WASHINGTON-Special Counsel John Durhamrecently garnered attention with a torrential court filing that sparked accusations of espionage against former President Donald Trump but also revived questions about what he was doing during his nearly three-year investigation.
His investigation began as a review of what prompted the FBI investigationRussian interference in the 2016 elections. The investigation has grown to cover some of the most controversial aspects of the Trump and Hillary Clinton campaigns.
The Durham inquiry into the 2016 election is now much longer than the 22-month investigation led bySpecial Counsel Robert MuellerRussian interference in the campaign. So far, Durham has cashed inthree people, each forallegedly lyingor to the FBI, prompting Trump and lawmakers to question what he was doing. Durham has maintained secrecy throughout the investigation, and the revelations in the court documents offer little indication as to where the investigation is headed.
Durham's legal testimony and papers are sometimes met with criticism. In an ongoing case that sparked a backlash from conservatives, Durham argued in a February lawsuit that the chief technology officer had been mining internet data related to Trump Tower, Trump's apartment building and the president's office. Trump and right-wing publications called it evidence that Clinton was spying on him.
But the reason for the presentation was the boring subject of whether the defendant's attorneys,Michaela Sussmana, had a conflict of interest in the case. Sussmann said he is aware of the potential conflict and will continue to work with the same lawyers.
But his lawyers called the allegations irrelevant to the charges against him and false, "clearly designed to politicize the case, inflame media coverage and slander the jury."
"This particular fight feels like a side show to me," U.S. District Judge ChristopherCooper told prosecutors on March 10.
Sussmann was acquitted on May 31 after a jury trial.
Next:Attorney General Garland: Justice does not 'cover up' controversial January 6 investigations
The outburst showed how opaque investigations are by special counsel until charges are filed.
"I can't imagine the circumstances that would require it to take that long, which in turn gives the impression that it could be politically motivated or driven," said Bruce Udolf, a Florida criminal defense attorney who served as an associate. Independent lawyer who investigated President Bill Clinton in the 1990s in connection with a land deal in Arkansas. "It looks like it was a crime investigation."
Paul Rosenzweig, former chief counsel to independent attorney Kenneth Starr on the Bill Clinton investigation, said clues to the direction of the investigation are often revealed in public records, such as subpoenas or court documents. He said the lack of notices of subpoenas could suggest little activity in the investigation.
"We've seen very little, which suggests to me relatively little activity in the Durham sphere," said Rosenzweig, founder of Red Branch Consulting, a national security and data privacy firm.
Public disclosures were rare. Lawmakers want to know what the investigation found. Even Trump issued a statement over a year ago questioning the pace.
Where is Durham? Trump asked on March 6, 2021. “Is he a living, breathing human being? Will there ever be a Durham Report?
An investigation by a special counselor may take some time
Durham was tasked with leading the special counsel's investigation into a case that launched another special prosecutor's investigation: the Mueller investigation.
The Attorney General may appoint a Special Counsel or a former position called an Independent Counsel to investigate possible criminal activity outside of the typical Department of Justice hierarchy to ensure there is no interference from the administration.
In the Durham case, Trump argued that the FBI and Mueller investigations into his administration were inappropriate.
Such special investigations can take years. Starr spent five years investigating the Clinton case, and freelance lawyer Lawrence Walsh spent nearly seven years investigating the Iran-Contra case during the Reagan administration. durham passed$2.8 million in the first yearas Special Counsel ending in September, last available term. For comparison,Mueller's investigation cost approximately $16 million.
Rosenzweig likened the special counsel to Inspector Javert, a fictional policeman in Victor Hugo's Les Misérables who pursues a suspect for years.
"Sometimes the quality of Javert gets to them a bit," said Rosenzweig. "But these things usually take time, and they usually take time because, as good special counselors, they feel they have to be thorough."
Former Attorney General William Barr ordered Durham in May 2019 to review allegations relating to the 2016 presidential campaign investigations. Based on preliminary findings, Barr appointed Durham in October 2020 to investigate whether anyone violated the law with regard to intelligence or government activities law enforcement involving Trump, Mueller, or an FBI investigation dubbed Crossfire Hurricane into whether Trump's campaign was coordinated with Russian election interference efforts.
Barr authorized Durham to prosecute federal crimes if necessary and to submit a final report to the Attorney General suitable for public release upon completion of the investigation. But Barr did not set a deadline for completing the investigation.
Durham is a respected professional prosecutor dealing with the mafia and corruption
Durham conducted high-profile and difficult investigations for much of his 45-year career as a prosecutor. The funds came from both the Democratic and Republican administrations, earning praise from both for their meticulousness, whether they resulted in catchy convictions or no charges were brought against them.
In the 1980s, Durham joined the Boston Organized Crime Strike Force, where he pursued members of the Genovese, Gambino, and Patriarca crime families.
In the late 1990s, Durham was assigned by then Attorney General Janet Reno to lead a task force investigating corrupt law enforcement officials associated with the Winter Hill gang in Boston. Former FBI Supervisory Agent John Connolly and former Massachusetts State Police Lieutenant Richard Schneiderhan were convicted of providing confidential police information to criminals James "Whitey" Bulger and Stephen "The Rifleman" Flemmi.
In 2004, then Connecticut Governor John Rowland was accused of stealing government services. Durham oversaw the negotiations that led to a guilty plea and a year in prison.
