[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


          HEARING ON THE REPORT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL JOHN DURHAM

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION
                               __________

                        WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 2023
                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-28
                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

                
                [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                  
               Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
               
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
52-753                     WASHINGTON : 2023                  
               

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                        JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair

DARRELL ISSA, California             JERROLD NADLER, New York, Ranking 
KEN BUCK, Colorado                       Member
MATT GAETZ, Florida                  ZOE LOFGREN, California
MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana              SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona                  STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
TOM McCLINTOCK, California           HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., 
TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin                   Georgia
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              ADAM SCHIFF, California
CHIP ROY, Texas                      ERIC SWALWELL, California
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina           TED LIEU, California
VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana             PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin          J. LUIS CORREA, California
CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon                  MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
BEN CLINE, Virginia                  JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
LANCE GOODEN, Texas                  LUCY McBATH, Georgia
JEFF VAN DREW, New Jersey            MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
TROY NEHLS, Texas                    VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
KEVIN KILEY, California              CORI BUSH, Missouri
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming             GLENN IVEY, Maryland
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas               BECCA BALINT, Vermont
LAUREL LEE, Florida
WESLEY HUNT, Texas
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina

               CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
          AMY RUTKIN, Minority Staff Director & Chief of Staff
                                 ------                                
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                        Wednesday, June 21, 2023

                                                                   Page

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

The Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary 
  from the State of Ohio.........................................     1
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member of the Committee on 
  the Judiciary from the State of New York.......................     3

                                WITNESS

The Hon. John Durham, Special Counsel, United States Department 
  of Justice
  Oral Testimony.................................................     7
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    10

          LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

All materials submitted for the record by the Committee on the 
  Judiciary are listed below.....................................   102

Materials submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Member 
  of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Texas, for 
  the record
    Department of Justice communications between the Office of 
        the Attorney General, John Durham, and Department of 
        Justice text messages for the former Attorney General 
        Barr, Dec. 31, 2019
    An article entitled, ``After Years of Political Hype, the 
        Durham Inquiry Failed to Deliver,'' Jun. 18, 2023, The 
        New York Times
    A letter from the Office of General Counsel, U.S. Department 
        of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, to John 
        Durham, Special Counsel, United States Department of 
        Justice, May 15, 2023
    A document entitled, ``Meetings Between John Durham and 
        William Barr.''
    A document entitled, ``Texts Between John Durham and William 
        Barr.''
Materials submitted by the Honorable Adam Schiff, a Member of the 
  Committee on the Judiciary from the State of California, for 
  the record
    A report entitled, ``Report on Matters Related to 
        Intelligence Activities and Investigations Arising Out of 
        the 2016 Presidential Campaigns,'' May 12, 2023, John 
        Durham, Special Counsel, United States Department of 
        Justice
    The transcribed interview of Steve D'Antuono, former FBI 
        Assistant Director in Charge, Washington, D.C., Wed., 
        Jun. 7, 2023
Materials submitted by the Honorable Glenn Ivey, a Member of the 
  Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Maryland, for the 
  record
    An articles entitled, ``How Barr's Quest to Find Flaws in the 
        Russia Inquiry Unraveled,'' Jan. 26, 2023, New York Times
    An articles entitled, ``Italy Did Not Fuel U.S. Suspicion of 
        Russian Meddling, Prime Minister Says,'' Jan. 25, 2021, 
        New York Times
    A page from the Department of Justice Manual, Section 1-
        7.000--Confidentiality and Media Contacts Policy
Materials submitted by the Honorable Becca Balint, a Member of 
  the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Vermont, for 
  the record
    A letter from William Barr, Attorney General, appointing John 
        Durham as Special Counsel, Feb. 6, 2020
    An order entitled, ``Appointment of Special Counsel to 
        Investigate Matters Related to Intelligence Activities 
        and Investigations Arising Out of the 2016 Presidential 
        Campaigns,'' May 13, 2019, Order No. 4878-2020, Attorney 
        General
Materials submitted by the Honorable Ted Lieu, a Member of the 
  Committee on the Judiciary from the State of California, for 
  the record
    A report entitled, ``Review of Four FISA Applications and 
        Other Aspects of the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane 
        Investigation,'' Dec. 20, 2019, Oversight and Review 
        Division 20-012, Office of the Inspector General, U.S. 
        Department of Justice
    A report entitled, ``Russian Active Measures Campaigns and 
        Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election, Volume 5: 
        Counterintelligence Threats and Vulnerabilities,'' 
        Committee Sensitive--Russia Investigation Only, Select 
        Committee on Intelligence, United States Senate
    A press release entitled, ``Treasury Escalates Sanctions 
        Against the Russian Government's Attempts to Influence 
        U.S. Elections,'' Apr. 15, 2021, U.S. Department of the 
        Treasury
An order entitled, ``Appointment of Special Counsel to 
  Investigate Matters Related to Intelligence Activities and 
  Investigations Arising Out of the 2016 Presidential 
  Campaigns,'' May 13, 2019, Order No. 4878-2020, Attorney 
  General, submitted by the Honorable Matt Gaetz, a Member of the 
  Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Florida, for the 
  record
Materials submitted by the Honorable Harriet Hageman, a Member of 
  the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Wyoming, for 
  the record
    An article entitled, ``Don't Miss the Most Damning Durham 
        Finding,'' May 17, 2023, The Federalist
    An article entitled, ``6 Documented Instances of Systemic 
        Pro-Democrat FBI Corruption,'' May 17, 2023, The 
        Federalist

                 QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES FOR THE RECORD

Questions to the Hon. John Durham, Special Counsel, United States 
  Department of Justice, from the Honorable Matt Gaetz, a Member 
  of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Florida, 
  the Honorable Thomas Massie, a Member of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of Kentucky, the Honorable Dan Bishop, 
  a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of 
  North Carolina, and the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking 
  Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of New 
  York, for the record
    No responses at time of publication.

