- Republicans said Durham found ‘outrageous’ problems with FBI.
- Democrats focused on Durham finding ‘affirmative obligation’ for FBI to investigate Russian interference.
- Both sides argued over how the report could help or hurt Donald Trump’s campaign for president in 2024.
WASHINGTON – The federal investigation into Russian interference in 2016 took center stage in the House Judiciary Committee Wednesday, with Republicans and Democrats sparring over the political implications of a report by special counsel John Durham on the origins of the probe.
The arguments weren’t over facts in the report, but over implications for Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and whether lawmakers should rein in federal surveillance.
Republicans hammered away at flaws in the FBI and Justice Department conduct and pursuit of the inquiry into Russian interference, saying there was no justification to start. Durham’s report and a previous inspector general’s probe exhaustively detailed problems with how the FBI pursued the investigation.
The FBI and Justice Department are under new leadership and adopted dozens of changes to improve surveillance oversight. But Durham and some lawmakers argued change may take years and require more than new personnel.
Democrats highlighted that Durham found the FBI had an obligation to start the inquiry based on a tip Australian diplomats heard from a Trump campaign aide – months before receiving a notorious dossier of accusations against Trump.
But Durham said the FBI should have done a more modest “assessment” rather than jumping into a full investigation with surveillance during a weekend three days after the Australian tip.
“The findings set forth in this report are serious,” Durham said. “This is not an easy fix. It is going to take time to rebuild the public’s confidence.”
Here are highlights from the hearing:
GOP focuses on political bias against Trump, flaws in FBI investigation
Rep. Ben Cline, R-Va., said the report found the FBI did not have an adequate basis to launch the inquiry called Crossfire Hurricane, continued when agents couldn’t verify evidence, agents didn’t interview key witnesses and individuals abused their authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Cline called the report “outrageous and deeply troubling.”
Rep. Russell Fry, R-S.C., cited a text message Peter Strzok, the FBI official who opened the inquiry, sent Aug. 18, 2016, after being asked whether Trump would become president. “No. No, he’s not. We’ll stop it,” Strzok replied.
“It’s clear there was no collusion,” Fry said of the Trump campaign and Russia.
Democrats focus on lack of convictions, need for inquiry
Democrats focused on the lack of convictions from Durham’s investigation. One former FBI lawyer pleaded guilty and two other defendants were acquitted at trial. Durham acknowledged he could have charged Hillary Clinton or other public figures if he had the evidence, but did not.
“He brought just two cases to trial and lost them both,” said Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y.
Nadler said Durham revealed little more than the previous report from the Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz. Durham didn’t recommend additional remedial actions for the FBI or Justice Department because they had already adopted changes.
Nadler and Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., each noted that Durham said the FBI had to review the tip from Australian diplomats that a Trump campaign aide had said they had numerous emails from Trump’s Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton. The FBI an “affirmative obligation” to look at possible links between the Trump campaign and Russian government, Durham’s report said.
“They had to look at it, yes,” Durham said, although he distinguished between an “assessment” and a full investigation.
Both sides keep an eye on 2024 presidential campaign
Democrats argued the hearing was called to distract from the 37-count federal indictment against Trump for his handling of classified documents after leaving the White House. Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., said the “extraordinarily sensitive national security information” about weapons systems, nuclear programs and vulnerabilities to attack.
“Instead, Republicans have planned this hearing and constructed an entire false narrative around the work of special counsel Durham in an effort to distract from the former president’s legal troubles and mislead the American public,” Nadler said.
Republicans argued Trump’s opponents attacked and investigated him for years without result.
“What we know now is that the FBI and DOJ have been turned into active political weapons against citizens and even a former president because of their opposing viewpoint,” said Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La.
The committee chairman, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, cited the initial FBI inquiry called Crossfire Hurricane, special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, two impeachments of Trump, the search of Trump’s home, “ridiculous” charges against Trump in New York and the federal case over classified documents.
“Seven years of attacking Trump is scary enough,” Jordan said. “But what is more frightening: any one of us could be next.”
Rare moments of levity
Despite the harsh language, the hearing had moments of levity.
Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., highlighted that Durham was appointed U.S. attorney for Connecticut by Trump and appointed special counsel by Trump’s attorney general, Bill Barr. Cohen asked Durham whether he agreed with Trump’s recent description of Barr as a “gutless pig,” a “coward” and a “RINO,” for Republican in name only.
“In my experience, none of those is correct,” Durham replied. “That’s outside the scope of my report,” he added, to laughter.
Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo., noted the adversarial questioning and welcomed Durham to Congress.
“It’s a real pleasure to be here,” Durham said to laughter.
Durham spent longer investigating origins than Mueller’s probe
The report culminated a 48-month inquiry that began in May 2019. The probe ran longer than special counsel Robert Mueller’s original 22-month investigation.
Durham charged three people, one of whom pleaded guilty, and two won acquittals at trial.
Durham spent nearly $6.6 million as special counsel from October 2019 through September 2022, the most recent figures available.
What happened with Durham’s cases?
Durham charged three people during his investigation:
- Kevin Clinesmith, a former FBI lawyer, pleaded guilty to falsifying an email used to justify the surveillance of Carter Page, a Trump campaign adviser. Clinesmith was given probation. Michael Horowitz, the inspector general, issued a scathing report in December 2019 that criticized how the FBI won court orders to wiretap Page. But Horowitz rejected Trump’s accusations that FBI leaders were trying to sabotage his campaign.
- Michael Sussmann was acquitted in May 2022 of lying to the FBI. He was charged with misleading James Baker, then FBI general counsel, during a meeting Sept. 19, 2016. Sussmann gave Baker research that allegedly showed a possible back channel between Russia-based Alfa Bank and the Trump Organization. Baker accused Sussmann, a lawyer who represented Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, of lying about whether he was providing information for a client. But Sussmann denied he lied.
- Igor Danchenko was acquitted in October 2022 of five counts of lying to investigators. U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga acquitted him of one count and the jury cleared him of four others. Danchenko was a source of information in former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele’s dossier of potentially compromising information about Trump. Investigators said he misled them about the sources of his information.
