As the Russia-collusion hoax demonstrated, the people will believe false claims if they are repeated frequently enough. This week, Margot Clevelen penned an opinion piece for The Federalist concerning Special Counsel John Durham and former Attorney General Bill Barr.

Cleveland begins by attacking The New York Times for publishing lies regarding the two individuals.

“The New York Times is terrified of what Special Counsel John Durham has uncovered during his more than a three-year investigation into intelligence and law enforcement agencies. There is no other explanation for why the outlet went from publishing “All the News That’s Fit to Print” to piloting a month-long probe to tarnish Durham and former Attorney General William Barr, only to follow a few days later with an op-ed parroting the nonsensical points,” adding:

The first swing at Barr and Durham came on Thursday when The New York Times’ leading Russia-collusion hoaxers, Charlie Savage, Adam Goldman, and Katie Benner, published “How Barr’s Quest to Find Flaws in the Russia Inquiry Unraveled.”

Cleveland then criticized a member of the Editorial Board for his remark against Barr:

Monday, the New York Times published an opinion written by editorial board member David Firestone with the heading “Bill Barr’s Image Rehab Is Kaput.” The former Times writer and editor only repeated many of the initial erroneous allegations against Barr when he attempted to deliver a hit.

For example, Firestone cited Savage, Goldman, and Benner’s reporting that Barr would regularly meet with Durham to discuss his progress and would advocate “on his behalf with intelligence officials,” declaring such involvement illegal because “attorneys general are not supposed to interfere with a special counsel’s investigation.”

While Firestone avoided the more humorous allegation made by Savage and his team on Thursday — that Barr and Durham “sometimes dined and sipped Scotch together” — the premise that Barr acted inappropriately by meeting regularly with Durham to discuss his investigation is fatally flawed for two reasons.

First, Barr did not appoint Durham as a special counsel until October 19, 2020; Durham’s activities between May 2019 and that date was irrelevant to the laws governing special counsel appointments. And according to the Times’ original story, these “weekly updates and consultations about his day-to day work” were only “at times” and certainly ceased well before Barr hired Durham as special counsel.

Cleveland defended Barr:

No Conflict of Interest

But even if Barr continued to meet regularly with Durham from Oct. 19, 2020, to when Barr departed as attorney general two months later, so what? Barr did not grant Durham the protections of a special counsel because of any conflict of interest that required Barr to avoid discussing the investigation with Durham.

More on this story via The Republic Brief:

While the pertinent regulation, 28 C.F.R. § 600.1, provides for the appointment of a special counsel when the attorney general determines a “criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted” and the investigation or prosecution “would present a conflict of interest for the Department,” the relevant section also authorizes the naming of a special counsel when “other extraordinary circumstances” exist. CONTINUE READING…