In a new piece at the Washington Post, two reporters quote associate after associate of U.S. Attorney John Durham, currently the lead investigator on the criminal probe looking at the predicate for the Russia collusion investigation, and each in turn cites Durham’s consummate professionalism and dispassionate and non-partisan approach to his work.

That is apparently not enough for the intrepid WaPo reporters however, as the entire thrust of their piece is that despite all this good chatter, Durham might be compromised simply because he’s working on a case that has the probability of helping Donald Trump.

There’s really no other way to read it.

Former assistant U.S. attorney Brian T. Kelly, who worked with Durham on the case, said Durham was a “consummate professional” who would not be swayed by partisan concerns in the Russia matter.

“He’ll call balls and strikes as he sees them,” Kelly said.

Former attorney general Michael Mukasey, who asked Durham in 2008 to investigate the CIA’s destruction of video tapes showing detainee interrogations overseas, said he chose Durham because he was “somebody of just complete integrity and discretion.” He said he found Durham’s recent statement was “unusual,” but not inappropriate.

Despite all this — and there’s more in their report where that came from — they insinuate that Durham, particularly in issuing his statement disagreeing with IG Michael Horowitz’s light-handed assertions involving political bias at the FBI, that the man famous for his professionalism might be working as a stooge for Trump.

At issue, apparently is a rumor that a previous draft of the Horowitz report contained a footnote saying that Durham had confirmed he had no evidence to suggest that the investigation was a setup by Joseph Mifsud. That rumor says the footnote was eventually redacted for the Horowitz report.

It’s important to remember, however, that Horowitz never mentioned it in his hearing. This is coming from people “familiar” with earlier drafts.

The WaPo piece also cites what can only be termed a threat by former Attorney General Eric Holder warning Durham about the fragility of reputation.

Former attorney general Eric Holder, who tapped Durham to expand his examination of the treatment of CIA detainees after his work for Mukasey, wrote in a Washington Post column that he had been “proud to know John for at least a decade,” but was troubled by the prosecutor’s public statement.

“Good reputations are hard-won in the legal profession, but they are fragile; anyone in Durham’s shoes would do well to remember that, in dealing with this administration, many reputations have been irrevocably lost,” Holder wrote.

Same old tricks from the same old crowd. Despite assertions in the WaPo piece that Durham was merely duplicating Horowitz’s work, it bears repeating that Durham can bring criminal charges based on the results of his investigation, something Horowitz could not do.

And, given the general tone of the WaPo op-ed, there’s a pretty good chance his investigation will lead to indictments.

In any event, at the end of the day, something tells me justice is more important to the attorney than reputation.