By Lee Cary ——Bio and Archives--May 31, 2023
American Politics, News | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
The long-awaited report from Special Counsel John H. Durham has arrived.
It’s a tome of 306 pages. Detailed and thorough; it justifies the wait.
Unfortunately, much of the U.S. media--print, broadcast, internet--is ignoring it.
Those who may have expected the Durham Report to trigger criminal indictments against personnel in the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) who concocted the Crossfire Hurricane operation are likely to be disappointed.
Durham warned against that expectation: “The decision of whether to bring criminal charges in any given matter is a complicated one that is neither entirely subjective nor mechanistic.” (p. 6)
Add to that any trial in Washington D.C. where the overwhelming percentage of potential jurors are Democratic Party loyalists.
Durham states the five key inquiries of the report on pages 7-8:
(1) “Was there adequate predication for the FBI to open the Crossfire Hurricane investigation on July 31, 2016 as a full counterintelligence and Foreign Agents Registration Act (‘FARA’) investigation given the requirements of The Attorney General’s Guidelines for FBI Domestic Operations and FBI policies relating to the use of the least intrusive investigative tools necessary?”
• In short, was there just cause to warrant Crossfire Hurricane?
(2) Was Crossfire Hurricane “consistent with how the FBI handled other intelligence it had received prior to [highlighted in original] July 31, 2016 concerning attempts by foreign interests to influence the Clinton and other campaigns?”
• Was Crossfire Hurricane conducted according to established and unbiased protocol?
(3) “[D]id the FBI properly consider other highly significant intelligence it received at virtually the same time as that used to predicate Crossfire Hurricane, but which related not to the Trump campaign, but rather to a purported Clinton campaign plan ‘to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services’ which might have shed light on some of the Russia information the FBI was receiving from third parties, [emphasis added] including the Steele Dossier, the Alfa Bank allegations and confidential human source (‘CHS’) reporting? If not, were any provable federal crimes committed in failing to do so?”
• Was the investigation conducted without bias in the context of related information coming from unverified sources likely hostile to Trump?
(4) “Was there evidence that the actions of any FBI personnel or third parties relating to the Crossfire Hurricane investigation violated any criminal statutes, including the prohibition against making false statements to federal officials? If so, was that evidence sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?”
• Throughout Crossfire Hurricane, were any laws broken by FBI officials and/or witnesses?
(5) “Was there evidence that the actions of the FBI or Department personnel in providing false or incomplete information to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (‘FISC’) violated any federal criminal statues? If so, was there evidence sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?”
• Is there proof that anyone within the FBI knowingly misled or lied to the secret court?
Durham summarizes the report’s eventual outcome: “Our findings and conclusions regarding these and related questions are sobering.” (Emphasis added)
“Sobering” is the right word. The next 300 pages substantiate that.
To date, the Durham Report has attracted little-to-no interest among the American media. And only marginal interest among the U.S. population at-large.
Up front, Durham states where the report is headed.
“Based on the review of Crossfire Hurricane and related intelligence activities, we conclude that the Department and the FBI failed to uphold their important mission of strict fidelity to the law in connection with certain events and activities described in this report.” (p. 17)
The impact of that failure is currently unknown. Time will tell whether it’s a ticking bombshell, or a dud.
…to be continued
Support Canada Free Press
View Comments