Special counsel John Durham told lawmakers Wednesday that FBI agents who worked on the Trump-Russia collusion probe became emotional and apologized when confronted with intelligence that the investigation may have been part of a plan by Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign to distract from her use of a private email server.
In his first public testimony since he began his sprawling, four-year investigation into how FBI agents pursued allegations tying Mr. Trump to Russia, Mr. Durham said bureau brass withheld critical information from agents working the probe.
Mr. Durham told lawmakers on the House Judiciary Committee that FBI officials were “too willing to accept and use politically funded and uncorroborated opposition research” paid for by the Clinton campaign to launch the Trump probe in 2016. He said the FBI relied too heavily on the Steele dossier, a collection of unverified and salacious allegations linking Mr. Trump to Russia that was funded by the Clinton campaign, and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) applications.
“The FBI relied on the dossier and FISA applications, knowing there was likely material originating from a political campaign or political opponent,” he said.
Mr. Durham detailed how top FBI officials never shared with agents that the allegations were part of what he dubbed the “Clinton Plan Intelligence,” which was information the bureau had received from a trusted foreign source suggesting the Clinton campaign plotted to vilify Mr. Trump by tying him to Russia.
When Mr. Durham’s team showed the intelligence to FBI agents working on the Trump probe, they apologized, Mr. Durham said.
SEE ALSO: Special counsel John Durham says he investigated Trump tip, but it was ‘nothing’
“I have had any number of FBI agents … who have come to me and apologized for the manner in which that investigation was undertaken. I take that seriously. These are good, hardworking, decent people,” he told lawmakers.
“I think that typifies, exemplifies the concern here,” he said. “There were investigative activities undertaken or not undertaken here which really raise concerns about whether or not the law was followed [or] the policies in place at the FBI were followed.”
Mr. Durham said when his team showed the intelligence information to the first supervisor of the Trump probe, known as Crossfire Hurricane, Joe Pientka, he indicated that had never seen it before.
“He immediately became emotional, got up and left the room with his lawyer, spent some time in the hallway, and came back,” Mr. Durham said of the agent.
Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, Ohio Republican, asked if Mr. Pientka was “ticked off” because he should have had the information.
“The information was kept from him,” Mr. Durham replied.
SEE ALSO: John Durham says AG Merrick Garland never prohibited him from bringing indictments
The “Clinton Plan Intelligence” concerned the purported approval by Mrs. Clinton in July 2016 of a proposal by one of her foreign policy advisers to “stir up a scandal” against Mr. Trump by linking him to Russia and the hacking of the Democratic National Committee, according to Mr. Durham’s 400-page report released last month.
In July 2016, then-CIA Director John Brennan briefed President Obama, Vice President Biden, and other top officials about the intelligence. Mr. Brennan also forwarded the information to then-FBI Director James Comey and then-Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok, Mr. Durham’s report said.
Mr. Durham said it was unclear whether the Clinton Intelligence Plan was based on accurate information, but it should have prompted FBI personnel to give the Trump-Russia claims more scrutiny.
“It should have prompted FBI personnel to immediately undertake an analysis of the information and to act with far greater care and caution when receiving, analyzing, and relying upon materials of partisan origins,” Mr. Durham wrote in his report.
During his testimony on Wednesday, Mr. Durham defended himself and his investigation from withering criticism from Democrats. They accused him of mounting an investigation with a predetermined outcome favorable to Mr. Trump.
“You had a good reputation,” said Rep. Steve Cohen, Tennessee Republican. “But the longer you hold on…your reputation will be damaged, as everybody’s reputation who gets involved with Donald Trump is damaged, he’s damaged goods.”
Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York, the top Democrat on the panel, accused Mr. Durham of weaponizing the Justice Department by using his “flimsy” probe to harass Trump opponents and appease “far-right conspiracy theorists.”
Mr. Durham pushed back and denied in his opening statement that politics motivated his investigations.
“My concern about my reputation is with the people who I respect, and my family, and my Lord. And I’m perfectly comfortable with my reputation with them,” Mr. Durham said in response to questions about political bias.
Mr. Durham also refuted claims of political bias by saying that the Biden Justice Department never blocked him from bringing high-profile prosecutions during his investigation.
When asked if there was anyone he wanted to indict but was prohibited by Attorney General Merrick Garland, Mr. Durham responded, “No.”
“Attorney General Garland had never asked me not to indict someone,” Mr. Durham said.
During his testimony, Mr. Durham said he would have been allowed to bring charges against anyone he had evidence against to warrant an indictment, including Mrs. Clinton. He added that he didn’t have evidence to support criminal charges against Mrs. Clinton.
“You had all the power in the world to indict anyone you had evidence to indict, and you were never blocked from doing it?” asked Rep. Eric Swalwell, California Democrat.
“That’s correct,” Mr. Durham responded.
Mr. Durham has faced criticism from Republicans for not bringing criminal charges during his probe into wrongdoing by FBI officials pursuing the allegations that Mr. Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election.
He did not bring charges against Obama-era FBI officials, including two who were referred to the Justice Department for prosecution.
A Rasmussen poll of likely voters released last month found that 59% of respondents said FBI officials who promoted claims linking Mr. Trump to Russia should be criminally prosecuted.
