5 Takeaways from the Durham Report

The report on the Trump-Russia investigation, the Durham Report, has found that while federal officials failed to maintain “strict fidelity to the law,” criminal misconduct did not occur.

The Durham Report, also known as the “Report on Matters Related to Intelligence Activities and Investigations Arising Out of the 2016 Presidential Campaign,” was released Monday.

Former United States Attorney John Durham led the investigation into the 2016 presidential campaign of Donald Trump and the Russian government. Trump defeated Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, but critics said Trump’s campaign had colluded with Russia to win the presidential seat.

An initial investigation cleared Trump of association with Russia, but U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr then appointed Durham as a special counsel to investigate the origins of the initial probe.

Here are five significant findings of the Durham report:

1. No criminal charges will be issued.

The Durham Report found that no federal official or employee violated the law during the 2016 presidential election.

“The law does not always make a person’s bad judgment, even horribly bad judgment, standing alone, a crime,” the report said.

“Nor does the law criminalize all unseemly or unethical conduct that political campaigns might undertake for financial advantage, absent a violation of a particular federal criminal statute. Finally, in almost all cases, the government is required to prove a person’s actual criminal intent — not mere negligence or recklessness — before that person’s fellow citizens can lawfully find him or her guilty of a crime.”

2. The FBI was unsuccessful in maintaining “strict fidelity to the law.”

The Durham Report said in one example, former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith fabricated language in an email that helped the FBI obtain a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act surveillance order for the Trump campaign.

According to The Christian Post, the report also said that the investigation was opened based on “raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence.”

“FBI personnel also repeatedly disregarded important requirements when they continued to seek renewals of that FISA surveillance while acknowledging — both then and in hindsight — that they did not genuinely believe there was probable cause to believe that the target was knowingly engaged in clandestine intelligence on behalf of a foreign power.”

3. Investigators ignored selected information.

The Durham Report said that in some cases, the FBI ignored facts about the presidential campaign and did not pursue other leads, including testimonies from Trump campaign staffers and the Trump Senior Foreign Policy Advisor.

“Throughout the duration of Crossfire Hurricane, facts and circumstances that were inconsistent with the premise that Trump and/or persons associated with the Trump campaign were involved in a collusive or conspiratorial relationship with the Russian government were ignored or simply assessed away.” Crossfire Hurricane was the codename for the FBI counterintelligence investigation into Trump’s alleged involvement with Russia in the 2016 presidential election.

4. Investigators did not focus on a Clinton campaign Plan to allegedly “stir up” a scandal.

The Durham Report says that intelligence agencies knew of a plan from Clinton that she approved to try to “stir up” a scandal by linking Trump with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

According to the report, FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok knew of the plan and later came under fire himself for text messages that showed he was against Trump.

“The Office showed portions of the Clinton Plan intelligence to a number of individuals who were actively involved in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation,” the report said. “Most advised they had never seen the intelligence before, and some expressed surprise and dismay upon learning of it.

5. The FBI Provided Clinton, but Not Trump, with a “Defensive Briefing” amid possible foreign campaign interference.

According to the report, the FBI may have known about foreign interference in Clinton’s campaign as early as 2014 and provided her with a “defensive briefing.”

In the case of Trump, when it was suggested that he could be linked with Russian officials, the FBI “failed to provide a defensive briefing” to his campaign.

“The FBI’s decision to conduct defensive briefings in the investigation of Foreign Govemment-2’s foreign influence efforts is curious given that defensive briefings could reduce the likelihood of success of any investigation into the foreign influence allegations and that candidates and public officials might then be less likely to interact with representatives of Foreign Govemment-2,” the report concluded.

Photo courtesy: ©Getty Images/Jeff J. Mitchell/Staff

Amanda Casanova is a writer living in Dallas, Texas. She has covered news for ChristianHeadlines.com since 2014. She has also contributed to The Houston Chronicle, U.S. News and World Report and IBelieve.com. She blogs at The Migraine Runner.