Special counsel John Durham concludes FBI never should have launched full Trump-Russia probe | CNN Politics
By: Zachary Cohen,Devan Cole,Tierney Sneed,Jeremy Herb (CNN)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
In this May 2022 photo, special counsel John Durham leaves federal court in Washington, DC. Julia Nikhinson/Reuters CNN —
Special counsel John Durham concluded that the FBI should never have launched a full investigation into connections between Donald Trump's campaign and Russia during the 2016 election, according to a report compiled over three years by the Trump-administration appointee and released on Monday.
Durham's 300-plus page report also states that the FBI used "raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence," to launch the "Crossfire Hurricane" investigation into Trump and Russia but used a different standard when weighing concerns about alleged election interference regarding Hillary Clinton's campaign.
The special counsel, however, did not recommend any new charges against individuals or "wholesale changes" about how the FBI handles politically charged investigations, despite strongly criticizing the agency's behavior.
"Based on the review of Crossfire Hurricane and related intelligence activities, we conclude that the (Justice) Department and FBI failed to uphold their important mission of strict fidelity to the law in connection with certain events and activities described in this report," Durham wrote.
The report also concludes that "at least on the part of certain personnel intimately involved in the matter" there was "a predisposition to open an investigation into Trump."
Durham's findings that the FBI's investigation into the Trump campaign should not have happened are at odds with a previous Justice Department inspector general investigation into the FBI's Russia probe, which identified problems with the investigation but concluded in December 2019 there was sufficient justification to open the inquiry.
Attorney General Merrick Garland sent Durham's report to congressional lawmakers and released the report on Monday.
In a letter to Congress accompanying the report, Garland said, "Special Counsel Durham's unclassified report is attached in full as submitted to me, without any additions, redactions, or other modifications."
Durham's conclusions condemning the FBI's investigation into Trump is sure to fuel the debate about Russia, Trump, the FBI and the 2016 presidential election that is still swirling more than six years after and as Trump is campaigning once again for the White House.
The investigation was launched in May 2019 by Trump's former Attorney General William Barr - a probe that Trump and his right-wing allies repeatedly predicted would "investigate the investigators" and lead to bombshell indictments of those who scrutinized the former president. Four years later, Durham's investigation yielded one minor conviction, two losses at trial and a probe that fell short of the lofty goals set by the former president.
Durham only secured one conviction: the guilty plea of a low-level FBI lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, who avoided jail after admitting to doctoring an email about a surveillance warrant. Durham's other two prosecutions - against a Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer and the primary source for the Trump-Russia dossier - ended with embarrassing acquittals.
In a statement Monday, the FBI said its leadership has "already implemented dozens of corrective actions, which have now been in place for some time," in response to the conduct examined by Durham. "Had those reforms been in place in 2016, the missteps identified in the report could have been prevented," the statement adds.
Steele Dossier's role
The report is also critical of the Steele Dossier, an explosive document that had been used by the FBI to bolster its case for probable cause to secure surveillance warrants against a former Trump campaign adviser.
The Steele dossier contained unverified allegations about Trump's connections to Russia, including his alleged business dealings, rumors of lurid trysts in Moscow and claims that his campaign collaborated with the Kremlin in 2016.
Durham says he found that the Crossfire Hurricane investigation "did not and could not corroborate any of the substantive allegations" contained in the controversial Steele Dossier, which was used by the FBI to obtain a FISA warrant.
"As noted, it was not until mid-September that the Crossfire Hurricane investigators received several of the Steele Reports. Within days of their receipt, the unvetted and unverified Steele Reports were used to support probable cause in the FBI's FISA applications targeting (Carter) Page, a U.S. citizen who, for a period of time, had been an advisor to Trump," the report says.
"As discussed later in the report, this was done at a time when the FBI knew that the same information Steele had provided to the FBI had also been fed to the media and others in Washington, D.C," it adds.
Witness testimony exposed the FBI's overreliance on the dossier as it sought court approval to wiretap a former Trump campaign adviser in 2016. Other FBI officials described rookie mistakes that undercut the bureau's brief inquiry into a possible Trump-Russia internet backchannel. At closing arguments during one of last year's trials, Durham told jurors that "the FBI failed" on many occasions.
But Durham did not recommend sweeping changes or new rules around how politically sensitive investigations are handled. Instead, the report calls for "a renewed fidelity" to the guidelines and politics the DOJ and FBI now have in place.
