The Durham Report: Uncorroborated Intel, Unequal Treatment, and a Break from Protocol
The Durham Report: Uncorroborated Intel, Unequal Treatment, and a Break from Protocol
Some preliminary findings held within the 306 page report written by John H. Durham.
“Nothing can more weaken the quality of life or more imperil the realization of the goals we all hold dear than our failure to make clear by words and deed that our law is not the instrument of partisan purpose.”
-Attorney General Levi
The Durham report was released over a week ago on May 12th, 2023. This report details the conduct of the FBI, other relevant agencies, and other third party actors regarding the commencement of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation which examined the prospect of Trump-Russia collusion, and compared the treatment of the Hillary Presidential Campaigns leading up to the 2016 General Elections and how the Trump investigation was conducted.
The investigation was opened when William Barr, at the direction of Donald J Trump, decided to launch a probe into the FBI’s investigation over allegations that the Trump Campaign colluded with Russian Officials to interfere with the 2016 election.
John H. Durham, who was an assistant US attorney for 35 years, is best known for his role as a special prosecutor in the 2005 destruction of CIA interrogation tapes that hosted footage of them torturing detainees. Ultimately, he decided not to file any charges against the CIA or those implicated.
Key points of inquiry comprising the Durham investigation
Was there adequate predication for the FBI to open Crossfire Hurricane as a full counterintelligence and Foreign Agents Registration Act investigation given the requirements of the Attorney Generals Guidance for FBI Domestic Operations and FBI policies relating to the use of the, “least intrusive investigative tools necessary?”
Was launching Crossfire Hurricane constituent with how the FBI handled other intelligence concerning attempts by foreign interested to influence the Clinton and other campaigns?
Did the FBI fully consider all intelligence such as the purported claim that the Hillary Campaign planned to vilify Donald J Trump by stirring up a scandal that asserted interference by Russian Security Services, subsequently shedding light on the veracity of the Steele Dossier, and whether they committed any provable federal crimes in doing so?
Was there any evidence that could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the FBI or involved third parties related to Crossfire Hurricane, violated Federal Criminal Statutes including making false statements to federal officials?
The Durham Report concluded that the investigation called Crossfire Hurricane was commenced in contrast to the normal procedures typically employed by the FBI leading up to and during the investigative process
As stated in the report:
…upon receipt of unevaluated intelligence information from Australia, the FBI swiftly opened the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. In particular, at the direction of Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Deputy Assistant Director for Counterintelligence Peter Strok opened Crossfire Hurricane immediately.
Strzok, at a minimum, had pronounced hostile feelings toward Trump. The matter was opened as a full investigation without ever having spoken to the persons who provided the information.
Further, the FBI did so without (i) any significant review Of its own intelligence databases, (ii) collection and examination of any relevant intelligence from other U.S. intelligence entities, (iii) interviews of witnesses essential to understand the raw information it had received or (iv) using any of the standard analytical tools typically employed by the FBI in evaluating raw intelligence.
The Report also covers that within days of after opening Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI open "full investigations of four members of the Trump Campaign Team:
George Papadopoulos
Carter Page
Paul Manafort
Michael Flynn
The Report goes on to explain how the FBI commenced their investigation reflected a "noticeable departure from how to approached prior matter involving possible attempted foreign election interference plans aimed at the Clinton campaign."
"In one such matter discussed in Section IV.B.l, FBI Headquarters and Department officials required defensive briefings to be provided to Clinton and other officials or candidates who appeared to be the targets of foreign interference. In another, the FBI elected to end an investigation after one of its longtime and valuable CHSs went beyond what was authorized and made an improper and possibly illegal financial contribution to the Clinton campaign on behalf of a foreign entity as a precursor to a much larger donation being contemplated.
And in a third, the Clinton Foundation matter, both senior FBI and Department officials placed restrictions on how those matters were to be handled such that essentially no investigative activities occurred for months leading up to the election. These examples are also markedly different from the FBI' s actions with respect to other highly significant intelligence it received from a trusted foreign source pointing to a Clinton campaign plan to vilify Trump by tying him to Vladimir Putin so as to divert attention from her own concerns relating to her use of a private email server.
Unlike the FBI's opening of a full investigation of unknown members of the Trump campaign based on raw, uncorroborated information, in this separate matter involving a purported Clinton campaign plan, the FBI never opened any type of inquiry, issued any taskings, employed any analytical personnel, or produced any analytical products in connection with the information.
This lack of action was despite the fact that the significance of the Clinton plan intelligence was such as to have prompted the Director of the CIA to brief the President, Vice President, Attorney General, Director of the FBI, and other senior government officials about its content within days of its receipt. It was also of enough importance for the CIA to send a formal written referral memorandum to Director Corney and the Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI's Counterintelligence Division, Peter Strzok, for their consideration and action."
Durham Report concludes FBI’s handling of the Trump and associates investigation, Crossfire Hurricane, was predicated on unverified and unverifiable information included in the Steele Dossier. Igor Danchenko agreed to meet with the FBI in 2016 under an agreed upon immunity agreement where he was unable to corroborate the information he provided to Steele.
Additionally, his statements to the FBI were inconsistent with the statements Steele made during his interviews in 2016 and 2017. This information provided by Danchenko to Steele was, by his own admission, from sources whos intel he deemed “rumor and speculation,” which he obtained during conversations that were “casual in nature.”
Ultimately, the report concludes:
Based on the review of Crossfire Hurricane and related intelligence activities, we conclude that the Department and the FBI failed to uphold their important mission of strict fidelity to the law in connection with certain events and activities described in this report. As noted, former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith committed a criminal offense by fabricating language in an email that was material to the FBI obtaining a FISA surveillance order. In other instances, FBI personnel working on that same FISA application displayed, at best, a cavalier attitude towards accuracy and completeness. FBI personnel also repeatedly disregarded important requirements when they continued to seek renewals of that FISA surveillance while acknowledging - both then and in hindsight - that they did not genuinely believe there was probable cause to believe that the target was knowingly engaged in clandestine intelligence activities on behalf of a foreign power, or knowingly helping another person in such activities. And certain personnel disregarded significant exculpatory information that should have prompted investigative restraint and re-examination.
Our investigation also revealed that senior FBI personnel displayed a serious lack of analytical rigor towards the information that they received, especially information received from politically affiliated persons and entities. This information in part triggered and sustained Crossfire Hurricane and contributed to the subsequent need for Special Counsel Mueller's investigation. In particular, there was significant reliance on investigative leads provided or funded (directly or indirectly) by Trump's political opponents. The Department did not adequately examine or question these materials and the motivations of those providing them, even when at about the same time the Director of the FBI and others learned of significant and potentially contrary intelligence.
In light of the foregoing, there is a continuing need for the FBI and the Department to recognize that lack of analytical rigor, apparent confirmation bias, and an over-willingness to rely on information from individuals connected to political opponents caused investigators to fail to adequately consider alternative hypotheses and to act without appropriate objectivity or restraint in pursuing allegations of collusion or conspiracy between a U.S. political campaign and a foreign power. Although recognizing that in hindsight much is clearer, much of this also seems to have been clear at the time. We therefore believe it is important to examine past conduct to identify shortcomings and improve how the government carries out its most sensitive functions.