Special Counsel John Durham, who Attorney General Bill Barr appointed to investigate the origins of the Trump-Russia probe, has released a 300-page report accusing the FBI of negligence in opening the investigation based on vague and insufficient information.
The report, which Durham presented to Attorney General Merrick Garland, criticized the FBI for failing to uphold its mission and displaying a lack of analytical rigor, particularly when receiving information from politically affiliated sources. Durham argued that the FBI acted hastily in opening the investigation based on unsubstantiated information after a Trump campaign aide mentioned receiving an offer from Russia.
Durham’s report seemed to be an appeal to the court of public opinion, aligning with claims made by Trump and his allies that the FBI unfairly targeted his campaign. However, Durham’s central conclusions contradicted a 2019 report by the Justice Department’s internal watchdog, which found that while the FBI made mistakes, the decision to open the investigation was justified and untainted by political bias.
The report delves into the FBI’s investigation called “Crossfire Hurricane,” which led to the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. While Mueller did not establish coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, he found numerous contacts between campaign officials and Russians.
Durham’s report also addresses the credibility of the Steele dossier, which the FBI relied on to obtain a surveillance warrant for Trump aide Carter Page. Durham reveals that the FBI was unable to substantiate most of the dossier, which was largely compiled by a Russian named Igor Danchenko. Durham prosecuted Danchenko on charges of lying but failed to secure a conviction.
In another case, Durham charged an FBI lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, with falsifying an application for a national security warrant, resulting in a guilty plea and probation. The FBI subsequently revamped its procedures for dealing with FISA warrants.
While Durham’s report presents sweeping conclusions, much of it covers well-known historical events. The release of the report without changes suggests that Attorney General Merrick Garland agreed with its findings. However, it remains a matter of debate and interpretation within the political landscape.
Durham’s report is likely to further fuel the partisan divide over the Trump-Russia probe and raise questions about the integrity of the FBI’s handling of the investigation. The report is also likely to have implications for ongoing investigations and potential prosecutions related to the probe.
