In Brief: Durham Exposed FBI Misconduct
The special counsel revealed how imperative it is that the FBI be subjected to searching congressional investigation and reform.
We were disappointed though not surprised when the swamp acquitted yet another Spygate suspect. Many are frustrated with Special Counsel John Durham’s seeming inability to truly hold anyone accountable. The truth is, as National Review’s editors write, that we may have to settle for his having exposed the depth of corruption in our nation’s premiere law enforcement agency.
The acquittal of Igor Danchenko for making false statements to investigators about his part in providing bogus anti-Trump information for the discredited Steele dossier is, in the end, a footnote. As Russiagate special counsel John Durham argued in summing up the prosecution’s case to the jury, “the elephant in the room” was the FBI. It was the bureau’s malfeasance that was really on trial, and the verdict on that, emphatically, is guilty.
In the short trial, Durham established that the bureau knowingly submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) sworn applications that claimed the information supplied by former British spy Christopher Steele had been verified. In reality, not only had the bureau failed to verify Steele’s claims of a “conspiracy of cooperation” between Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign and the Kremlin; it had offered Steele $1 million if he could provide corroborating proof. The FBI never had to pay because neither Steele nor his primary source for anti-Trump “intelligence,” Danchenko, could deliver.
That is not the half of it. The bureau knew Steele was compiling the dossier as opposition research for the Clinton campaign — he’d been contracted by the information firm Fusion GPS, which had been retained by Clinton’s lawyer, Marc Elias. At Danchenko’s trial, Durham elicited testimony from a senior FBI intelligence analyst, Brian Auten, that in a meeting in Rome in October 2016 (the same month that the FBI started using Steele’s fabricated reporting in its FISA application), an agent improperly briefed Steele on “Crossfire Hurricane,” the bureau’s codename for the Trump/Russia probe. That is, even as Steele was providing the FBI with nonsense that he could not back up, the FBI was providing Steele with classified intelligence related to Trump that Steele was then positioned to share with his Clinton campaign sponsors.
That whole time, Hillary Clinton was busy painting Donald Trump as a stooge for Vladimir Putin. It was a perfectly crafted and thoroughly buttoned up conspiracy, for which almost no one will pay a legal price.
As for the Steele dossier, evidence in Danchenko’s trial showed that the FBI swore that it was duly verified twice, in October 2016 and mid-January 2017, before it finally got around to interviewing the main source, Danchenko. He told interviewing agents that Steele’s reports were spurious. He said he was unaware that Steele had taken the rumor and innuendo he had passed along, embellished them with exaggeration and fabrication, and then wrote them up to appear as professional intelligence reporting — indeed, he claimed not to have seen or known about the so-called dossier until BuzzFeed published it in January 2017 (shortly before the FBI finally interviewed Danchenko).
The FBI broke surveillance court rules by failing to correct inaccurate information used for warrants. The reasons are obvious. The result is that, the editors note, “for more than half a year into Trump’s presidency, a federal court was still being told that the FBI suspected him of being a clandestine agent of Russia.” Worse, the FBI deceived the FISA court about Danchenko being “truthful and cooperative” by leaving out the fact that he was only doing so about “the fraudulence of the dossier.”
The editors conclude:
It is fair to question Durham’s judgment in bringing the cases against Danchenko and Sussmann. The charges were weak, largely but not exclusively because the defendants’ alleged misconduct paled in comparison to the FBI’s. Durham’s only conviction was a guilty plea by FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith for lying to an agent by altering a key document in the preparation of a surveillance warrant. But even there, the judge imposed a minimal, no-jail sentence after prosecutors put up minimal resistance to Clinesmith’s implausible claim that he hadn’t meant to mislead the court. The unimpressive results will give Democrats and pundits who championed the Trump-Russia smear fodder to argue that Durham’s ultimate report should be ignored. We will wait to review the findings and supporting evidence. In the interim, Durham has done a public service in exposing how imperative it is that the FBI be subjected to searching congressional investigation and reform.
- John Durham
Start a conversation using these share links: