I'm not a defender of Bill Barr. And I think there's a good argument to be made that the DOJ was wrong to drop charges against the Russian troll farms.
But also, I don't think Barr's justification for why the DOJ cut and ran was entirely indefensible.
But also, I don't think Barr's justification for why the DOJ cut and ran was entirely indefensible.
The problem was that Russian authorities were exploiting the due process inherent in the U.S. criminal justice system to try to expose in court *how* they were caught — which would give the Kremlin info on how our intelligence networks work, and how to evade them next time.
It was terrible optics for Barr's DOJ to drop the case, but we should appreciate they were in a no-win situation.
If they won't prosecute Concord, Russia will be emboldened to keep attacking our elections.
But if they had, the IC's practices and informants might be exposed.
If they won't prosecute Concord, Russia will be emboldened to keep attacking our elections.
But if they had, the IC's practices and informants might be exposed.
It's really easy to say that Barr ordered US attorneys to drop the charges for partisan reasons, to discredit the Russia probe. And maybe that *was* part of it!
But even for a nonpartisan DOJ, this would have been a huge dilemma, and not an easy choice to make either way.
But even for a nonpartisan DOJ, this would have been a huge dilemma, and not an easy choice to make either way.
This is the constant story of international law disputes. Authoritarian regimes are always trying to turn the legal protections of democratic countries against them, and that sometimes leaves democratic countries with impossible choices that run contrary to justice.
