FBI’s handling of Trump-Russia investigation criticised in Durham report

Special Counsel John Durham, who was appointed to investigate the origins of the Trump-Russia probe, released a 300-page report accusing the FBI of negligence in opening the investigation based on vague and insufficient information. 

Durham’s report criticized the FBI for a lack of analytical rigor and suggested that senior FBI personnel displayed bias when receiving information from politically affiliated sources. The FBI responded by stating that the identified missteps had already been addressed through corrective actions implemented by current leadership. However, the report, which did not result in any successful prosecutions, seemed to serve as an appeal to public opinion, supporting claims made by Trump and his allies that the Obama administration had used federal power to influence the 2016 election.

Durham’s conclusions contradict a 2019 report by the Justice Department’s internal watchdog, which found that while the FBI made mistakes, the decision to open the Trump-Russia probe was justified and untainted by political bias. 

Durham expanded on his dissent from the inspector general’s report in his latest release. Attorney General Merrick Garland received the report and ordered its release without changes.

The report delves into the FBI’s investigation known as “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 did uncover contacts between campaign officials and Russians, as well as a willingness to accept help from Moscow. 

Durham argues that the FBI acted hastily by opening the investigation based on uncorroborated information and suggests that the FBI treated counterintelligence matters involving the Clinton campaign differently.

The report also questions the FBI’s reliance on the Steele dossier, a document compiled by former British intelligence operative Christopher Steele, which the FBI used to obtain a surveillance warrant for Trump aide Carter Page. The FBI was unable to substantiate most of the dossier’s claims, and Durham prosecuted Igor Danchenko, a Russian believed to have contributed to the dossier, on charges of lying to the FBI. However, Danchenko was acquitted. 

Another individual charged by Durham, lawyer Michael Sussmann, was also acquitted of lying.

Durham’s report serves as a culmination of his investigation, outlining his criticisms of the FBI’s handling of the Trump-Russia probe. While the report contains some new conclusions, much of it recapitulates well-known information about the investigation’s history. 

The release of the report has reignited debate over the motivations and actions of the FBI during the 2016 election.