Former Special Counsel's Testimony Could Aid in Defense of Ex-FBI Director
John Durham, an ex-special counsel who dedicated years to scrutinizing the roots of an investigation into a previous presidential campaign and its supposed Russian connections, has expressed to federal prosecutors that he could not find any evidence supporting false statements or obstruction charges against the ex-director of the FBI.
These federal prosecutors, based in Virginia, sought to grasp the results of Durham's investigation through a remote meeting. The conclusions drawn by Durham suggest that he may end up playing a significant role in the defense of the former FBI director.
Prosecutors' Findings
A team of legal experts from the U.S. Attorney's Office, located in the nation's capital, who had been investigating the ex-FBI director for some time, also met with the prosecutors. Even after inviting him to testify before a grand jury, they were unable to pinpoint any offenses committed by him that could lead to charges.
After conducting their two-month probe, the Virginia prosecutors reached the same conclusion as both Durham and the D.C. prosecutors: they could not substantiate any claims that the ex-FBI director lied to Congress to hinder their investigation. In a detailed memo, they mentioned the two other investigations to strengthen their recommendation that there was not enough evidence to charge him.
Despite this recommendation, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Lindsey Halligan, decided to indict the former FBI director on three counts. A grand jury, however, decided to indict him on two charges of making a false statement to Congress and obstruction, while rejecting an additional false statements count.
Political Tensions and Judicial Skepticism
This controversial case comes at a time when there's increasing pressure for more charges against political opponents. The president continues to seek some form of retribution for the multiple legal cases he faced after leaving office.
The president shared his hope for more indictments, stating that the justice system has been misused like never before.
The context of these charges, including the fact that at least three different teams of prosecutors declined to pursue them, may not only strengthen the argument that the ex-FBI director was unfairly targeted, but also shed light on the flaws that seasoned prosecutors had already identified in the case. High-ranking officials in the Department of Justice had repeatedly expressed doubts about the case, and no career prosecutor was willing to present the case to the grand jury.
Investigation Focus and Grand Jury Indictment
The case initially pushed by Halligan focuses on two aspects of the ex-FBI director's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He allegedly lied about approving leaks to the media and claimed he was not aware of an unconfirmed intelligence report that a presidential candidate attempted to create a scandal by linking the previous president's campaign to Russia.
Durham's team thoroughly investigated whether this testimony was intentionally misleading. However, they did not believe they could support false statements charges due to the ex-FBI director's claimed lack of memory, and they could not definitively prove that he had seen the intelligence report.
In a late August video conference with federal prosecutors, Durham reiterated his team's conclusion that the ex-FBI director's testimony does not support false statements charges. The investigation of the ex-FBI director followed the same evidence and matched Durham's conclusion.
The grand jury, after hearing evidence against the ex-FBI director, seemed to agree that he did not lie to Congress about the intelligence report, returning a no bill for the first false statements count.
However, the grand jury did indict the former FBI director on two counts regarding his alleged lies about approving a leak of information to the media related to the Russia investigation.
No Clear Evidence of Leaking Information
Over several years, D.C. prosecutors had also investigated the ex-FBI director for allegedly leaking information. By 2021, they had invited him to testify before a grand jury about the allegations. However, they chose not to pursue the case, believing there was no concrete evidence of him ever using an anonymous source or leaking classified information.
The D.C. prosecutors shared their evidence with the Virginia prosecutors and discussed their decision. The team that investigated the ex-FBI director this summer ultimately agreed with them, telling Halligan that pursuing an indictment without clear probable cause would be unethical. Nevertheless, she proceeded.
The Final Report
In his final report, Durham outlined the high standards required to initiate federal prosecutions, explaining why his office might have chosen not to charge certain individuals even when their actions were deemed improper.
Durham clarified that if the report and the outcome of the Special Counsel's investigation gave the impression that injustices or misconduct were not addressed, it was not because they concluded that no such injustices or misconduct occurred. Rather, it was because not every injustice or transgression amounts to a criminal offense, and criminal prosecutors are exclusively tasked with investigating and prosecuting violations of U.S. criminal laws.