The claim by Donald Trump and his supporters that Special Counsel John Durham's report on the FBI's probe into alleged collusion with Russia "exonerates" the former president has been questioned by legal experts.
The report was critical of the motivation behind the FBI launching a probe, blaming the agency for "confirmation bias." Despite this, some have argued that "exoneration" is not an appropriate conclusion to draw from it.
They said that the findings are retreading old ground and pointed to the convictions resulting from Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 elections. They also said that it did not prove what Trump had alleged to be the "crime of the century"—a conspiracy against him by his opponents.
The special counsel's report comes amid Trump's third bid for the presidency. Trump and his supporters have long alleged the FBI's investigation—Crossfire Hurricane—was a "witch hunt" by political opponents. In April 2019, then-Attorney General William Barr launched the probe headed by federal prosecutor John Durham to review the basis of the FBI's investigation. Trump continues to be the top GOP presidential contender for 2024.
What Does the Report Say?
The report is heavily critical of the FBI's actions in launching the election interference probe, saying the agency's justification for doing so was based on "raw, unanalyzed and uncorroborated intelligence" and without "actual evidence" of collusion between Russia and Trump's team.
Durham accuses the FBI of an "over-willingness" to rely on information from individuals connected to political opponents, and a lack of "analytical rigor" when provided with information.
"An objective and honest assessment of these strands of information should have caused the FBI to question not only the predication for Crossfire Hurricane but also to reflect on whether the FBI was being manipulated for political or other purposes," Durham wrote in his 306-page report. "Unfortunately, it did not."
The report states that the FBI would have been justified to open Crossfire Hurricane as a preliminary inquiry if it had taken several "sensible" steps including less intrusive investigative methods.
'No Evidence of Conspiracy'
For years, Trump and his supporters have eagerly awaited the results of Durham's investigation, believing it would expose what the former president described as the "crime of the century" of Democrats, law enforcement, and the federal government working together to sabotage his political career.
Durham's report, while highly critical of the FBI and the Justice Department in the steps it took before launching Crossfire Hurricane, states that it "did not find any evidence that any FBI official or employee knowingly and intentionally participated in some type of conspiracy with others to... cause the FBI to open an investigation."
The scope of Durham's report touches on a December 2019 report by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, who found no political bias when the FBI launched Hurricane Crossfire and said that the agency did so following a series of errors.
On Monday, CNN's Jake Tapper suggested that while Durham's report may not have revealed a deep conspiracy against the former president, it is still "devastating to the FBI, and to a degree, it does exonerate Donald Trump."
'Where Is the Confirmation Bias?'
Some legal and political experts have argued that the Mueller investigation—which took over the FBI probe—did justify the agency examining alleged Russian collusion in the 2016 elections. They suggested that Trump does not stand fully exonerated.
Thomas Gift, an associate professor who heads the Center on U.S. Politics at University College London, U.K., told Newsweek: "Experts will get into the technical semantics of what the Durham report means legally, and there's no doubt some have read between the lines (too much) in asserting that it 'exonerates' Trump or 'proves' the FBI was on a 'witch-hunt.' In fact, the document does neither."
"The accusations contained in the report will be spun that way because they do articulate an ostensible bias in how prosecutors pursued evidence of foreign influence on the Trump and Clinton campaigns. That alone is enough for Trump to muddy the waters, and to give him the political ammunition to say that he was the victim of a 'deep state' engaged in a partisan hit job."
Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Harry Litman tweeted: "There really is no precedent for the Durham report. Mueller's long report explained precisely his reasons for his prosecutorial decisions. Durham just recycles old cavils about the launching of the Russia investigation that have zero connection to any alleged crime. It's bogus,"
In 2019, the Mueller report found no evidence that the Trump campaign criminally worked with Russia to help interfere in the 2016 election, but detailed examples of the former president allegedly attempting to obstruct the investigation.
A number of Trump's inner circle were convicted as a result of the Mueller report, including his former campaign manager Paul Manafort, Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen and his ex-National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.
By comparison, Durham's four-year probe has resulted in one conviction; Kevin Clinesmith, a former FBI lawyer, pleaded guilty to altering a government email to justify the surveillance of former Trump campaign aide Carter Page in 2020 but avoided prison time.
Two other people charged in connection to Durham's probe, Russian intelligence analyst Igor Danchenko and Michael Sussmann, a lawyer for Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign, were both acquitted in their trials.
Former FBI official Peter Strzok, who worked on Mueller's investigation, also noted the success of Mueller's probe with regard to convictions, while criticizing Durham's findings.
"Paul Manafort - guilty. Rick Gates - guilty. Mike Flynn - guilty. George Papadopouolos - guilty. Roger Stone - guilty. Michael Cohen - guilty. Konstantin Kilimnik - wanted, $250k reward. Michael Sussman - not guilty. Igor Danchenko - not guilty," Strzok tweeted.
"Point me to the confirmation bias here?"
Strzok was removed from the Mueller probe and then fired from the FBI in 2018 over alleged political bias against Trump.
Trump's Response to the Durham Report
Trump, who has described the 2016 Election investigation into his team as a "witch hunt," praised the findings of Durham's report.
"The Durham Report spells out in great detail the Democrat Hoax that was perpetrated upon me and the American people," Trump posted on Truth Social.
"This is 2020 Presidential Election Fraud, just like 'stuffing' the ballot boxes, only more so. This totally illegal act had a huge impact on the Election. With an honest Media, we are looking at the Crime of the Century!
The FBI's Response to the Durham Report
In a statement, the FBI said the department took steps to reform in the wake of Horowitz's 2019 report.
"The conduct in 2016 and 2017 that Special Counsel Durham examined was the reason that current FBI leadership already implemented dozens of corrective actions, which have now been in place for some time. Had those reforms been in place in 2016, the missteps identified in the report could have been prevented," it said.
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
About the writer
Ewan Palmer is a Newsweek News Reporter based in London, U.K. His focus is reporting on US politics, domestic policy ... Read more
To read how Newsweek uses AI as a newsroom tool, Click here.