Mixed results over 3+ years
Barr tapped Durham in 2019 to review the origins of the Russia probe, and the scope of Durham's work grew over the years. He scrutinized the FBI's handling of the dossier, leaks of classified information about Trump-Russia contacts, possible CIA misconduct regarding its analysis of Russian meddling, among other topics. Largely, his inquiry seemed to always zero in on Trump's political opponents and perceived enemies.
When Durham began his probe, he was seen as an apolitical truth-seeker with a knack for investigating complex cases, including government scandals. But that reputation waned over the years, especially after Durham took the unprecedented step of publicly rebuking the Justice Department inspector general, after the watchdog released a report finding that the FBI's decision to open the Trump-Russia probe was legally justified and untainted by bias.
Both Barr and Durham were publicly critical of the December 2019 inspector general report on the FBI's Russia investigation. That report contained blistering criticisms of FBI's reliance of an unverified opposition research dossier on Trump and Russia and the FISA warrants that cited the dossier's allegations, but Inspector General Michael Horowitz wrote he did not find "documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions" to open investigations that initially focused on four Trump campaign aides and advisers.
Former special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, which inherited the initial Russia probe, released a detailed accounting of Russia's effort to interfere in the 2016 election. Mueller found no evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, but investigators documented numerous contacts between Trump associates and Russians. The final Mueller report did not rely on the opposition research dossier.
The FBI has made reforms to the way it obtains warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in light of the inspector general's report - which led to FBI invalidating two of the four warrants it obtained on the Trump campaign adviser - as well as a follow up investigation revealing widespread problems with FISA court applications.
In congressional testimony in 2020, FBI Director Chris Wray said that the FBI had implemented more than 40 changes aimed at making the FISA process more stringent in response to Horowitz's report.
Two acquittals
Before the 2020 election, Barr elevated Durham to "special counsel" status, further protecting his position and making it politically difficult for the Biden-run Justice Department to control or shut down the investigation.
Durham pressed forward with two trials over the course of his probe.
During the trials, Trump and his allies continued to make bold predictions about what would be uncovered in the probe, particularly after Durham released vague allegations through court filings. Trump last year told Fox News that Durham was exposing the "crime of the century."
His case against Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann ended with an acquittal in May. Durham charged Sussmann with lying to a top FBI official in September 2016 while passing along a tip about Trump's ties to Russia. Sussmann's lawyers accused Durham of bullying witnesses into changing their story and cherry-picking evidence to fuel claims of an anti-Trump conspiracy. After his acquittal, Sussmann said he was "falsely accused" by Durham.
In October, Durham personally oversaw his trial against Trump-Russia dossier source Igor Danchenko, who was charged with lying to the FBI about his sub-sourcing. Durham handled most of arguments and witness questioning, but things quickly got off the rails.
He attacked his own witnesses when they helped the defense, and the judge threw out one of the five charges mid-trial. The Virginia jury reached "not guilty" verdicts on all remaining counts.
This story is breaking and will be updated.
Tags
Who is online
229 visitors
Durham is officially done.
No indictments of -
James Comey,
Peter Strzok
Andrew McCabe,
Hillary Clinton,
Barack Obama
John Brennan
James Clapper,
and on and on
No indictments.
All those tens of millions dollars wasted on a 4 year witch hunt.
No spying on Trump. Barr and Durham have both humiliated themselves.
He has no facts from his probe, but felt it necessary to spout off his completely unsupported opinion.
Oh the sheer fucking irony................SMMFH
Would love to know where he pulled those dollar numbers from however as Forbes in January reported that the probe had cost $6.5 thru the end of 22.
If he develops Alzheimer's he can run for president as a democrat in 10 years.
It was only $6.5million as of the end of 2022, so maybe a few $100K more than that.
Certainly not "tens of millions".
But it was a repeat of the IG report which had already been done and totally unnecessary.
Durham ignored all of the Russians who were charged and deported during the Mueller investigation.
Durham ignored the Manafort conviction and ties to Russians.
Durham ignored the lying by Manafort, Stone and Flynn, Millikelvin, gates, Cohen, Papadopoulos.
and a string of smaller fish.
The Durham report is an opinion report that could have been done 3 years ago without the expense.
What were Manafort and the others convicted of?
What was Trump convicted of?
How much money did the Mueller Report waste?
How, exactly, did the Russians "meddle" in our election, and what did they do to support Trump?
Stop asking them for facts.