Durham was asked in 2008 by then Attorney General Michael Mukasey to investigate the CIA's destruction of videotapes of interrogations of detainees following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Then-Attorney General Eric Holder expanded the investigation in 2009 to include whether interrogation techniques violated torture. statute.
Durham reviewed the questioning of 101 detainees and recommended in 2011 a full investigation into two people who died in custody. But Holder closed the investigation in 2012 without charge.
Holder praised Durham and his team for "working tirelessly to conduct extremely thorough and comprehensive investigations."
Durham is famous for its taciturnity. "He's notoriously shy about talking about himself or what he's doing," said Leonard Boyle, another longtime prosecutor who introduced Durham for a rare speech in March 2018.
In that speech, Durham acknowledged that prosecutors had power and said it should be used appropriately.
"By issuing a subpoena, we can damage someone's reputation, we can hurt their business, we can hurt their families," Durham said at St. Joseph's University in West Hartford, Connecticut. "It's a bit at odds with the public's ongoing need for information."
Durham selected to lead hurricane crossfire investigation
Durham's latest assignment is a politically tense investigation with officials from all sides interested in its outcome. His review paralleled an investigation by the Justice Department's inspector general pointing to a lack of confidence on the part of the administration.
"Campaign spying is a big problem"Barr told a Senate panel in April 2019. "I think there was espionage," Barr added, though he wondered if there was enough evidence to justify surveillance.
Inspector General Michael Horowitz released a scathing report in December 2019 criticizing the way the FBI obtained wiretapping warrants.Carter's websiteTrump campaign adviser.
Former FBI attorneyKevin Clinesmithpleaded guilty as part of the Durham review to spoofing an email used to support Page surveillance.
Next:Live rule updates: Garland aims to 'turn down the volume' at the Department of Justice
But Horowitz dismissed Trump's accusations that FBI leaders were trying to sabotage his campaign.
"We found no documentary evidence or evidence that political bias or misguided motivation played a role" in the decision to capture Page,478 page reportsaying.
Durham made a rare statement on December 9, 2019., questioning Horowitz's report without detailing the discrepancies. During the inquiry, Durham said that "we informed the Inspector General last month that we disagreed with some of the report's conclusions."
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, DNY, criticized Durham the next day for what he called a political statement, acting as "Mr. Barr's henchman" rather than "an impassive observer and apolitical."
Onintelligence communityhe stated that Russia exerted influence during the campaign to help Trump, but not that his campaign colluded with Russia.
What was Steele's file?
Another controversial aspect of the 2016 campaign became known as the Steele Dossier. Former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele compiled the report as an opposition investigation into Trump's Russian ties to the Clinton campaign.
Steele handed over the report to the FBI. But many anonymous allegations have been debunked, with Trump dismissing them as "fake news."
One of the men accused by Durham isIgor Danchenko, a Russian citizen living in Virginia who allegedly provided material for the Steele Report. Danchenko, who pleaded not guilty, was indicted in November and will stand trial in October on charges of making a false statement to the FBI.
Rosenzweig characterized the charges against Danchenko and Sussmann as secondary to the Durham investigation.
"These two charges are clearly highly derivative allegations of lying to people in the course of operations, not major crimes," Rosenzweig said. what are you going to research?
Sussman's presentation attracted attention and criticism
Durham generated more headlines in the case againstSussmanna, a national security lawyer who served as an adviser to the Clinton campaign. The indictment alleges that Sussman told the FBI that he did not provide guidance "on behalf of any client" such as the Clinton campaign. But his lawyers maintained that he "didn't make any false statements to the FBI."
Sussman met with FBI legal counsel James Baker on September 16, 2016, to offer him a lead on an alleged secret communication channel between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank. Sussman also met with CIA officials on February 9, 2017 to discuss Trump.
A surge of coverage came on February 11 after a report by Durham argued that Sussmann's lawyers had a conflict of interest. To bolster the case, the filing describes an anonymous CTO mining Internet data from Trump Tower, Trump's New York City apartment building, and the president's office.
Fox News, OnNew York Post OfficeyWashington examinereach reported that the presentation was evidence that the Clinton campaign was spying on Trump as a candidate and president.
Trump, who incorrectly named the special counsel "Robert Durham" in a statement, said the files "provide irrefutable evidence that my campaign and presidency were spied on by agents paid by the Clinton campaign to develop completely fabricated connections." Russia". He suggested that the crime could be "punishable by death".
But Sussmann's lawyers said the document contained false allegations irrelevant to the prosecution in the case. Lawyers said the February 2017 meeting looked at data from when Barack Obama was president. The prosecutor's office did not bring charges against the technical director.
Andrew DeFilippis, the assistant U.S. Attorney handling the case, told the judge at the March 10 hearing that the information was given out of "extreme caution" and that there was no need to explain or correct the record.
"We don't want to get into this game of correcting misinterpretations that may exist," DeFilippis said. "We're very careful to be thorough in court."
Cooper, the judge in charge of the case, told prosecutors that the technology charges were not necessary because he could have simply asked Sussmann about the potential conflict during a routine hearing, as he had done that day. He reminded prosecutors that their arguments "are under scrutiny" and will attract publicity in a high-profile case.
"Until we have sworn a jury on this case, you have a hearing," Cooper said. "It's me".
This article originally appeared in USA TODAY:John Durham's investigation into the 2016 campaign continues. What have you done?