 
          HEARING ON THE REPORT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL JOHN DURHAM

                              ----------                              


                        Wednesday, June 21, 2023

                        House of Representatives

                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             Washington, DC

    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:05 a.m., in 
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Jim Jordan 
[Chair of the Committee] presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Jordan, Issa, Buck, Gaetz, 
Johnson of Louisiana, Biggs, McClintock, Tiffany, Massie, Roy, 
Bishop, Spartz, Fitzgerald, Bentz, Cline, Gooden, Van Drew, 
Nehls, Moore, Kiley, Hageman, Moran, Lee, Hunt, Fry, Nadler, 
Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Cohen, Johnson of Georgia, Schiff, 
Cicilline, Swalwell, Lieu, Jayapal, Correa, Scanlon, Neguse, 
McBath, Dean, Escobar, Ross, Bush, Ivey, and Balint.
    Chair Jordan. The Committee will come to order. Without 
objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess at any 
time. We welcome everyone to today's hearing on the report of 
Special Counsel John Durham.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Alabama to led 
us in the pledge.
    [Pledge of Allegiance.]
    Chair Jordan. The Chair is recognized for an opening 
statement. Three years ago and 11 months, July 24, 2019, Bob 
Mueller sat in this room, in that Chair and told this Committee 
no collusion, no conspiracy, no coordination between President 
Trump and Russia. None.
    What did the Democrats say? We don't care. We are going to 
keep going after President Trump. In fact, they didn't even 
wait one day. The next day, the phone call between President 
Trump and President Zelenskyy became the basis for their 
impeachment. Republicans said maybe, maybe instead of the 
never-ending attacks on President Trump, maybe the country 
would be better off if we figured out how the whole false 
Trump-Russia narrative started.
    After 2\1/2\ years of the Mueller investigation, 19 
lawyers, 40 agents, $30 million where they found nothing, maybe 
we should figure out how the whole lie started and that's 
exactly what Mr. Durham has done. In his report, he told us how 
the dossier was funded. He told us who funded it, he told us 
how the information in the dossier was gathered, he told us how 
eager the FBI was to use it, how they put the dossier in FISA 
draft application just two days after receiving it. He told us 
that not one, not one single substantive allegation in the 
dossier was ever corroborated, ever validated. Yet, it was 
used, used to spy on an American citizen associated with the 
Presidential campaign.
    He told us there was no proper predicate for opening the 
Crossfire Hurricane investigation. Maybe most importantly, he 
told us the FBI, the FBI, the preeminent law enforcement agency 
in the world failed, failed in its fundamental mission of 
adherence to the rule of law. Unfortunately, I think once 
again, the Democrats will say we don't care. It doesn't matter. 
We are never going to stop going after President Trump. In 
fact, eight days ago, we saw how far they are willing to go 
with the indictment of President Trump.
    Frankly, this shouldn't surprise us. They told us their 
objective. In fact, it was an agent on the case of Crossfire 
Hurricane who told us what their objective was. We all remember 
the text message from Peter Strzok where he said, ``don't 
worry, we'll stop Trump.''
    It started with the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. Mr. 
Durham has told us how wrong that was. Now, we have an 
indictment of a former President, who is winning in every 
single poll by his opponent's Justice Department. In between 
those two events, we have the Mueller investigation. We had 
impeachment. We had 51 former intel officials falsely tell us 
the Biden laptop was Russian disinformation. We had a raid on 
President Trump's home and of course, we got Alvin Bragg's 
ridiculous case in New York. Seven years, nothing has changed.
    If you don't believe me, we interviewed Steven D'Antuono, 
former head of the Washington Field Office when the Trump 
classified document case began. Mr. D'Antuono told the 
Committee, interviewed just two weeks ago, two weeks ago today, 
Mr. D'Antuono told the Committee that when he asked the 
Department of Justice why is there no U.S. Attorney assigned to 
the Trump classified document case? Headquarters said because 
we are running it. He suggested the Miami Field Office to do 
the raid. Instead of sending the folks from Washington Field 
Office down to Miami, have the folks in the Miami Field Office 
do it. Headquarters said no. He suggested there shouldn't be a 
raid. Instead, they should continue to work with President 
Trump's lawyers. Once again, headquarters said no.
    Mr. D'Antuono even said how about when we get there? When 
we arrive at President Trump's home, we then call his lawyer, 
and we do the search together. Again, headquarters said no.
    Another interesting fact. The lawyer who turned down Mr. 
D'Antuono's request happens to be the same person who is 
alleged to have pressured the attorney representing a Trump 
employee about a judgeship. Nothing has changed and frankly, 
they are never going to stop. Seven years of attacking Trump is 
scary enough, but what is more frightening any one of us could 
be next. In fact, it has already started.
    Parents at school board meetings are terrorists. Pro-life 
Catholics are extremists. Even journalists aren't safe.
    Federal Trade Commission, 13 letters. One of those letters 
to Twitter said, ``who are the journalists you are talking 
to?'' Think about that? They named four people personally. Two 
come and testify in front of this Committee. While they are in 
front of this Committee, Democrats are asking them to reveal 
their sources, violate First Amendment principles. One of them, 
Matt Taibbi, while he is sitting at that table testifying to 
the Judiciary Committee, the IRS is knocking on his door.
    Parents, Catholics, journalists, but guess who gets it the 
worst? Guess who gets it the worst? Whistleblowers. If you dare 
come forward and tell Congress what is going on, look out. They 
will come for you. They will take your clearance. They will 
take your pay. They will even take your kids' clothes. Just ask 
Garret O'Boyle, who testified in front of this Committee as 
well.
    Over the next few hours, we are going to hear the facts and 
details about the whole false Trump-Russia narrative, the 
Crossfire Hurricane investigation, and hopefully, hopefully, it 
will help change things at the Department of Justice. 
Regardless of what the Biden Administration and the Garland 
Justice Department do; I know what Republicans in the House are 
committed to doing. We will work to dramatically change the 
FISA law, and we will do everything we can in the appropriation 
process to stop the Federal government from going after the 
American people.
    I now recognize the Ranking Member for an opening 
statement.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair. On June 8th, a Grand Jury 
in Miami indicted former President Trump on 37 counts related 
to his mishandling of extraordinarily sensitive national 
security information, including information regarding defense 
and weapons capabilities of both the United States and foreign 
countries, the United States' nuclear programs, potential 
vulnerabilities of the United States and its allies to military 
attack, and plans for possible retaliation in response to a 
foreign attack.
    According to the indictment, the unauthorized disclosure of 
these classified documents could put at risk the national 
security of the United States, foreign relations, the safety of 
the United States military, and human sources, and the 
continued viability of sensitive intelligence collection 
methods. Indeed, the indictment goes on to describe how the 
former President made such unauthorized disclosures.
    Even if you believe, as Chair Jordan claims, that President 
Trump has committed no crime, surely, we can agree that it is 
dangerous and profoundly irresponsible to have taken these 
documents from the White House and left them unsecured in Mar-
a-Lago.
    Don't take just my word for it. Trump's Secretary of 
Defense, Mark Esper, said that the former President's handling 
of this information put U.S. service members' lives and our 
national security at risk. Trump's hand-picked Attorney General 
Bill Barr, with whom I agree on very little, hit the nail on 
the head when he described the former President's legal 
troubles as