They have their talking points; and they will stick to them until they are compost.
Greg you are obviously capable of using a computer. Google it.
Then find out how many dozens of convictions by a jury,
Mueller had vs Durham.
Case closed.
How many Americans were convicted of conspiring with Russia?
Zero is not dozens.
Mueller had vs Durham
Durham actually convicted an FBI agent.
ase close
Yes, Durham was the only one to obtain convictions on the central point of his investigation.
Klinesmith had already been disciplined and fired when the DOJ handed the case to Durham.
If getting someone to plead guilty is a conviction then Mueller is ahead 8 to 1.
Mueller won one case by trial, Durham lost both of his when the juries acquitted the accused.
It took Mueller 5 months to start filing charges and 22 months to conclude his investigation.
Durham has been doing this for how long? 42 months = fail.
Please do enumerate his convictions based on this investigation.
[Deleted]
So what happened to dozens??
Mueller won one case by trial,
So not dozens, then?
k Mueller 5 months to start filing charges and 22 months to conclude his investigation
How many for conspiring with Russians? Zero. Again, Durham at least obtained a relevant conviction.
se do enumerate his convictions based on this investigation.
Very brave of you to focus on that after falsely claiming Mueller obtained dozens of convictions by jury trials. .
It's very telling you find simple recitations of fact, pro Putin. Supporting lies and hating facts makes you what, exactly?
I am pro truth, pro-democracy and anti-fascism.
And yes, [Deleted]
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
[Deleted.] A tale as old as time.
Mueller indicted dozens of people and several companies, however most were Russians who were deported or are now banned from travel to the US and Europe.
I challenged Gregg to find something on his own.
I may have misled y'all about asking him "how many dozens by jury" he could find.
Perhaps you can do the math for him and compare it to Durhams's 1 guilty plea.
Muller only convicted Stone on 7 counts by trial.
Manafort once by trial and twice by guilty plea.
Cohen 3 times, Freidman 1, Pinedo 1, Flynn 1.
Manafort and Gates were each indicted on 12 charges apiece.
Gates pled guilty to 2 and turned state's evidence.
van der Zahn 1, Papadopulos 1,
What's that, 20 to 1?
Very brave of you to play English teacher on social media while defending a total failure.
Essentially validates every criticism of the collusion debacle. It should never have been launched, there was no evidence to sustain it and it did untold damage to this country.
That Durham demonstrated massive and indefensible mistakes of judgment but didn't think he could prove coordinated criminal behavior by a law enforcement agency is not a victory for the left. It's amazing they think this vindicates their lies. But these are the same people who read the IG report and think Adam Schiff belongs in Congress, so some people have a very high tolerance for being manipulated, I guess.
What is the over/under on some moron coming along a making the comment that the CIA/FBI have been investigating trump for years for Russia collusion?
45 posts within 24 hours.
I'll take the over.
It shouldn't be long
Especially with his "contact" with "clandestine Russian spies".
It's gonna happen
Essentially Durham gives his opinion.
Until it is verified and adjudicated true in a court of law it is an opinion. The Inspector General of the FBI had a different opinion.
The fact is that the nation has been told for 4 years that indictments were coming against very well known Democrats and FBI and Obama administration officials. None of it ever happened. Epic fail.
That's all Mueller did too. Or the Congressional Committees that investigated this did. . It's literally what special counsels are supposed to do.
He offered his opinions based on the evidence he documented . Anyone who reads this report and just says it's just "opinions" doesn't know what that word means.
Same for anybody who read the Mueller report and said it was just opinion. Mueller had trump and his criminal crew cold.
The senate investigation found the same thing that Mueller did and refused to do their job by not indicting Trump.
Sad how some (likely Russian bots) keep defending Trump.
Of course. It was all partisan politics from the get go.
TAPPER: Durham report is "devastating to the FBI and to a degree, it does exonerate Donald Trump."
When you've lost Jake Tapper....
Because the origins of the CIA and FBI probes (plural) into Trump's secretive relationships with clandestine agents of Putin's Russian State Intelligence Services were all legally predicated and predated the '16 Presidential election by years. Trump thrust himself into ongoing investigations by seeking out and meeting with and establishing long term relationships with Russian spies and agents!
This comment is a lie, it has been proven a lie multiple times.
No George, it is the god's honest truth...
It is why Durham was doomed to FAIL!
Very Trump like response from you.
Definitely a lie, that is for sure.