(CNN) — Special counsel John Durham concluded that the FBI should never have launched a full investigation into connections between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia during the 2016 election, according to a report compiled over three years by the Trump-administration appointee and released on Monday.
Durham’s 300-plus page report also states that the FBI used “raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence,” to launch the “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation into Trump and Russia but used a different standard when weighing concerns about alleged election interference regarding Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
The special counsel, however, did not recommend any new charges against individuals or “wholesale changes” about how the FBI handles politically charged investigations, despite strongly criticizing the agency’s behavior.
“Based on the review of Crossfire Hurricane and related intelligence activities, we conclude that the {Justice} Department and FBI failed to uphold their important mission of strict fidelity to the law in connection with certain events and activities described in this report,” Durham wrote.
The report also concludes that “at least on the part of certain personnel intimately involved in the matter” there was “a predisposition to open an investigation into Trump.”
Durham’s findings that the FBI’s investigation into the Trump campaign should not have happened are at odds with a previous Justice Department inspector general investigation into the FBI’s Russia probe, which identified problems with the investigation but concluded in December 2019 there was sufficient justification to open the inquiry.
Attorney General Merrick Garland sent Durham’s report to congressional lawmakers and released the report on Monday.
In a letter to Congress accompanying the report, Garland said, “Special Counsel Durham’s unclassified report is attached in full as submitted to me, without any additions, redactions, or other modifications.”
Durham’s conclusions condemning the FBI’s investigation into Trump is sure to fuel the debate about Russia, Trump, the FBI and the 2016 presidential election that is still swirling more than six years after and as Trump is campaigning once again for the White House.
The investigation was launched in May 2019 by Trump’s former Attorney General William Barr — a probe that Trump and his right-wing allies repeatedly predicted would “investigate the investigators” and lead to bombshell indictments of those who scrutinized the former president. Four years later, Durham’s investigation yielded one minor conviction, two losses at trial and a probe that fell short of the lofty goals set by the former president.
Durham only secured one conviction: the guilty plea of a low-level FBI lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, who avoided jail after admitting to doctoring an email about a surveillance warrant. Durham’s other two prosecutions — against a Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer and the primary source for the Trump-Russia dossier — ended with embarrassing acquittals.
Mixed results over 3+ years
Barr tapped Durham in 2019 to review the origins of the Russia probe, and the scope of Durham’s work grew over the years. He scrutinized the FBI’s handling of the dossier, leaks of classified information about Trump-Russia contacts, possible CIA misconduct regarding its analysis of Russian meddling, among other topics. Largely, his inquiry seemed to always zero in on Trump’s political opponents and perceived enemies.
When Durham began his probe, he was seen as an apolitical truth-seeker with a knack for investigating complex cases, including government scandals. But that reputation waned over the years, especially after Durham took the unprecedented step of publicly rebuking the Justice Department inspector general, after the watchdog released a report finding that the FBI’s decision to open the Trump-Russia probe was legally justified and untainted by bias.
Both Barr and Durham were publicly critical of the December 2019 inspector general report on the FBI’s Russia investigation. That report contained blistering criticisms of FBI’s reliance of an unverified opposition research dossier on Trump and Russia and the FISA warrants that cited the dossier’s allegations, but Inspector General Michael Horowitz wrote he did not find “documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions” to open investigations that initially focused on four Trump campaign aides and advisers.
Former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, which inherited the initial Russia probe, released a detailed accounting of Russia’s effort to interfere in the 2016 election. Mueller found no evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, but investigators documented numerous contacts between Trump associates and Russians. The final Mueller report did not rely on the opposition research dossier.
The FBI has made reforms to the way it obtains warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in light of the inspector general’s report — which led to FBI invalidating two of the four warrants it obtained on the Trump campaign adviser — as well as a follow up investigation revealing widespread problems with FISA court applications.
In congressional testimony in 2020, FBI Director Chris Wray said that the FBI had implemented more than 40 changes aimed at making the FISA process more stringent in response to Horowitz’s report.
Two acquittals
Before the 2020 election, Barr elevated Durham to “special counsel” status, further protecting his position and making it politically difficult for the Biden-run Justice Department to control or shut down the investigation.
Durham pressed forward with two trials over the course of his probe.
During the trials, Trump and his allies continued to make bold predictions about what would be uncovered in the probe, particularly after Durham released vague allegations through court filings. Trump last year told Fox News that Durham was exposing the “crime of the century.”
His case against Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann ended with an acquittal in May. Durham charged Sussmann with lying to a top FBI official in September 2016 while passing along a tip about Trump’s ties to Russia. Sussmann’s lawyers accused Durham of bullying witnesses into changing their story and cherry-picking evidence to fuel claims of an anti-Trump conspiracy. After his acquittal, Sussmann said he was “falsely accused” by Durham.
In October, Durham personally oversaw his trial against Trump-Russia dossier source Igor Danchenko, who was charged with lying to the FBI about his sub-sourcing. Durham handled most of arguments and witness questioning, but things quickly got off the rails.
He attacked his own witnesses when they helped the defense, and the judge threw out one of the five charges mid-trial. The Virginia jury reached “not guilty” verdicts on all remaining counts.
(Copyright (c) 2026 CNN. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)