Special counsel John Durham has been trying for three years to prove wrongdoing on the part of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, the FBI or other government officials in their handling of accusations that then-candidate Donald Trump had nefarious ties to Russia. In court, Mr. Durham’s staff has alleged that there was a “plan” to create an “October surprise” that would kneecap the Republican presidential nominee. His assertions have fueled endless right-wing commentary claiming that the FBI’s investigation of Mr. Trump’s Russia connections was illegitimately predicated, despite compelling evidence and outside investigations showing it was warranted. From its onset, the basis for Mr. Durham’s probe was fallacious.
Now, the special counsel’s most prominent prosecution — of former Clinton attorney Michael A. Sussmann, whom Mr. Durham accused of lying to the FBI — has failed. It took a federal jury only six hours to acquit Mr. Sussmann on Tuesday. “I don’t think it should have been prosecuted,” the jury forewoman told The Post, declaring that the government “could have spent our time more wisely.” Perhaps Mr. Durham’s other prosecution, of Igor Danchenko, a source for a salacious 2016 dossier on Mr. Trump, will end in a conviction. Indeed, Mr. Danchenko’s indictment has already led news organizations such as The Post to backtrack on some previous reporting about the dossier. But these matters are tangential to the broader purpose and effect of Mr. Durham’s probe, which has primarily enabled right-wing agitators to erode trust in the FBI for political gain.
Michael E. Horowitz, the Justice Department’s inspector general, has already demolished the claim that the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation was wrongfully predicated. After an exhaustive look, “the inspector general did not find political bias or improper motivations impacting the opening of the investigation or the decision to use certain investigative tools,” FBI Director Christopher A. Wray said at the time. “The investigation was opened with appropriate predication and authorization.”
Though Mr. Durham attacked the inspector general for his conclusion — a shocking move that tarnished his professional reputation — he has so far provided no persuasive rebuttal to these findings. That is because there is none. Mr. Trump’s own 2016 campaign manager had ties to Russians close to the regime of Vladimir Putin. The Kremlin clearly sought to help Mr. Trump win the election. Mr. Trump himself publicly asked Russia to hack Ms. Clinton’s emails and displayed bizarre affection for Russian strongman Vladimir Putin. These and many other facts justified the FBI’s Russia investigation. Meanwhile, the FBI did nothing to create an “October surprise” to hurt Mr. Trump; it was only after the election that key details about the Russia investigation emerged publicly.
So desperate are Trump apologists to forgive or distract from the fact that Russia favored Mr. Trump that they are still trying to propagate the myth of a “deep state” plot against him. If Republicans retake the House in this year’s midterm elections, they are poised to use congressional investigative powers to advance partisan narratives on a range of matters, in ways that obscure the facts and conflate imagined grievances with the national interest. Mr. Durham should at long last ask himself: Is continuing his probe worth enabling these efforts?
