“Insanely corrupt”: Despite failure, Bill Barr brags that John Durham boosted Trump’s Clinton smears
Legal experts slammed the Durham probe as “incredibly weak” and a “roaring waste of money and time.”
“The case wasn’t a nothing-burger, but it was very thin, and it’s hard to understand why it was brought other than to support Trump’s allegation that the Clinton campaign falsely alleged a Trump-Russia connection,” Stephen Gillers, a legal ethics professor at New York University, told The New York Times. “That motive is unacceptable. The government’s only legitimate goal in bringing this case was conviction.”
Barr’s admission that it was more important for Durham to stoke Trump’s narrative than get a conviction drew blowback from legal experts.
“Barr suggests that the value of Durham’s case against Sussman was that it brought out evidence against the Clinton campaign,” tweeted former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti. “Making evidence public is not a proper reason to charge someone with committing a crime. Sussman’s life was turned upside down before he was acquitted.”
Former FBI counterintelligence chief Peter Strzok, who was fired after being targeted by Trump for his involvement in special counsel Bob Mueller’s probe even though he was cleared of any wrongdoing by the DOJ, also hit out at Barr on Twitter.
“Barr brazenly saying the quiet part out loud: Durham using criminal prosecutions to get out a false Russia narrative is ‘far more important’ than actually achieving convictions,” he wrote.
“An insanely corrupt and politicized DOJ,” he wrote, “right out in the open.”
billopfer Premium Member almost 2 years ago
Does the Pulitzer give awards for fiction?
MC4802 Premium Member almost 2 years ago
Pulitizer Price for Fiction
Radish the wordsmith almost 2 years ago
Not guilty yes, booby prize for lying moron Durham.
Lawless republiguns are having difficulty dealing with reality.
Radish the wordsmith almost 2 years ago
“Insanely corrupt”: Despite failure, Bill Barr brags that John Durham boosted Trump’s Clinton smears
Legal experts slammed the Durham probe as “incredibly weak” and a “roaring waste of money and time.”
“The case wasn’t a nothing-burger, but it was very thin, and it’s hard to understand why it was brought other than to support Trump’s allegation that the Clinton campaign falsely alleged a Trump-Russia connection,” Stephen Gillers, a legal ethics professor at New York University, told The New York Times. “That motive is unacceptable. The government’s only legitimate goal in bringing this case was conviction.”
Barr’s admission that it was more important for Durham to stoke Trump’s narrative than get a conviction drew blowback from legal experts.
“Barr suggests that the value of Durham’s case against Sussman was that it brought out evidence against the Clinton campaign,” tweeted former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti. “Making evidence public is not a proper reason to charge someone with committing a crime. Sussman’s life was turned upside down before he was acquitted.”
Former FBI counterintelligence chief Peter Strzok, who was fired after being targeted by Trump for his involvement in special counsel Bob Mueller’s probe even though he was cleared of any wrongdoing by the DOJ, also hit out at Barr on Twitter.
“Barr brazenly saying the quiet part out loud: Durham using criminal prosecutions to get out a false Russia narrative is ‘far more important’ than actually achieving convictions,” he wrote.
“An insanely corrupt and politicized DOJ,” he wrote, “right out in the open.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/insanely-corrupt-despite-failure-bill-barr-brags-that-john-durham-boosted-trump-s-clinton-smears/ar-AAY0hS1?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=19d5cba6a0954fbb8e56e23e2fa4ad50
Subversive almost 2 years ago
Award for best confirmation bias investigation in the history of US politics.
Rich Douglas almost 2 years ago
Only because the Darwin is back-ordered. Supply chain issues and all that.
Rich Douglas almost 2 years ago
That’s right! There is a Pulitzer category for Fiction!
AndrewSihler almost 2 years ago
There is in fact a Pulitzer Prize for fiction, but it’s for novels mainly.