An investigation into the origins of the FBI’s investigation into the relationships between Russia and Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign It was finally completed, with the prosecutor leading the investigation submitting a long overdue report and finding significant flaws.
the a report, the culmination of a four-year investigation into possible misconduct by United States government officials, contained stinging criticisms of the FBI but little important information. Still, it will give a boost to Trump supporters who have long deplored the Russia investigation, as well as opponents of Trump who say the Durham team’s scant track record shows their investigation was a politically motivated farce.
Look at the investigation and report:
Who is John Durham?
Durham spent decades as a prosecutor in the Department of Justice, with the previous assignments Including investigations into the FBI’s intimate relationship with Boston mobsters and the CIA’s destruction of videotapes of his grueling interrogation of terrorism subjects.
Appointed in 2019 To investigate potential misconduct by US government officials while examining Russian interference in the 2016 election and whether there was any illegal coordination between the Kremlin and the Trump presidential campaign.
Despite the meager results — a guilty plea and two acquittals — that failed to meet Trump’s expectations, Durham was able to continue to do well in the Biden administration, thanks in part to the appointment of William Barr Durham as special counsel to the Justice Department shortly before Barr was appointed. 2020 Resignation from the position of Attorney General.
Why did the Trump Justice Department think this appointment was necessary?
The appointment came weeks after a different special advisor was hired. Robert MuellerHe concluded his investigation into possible links between Russia and the Trump campaign. This investigation resulted in more than two dozen criminal cases, including against half a dozen associates of Trump.
Although she did not accuse any of Trump’s aides of working with Russia to overturn the election, she did find that Russia intervened on Trump’s behalf and that the campaign welcomed rather than discouraged the aid.
From the outset, Barr was deeply skeptical of the basis of the investigation, and told Congress this “Espionage happened” in the campaign.
He hired an outside prosecutor to look for possible misconduct in government agencies that were involved in intelligence gathering and conducting the investigation, even traveling with Durham to Italy to meet with officials there as part of the investigation.
Were there problems with the Russian investigation?
Yes, and a The Inspector General of the Ministry of Justice inquired Already determined a lot.
The agency’s report found that FBI requests for wiretap warrants on a former Trump campaign aide, Carter Page, contained significant errors and omissions that likely weakened or undermined the application’s premise.
The cumulative effect of those errors, the report said, was to “show that the information supporting the probable cause was stronger than it actually was.”
However, the inspector general found no evidence that the investigators acted with political bias and said there was a legitimate basis for opening a full investigation into possible collusion, although Durham disagreed.
What criminal cases did I bring in and what was the outcome?
Durham filed three lawsuits during his tenure, but only one resulted in a conviction—and that was in a case referred to him by the DOJ’s inspector general. None of Mueller’s three core findings that Russia interfered in the 2016 election in a sweeping fashion came to fruition and that the Trump campaign welcomed rather than discouraged the aid.
Former FBI Attorney, Kevin Clismith, pleaded guilty in 2020 to altering an email related to the surveillance of a former Trump campaign aide. He was given a probationary period.
But two other cases, both involving alleged false statements to the FBI, resulted in acquittals by the jury.
Michael Sussman, Hillary Clinton’s campaign attorney, was found not guilty of lying to the FBI during a meeting in which he provided computer data information that the FBI wanted to investigate. Various jury acquittals Igor Danchenkoa Russian-American analyst, on charges that he lied to the FBI about his role in creating a discredited dossier on Trump.
What exactly did Durham find?
Durham found that the FBI acted hastily and relied on raw and unverified intelligence when it opened the Trump-Russia investigation.
At the time the investigation was opened, he said, the FBI had no information on any actual contact between Trump associates and Russian intelligence officials.
He also alleged that FBI investigators were prone to “confirmation bias”, frequently ignoring or rationalizing information that could undermine the hypothesis of their investigation, and noted that the FBI had failed to substantiate a single substantive claim from the search file that it relied on it during the course of the investigation.
“An objective and honest assessment of these strands of information should have led the FBI to question not only the advance prediction of the hurricane of crossfire, but also to consider whether the FBI had been manipulated for political purposes,” the report said. or for other purposes.” Codename for the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation. “Unfortunately, that didn’t happen.”
How did the FBI respond?
The FBI noted that it has long since taken dozens of corrective actions. It says that had these measures been in place in 2016, the errors at the center of the report could have been avoided.
It also took the trouble to note that the behavior in the report occurred before current director Christopher Wray took over in the fall of 2017.
what happened after that?
It didn’t take long for the Republicans in Congress to respond. Representative Jim Jordan, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, said he has invited Durham to testify on Capitol Hill next week. Trump also sought to seize the report, saying it showed how the American public had been “tricked”.
Although the FBI says it has already taken some steps, Durham said it is possible that more reform is needed. One idea, he said, would be to provide additional screening for politically sensitive investigations by designating an official who would be responsible for challenging the steps taken in the investigation.
He said his team considered but did not ultimately recommend steps that would limit the FBI’s investigative powers, including its use of tools under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to eavesdrop on suspected spies or terrorists.
