Barr Requesting a Report From Durham Is Consistent With DOJ Policy

Report From Durham Is Consistent With DOJ Policy — Those Suggesting Otherwise Are Partisan Opponents

posted by Shipwreckedcrew at RedState

Another subject of the online “Greek Chorus” of former federal prosecutors gives voice to “outrage” over the suggestion that Attorney General Barr is asking US Attorney Durham to produce an “interim report” of his investigation to date into the origins of the Russia Hoax investigation.  The enterprise was initiated by the Obama Administration and carried over into the Trump Administration by members of the Anti-Trump “Resistance” embedded into the federal government, later spearheaded by the Robert Mueller-headed Special Counsel’s Office.

Before we get to their lamentations, let’s first lay a foundation for considering their hypocrisy.

The DOJ regulations governing the appointment of a “Special Counsel” like Robert Mueller, provide the following:

§ 600.8 Notification and reports by the Special Counsel.

(2) (c) Closing documentation. At the conclusion of the Special Counsel’s work, he or she shall provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel.

Does “a confidential report” look anything like this?

Where were the objectors when the SCO decided that publishing a book accorded with the Regulations which said a “confidential report” should be submitted to the Attorney General?

All those squawking that Durham would be violating DOJ Policy by producing a report to the AG were conspicuously silent — no, I take that back — they were SHOUTING from the rooftops that the findings of the SCO had to be made public.  In fact, Mueller’s Staff of Democrat Partisans drafted executive summaries for each chapter that would not require DOJ declassification review for the very purpose of having those released to the public ahead of the release of the actual report itself, so all the Partisans’ conclusion and suppositions could begin to take root in the media coverage as “facts.”

Democrats in Congress DEMANDED that the SCO’s findings be released to the public because they were convinced the SCO would uncover all the evidence that HAD TO EXIST to show that Pres. Trump was a Russian agent and a Putin stooge.  They just had to find it because so much had been leaked to the media by the Intelligence Community for nearly 3 years that said it was so.

So, with that backdrop of “hypocrisy”, let’s check in with the “Greek Chorus” referenced above:

Prosecutors do not issue interim “reports” or comment on ongoing investigations.

DOJ policy requires a moratorium on significant events in investigations that might influence an election within 60 days of that election.

Bill Barr is trying to violate both of these policies.

— Daniel Goldman (@danielsgoldman) September 12, 2020

The 60-day reference he makes is not policy — he’s misleading the readers.

As a federal prosecutor for almost 20 years, I never issued or observed a public report about an investigation. We either filed an indictment or we closed the investigation. A public report by Durham would violate the very thing for which @Comey was purportedly fired. https://t.co/4NYPCMGIyd

— Barb McQuade (@BarbMcQuade) September 12, 2020

That’s not what Comey was fired for.  Comey was fired because he was insubordinate when he usurped to the FBI Director a decision that belonged to the Attorney General when he thought the Attorney General had compromised herself on the question.  That wasn’t for him to decide.  McQuade is a dishonest hack who had a reputation for running a “do nothing” office in Detroit that was avoided by federal agencies when they could get cases filed elsewhere.

Three critically important points regarding Barr’s attempt to force Durham to issue an interim report before the election: 1. PROSECUTORS DO NOT ISSUE REPORTS,
2. PROSECUTORS DO NOT ISSUE REPORTS AND
3. PROSECUTORS DO NOT ISSUE REPORTS.
This is a Bill Barr election smear!

— Glenn Kirschner (@glennkirschner2) September 12, 2020

There’s really no explaining Kirschner — how this guy 

was a senior DOJ official just baffles me.

So, what is this “DOJ Policy” and what does it mean?

1-7.000 — CONFIDENTIALITY AND MEDIA CONTACTS POLICY

1-7.001 – Purpose

The Department of Justice (DOJ) Confidentiality and Media Contacts Policy (the Policy) applies to all DOJ personnel, including employees, contractors, detailees, and task force partners.

The Policy governs the protection and release of information that DOJ personnel obtain in the course of their work, and it balances four primary interests: (1) an individual’s right to a fair trial or adjudicative proceeding; (2) an individual’s interest in privacy; (3) the government’s ability to administer justice and promote public safety; and (4) the right of the public to have access to information about the Department of Justice.

The Policy provides internal guidance only and does not create any rights enforceable in law or otherwise. DOJ components may promulgate more specific policies, consistent with and subject to this Policy.

Here is a second important provision on under what circumstances public comment is allowed:

1-7.400 – Disclosure of Information Concerning Ongoing Criminal, Civil, or Administrative Investigations

A.  Any communication by DOJ personnel with a member of the media relating to a pending investigation or case must be approved in advance by the appropriate United States Attorney or Assistant Attorney General…

B.  DOJ generally will not confirm the existence of or otherwise comment about ongoing investigations….

C.  When the community needs to be reassured that the appropriate law enforcement agency is investigating a matter, or where release of information is necessary to protect the public safety, comments about or confirmation of an ongoing investigation may be necessary, subject to the approval requirement in subparagraph A.

So, that “policy” all the lefty partisan former DOJ types are gnashing their teeth over actually provides that one of the interests balanced in the policy is the right of the public to have access to information about DOJ.

Further, the policy against commenting on ongoing investigations is subject to exceptions depending on circumstances — it is “generally” applicable, which means that it may be waived under appropriate circumstances.  One of the explicit grounds for waiving the policy set forth in the policy is the need to reassure the community that a matter is under investigation — including commenting on the status of the investigation.

Whether the left-wing liberal legal eagles like it or not, there are millions of Trump supporters who WANT to know what Durham is doing, and who want to know that potentially criminal matters uncovered by the IG investigations are being pursued and that offenders are going to be prosecuted just like any other citizen would be in the same circumstances.

More significantly, the subject of the investigation is official misconduct of government actors — from working FBI agents and line DOJ attorneys right up to the Obama Administration Attorney General and FBI Director.

No serious case can be made that these are not matters of grave public concern.  If the Russia investigation was an orchestrated farce from the very start — and later pursued by the SCO for the purpose of obstructing the duly elected President of the United States in the performance of his duties in that office, the public should know before the next election if the party seeking to regain the White House was functionally responsible for such obstructive behaviors.

Declaring that Brennan, Clapper, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, and other Anti-Trump partisans should enjoy the same confidentiality protections as private citizens, under circumstances where their actions were that of public officials wielding the authority of the federal government, is simply idiotic.  As the saying goes, “the Constitution is not a suicide pact.”  The Trump Administration is not required to sit quietly and suffer through a second election while the gears of the Democrat party and federal bureaucratic resistance do all they can to undermine and defeat the Administration.

The opposition partisans are ALL writing books with their narratives.  It will be interesting to see how well those narratives hold up under the revelations that a Durham report might bring.

This is truly one exceptional instance where “sunshine is the best disinfectant.”  Let the sun shine on all the evidence that Durham has unearthed, and let the Court of Public opinion render a verdict at the ballot box in November.

The fear driving the Democrat partisans wringing their hands over a possible Durham report is that Trump will win re-election, and then the “dogs of war” are really going to come after the malefactors.

Why should President Trump be forgiving in a second term?

They know he won’t be, and William Barr has pledged that nothing like what happened in 2016 should ever happen to a Presidential candidate again.