16 posts
sort by
Important Things to Know About Special Counsel John Durham's Report on the FBI's Russia-Trump Investigation
Zachary Cohen via CNN
special counsel john durhampublished its final reportOn Monday, he cast doubt on the FBI's decision to open a full investigation into Donald Trump's campaign ties to Russia during the 2016 election.
are tonshe takeout ofSpecial Counsel's Report:
Durham discovers that the FBI is rushing to investigate Trump:The special counsel's office reportedly "conducted more than 480 interviews," "obtained and reviewed more than 1 million documents totaling more than 6 million pages," while also issuing 190 grand jury subpoenas.
However, Durham's report was based on a number of public findings, including investigative issues detailed in a 2019 investigation by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, that cast doubt on the Justice Department's decision. open a full investigation, with supervision. The agency believes the investigation is lawful and impartial.
While Durham acknowledged that the FBI had reason to open an initial review or investigation, he accused the bureau of failing in its "important law enforcement mission with respect to some of the events and activities described in this report."
Claiming that the FBI had no actual evidence of collusion before launching an investigation:Durham concluded that federal investigators had "no real evidence" of collusion between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia before launching a years-long investigation into the matter.
The finding was at the center of Durham's harshest criticism of the FBI's decision to launch a full investigation.
Durham criticized the FBI for failing to take various steps before launching its investigation of the Trump campaign, such as interviewing relevant witnesses, reviewing its own intelligence database, or using "any of the standard analytical tools the FBI typically uses when evaluating raw intelligence."
He suggested that if the FBI had taken such steps, it would have found that US intelligence agencies had no evidence linking Trump to Russian leadership officials.
The FBI was unable to corroborate the allegations in the Steele file:criticized reportsteele files, the FBI had used the explosive document to bolster its case for probable motives for obtaining a surveillance warrant against a former Trump campaign adviser.
Durham found that the Crossfire Hurricane investigation "was unable to substantiate any substantive allegations" contained in the controversial Steele file, which the FBI used to obtain a FISA warrant.
Witness testimony exposed the FBI's overreliance on the files in 2016 when it sought court approval to intercept former Trump campaign advisers. Other FBI officials described rookie mistakes that undermined the bureau's brief investigation into a possible Internet backchannel between Trump and Russia. During closing arguments at a trial last year, Durham repeatedly told jurors that "the FBI has failed."
Read more about the report.
Durham's report "does not make any significant recommendations about the FBI's process," Durbin said.
Nicky Robertson vía CNN
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin said special counsel John Durham's report did not make any significant recommendations about how the FBI could improve "the application of its considerable supervisory authority to its investigations."
added:
"Donald Trump had predicted that special counsel Durham would uncover the 'crime of the century.' Instead, we got a report that cost taxpayers more than $6.5 million over four years just to reiterate IG's 2019 findings from the annual report," referring to thereport 2019Inspector General of the Department of Justice.
Durham interviewed Hillary Clinton about an alleged scheme to link Trump to Russia, finding no verifiable criminal wrongdoing.
Evan Perez via CNN
Special counsel John Durham's report details his investigation into alleged efforts by the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016 to link Donald Trump to Russia. Durham concluded that "all things considered, this does not constitute a verifiable criminal offence."
Durham revealed in a footnote that he interviewed Clinton in May 2022 as part of the investigation. The investigation is looking into whether wrongdoing was committed in the handling of unverified US intelligence that the Russians were aware of Clinton's campaign plan to discredit his opponent Trump by linking him to Russia.
The 2016 intelligence caught the attention of then-CIA director John Brennan, who informed the Obama White House and took the matter to the FBI.
During the Trump administration, Director of National Intelligence John RatcliffeHe posted some of Brennan's notes.About the intelligence he used in a briefing on former President Barack Obama.
Ratcliffe has publicly said that the intelligence community never corroborated Russia's alleged claim that Clinton planned to frame Trump and does not know if it is a fabrication.
But the report shows that Durham believed the unverified intelligence should at least lead the FBI to question whether it was being used by political opponents to bring charges against the Trump campaign.
In an interview with Durham investigators, Clinton expressed sympathy for Durham's search. She called it "really sad" adding: "I get it, you have to go down every rabbit hole."
He called the intelligence taking Durham's time false, saying it "looks like Russian disinformation to me."
A Clinton spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.
Durham concluded that it was impossible to prosecute anyone who handled intelligence on the Clinton program. He said it "amounted to a significant lapse in intelligence" but not a crime.