         . . . entirely of his own making. He had no right to these 
        documents. The government tried for over a year, quietly and 
        with respect to get them back, and he jerked them around. When 
        he faces subpoena, he didn't raise any legal arguments. He 
        engaged in a course of deceitful conduct that was a clear crime 
        if those allegations are true.

    The former President could have at any time, for months, 
simply returned the documents and avoided prosecution. House 
Republicans do not want to talk about any of that. They seem 
incapable of assigning any agency or responsibility to Donald 
Trump for problems that are Trump's and Trump's alone.
    Instead, Republicans have planned this hearing and 
constructed an entire false narrative around this work of 
Special Counsel Durham in an effort to distract from the former 
President's legal troubles and misled the American public.
    To be clear, the Durham Report is by itself a deeply flawed 
vessel. After four years, thousands of employee hours, and more 
than $6.5 million in taxpayer dollars, Special Counsel Durham 
failed to uncover any wrongdoing that Justice Department 
Inspector General Horowitz had not already found in 2019. He 
brought just two cases to trial and lost them both. Both 
defendants were acquitted in mere hours. The single conviction 
that Special Counsel Durham obtained involved a single charge 
of lying to the FBI. The case developed and handed to him by 
the Inspector General and one resolved by a quick plea bargain.
    The report itself outlines some fairly glaring 
investigative missteps. The FBI apparently never even looked at 
a thumb drive of key evidence related to allegations of contact 
between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government via a 
Russian cell phone. Nor says the report, did the FBI ever 
examine questionable computer contacts between the Trump 
organization and Alfa Bank, one of the largest banks in Russia.
    The report also fails to recommend a single remedial 
measure that the Justice Department or the FBI might take to 
address certain process-related concerns, largely because DOJ 
and FBI have already implemented the changes recommended by the 
Inspector General 3\1/2\ years ago.
    Now, I understand that like the former President, many MAGA 
Republicans had a lot riding on the Durham investigation. I 
understand that they might be disappointed with where it 
landed, but that is no excuse for making things up.
    First, the Durham Report unequivocally concludes that the 
FBI not only have the evidence to open an investigation into 
Russian interference in the 2016 election, but actually had an 
affirmative obligation to investigate ties between the Russian 
government and the Trump Campaign. It is simply not true, as 
some Republicans have claimed, that the Durham Report suggests 
that there should not have been an investigation. Affirmative 
obligation. Those are Mr. Durham's words, not mine.
    Second, the Durham Report shows that the FBI began its 
investigation when an aide to the Trump Campaign disclosed in 
May 2016, that the campaign knew that Russia had thousands of 
emails that would embarrass Hillary Clinton. The aide bragged 
about it at a bar. An Australian diplomat who overheard the 
remark reported it, and the investigation began.
    It is simply not true, as the most extreme voices in this 
room have claimed, that the investigation was somehow launched 
by the Clinton Campaign. That particular conspiracy theory is 
off by several months. Nor is it true that the FBI was opposed 
to Trump from the beginning. For example, the Durham Report 
tells us that the FBI encouraged the confidential human source 
to infiltrate the Clinton Campaign, not the Trump Campaign, and 
take steps to entrap, unsuccessfully, aides to Secretary 
Clinton. This story is right there on pages 74 and 75 of the 
report. I suspect we won't hear a word about it from House 
Republicans today because it does not fit the MAGA narrative.
    Finally, nothing in the Durham Report disputes the central 
findings of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, namely, Russia 
interfered in the 2016 election. It did so to help Donald Trump 
and the Trump Campaign welcomed this interference. This last 
point is important because it tells us how Mr. Durham became 
Special Counsel in the first place, and it goes to the heart of 
the fully false narrative of MAGA victimhood.
    From the day that Special Counsel Mueller began his work, 
Donald Trump and his political allies have railed against an 
imagined conspiracy against the former President. The Russian 
investigation was a set up. It was a witch hunt. Obama did it. 
We need to investigate the investigators.
    Then came the Mueller Report. The Mueller Report was 
delivered to Attorney General Barr on Friday, March 22, 2019. 
Next Monday, Mr. Durham was in Barr's office. A week later, a 
colleague emailed Mr. Durham to ask about ``the project that 
Durham and Barr were working on.''
    While we on this Committee were fighting to get access to 
the Mueller Report, Mr. Durham was already working on an 
investigation to undercut its central findings. A few weeks 
later, the Trump Administration announced Mr. Durham's 
