After reading the recent article about him, I have no doubt John Durham is the best possible man for this job. He certainly has a stellar record and reputation, and although I didn’t know he’d never lost a case, my comment was about whether he can MAKE a case, or not. As AG Barr said, if crimes were committed and if it can be proved with evidence, those responsible will be prosecuted. That’s two “ifs”, and while the first “if” seems obvious, the second “if” is not yet known. We can only hope the laws are specific and strong enough. But in theory at least, who should know the laws better than those at the highest levels of the FBI and DOJ?
After reading the recent article about him, I have no doubt John Durham is the best possible man for this job. He certainly has a stellar record and reputation, and although I didn’t know he’d never lost a case, my comment was about whether he can MAKE a case, or not. As AG Barr said, if crimes were committed and if it can be proved with evidence, those responsible will be prosecuted. That’s two “ifs”, and while the first “if” seems obvious, the second “if” is not yet known. We can only hope the laws are specific and strong enough. But in theory at least, who should know the laws better than those at the highest levels of the FBI and DOJ?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I’ve read every article I could find about Durham. He has not lost a case ever, and he never prosecutes unless he is sure he will obtain a conviction. He is so dedicated that he’s almost inhuman, or rathers, seems without the usual human frailties. He will not even prosecute if he thinks there is not sufficient evidence to ensure a conviction.
I have no doubt he will charge many with crimes, and they will all be found guilty. My only concern is bad juries say in DC. But I’m sure the DoJ has worked on that aspect too. The criminals must face justice.