Analysis: FBI's Broad Trump-Russia Investigation Allowed Agents To Use Invasive Intelligence Tools
Analysis by CNN reporter and former FBI agent Josh Campbell
Special counsel John Durham concludes that the FBI should never have launched a full investigation into Donald Trump's running mate's ties to Russia during the 2016 election.
The office differentiated the types of investigations it could launch: A full probe would allow agents to use a broader range of surveillance tools while investigating the Trump campaign in Russia.
That's the difference between a full FBI investigation, one that Durham has criticized in the Trump-Russia probe, and a preliminary investigation.
Preliminary investigations require a lower threshold than full-scale investigations, and therefore agents cannot use more intrusive tools, such as Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) search warrants and other surveillance authorized by the courts.
Specifically, in accordance with the FBI Domestic Investigations and Operations Guidelines, in a preliminary investigation:
- Agents must have "information or reports" of a federal crime being committed or about to be committed.
- You need a lower sill to open.
- The investigation can only go on for six months and the lawyer handling the case will not take one of three steps: seek a renewal, turn it into a full investigation if warranted, or close the case.
- Intrusive tools such as FISA and other electronic surveillance cannot be used.
A full investigation is broader and agents have more tools at their disposal. During a full investigation:
- Officers must have a "clear factual basis" that a crime has occurred or is about to occur in order to open a case. The standard required to bring a case is relatively high and goes beyond charges of criminal conduct.
- There is no timetable for the investigation, but it is normally reviewed annually by the FBI director to determine if they should remain open.
- All legal tools are allowed, including intrusive surveillance.
The bottom line is that if the FBI were to treat the Trump-Russia investigation as a preliminary investigation rather than a full investigation, they would not be allowed to use the wide array of FISA tools that ended up being the subject.censoredDurham, Team Trump and the Justice Department Inspector General. Opening the case as a preliminary investigation would also limit the amount of information the FBI can gather as it tries to uncover possible links between Trump team members and Russia.
Here's what Trump said about the Durham report
Kristen Holmes and Sara Murray via CNN
Former President Donald Trump has responded to a report by special counsel John Durham that concluded the FBI should not have launched a full investigation into his campaign's ties to Russia during the 2016 election.
"Wow! After an extensive investigation, Special Counsel John Durham has concluded that the FBI should not have opened the Trump-Russia investigation."trump standTo the Truth Social Monday. "In other words, the American public was lied to just as those who don't want to see America great are now being lied to."
Durham was appointed special counsel to former Attorney General William Barr to investigate possible wrongdoing in the Trump-Russia investigation.
Read the full Durham report
From the CNN Staff
Special counsel John Durham released his highly anticipated report on the 2016 election campaign investigation of Donald Trump and Russia on Monday.
filefull report here:
Inquiry into Trump-Russia probe has led to mixed results for 3 years
来自 CNN 的 Zachary Cohen, Devan Cole, Tierney Sneed, Jeremy HerbandMarshall Cohen
Former Attorney General William Barr appointed special counsel John Durham in 2019 to reviewThe origins of the Russian investigation, and Durham's scope of work has continued to expand over the years.
Examined the FBIsteele files, leaks of classified information about Trump's contacts with Russia and possible CIA misconduct in analyzing Russian interference, among other things.
For the most part, his investigations always seemed to focus on political rivals and perceived enemies of former President Donald Trump.
When Durham began his investigation, he was seen as an apolitical truth-seeker with a knack for investigating complex cases, including government scandals.
But that reputation has faded over the years, especially after Durham took the unprecedented step of publicly denouncing the Justice Department's inspector general after the watchdog released a report finding that the FBI's decision to open the Trump-Russia investigation is legally sound and unbiased.
Both Barr and Durham have publicly criticized the December2019 FBI Russia Investigations Inspector General Report.
The report scathingly criticized the FBI for relying on an unverified opposition investigative dossier on Trump and Russia, and the FISA arrest warrant citing the dossier's allegations, but Inspector General Michael Horowitz wrote that he found no "evidence." documentary or testimonial influenced by political bias or inappropriate conduct”. Motivation “decision” to open the initial investigation of four Trump campaign aides and advisers.
Former special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, in the wake of the original Russia investigation, released a detailed account of Russia's efforts to interfere in the 2016 election.
Mueller found no evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, but investigators documented multiple contacts between Trump associates and Russians.
Mueller's final report was not based on the opposition's investigative file.
According to the inspector general's report, the FBI made changes to how it obtains search warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, prompting the FBI to announce that it was targeting two of four warrants obtained by a Trump campaign adviser. and a follow-up investigation revealed widespread problems with FISA court applications.