investigation into the investigators. By August 2019, Mr. 
Durham and Attorney General Barr were on a plane to Europe, 
jointly hunting down nonexistent evidence of Donald Trump's 
deep-state conspiracy theories. If the duo ever found evidence 
proving that Donald Trump was right all along, that evidence 
certainly never made it into the Durham Report. It has been 
alleged, however, that they found evidence implicating the 
former President in certain financial crimes during their trip. 
Incidentally, that information, too, is missing from Mr. 
Durham's final pages.
    When he did not give Donald Trump evidence of a deep-state 
conspiracy, Mr. Durham gave him the next best thing, a public 
narrative with Hillary Clinton as the villain. Over the ensuing 
years, Mr. Durham constructed a flimsy story built on shaky 
inferences and dog whistles to far right conspiracy theories.
    Although he lost both times, he took a case to trial. By 
prolonging his investigation, Durham was able to keep Donald 
Trump's talking points in the news long after Trump left 
office. With a loose approach to DOJ norms, protecting the 
reputation of the Agency, and a cavalier disregard for the 
privacy and reputational rights of others, Mr. Durham's 
investigation operated as headline generator for MAGA 
Republicans.
    Less than half a year into his four-year investigation, Mr. 
Durham publicly disputed Inspector General Horowitz's 
conclusion that the FBI was warranted in opening a full 
investigation in violation of DOJ rules protecting 
investigations from appearances of political bias.
    Mr. Durham similarly flouted guidelines designed to protect 
third parties from reputational injury when he used his two 
indictments to accuse the Clinton Campaign of a vast conspiracy 
that tied Trump to Russia. At the end of the day, Mr. Durham 
never found what he was looking for. He cannot dispute a single 
conclusion in the Mueller Report. He cannot prove a magnificent 
deep-state conspiracy, and he cannot say that the FBI 
investigation into the Trump Campaign's many ties to Russia 
never should have happened. Again, I can see why this would be 
disappointing to some. Instead of owning up to his failure, the 
Durham Report doubles down on theories that lost spectacularly 
before two unanimous juries.
    The report also references classified material that has 
been called likely disinformation, to lay out a series of 
accusations against the former President's perceived enemies. 
By presenting as so-called findings in this way, swiping a 
Republican bogeyman and hiding an inconvenient truth in 
footnotes, the Durham Report is Donald Trump's one last talking 
point. It did not have to be this way. It may be hard to 
remember, but at the outset of the Durham investigation, Mr. 
Durham was a well-respected career prosecutor with a solid 
reputation.
    The Attorney General is supposed to appoint the Special 
Counsel to prevent the appearance of politicization in a 
criminal investigation. Mr. Durham could well have lived up to 
that expectation. Instead, what we got was a political exercise 
that operated with ethical ambiguity and existed to perpetuate 
Donald Trump's unfounded claims. Investigations failed in its 
political objectives, but did real damage to a department that 
is still recovering from the excesses of the Trump 
Administration. Despite Mr. Durham's best efforts, a reckoning 
is well underway.
    Do not be misled, former President Donald Trump is not a 
victim. He did this to himself. For all its flaws, the Durham 
Report does not show that anyone else is responsible for the 
President's legal woes, past, present, or future. Anyone who 
tells you otherwise is simply making it up.
    I thank the Chair and I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection, all other opening 
statements will be included in the record.
    Today's witness is the Hon. John Durham. Mr. Durham was 
appointed as a Special Counsel in 2022 to investigate 
intelligence activities investigations arising out of the 2016 
Presidential campaign. He is a career prosecutor, having served 
as the U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut and in 
various other roles with that office since 1989. Prior to that, 
he served with the Department of Justice, the Boston Strike 
Force on Organized Crime, and in various State level 
prosecutors' offices.
    We welcome our witness and thank him for appearing today. 
We will begin by swearing you in. Will you please rise and 
raise your right hand, Mr. Durham?
    Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the 
testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best 
of your knowledge, information, and belief so help you God?
    Let the record show that the witness has answered in the 
affirmative. Thank you, you may be seated. Please note that 
your written testimony will be entered into the record in its 
entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you summarize your testimony 
in five minutes. We will give you a little extra time if you 
need it.
    Mr. Durham, you may begin. Hit your mic, there, Mr. Durham, 
and just keep it on, if you can, throughout the day.
    Mr. Durham. Is it on?
    Chair Jordan. Yes, it is on now. Thank you.

               STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN DURHAM

    Mr. Durham. Good morning, Chair Jordan, Ranking Member 
Nadler, and Members of this Committee.
    As the Committee knows, on May 13, 2019, Attorney General 
Barr directed me to conduct a preliminary review into certain 
matters related to Federal investigations concerning the 2016 
Presidential Election campaigns. That review subsequently 
developed into several criminal investigations and gave rise to 
my subsequent appointment as Special Counsel in these matters.
    Many of the most significant issues documented in the 
report that we have written, including those relating to lack 
of investigative discipline, failure to take logistical and 
logical investigative steps, and bias are relevant to important 
national security interests of this Committee and the American 
people are concerned about. If repeated and left unaddressed, 
these issues could result in significant national security 
risks and further erode the public's faith and confidence in 
our justice system.
    As we said in the report, our findings were sobering. I can 
tell you having spent 40 years plus as a Federal prosecutor, 
they were particularly sobering to me and a number of my 
colleagues who spent decades in the FBI themselves, they were 
sobering. While I am encouraged by some of the reforms that 
have been implemented by the FBI, the problems identified in 
this report, anybody who actually reads the report and the 
details of the report, the documented portions of the report, I 
think would find the problems identified in the report are not 
susceptible to overnight fixes.
    As we said in the report, they cannot be addressed solely 
with enhancing training or additional policy requirements. 
Rather, what is required is accountability, both in terms of 
the standards to which our law enforcement personnel hold 
themselves and in the consequences they face for violations of 
laws and policies of relevance.
    I am here to answer your questions. I appreciate the 
opportunity to. I will answer to the best of my ability, and I 
hope to be of service to your oversight function. I am sure you 
know; the Department of Justice has issued some guidelines as 
to what I am authorized to discuss and those things that I am 
not authorized to discuss. In this regard, accordingly, I will 
refer principally to the report.
    I do want to emphasize a few points at the outset, however.
    First, I want to emphasize in the strongest terms possible 
that my colleagues and I carried out our work in good faith, 
with integrity, and in the spirit of following the facts 
wherever they lead, without fear or favor. At no time, and in 
no sense, did we act with a purpose to further partisan or 
political ends. To the extent that somebody suggests otherwise, 
that is simply untrue and offensive.
    Second, the findings set forth in this report are serious 
and deserve attention from the American public and its 
representatives. Let me just briefly highlight a few of those. 
For one, we found troubling violations of law and policy in the 
conduct of highly consequential investigations directed at 
members of a Presidential Campaign and, ultimately, a 
Presidential Administration. To me it matters not whether it 
was a Republican Campaign or a Democratic Campaign, it was a 
Presidential Campaign.
    Our team comprised dedicated and experienced prosecutors 
and law enforcement agents who worked day-in and day-out 
through the entire COVID epidemic, in the office, trying to 
interview people, all in an effort to try to get to those facts 
and ground truth. That such a group made these findings, 
experienced FBI agents, experienced prosecutors, not people by 
and large from Washington, but from other parts of the country, 
the fact that these people made these findings that is 
reflected in the report is of concern and should be of concern 
to any American who cares about our civil liberties, the rule 
of law, and the just and proportionate application of the law 
to all of us, whether we are friends or we are foes, the law 
ought to apply to everybody in the same way.
    During our investigation, we charged a former FBI agent who 
pleaded guilty to the felony offense of altering and 
fabricating a portion of a document used to obtain a court 
order, a FISA order of surveillance of a United States citizen, 
which in our view is a significant problem.
    Several of the relevant FISA applications at issue in the 
cross-fire investigation omitted references to what was clearly 
relevant and highly exculpatory information that should have 
been disclosed to the FISA Court.
    Multiple FBI personnel who signed or assisted in preparing 
renewal applications for that same FISA warrant acknowledged 
that they did not believe that the target, Mr. Page, was a 
threat to national security, much less a knowing agent of a 
foreign power, which is what the law requires. It appears from 
our investigation, that the FBI leadership dismissed those 
concerns.
    Another aspect of our findings concerned the FBI's failure 
to sufficiently scrutinize information it received or to apply 
the same standards to allegations it received about the Clinton 
and Trump Campaigns. As our report details, the FBI was too 
willing to accept and use politically funded and uncorroborated 
opposition research such as the Steele Dossier. The FBI relied 
on the dossier in FISA applications knowing that it was likely 
material originating from a political campaign, political 
opponent. It did so even after the President of the United 
States, the FBI, and CIA Directors, and others received 
briefings about intelligence suggesting that there was a 
Clinton Campaign plan under way to stir up a scandal tying 
Trump to Russia. The accuracy of the intelligence was uncertain 
at the time, but the FBI failed to analyze or even assess the 
implications of the intelligence in any meaningful way.
    When the FBI learned that the primary source of information 
for the Steele Dossier, which was basically the guts of the 
narrative about there being a well-coordinated conspiracy 
involving Trump and the Russians, when they learned that 
Danchenko was the primary subsource to those reports, it was at 
the time when the FBI already knew that Danchenko himself had 
previously been the suspect of an espionage investigation. He 
was suspected of being a Russian asset. Nonetheless, they 
signed him up as a paid informant without further investigation 
of that espionage concern, to say nothing of resolving that 
espionage matter before using Danchenko and Danchenko's 
information.
    When the FBI and Special Counsel Mueller's Office learned 
that Steele's primary subsource likely had gathered important 
portions of the dossier information during travels to Russia 
with one Charles Dolan, it inexplicably decided not to 
interview Dolan or investigate his activities.
    Finally, I would like to add that although our work exposed 
deep concerns, concerning facts about the conduct of these 
investigations, our report should not be read to suggest in any 
way that Russian election interference was not a significant 
threat. It was. Nor should it be read to suggest that the 
investigative authorities at issue no longer serve important 
law enforcement and national security interests. They do.
    Rather, responsibility for the failures and transgressions 
that occurred here rest with the people who committed them or 
allowed them to occur. Again, to my mind, the issues raised in 
the report deserve close attention from the American people and 
their elected representatives here in Washington.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    [The prepared statement of the Hon. Durham follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Durham. We will now proceed 
under the five-minute rule for questions.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. 
Johnson.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Mr. 
Durham, for being here today. This is much anticipated. We have 
lots of questions for you. I'll try to set the table here at 
the outset from 20,000 feet.
    The American people rely on the FBI to abide by its guiding 
principles, and what those are--fidelity, bravery and 
integrity--and we rely on them to uphold the Constitution and 
protect the American people.
    Americans deserve and expect from our premier law 
enforcement agency to apply justice blindly and that is without 
political bias or ulterior motives.
    However, your report now famously states, and here's the 
big quote--based on the review of Crossfire Hurricane and 
related intelligence activities you concluded that the DOJ and 
FBI failed to uphold their important mission of strict fidelity 
to the law.
    There's no other way to put this. The report illustrates 
egregious actions on behalf of the FBI that have further eroded 
faith in our institutions.
    Mr. Durham, in your report and again here today you said 
that your findings and conclusions are sobering. Could you 
unpack a little bit more what that means? Why do you say 
sobering?
    Mr. Durham. Well, let me give you some real-life views on 
that.
    I have had any number of FBI agents who I've worked with 
over the years--some of them are retired, some are still in 
place--who have come to me and apologized for the manner in 
which that investigation was undertaken.
    I take that seriously. These are good, hardworking--the 
majority of people in the FBI--decent human beings who swear 
under their oaths to abide by the law and the like, and I think 
that this typifies, exemplifies, the concern here.
    There were investigative activities undertaken or not 
undertaken here which raise real concerns about whether or not 
the law was followed and the policies in place at the FBI were 
followed.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. You wrote in your report, quote,

