’s resignation is not unique. In May, for
instance, Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal said Barr should ‘probably
resign’ because, the senator said, the attorney general had mislead the public
about the conclusions of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s report into
Russian meddling.” Blumenthal’s artful word “probably” is necessarily opaque
because it is not at all certain that Barr had “mislead the public about the
conclusions of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s report into Russian
meddling.”
The Mueller report firmly asserted that neither Trump nor anyone connected with the White House had engaged in collusion with Russia, but
the report was opaque on the question of obstruction of justice. No one
critical of the Mueller report after the report had been released to the
general public has yet been accused by Democrat congressmen of having engaged
in “interference” in the Mueller investigation – for the sensible reasons
stated above: once an investigation has been completed, comments issued
following the completed investigation cannot be construed as “interference in
the investigation.”
The eagerly awaited Durham report, due sometime in the
spring, is not merely the cherry on the cake of an upcoming Republican
presidential campaign. It is the cake, the hitherto uncited data and proof of a destructive,
purposeful, four-year effort on the part of Democrats to strangle the Trump presidency
in its crib.
The tendentious and premature attack on Durham – by all
accounts, including Blumenthal’s, an
honorable and effective prosecutor – is an attempt to blast in the bud
what promises to be a thorough examination of the pre and post Mueller Report
which, following a three year, highly partisan examination of the Trump 2016
campaign, FOUND NO COLLUSION between Trump and Vladimir Putin’s Russia. No
doubt partisan Democrat smear-agents even now are scouring Durham’s high school
records for signs of post Me-Too-Era irregularities, as happened with Judge
Brett Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court.
Comments