In his testimony before Congress in 2020, FBI Director Chris Wray said that in response to Horowitz's report, the FBI implemented more than 40 changes intended to make the FISA process more rigorous.
John Durham appeared twice during the investigation and was cleared
来自 CNN 的 Zachary Cohen, Devan Cole, Tierney Sneed, Jeremy HerbandMarshall Cohen
Special counsel John Durham discussed the FBI's handling of the files, the leak of classified information about Trump's contacts with Russia and possible CIA wrongdoing in its analysis of Russian meddling during the investigation, among other issues.
It's just that he just goes forward.Two trials were held in his investigation.Both ended up acquitted.
Barr elevated Durham to "special prosecutor" status ahead of the 2020 election, further protecting his position and making it politically harder for a Biden-led Justice Department to control or shut down the investigation.
Throughout the trial, Trump and his allies continued to make bold predictions about what would be found in the investigation, especially after Durham released vague allegations through court documents. Trump told Fox News last year that Durham was exposing the "crime of the century."
His case against Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussman ended in May with an acquittal. Durham accuses SussmanLied to senior FBI officialsIn September 2016, while breaking news about Trump's ties to Russia. Sussman's lawyers have accused Durham of intimidating witnesses into changing their stories and choosing evidence to fuel claims of an anti-Trump conspiracy. After his acquittal, Sussman said Durham "falsely accused" him.
In October, Durham personally oversaw the trial of Trump-Russia dossier source Igor Danchenko, accused of subcontracting Lied to the FBI. Durham handled most of the arguments and cross-examination of witnesses, but things quickly went off the rails.
When his own witnesses helped the defense, he attacked them, and the judge threw out one of the five charges in the trial. A Virginia jury returned a "not guilty" verdict on all remaining charges.
Who is special counsel John Durham?
Jack Forrestand and Marshall Cohen via CNN
Juan Durham, Fiscal Especialmain investigationThe FBI's investigation into possible wrongdoing in the Trump-Russia investigation has opened a high-profile public corruption investigation.
In a more than 300-page report, the Trump administration's designee found the FBI should not have opened an investigation into ties between Donald Trump's campaign and Russia during the 2016 election.A report produced over a period of three years.and released on Monday.
Durham, 73, isdating serviceIn October 2020, then-Attorney General William Barr was appointed special counsel. He was previously the lead prosecutor for the Department of Justice in Connecticut, a position he was appointed in 2017 and will leave in 2021.
Durham was admitted to the bar in 1975. He hasHandle sensitive and high-profile investigationsDuring his decades-long career as attorney general, he has served in both Democratic and Republican administrations.
He was appointed in 1999 by then-Attorney General Janet Reno to investigate Boston's use of FBI informants for corruption, and later by then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey to investigate the CIA's 2008 destruction of interrogations. The detainees videotaped the incident. DurhamAfter closing a probeThere are no fees.
In addition to serving as a special prosecutor, Durham has extensive experience as a trial attorney. He went after gangs in New Haven, prosecuted mob figures and obtained a guilty plea from former Connecticut Gov. John Rowland, a known corrupt Republican.
FAQs
What was the Durham Report of 1838? ›
Presented to Parliament in early 1839, the Durham Report, resulted in the Act of Union of 1840 which united the provinces of Upper Canada (now Ontario) and Lower Canada (now Quebec), with joint representation from both regions overseen by one Legislature and referred to as the Province of Canada. Was this page helpful?
What is John Durham's position? › What was the Durham Report in simple terms? ›Durham made two main recommendations: that Upper and Lower Canada be united into one province, and. the introduction of responsible government for all colonies in British North America.
Why was the Durham Report written? ›Durham was asked to investigate colonial grievances after the rebellions of 1837–38 in Upper and Lower Canada. ( See also: Rebellion in Lower Canada; Rebellion in Upper Canada.) He arrived in Canada in May 1838.
Who released the Durham Report? ›Attorney General Merrick Garland sent Durham's report to congressional lawmakers and released the report on Monday.
Who actually wrote the 1839 Durham Report? ›The “Durham Report” was largely written by his chief secretary in Canada, Charles Buller (1806–48).
What are the city of Durham core values? ›The City of Durham is dedicated to improving the quality of life in our community by delivering cost-effective, highly responsive services with integrity and friendliness. All Durham citizens are safe. Every citizen in Durham has access to adequate, safe, and affordable housing. Durham enjoys a prosperous economy.
What was Durham's report and the Act of Union 1840? ›Lord Durham wanted to re-instate peace throughout the colonies and recommended a political union. It was under his belief that peace could best be achieved by ensuring a loyal English majority in British North America, as well as by anglicizing French Canadians, and by granting responsible government.
