Donald Trump’s Durham investigation promise failed

An investigation at the beginning of the FBI’s investigation into the relationship between Russia and Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign It has finally ended, with the prosecutor leading the inquiry submitting an expected report that found major errors.

the report, the culmination of a four-year investigation into possible wrongdoing by US government officials, has some scathing criticism for the FBI but some significant revelations. Still, it will provide fodder for Trump supporters who have long criticized the Russia investigation, as well as Trump opponents who say the Durham team’s scant court record shows their probe was a farce. politics.

A look at the investigation and the report:

WHO IS JOHN DURHAM?

Durham spent decades as a Justice Department prosecutor, with previous tasks including investigations into the FBI’s cozy relationship with Boston mobsters and the CIA’s destruction of videotapes of brutal interrogations of terror subjects.

He was appointed in 2019 to investigate possible wrongdoing by US government officials as they investigate Russian election interference in 2016 and whether there was illegal coordination between the Kremlin and Trump’s presidential campaign.

Despite the low results – one guilty plea and two acquittals – that failed to live up to Trump’s expectations, Durham was able to continue his work well in the Biden administration, thanks in part to William Barr appointed Durham as a special counsel to the Department of Justice before Barr’s. 2020 resignation as attorney general.

WHY DOES THE TRUMP JUSTICE DEPARTMENT THINK SUCH AN APPOINTMENT IS NECESSARY?

The appointment came weeks after another special counsel, Robert Mueller, wrapped up his investigation into possible connections between Russia and the Trump campaign. That investigation produced more than two dozen criminal charges, including a half-dozen associates of Trump.

Although it has not charged any Trump aides with working with Russia to tip the election, it has learned that Russia interfered on Trump’s behalf and that the campaign welcomed, rather than discouraged, the help

From the beginning, Barr was deeply skeptical of the investigation’s foundation, telling Congress that “Surveillance occurred” in the campaign.

He enlisted an outside prosecutor to look for potential misconduct by government agencies involved in gathering intelligence and conducting the investigation, even flying with Durham to Italy to meet with officials there as part of the probe. .

IS THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION A PROBLEM?

Yes, and a General questions to the Justice Department inspector many are known.

The Guardian’s report found that the FBI’s applications for warrants to eavesdrop on a former Trump campaign aide, Carter Page, contained numerous errors and missing information that could undermine or undermine the application tree.

The cumulative effect of those errors, the report says, is to make it “appear that the information supporting probable cause is stronger than is actually the case.”

However, the inspector general found no evidence that investigators acted with political bias and said there was a legitimate basis for opening a full investigation into potential collusion, although Durham disagreed.

WHAT CRIMINAL CASES DID HE BRING AND WHAT WAS THE RESULT?

Durham brought three prosecutions during his tenure, but only one resulted in a conviction — and that was for a case referred to him by the Justice Department’s inspector general. None of Mueller’s three unsubstantiated findings suggest that Russia interfered in the 2016 election in some way and that the Trump campaign welcomed, rather than discouraged, the help.

A former FBI attorney, Kevin Clinesmith, pleaded guilty in 2020 to altering an email related to the surveillance of the ex-Trump campaign aide. He was given probation.

But two other cases, both involving alleged false statements to the FBI, resulted in jury acquittals.

Michael Sussmann, a lawyer for the Hillary Clinton campaign, was found not guilty of lying to the FBI during a meeting in which he presented information on computer data that he wanted the FBI to investigate. A different jury acquitted Igor Danchenkoa Russian-American analyst, on charges that he lied to the FBI about his role in creating a discredited dossier about Trump.

WHAT SPECIFICALLY DOES DURHAM SEE?

Durham found that the FBI acted too quickly and relied on raw and unconfirmed intelligence when it opened the Trump-Russia investigation.

He said at the time the investigation was opened, the FBI had no information about any actual contact between Trump associates and Russian intelligence officials.

He also admitted that FBI investigators fell prey to “confirmation bias,” repeatedly ignoring or discounting information that could undermine the core of their investigation, and he noted that the FBI failed to corroborate a substantive allegation from a research dossier that it. dependent on the time of the inspection process.

“An objective and honest evaluation of these strands of information should cause the FBI to question not only the prediction for the Crossfire Hurricane, but also to reflect on whether the FBI is being manipulated for political or other purposes, ” the report says, using the FBI’s code name for the Trump-Russia investigation. “Unfortunately, it didn’t.”

HOW DOES THE FBI RESPOND?

The FBI points out that it has been taking several corrective actions for a long time. If measures had been in place in 2016, it says, the errors at the center of the report could have been prevented.

It is also painful to note that the conduct in the report occurred before the current director, Christopher Wray, took the job in autumn 2017.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

It didn’t take long for Republicans in Congress to react. Rep. Jim Jordan, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, said he has invited Durham to testify on Capitol Hill next week. Trump, too, sought to withdraw the report, saying it showed how the American public had been “deceived.”

Although the FBI says it has already taken some steps, Durham said more reform is likely needed. One idea, he said, is to provide more scrutiny to politically sensitive investigations by identifying an official responsible for challenging the steps taken in an investigation.

He said his team is considering but not ultimately recommending measures that could prevent the FBI from investigating authorities, including its use of tools under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to eavesdrop on suspected spies or terrorist.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *