A legal expert ripped apart the indictment of a Democratic National Committee attorney in the long-running investigation ordered by former attorney general William Barr into the origins of the Russia probe.
Donald Trump has been promising that special prosecutor John Durham would reveal the Russia investigation was a conspiracy aimed against his presidency, but attorney David Lurie wrote a column for The Daily Beast arguing the sole indictment in the case was woefully insufficient to prove the former president's claims.
"Barr's hand-picked prosecutor has brought a case so weak that current Attorney General Merrick Garland should have rejected it in the interest of justice," Lurie writes.
Durham's indictment accuses attorney Michael Sussman of hiding his status as a Democratic "operative" while meeting with the FBI's senior attorney when he shared potentially inculpatory information about Trump, and Lurie called on Garland to prevent the case from moving forward.
"Durham's indictment was met with immediate criticism, and for good reason," Lurie writes. "It is so weak that facts Durham recites in his indictment gravely undermine the charge."
Lurie doubts that Durham will be able to prove Sussman made the supposed statements that form the basis of the indictment, because then-FBI general counsel James Baker doesn't remember whether the attorney told him whether he was working for Hillary Clinton or the Democrats.
"Whatever his intent, Durham has abused his discretion by bringing a tenuous case that should never have been presented to a grand jury, and thereby worked an injustice," Lurie writes. "Regardless of whether the case is ultimately rejected by the court or a jury, as it most certainly should be, Sussman, who has already lost his job, will be subject to the cost and stress of defending himself against defective charges, and — perhaps more importantly — a bad, and potentially dangerous, precedent will be set for future abuses of prosecutorial power."