Why is Lord Durham significant? ›Lord Durham acted as Governor General of British North America after the Rebellions of 1837-38. He drafted the Durham report. The report paved the way for responsible government, but also called for the assimilation of French Canadians.
Who ruled Canada before independence? ›The British Parliament passed the British North America Act in 1867. The Dominion of Canada was officially born on July 1, 1867. Until 1982, July 1 was celebrated as “Dominion Day” to commemorate the day that Canada became a self-governing Dominion.
When did the French leave Quebec? ›
French forces at Quebec City surrendered to British forces on 18 September 1759, a few days after the crucial Battle of the Plains of Abraham. French resistance ended in 1760 with the capitulation of Montreal.
Who sent a report to the British government about the 1837 and 1838 rebellions in Montreal and Toronto? ›One fact is clear: the rebellions prompted the appointment of Lord Durham and the writing of the Durham Report.
What was the rebellion of 1837 38? ›Rebellions of 1837, also known as Rebellions of 1837–38, rebellions mounted in 1837–38 in each colony of Upper and Lower Canada against the British Crown and the political status quo. The revolt in Lower Canada was the more serious and violent of the two.
What was the impact of the Quebec Act? ›Quebec Act repealed loyalty oath, established religious freedoms. After the war ended with a decisive victory for the British and the defeat of France and Spain, France ceded Quebec and all its claims to the Ohio River Valley to the British Empire.
What were the two major reforms by the Durham Report? ›What were the two major reforms urged by the Durham report? First, upper and lower Canada should be reunited as the Province of Canada, and British immigration should be encouraged. Second, colonists in the provinces of Canada should be allowed to govern themselves in domestic matters.
What was the Act of Union 1838? ›The Act of Union was passed by the British Parliament in July 1840. It was proclaimed on 10 February 1841 in Montreal. It created the Province of Canada by uniting the colonies of Canada West (formerly Upper Canada) and Canada East (formerly Lower Canada) into one government.
What happened as the result of the Act of Union in 1800? ›Under the terms of the Union, which came into effect on 1 January 1801, the Irish Parliament was abolished; Ireland was given 100 MPs at Westminster whilst the Irish peerage were represented in the House of Lords by 28 of their number who served for life.
What was the outcome of the 1837 rebellion? ›| Date | 7 December 1837 – 4 December 1838 (11 months, 3 weeks and 6 days) |
|---|---|
| Location | Canada |
| Result | Government victory Patriote rebellion crushed by loyalist forces; Republic of Canada dismantled Defeat of Hunters' Lodges Unification of Upper and Lower Canada into the Province of Canada |
The underlying cause of the rebellions was the conflict between the French-Canadian majority and the British minority. (See also: Francophone-Anglophone Relations.) The French Canadians demanded that all power be centralized in the popularly elected Assembly, which it controlled.
How many people were hanged in Lower Canada? ›In the fall of 1838, renewed attempts at rebellion in Upper and Lower Canada were crushed. Seventeen of the Upper Canada rebels were hanged; twelve rebels in Lower Canada met the same fate.
What were the results of the rebellions of 1837 1838? ›
The most cited consequence of the Rebellion of 1837-38 was that it led to the Durham Report, which recommended the unification of Upper and Lower Canada and supported the Reformers' demand for responsible government.
Which leader ended the 1837 revolt by executing the rebel leaders? ›The rebels proclaimed José González of Taos, one of their leaders, as Governor of New Mexico. The former governor Manuel Armijo gathered troops, and in January 1838 took control and had González executed.
What was the martial law in Canada 1837? ›The British responded to the 1837-38 uprisings by invoking emergency legislation. Martial law was declared in Upper and Lower Canada, which allowed the governor in Lower Canada to put aside elected legislators and judges who were sympathetic to his political opponents.
Why were Americans angry about the Quebec Act? ›Second, it made many Americans very angry because they thought the British were too lenient to the French. Another reason why the Quebec Act made the Americans angry is because it did not permit settlers to move into the Ohio River Region. This region had much fertile land that the Americans wanted.
Why did Americans oppose the Quebec Act? ›Many American colonists viewed the act as a measure of coercion. The act was thus a major cause of the American Revolution and helped provoke an invasion of Quebec by the armies of the revolting colonies in the winter of 1775–76.
Why did the Quebec Act make colonists mad? ›Traditionally, colonial resentment towards the Quebec Act has been attributed to the increased British control of religion, land distribution, and colonial government in North America granted by the Act.