Bill Barr is a supreme example of a political jerk

 

New WP article about Bill Barr's reaction to his handpicked dirtdigger John Durham losing his single case in the "investigation" of the Russian connections to the Trump campaign in 2016.

Bill Barr’s reign of innuendo — unmasked

"But Barr’s argument, that the innuendo Durham spread is “far more important” than proving actual wrongdoing, unmasks Barr’s perverted view of justice. He didn’t tap Durham (or John Bash, who handled the unmasking probe) primarily to prosecute criminal behavior. He launched the inquiries to tell a political “story.”

“Part of this operation is to try to get the real story out,” Barr told Fox News. “And I have said from the beginning, you know, if we can get convictions, if they are achievable, then John Durham will achieve them. But, the other aspect of this is to get the story out.” Bringing a case for such a purpose violates Justice Department policy."

Now, in the Washington Post article that provided the excerpt above, "policy" is linked -- to here. 

And that's a long document.  I looked at it.  As far as I can tell, the part that appears to have been violated is this, particularly the part I underlined.

"9-27.220 - GROUNDS FOR COMMENCING OR DECLINING PROSECUTION

The attorney for the government should commence or recommend federal prosecution if he/she believes that the person's conduct constitutes a federal offense, and that the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction, unless (1) the prosecution would serve no substantial federal interest; (2) the person is subject to effective prosecution in another jurisdiction; or (3) there exists an adequate non-criminal alternative to prosecution.

Comment. Evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction is required under Rule 29(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to avoid a judgment of acquittal. Moreover, both as a matter of fundamental fairness and in the interest of the efficient administration of justice, no prosecution should be initiated against any person unless the attorney for the government believes that the admissible evidence is sufficient to obtain and sustain a guilty verdict by an unbiased trier of fact."

So, if Barr thought it was more important to "get the story out" (however twisted and erroneous the story he wanted to get out was" than to secure a conviction, and he hadn't actually determined that there was enough evidence to get a conviction, that would violate this Justice Department policy.

Do you agree?