An investigation into the origins of the FBI investigation into the links between Russia and Donald Trump’s 2016 Presidential Campaign was eventually closed, and the prosecutor leading the inquiry produced a much-anticipated report that found significant flaws.
The report, the culmination of a four-year investigation into possible wrongdoing by US government officials, contained scathing criticism for the FBI but few revelations worth mentioning. Nonetheless, it will provide fodder for Trump supporters, who have long denounced the Russia probe, as well as Trump opponents, who say the Durham team’s poor court record shows their investigation was a politically motivated farce.
A look at the investigation and report:
WHO IS JOHN DURHAM?
Durham served for decades as a prosecutor in the Department of Justice past tasks These include investigations into the FBI’s close ties to Boston gangsters and the CIA’s destruction of video recordings of its harsh interrogations of terrorists.
He was appointed in 2019 to investigate possible misconduct by US government officials while investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election and whether there was unlawful coordination between the Kremlin and Trump’s presidential campaign.
Despite tenuous results — an admission of guilt and two acquittals — that fell short of Trump’s expectations, Durham was able to continue his work well into the Biden administration, thanks in part to William Barr, who appointed Durham as the Justice Department’s special counsel shortly before Barr was appointed appointed 2020 resignation as Attorney General.
Why did the Trump Justice Department consider such an appointment necessary?
The appointment came weeks after another special adviser, Robert Mueller, concluded his investigation into possible links between Russia and the Trump campaign. That investigation resulted in more than two dozen criminal cases, including against half a dozen Trump associates.
Although she did not accuse any Trump official of working with Russia to influence the election, she concluded that Russia intervened on Trump’s behalf and that the campaign welcomed rather than discouraged aid.
From the start, Barr was deeply skeptical about the basis of the investigation and told Congress as much “It came to espionage” on the campaign.
He hired an outside prosecutor to look for potential wrongdoing by the government agencies involved in gathering information and conducting the investigation, and even flew with Durham to Italy to meet with officials there as part of the investigation.
Were there problems with the Russia investigations?
Yes, and a General investigation of the inspector of the Ministry of Justice already identified many.
The surveillance report found that FBI requests for warrants to wiretap a former Trump campaign aide, Carter Page, contained significant errors and omitted information that likely weakened or undermined the request’s premise.
The cumulative effect of these errors, the report said, was to “make it appear that the information supporting the probable cause was stronger than it actually was.”
Still, the inspector general found no evidence that investigators acted with political bias and said there was a legitimate basis for launching a full investigation into possible collusion, although Durham disagreed.
What criminal proceedings did he initiate and what was the result?
During his tenure, Durham faced three charges, but only one resulted in a conviction in a case brought to him by the Justice Department’s inspector general. None of Mueller’s three core findings disproved that Russia had extensively interfered in the 2016 election and that the Trump campaign had welcomed rather than discouraged aid.
A former FBI attorney, Kevin Clinesmith, pleaded guilty in 2020 to altering an email related to surveillance of a former Trump campaign aide. He was granted parole.
But two other cases involving alleged false statements to the FBI resulted in acquittals by the jury.
Michael Sussmann, an attorney for Hillary Clinton’s campaign team, was found not guilty of lying to the FBI during a meeting where he presented computer data information for the FBI to investigate. Another jury acquitted the case Igor Danchenkoa Russian-American analyst, accused him of lying to the FBI about his role in compiling a discredited dossier on Trump.
WHAT DID DURHAM FIND IN PARTICULAR?
Durham found that the FBI acted too hastily and relied on raw and uncorroborated intelligence to launch investigations into Trump and Russia.
He said at the time the investigation opened, the FBI had no information about actual contacts between Trump associates and Russian intelligence officials.
He also claimed that FBI investigators were prone to “confirmation bias,” repeatedly ignoring or rationalizing away information that could have undermined the premise of their investigations, noting that the FBI had not confirmed a single substantive claim from a research dossier that that this was the case and which were relied upon in the course of the investigation.
“An objective and honest assessment of these strands of information should have prompted the FBI not only to question the Crossfire Hurricane prediction, but also to consider whether the FBI was being manipulated for political or other purposes,” the report said Using the The FBI’s codename for the Trump-Russia investigation. “Unfortunately, this is not the case.”
How did the FBI react?
The FBI pointed out that it had taken dozens of corrective actions long ago. Had these measures been implemented in 2016, the errors at the core of the report could have been avoided, it says.
It has also been carefully noted that the behavior described in the report took place before the current director, Christopher Wray, took the job in the fall of 2017.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
It didn’t take long for Republicans in Congress to react. Rep. Jim Jordan, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said he invited Durham to testify on Capitol Hill next week. Trump also tried to pick up on the report, saying it shows how the American public has been “cheated”.
Although the FBI says it has already taken some steps, Durham said further reforms may be needed. One idea, he said, would be to allow additional scrutiny of politically sensitive investigations by designating an officer responsible for challenging steps taken in an investigation.
He said his team considered but ultimately did not recommend measures that would limit the FBI’s investigative powers, including using Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act tools to intercept suspected spies or terrorists.
—————————————————-
Source link