Let's approach this one step at a time.
When I criticized Al-Harith bin Mohammad Al-Kufi, you said that there is a different supporting route. You then provided "support" from the hadith of Ibn Abbas.
It seems that there was a miscommunication. I was requesting support from the narration of Abi Barzah.
You see, when studying the narration of Abi Barzah, the hadith comes from the narration of Abu Bakr bin Ayyash. Though, his two students narrate the hadith in two different ways. Al-Aswad bin Amir, narrates it from him, from Al-A'amash, from Sa'eed bin Abdullah bin Juraij, from Abi Barzah. (See Al-Tirmithi)
Al-Harith bin Mohammad also narrates it from Abu Bakr bin Ayyash, but presents the chain that you have provided.
It is unlikely that Abu Bakr bin Ayyash provided each student with a different chain. Such instances may occur, but when this happens, the default position is that the different chains are from the different students. In this case, Al-Aswad bin Amir is more reliable than Al-Harith bin Mohammad, who happens to be anonymous.
Also, the narration of Al-Aswad bin Amir does not contain anything about Ahlulbayt, which means that the narration of Al-Harith contains an addition. Additions, according to hadith sciences, cannot be approved through an anonymous narrator.
If you keep this in mind, you will come to the conclusion that Al-Harith bin Mohammad did not provide a correct chain or text. In other words, you cannot use this as "supporting evidence". A case for supporting evidence can only be made when the hadiths have some strength. This narration, on the other hand, has clear errors.