Greenwich Time

Durham named special counsel amid cloud

- EMILIE MUNSON emilie.munson@hearstdc.com; Twitter: @emiliemuns­on

WASHINGTON — U.S. Attorney for Connecticu­t John Durham is now one of just a handful of individual­s to ever be named special counsel for the Department of Justice.

The change may extend the life of his high-profile investigat­ion into matters surroundin­g the 2016 election. In name, at least, it extends a distinctio­n to Durham’s investigat­ion that elevating it on a par with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s two-year probe and others.

Some lawyers have questions about whether Durham qualifies for the special counsel job, however, based on the requiremen­ts spelled out in the law authorizin­g the position.

U.S. Attorney General William Barr told Congress this week he conferred this new title and its powers to Durham back in October. The move appears aimed at ensuring the continuati­on during the administra­tion of Presidente­lect Joe Biden of an investigat­ion that Durham has been working on for more than a year — a probe of how federal authoritie­s investigat­ed the 2016 election and Russian interferen­ce.

“It’s customary for a president to have his own U.S. attorneys, so John could be fired and nobody would ever know what came out of the investigat­ion,” said Stan Twardy, Connecticu­t’s former U.S. Attorney from 1985 to 1991. “What this appointmen­t does is now the new Attorney General would have to specifical­ly shut off the investigat­ion... he can stay in this role even if he is not an employee of the Department of Justice.”

The special counsel designatio­n does not change Durham’s powers to investigat­e and prosecute, Twardy said.

U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Connecticu­t’s former Attorney General, called the appointmen­t unusual and Durham’s investigat­ion “deeply flawed.”

“This appointmen­t is highly abnormal and reflects a highly abnormal investigat­ion,” Blumenthal said. “Now Attorney General Barr seems to be abusing the special counsel regulation­s in order to shackle the next administra­tion with this political distractio­n.”

Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., urged Democrats to show Durham the same respect as Mueller.

"This important investigat­ion must be allowed to proceed free from political interferen­ce,” Graham said, according to Politico.

Durham is an acclaimed career prosecutor with a long history of tackling organized crime at the state and federal level. He’s handled sensitive investigat­ions for U.S. attorneys general of both parties. He declined to comment for this column.

His probe into the government’s investigat­ion into the 2016 election has already produced one prosecutio­n: former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith pleaded guilty to making false statements when he doctored an email submitted to a federal court for a warrant. Prosecutor­s are seeking jail time for Clinesmith.

Director of National Intelligen­ce John Ratcliffe said in October that they had released over 1,000 pages of previously classified documents to Durham.

Democrats have taken issue with the investigat­ion because Barr launched it with urging from President Donald Trump, who called investigat­ions into his campaign — including that by Special Counsel Mueller — a “witch hunt.”

Mueller’s two year investigat­ion looked into the the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 election and any coordinati­on between Russia and the Trump campaign. He establishe­d that the campaign did not collude with Russia, but he did not make a finding on whether the campaign obstructed justice.

The day after Barr sent a controvers­ial letter to Congress summarizin­g the findings of Mueller’s investigat­ion in March 2019, Barr sat down with Durham in his office in Washington, D.C. Since then, Barr has taken an active role in the Durham probe — Durham and Barr traveled to Italy together twice in August to meet with officials for their inquiry. They’ve also sought help from other foreign countries and individual­s — including Ukrainian nationals.

According to the special counsel regulation­s passed in 1999, a special counsel may be appointed when a U.S. Attorney General determines a criminal investigat­ion of a person or matter is warranted and that investigat­ion or prosecutio­n by a U.S. Attorney or the Department of Justice “would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordin­ary circumstan­ces.” The investigat­ion is supposed to be “in the public interest” to complete.

Former federal prosecutor Elizabeth De La Vega noted that the special counsel regulation­s require that a special counsel come from outside the U.S. government.

Neal Katyal, former U.S. acting solicitor general who helped write the special counsel regulation­s, wrote in an op-ed that the special counsel position was designed to be filled by someone whose independen­ce, integrity and impartiali­ty was assured. But he questioned whether politics had already tainted the Durham investigat­ion because Nora Dannehy, his top aide in the investigat­ion, resigned in part over concerns that the investigat­ion was under political pressure to conclude before the presidenti­al election.

“John is a lot like Bob Mueller,” Twardy countered. “He was never the director of the FBI, but he has the same reputation as a non- partisan, play by the books prosecutor and somebody who doesn’t leak anything.”

As special counsel, Durham will report continue to investigat­e although he may cease working as U.S. Attorney for Connecticu­t in January. He will make reports to Biden’s attorney general who could require him to explain his work or fire him for a list of specific reasons. But removing Durham from his investigat­ion is likely to be viewed as an obstructiv­e act.

Durham’s work could result in a final report — parts of which may be made public — in addition to any further prosecutio­ns.

 ?? Bob Child / Associated Press ?? John Durham in a 2006 file photo.
Bob Child / Associated Press John Durham in a 2006 file photo.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States