        Based on the evidence gathered in the multiple exhaustive and 
        costly Federal investigations of these matters, including the 
        incident investigation, neither U.S. law enforcement nor the 
        intelligence community appears to have possessed any actual 
        evidence of collusion in their holdings at the commencement of 
        the Crossfire investigation.

    To date has any evidence of collusion between the Trump 
Campaign and Russia have ever been uncovered?
    Mr. Durham. There's information, obviously, in the report 
that was prepared by Director Mueller and whatnot, but as to 
collusion or conspiracy I'm not aware of any.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Let me stop you--when the FBI 
opened Crossfire Hurricane--that's the issue at hand--it did 
not have any information that anyone in the Trump Campaign had 
ever been in contact with Russian intelligence officials. Isn't 
that right?
    Mr. Durham. As we wrote in the report, we talked to the 
Director of the CIA, the Deputy Director of the CIA, the 
Director of NSA, and people within the FBI, and there was no 
such information that they had in their holdings at the time 
they opened Crossfire Hurricane.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. You detail--I'm going to go 
quickly here. I'm running out of time. You detail how FBI 
personnel working on FISA applications violated protocols.
    They were cavalier, at best, as you said in your own words, 
toward accuracy and completeness. Senior FBI personnel 
displayed a serious lack of analytical rigor toward information 
that they received, especially information received from 
politically affiliated persons or entities. You said,

         . . . significant reliance on investigative leads provided or 
        funded by Trump's political opponents were relied upon here.

    Among the most alarming things that you referred to in the 
report is the impact of confirmation bias and you said in your 
report at page 303, that's defined as or,

        It stands for the general proposition that there is a common 
        human tendency--mostly unintentional--for people to accept 
        information and evidence that is consistent with what they 
        believe to be true . . . .

