Durham Surprises Even Allies With Statement on F.B.I.'s Trump Case

[Eugene]

Source: New York Times

Durham Surprises Even Allies With Statement on F.B.I.’s Trump Case

The federal prosecutor leading a review of the origins of the Russia inquiry has a reputation for keeping his mouth shut. At a sensitive moment, he didn’t.

By Elizabeth Williamson
Dec. 23, 2019
Updated 5:40 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON — Whether investigating charges of torture by the C.I.A., rolling up an organized crime network or prosecuting crooked government officials, John H. Durham, the veteran federal prosecutor named by Attorney General William P. Barr to investigate the origins of the Russia inquiry, burnished his reputation for impartiality over the years by keeping his mouth closed about his work.

At the height of the Boston mob prosecution that made his name, he not only rebuffed a local newspaper’s interview request, but he also told his office not to release his résumé or photo.

That wall of silence cracked this month when Mr. Durham, serving in the most politically charged role of his career, released an extraordinary statement questioning one key element of an overlapping investigation by the Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz.

Mr. Horowitz had found that the F.B.I. acted appropriately in opening the inquiry in 2016 into whether the Trump campaign wittingly or unwittingly helped Russia influence the election in Donald J. Trump’s favor. In response, Mr. Durham, whose report is not expected to be complete for months, released a caveat-laden rebuttal: “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 F.B.I. case was opened.”

The statement seemed to support comments made half an hour earlier by Mr. Barr, who assailed what he called “an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign,” based “on the thinnest of suspicions.” Mr. Durham’s decision to go public in such a politically polarized environment surprised people who have worked with him. They found it out of character for him to intervene in such a high-profile way in an open case.

-snip-

Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/23/us/politics/john-durham-fbi-russia.html

[sheshe2]

1. What Whoa.

[2naSalit]

2. Compromised....nt

[Karadeniz]

3. Paywall! Can you summarize the thrust of the rest of the article?

[Eugene]

4. Durham has a reputation as a straight arrow. Some give give him the benefit of the doubt.

Others say he may tarnish is reputation for impartiality. While not seen as close to Barr, Durham did interact with the IG's investigation, and Durham and Barr seem to be singing in harmony.

The article then goes on to detail Durham's history as a prosecutor and his history of keeping tight lids on his investigations. This is out of character.

[Firestorm49]

5. As I understand it, "thinnest of suspicions" is a legal term introduced after 911 in the Patriot Act

That’s another reason it’s generally seen in quotes. It was introduced to allow our government to investigate terrorism “in the thinnest of suspicions”, and hence became a defining guideline to open an investigation. It should not summarily be taken literally as a cheap way to start, but rather, the authorized manner with which to begin an investigation.

[machoneman]

6. Perhaps but...he may have been threatened by Barr/Trump if he didn't sign on...

...to this flimsy investigation, solely based on Trump's belief the FBI was out to get him. Hence, his 'slip' may not have been accidental at all. Hey, just think of all the other idiots that have lost their reputations and even freedom, let alone 401K money to defense lawyers, on the altar of Trumpism!