How Garland’s release of Trump-Russia probe report differed from Barr’s
Washington PostDec 25, 2022
The Facts
On Monday, special counsel John Durham released his report after a four-year investigation into the origins of the FBI investigation of then-presidential candidate Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign’s potential ties to Russian operatives.
Durham, who was appointed by Trump Attorney General Bill Barr in 2019, wrote that the FBI had a “seriously flawed” basis for opening the “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation in 2016. Durham also concluded that neither US law enforcement nor its intelligence agencies possessed any evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia and that officials ignored evidence that wasn’t consistent with their intentions to continue the investigation.
The Spin
Pro-Trump narrative
What was dismissed as a "baseless conspiracy theory" by some of the most powerful officials in the country and their media allies was actually true — the FBI was weaponized to prevent Trump from becoming president. There was never any evidence of collusion with Russia and any related probe was meant to distract from Clinton’s own scandal. The FBI must be greatly reformed if not completely dismantled for the good of the republic.
Democratic narrative
By any measure, Durham’s report is the biggest, most expensive, non-revelatory piece of work by a special counsel in the history of the US. There are no new indictments or recommendations, and all this ground was covered by earlier probes by the US House and the DOJ inspector general. Ironically, the report contradicts Republicans’ reading of it by proving the Russia scandal wasn't entirely baseless and Durham’s investigation was a politically motivated waste of time.
