Special counsel John Durham has issued his final report on the FBI’s investigation into links between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia during the 2016 election. The report, which is almost 300 pages long, strongly criticises the FBI and the Justice Department but does not suggest fresh charges or “wholesale changes” in how politically sensitive investigations are handled.
“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.
Despite not living up to the expectations of former President Trump and his allies, who expected the report to portray the inquiry as a political witch hunt, the study contains some key insights.
Durham questions FBI’s haste to investigate Trump
As per the report, the special counsel’s office conducted over 480 interviews, analysed over one million documents, and issued 190 grand jury subpoenas. Durham, on the other hand, has reservations about the FBI’s decision to begin a comprehensive investigation, accusing the organisation of failing to honour its commitment to rigorous adherence to the law, reported the Associated Press.
He claims that, while a preliminary inquiry was warranted, the FBI failed to take the essential measures, such as questioning pertinent witnesses or utilising established analytical methods.
BREAKING: Durham Report Exposes Russia Hoax Against Trump
In a shocking revelation, the three-year-long investigation led by special counsel John Durham has concluded that the FBI’s comprehensive probe into the alleged connections between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia… pic.twitter.com/vjLd8nsGao
— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) May 15, 2023
No “actual evidence of collusion”
Durham concludes that federal investigators had no “actual evidence of collusion” between Trump’s campaign and Russia before beginning the years-long investigation. This discovery lies at the heart of his critique of the FBI’s decision to begin a thorough investigation.
According to the report, if the FBI had taken extra procedures, such as analysing its intelligence databases or using conventional analytical methods, it would have discovered no evidence tying Trump to Russian officials.
FBI’s personnel bias
The report states that certain investigative staff had a proclivity to initiate an inquiry into Trump. Durham singles out former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and former counter-intelligence division deputy director Peter Strzok as being hostile to Trump, reported CNN.
ALSO WATCH | Prosecutor faults FBI’s Trump-Russia probe | Former NY mayor Rudy Giuliani sued
However, it should be emphasised that a prior assessment by DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz determined that Strzok and Lisa Page, an FBI attorney, did not initiate the probe due to political prejudice.
Different standards for Clinton and Trump
As per Durham’s assessment, the FBI launched the “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation between Trump and Russia using raw, unanalysed, and uncorroborated intelligence. When there was concern about potential electoral involvement by Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the FBI used different requirements.
The report states that the FBI never opened any inquiry or issued any taskings in response to the intelligence it received about a supposed Clinton campaign plan.
Steele dossier’s role
The report also criticises the Steele dossier, an explosive document that the FBI used to strengthen its case for probable cause in order to get surveillance warrants against a former Trump campaign aide.
The Steele dossier featured unproven charges about Trump’s supposed financial relationships with Russia, rumours of salacious trysts in Moscow, and suspicions that his campaign colluded with the Kremlin in 2016.
Durham claims that the Crossfire Hurricane investigation “did not and could not corroborate any of the substantive allegations” in the infamous Steele dossier, which the FBI used to get 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 sed 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.
Durham’s report is certain to fuel further discussion about Russia, Trump, the FBI, and the 2016 presidential election. House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan has asked Durham to testify, signalling that Trump’s Republican supporters may try to exploit the findings to further their political goals.
The report’s impact may be mitigated by Durham’s criminal record and past investigation of the occurrences by the Justice Department’s inspector general.
Trump has already exploited the report’s publication to claim vindication and to support his narrative of being the victim of a politically driven inquiry.
Who is John Durham?
The special counsel who headed the inquiry into alleged wrongdoing in the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation, John Durham, has made a career of pursuing high-profile public malfeasance, reported CNN.
Durham, 73, was appointed as special counsel by then-Attorney General William Barr in October 2020. He was previously the Justice Department’s top prosecutor in Connecticut, a post he held from 2017 to 2021.
Even though Democrats denounced Barr’s inquiry as politicised, he received bipartisan backing in 2019 when he was instructed by Barr to begin exploring whether intelligence and law enforcement broke the law in investigating the 2016 Trump presidential campaign.
Durham obtained his undergraduate degree from Colgate University and his law degree from the University of Connecticut School of Law. According to his official biography, he graduated with honours.
His first position was with VISTA, now known as AmeriCorps, where he served as a lawyer in Montana, providing legal services to members of the Crow Indian Tribe. His work there was primarily concerned with land use and natural resource concerns.
(With inputs from agencies)
