Will Bill Barr + John Durham = Jeff Sessions + John Huber?

Decisions made in nations, companies, and religions, where decisive power is held by one or a very few, can present a dilemma. Is the best decision driven by the need to change that which is failing, regardless of the shock of the change? Or, is it better to protect the status quo in order to sustain the institution as is? In short, is the essential role of leadership to shield the institution, or do what is right regardless of any consequential damages to it? This question faces the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) today under the leadership of Attorney General William Barr. The DoJ has already failed America once during Trump's Presidency. On November 22, 2017, then Attorney General Jefferson B. Sessions III sent the U.S. Attorney for Utah, John W. Huber, a letter wherein he tasked Huber "…to look into concerns raised by President Trump and his allies in Congress that the FBI had not fully pursued cases of possible corruption at the Clinton Foundation and during Clinton's time as secretary of state, when the U.S. government decided not to block the sale of a company called Uranium One." Huber's investigate yielded no results. It yielded no results because it never began. It never began because it was never intended to begin.

DoJ head fake

It was a DoJ head fake. Trump subsequently fired Sessions, who is now running for his old Senate seat, touting himself as a Trump supporter. Meanwhile, Huber remains the Obama-appointed U.S. Attorney for Utah. On, or about, May 13, 2019, current Attorney General William P. Barr assigned "the top federal prosecutor in Connecticut to examine the origins of the Russia investigation," as reported by the New York Times.  The media widely heralded the creds of U.S. Attorney John Durham.  On December 10, 2019, the Washington Examiner reported Barr‘s hint that "Durham's inquiry in the Russia investigation is not expected to wrap up until the spring or summer of 2020." In an interview with NBC News' Pete Williams, Barr said that Durham's investigation is taking a wide-ranging approach to his inquiries, "looking at the whole waterfront," starting back before the 2016 election. The meta-message to the readers was clear: Be patient because we have much to investigate, and that will take much time. (Don't be shocked if it doesn't come before the Nov. 2020 election.)

Barr-Durham just a longer, more-elaborate, DoJ head-fake?

But the question in the title remains open: Will Bill Barr + John Durham = Jeff Sessions + John Huber?   In other words, is Barr-Durham just a longer, more-elaborate, DoJ head-fake? So, is there anything during Barr's previous tenure as Attorney General to suggest that his main objective with Durham is to protect the integrity of the DoJ rather than bring justice to those who broke laws? In searching for an answer to that question, there is one piece of history that should give us pause. Barr was the U.S. Attorney General during the FBI incident known today—but forgotten by most—as Ruby Ridge. It happened 27 years ago, and was a precursor to the carnage at Waco, Texas where David Koresh and over 75 of his men, women, and child Branch Davidian followers died. Janet Reno was the Attorney General. You can read an overview of Ruby Ridge here.

Deadly siege at Ruby Ridge, Idaho

On December 22, 1995, the Los Angeles Times summarized a Senate committee's report on the Ruby Ridge: "The ‘chain of mistakes' in the deadly siege at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in 1992 involved ‘substantial failures' by U.S. law enforcement agencies, whose mission should be to save lives and enforce laws, a Senate panel concluded Thursday in a stern review of the confrontation. ‘The events at Ruby Ridge have helped to weaken the bond of trust that must exist between ordinary Americans and our law enforcement agencies,' the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on terrorism said in its report on the shootout and siege in which a deputy U.S. marshal and the wife and 14-year-old son of a fugitive were killed. ‘Those bonds must be reestablished--and that healing must begin with an honest accounting by those in government whose actions and inactions caused the deaths on Ruby Ridge,' said the report, which reflected 14 days of public hearings and the testimony of 62 witnesses. The subcommittee was critical of the FBI, the U.S. Marshals Service and the U.S. attorney's office in Idaho because of their actions at Ruby Ridge and in its aftermath. But the panel directed its heaviest fire at the Treasury Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms."

Federal agents killed two American citizens at Ruby Ridge

At the time, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms" was under then U.S. Attorney William Barr's authority.  Jump ahead to January 2019. During the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings for then Attorney General nominee William Barr, no Senator asked him about his legal crusade for blanket immunity for the federal agents who killed two American citizens at Ruby Ridge.   Question 23 of the Questionnaire For Non-Judicial Nominees that Barr filed with committee asked him to list his past pro bono work. He included this in his response:

"Between 1997 and 2001, I spent approximately 80 hours organizing amici (including former Attorneys General) to support an FBI sniper in defending against criminal charges in connection with the Ruby Ridge incident in Idaho. I enlisted a law firm to work pro bono on the case and assisted in framing legal arguments advanced by the amici in the district court and the subsequent appeal to the Ninth Circuit."

Randall Claude Weaver was charged with murder, conspiracy, and assault as well as other crimes. He was acquitted of all charges except for failing to appear for the original firearms charge.  He was sentenced to 18 months in prison. Surviving members of the Weaver family received a total of $3,100,000 in compensation for the shooting deaths of his wife, as she was holding their infant daughter, and their 14-year old son.