Link: https://www.justice.gov/storage/durhamreport.pdf
After three years of work, on May 12, Special Counsel John Durham submitted his report into the activities of the US intelligences agencies during the 2016 Presidential election campaigns. The 306 page report contained a plethora of information concerning how agencies (FBI, CIA, etc.) conducted themselves during the period surrounding the elections. A summary of the conclusions includes among many others:
- “Systemic Problems” in the conduct of the FBI’s counterintelligence activities
- Problems with the FBI investigations
- Problems with the opening of individual investigations
- Problems with “Compartmentation”
- Problematic Interactions with the Trump campaign
- Problems with press and congressional briefings
- Problematic interaction with the CIA
The report concluded with concern about the conduct of the investigations. Regarding these concerns, Durham also added several observations including this statement regarding the appearance of intent to sabotage President Trump’s election: “…while we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence of intentional misconduct on the part of the [FBI personnel], we also did not receive satisfactory explanations for the errors or problems we identified.”1 The report also recommended the appointment of an ‘outside’ counsel to oversee the conduct of these types of investigations in the future. The report stated, “As a way to ensure full consideration of the issues in applications that may present very difficult -and vitally important -issues, we recommend that the Department seriously consider Baker’s (Note: Stewart Baker in Partisan Taint2) proposal for an official to challenge both a politically sensitive FISA application and other stages of the investigation.”3
The responses from both Democratic Party sources and Republican Party sources predictably fell along similar lines. For example Politico, a political magazine generally supportive of Democratic Party initiatives, questioned Durham’s “skill-set” to perform the job of investigation and implied that because important players in the FBI management refused to be interviewed or fully interviewed this meant that his work had no credibility.4
From the other political side, the editors of the National Review, a mainstream Republican magazine stated that the Durham Report revealed that the investigation of the Trump campaign by the FBI was “…one of the dirtiest political tricks in American history.” They went to conclude that while Durham fumbled the charges against a few lower level conspirators, he appeared “to have produced a methodical, evidence-driven report that provides a long-overdue public accounting. Just not enough accountability.”5
A close reading of the Durham Report would seem to indicate that the conduct of the FBI and the other intelligence agencies was reprehensible, unethical and probably, criminal. But, it is amazing that Mr. Durham had either so little ability or so little authority to really get the main characters that foisted this travesty on the American people to face real justice. That’s how it appears to us. You can read it yourself….here is the link: https://www.justice.gov/storage/durhamreport.pdf.
- Durham, J. (2023). REPORT ON MATTERS RELATED TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES AND INVESTIGATIONS ARISING OUT OF THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS. United States Department of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/storage/durhamreport.pdf. Pg. 303.
- Baker, Partisan Taint. Baker explains his proposal for the career official in more detail in Like It or Not, Trump Has a Point: FISA Reform and the Appearance of Partisanship in Intelligence Investigations at 12-13, Sept. 5, 2020.
- Durham, J. (2023). REPORT ON MATTERS RELATED TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES AND INVESTIGATIONS ARISING OUT OF THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS. United States Department of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/storage/durhamreport.pdf. Pg. 306.
- Gerstein, J. & Swan, B. (2023). Takeaways from the Durham report on the Trump-Russia probe. Politico.com/News. Retrieved from https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/15/durham-report-takeaways-00097060.
- The Shoddy Russia Investigation. (2023). The National Review. Retrieved from https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/05/the-shoddy-russia-investigation/.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) – The Durham Report:
1. What is the Durham Report, and what does it cover?
The Durham Report, submitted by Special Counsel John Durham, investigates the conduct of U.S. intelligence agencies during the 2016 Presidential election campaigns. It examines issues such as systemic problems in FBI counterintelligence activities, problematic interactions with the Trump campaign, and concerns about the conduct of investigations.
2. What are some of the key findings of the Durham Report?
The report highlights systemic problems in FBI conduct, issues with investigations and interactions with the Trump campaign, and recommendations for future oversight.
3. What are the responses to the Durham Report from Democratic and Republican sources?
Democratic sources, as exemplified by Politico, question Durham’s credibility and skill-set, citing refusals by important FBI personnel to be fully interviewed. Republican sources, such as the National Review, view the report as revealing unethical and potentially criminal conduct by intelligence agencies, albeit with criticisms of Durham’s handling of the investigation.
4. What recommendations does the Durham Report make for future investigations?
The report recommends appointing an ‘outside’ counsel to oversee politically sensitive investigations and proposes the introduction of a career official to challenge FISA applications and other stages of investigations.
5. Where can I access the Durham Report to read it for myself?
The Durham Report is available on the United States Department of Justice website. You can access it directly through this link: Durham Report PDF.
6. What are some of the implications of the findings in the Durham Report?
The report raises questions about the conduct of intelligence agencies and the need for accountability and oversight in future investigations, particularly those with significant political implications. It also underscores the importance of transparency and public trust in government institutions.