    Sir, here this wasn't innocent, unintentional human 
tendency, was it? It was overt political bias, was it not? 
Peter Strzok, for example.
    Mr. Durham. There are some individuals who clearly 
expressed a personal bias. It's difficult to get into somebody 
else's head to see whether they knew it--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Unless we have their emails, 
right. Peter Strzok, for example, pronounced--he had pronounced 
hostile feelings toward President Trump. Everybody knows that.
    Everybody in the country knows it. So, he was in charge of 
this. He was the Deputy Assistant Director of 
Counterintelligence, officially opened the investigation at the 
direction of FBI--Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe.
    He said horrible things about President Trump and all his 
supporters, by the way. How could we say he did not have 
political bias?
    Mr. Durham. Yes, I know that it clearly reflects a personal 
bias that he had. I'll leave it to others and the facts that 
are set out in the reports of whether that's political bias, 
personal bias, but there's clearly bias.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. What we know now is the FBI and 
the DOJ have been turned into activated political weapons 
against citizens and even a former President because of their 
opposing viewpoints, sir.
    They failed to follow protocols in 2016 and you've 
suggested new protocols may somehow be a fix to this. How can 
the American people have confidence that if they didn't follow 
protocols in 2016 that they will follow new protocols?
    Mr. Durham. I think that's why I said in the opening 
remarks this is not an easy fix. It's going to take time to 
rebuild the public's confidence in the institution.
    The changes or the reforms they have made are certainly 
changes that are going to guard to some extent against the 
repeat of what happened in Crossfire Hurricane.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I'm out of time. I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from New York.
    Mr. Durham, can you pull that microphone real close so 
everyone can hear what you say? We appreciate that.
    The gentleman from New York is recognized.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Durham, your report reads like a defense of the Trump 
Campaign and an attack on Hillary Clinton because that's 
exactly what it is. Donald Trump wanted you to investigate the 
investigators to show the Deep State conspiracy, but you never 
found one.
    Instead, you gave him and his MAGA Republicans the next 
best thing, someone else to blame for Donald Trump's problems. 
That's why you're here today because the Chair and his 
colleagues need someone, anyone, to deflect from the mounting 
evidence of Trump's misconduct.
    Let me remind you that Donald Trump was Federally indicted 
on 37 counts for mishandling classified information--37 counts. 
That's why you're here today, not because of anything that 
happened in 2016.
    Mr. Durham, your investigation cost more than $6.5 million, 
involved the work of dozens of FBI employees and Federal 
prosecutors, some of whom resigned in protest, and took, 
roughly, four years to complete. Is that correct?
    Mr. Durham. No.
    Mr. Nadler. It's not correct?
    Mr. Durham. No. There were multiple parts of that.
    Mr. Nadler. Did it take four years to complete?
    Mr. Durham. Correct.
    Mr. Nadler. OK. With all these resources and all these 
people who were sent to help you investigate the investigators 
you only filed three criminal cases. You only brought two cases 
to trial. Correct?
    Mr. Durham. Correct.
    Mr. Nadler. You lost all the cases you brought to trial, 
correct?
    Mr. Durham. Correct.
    Mr. Nadler. In fact, two juries acquitted your defendants 
on all charges and the one conviction that you obtained the 
defendant pleaded guilty to a single count and never went to 
trial, correct?
    Mr. Durham. Correct.
    Mr. Nadler. I will note that in that case the primary 
investigative steps were all completed by Inspector General 
Horowitz.
    Perhaps you were better when it came to your report. From 
my reading your report did not make any specific concrete 
recommendations to improve DOJ or FBI policies or procedures.
    In fact, your report repeatedly references the 
recommendations made by Inspector General Horowitz, almost all 
which DOJ and FBI have already implemented.
    Again, your investigation lasted four years, four years and 
untold sums of money and you still obtained only one 
conviction. You did produce a 300-page report, though, and 
that's given my Republican counterparts plenty of material to 
spin.
    Mr. Durham, George Papadopoulos was a Foreign Policy 
Adviser to the Trump Campaign in Spring 2016. Isn't that right?
    Mr. Durham. Correct.
    Mr. Nadler. In May 2016, he told an Australian diplomat 
that the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from 
Russia that it could assist this process with the anonymous 
release of information during the campaign that would be 
damaging to Secretary Clinton.
    This is a fact that came out during the Mueller 
investigation and your investigation found nothing to dispute 
this fact, correct?
    Mr. Durham. There's more detail to that in the report.
    Mr. Nadler. Did it find anything to dispute this report--to 
dispute this fact?
    Mr. Durham. No.
    Mr. Nadler. OK. On page 50 of your report, you wrote that 
on July 28, 2016, FBI headquarters received the Australian 
information that formed the basis for the opening of Crossfire 
Hurricane, correct?
    Mr. Durham. Correct.
    Mr. Nadler. So, this fantasy that some MAGA Republicans 
have created where the investigation was started for any reason 
other than a Trump Campaign operative bragging to Australian 
intelligence assets about Russian dirt that would damage 
Hillary Clinton is not true, and when the FBI received that 
information, according to your report, it had not just the 
predication to investigate, there was no question, you wrote 
that, ``the FBI had an affirmative obligation to closely 
examine the Australian information.'' Isn't that right?
    Mr. Durham. The FBI had an obligation to examine the 
information.
    Mr. Nadler. That's correct. So, the origin of the 
investigation was not the Steele Dossier. It was not Alfa Bank. 
It was a Trump aide's loose lips about his campaign's advanced 
view into a hack that had a profound effect on the 2016 
election.
    That information supplied by the Australian government gave 
the FBI predication to begin an investigation.
    I'd like to discuss one more false conclusion about your 
report that's made its way into the MAGA Republican talking 
points. Some of my colleagues across the aisle have started 
calling this the, quote, ``Russia hoax.'' It's the theory that 
Russia did not actually interfere in the 2016 Presidential 
Election.
    That is patently false. In 2017, during the Trump 
Administration the Director of National Intelligence 
declassified a report on Russian activity in the 2016 election. 
You're aware of this report, correct?
    Mr. Durham. Correct.
    Mr. Nadler. In this report the intelligence community found 
that, quote,

        Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign 
        in 2016 aimed at the U.S. Presidential Election. Russia's goals 
        were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, 
        denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and 
        potential presidency. We further assess Putin, and the Russian 
        government developed a clear preference for President-elect 
        Trump.

You did not dispute that Trump ordered an influence campaign to 
influence the 2016 election in your report, did you?
    Mr. Durham. As I said, there was a real Russian threat.
    Mr. Nadler. Yes or no?
    Mr. Durham. No.
    Mr. Nadler. OK. Special Counsel Mueller indicted 12 Russian 
intelligence officers in July 2018. Isn't that right?
    Mr. Durham. Correct.
    Mr. Nadler. The 12 intelligence officers were indicted for 
attacking the Clinton Campaign. On page 55 of your report, you 
acknowledge that at a press conference in 2016 Donald Trump on 
camera said, ``Russia, if you're listening I hope you're able 
to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.'' Is that correct?
    Mr. Durham. That's correct.
    Mr. Nadler. Two years later--
    Voice. Regular order.
    Mr. Nadler. Trump told the press that he believed Russian 
President Putin over his own intelligence officials when he 
told them Russia did not interfere during the 2016 election 
season.
    I see my time has expired. I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The witness can respond if he chooses to.
    [No response.]
    Chair Jordan. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 
South Carolina, Mr. Fry, for five minutes.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    We are here today to provide transparency, finally, to the 
American people. Seven years ago, the FBI launched Crossfire 
Hurricane, the left's brazen attempt to keep Donald Trump out 
of the White House.
    This Federal investigation, funded by the Hillary Clinton 
Campaign, caused Americans to believe that then candidate Trump 
was colluding with Russia to win the 2016 Presidential 
Election.
    Mr. Durham has spent four years investigating this--480 
witnesses, six million pages of documents, 190 subpoenas, and 
executing seven search warrants.
    Less than a month ago he completed this report that 
instigated the baseless investigation and launched a partisan 
attack on President Trump despite having no true justification 
to do this. That was the FBI.
    Within three days of receiving the information from a 
diplomat in Australia the FBI opened a full-fledged 
investigation into the Trump Campaign.
    So, Mr. Durham, let's get into this. The FBI opened up 
Crossfire Hurricane without speaking to the people who provided 
the initial information. Is that true?
    Mr. Durham. That's correct.
    Mr. Fry. The FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane on a Sunday, 
only three days after reviewing that information. Is that 
correct?
    Mr. Durham. That's correct.
    Mr. Fry. So, just think about that for a moment, an 
investigation--a full investigation into a Presidential 
Campaign over a weekend.
    Mr. Durham, the FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane without 
interviewing any of the essential witnesses. Is that true?
    Mr. Durham. That's true.
    Mr. Fry. The FBI also opened up Crossfire Hurricane without 
using any of the standard analytical tools typically employed 
to evaluate that evidence. Is that true?
    Mr. Durham. That's true.
    Mr. Fry. So, think about that. The FBI had never talked to 
the people who gave them the intelligence information. They 
never examined their own witnesses. They never interviewed the 
witnesses. They never corroborated the dossier.
    Mr. Durham, if the FBI had done these things, if they had 
done their homework, would it have found that its own Russian 
experts had no information about President Trump being involved 
with Russian leadership or Russian intelligence officials?
    Mr. Durham. Yes.
    Mr. Fry. So, then was there an adequate predication for the 
FBI to open Crossfire Hurricane as a full investigation?
    Mr. Durham. On July 31st, in my view, based on our 
investigation, there was not a legitimate basis to open as a 
full investigation, an assessment if something that had to be 
looked at, to gather information such as interviewing the 
people who provided the Papadopoulos information, checking 
their own data bases, the data bases of other intelligence 
agencies, and the standard kinds of things that you would do in 
an investigation like this.
    Mr. Fry. Mr. Durham, I think it's safe to conclude based on 
that report and anyone who has read it, that they did not have 
that adequate basis, as you talked about, to launch this 
investigation.
    Let's move on to a second really troubling aspect of your 
findings. From the report I gathered that key FBI leaders all 
the way at the top were predisposed to go after candidate 
Trump.
    This bias likely affected the conduct of FBI personnel in 
this investigation. Is that true?
    Mr. Durham. Yes.
    Mr. Fry. Can you describe that for a moment? How did 
confirmation bias play into this?
    Mr. Durham. Confirmation bias, as was alluded to, has to do 
with our human tendency to accept things that we already think 
are true and to reject anything else. In this instance, there 
are any number of significant red flags that were raised that 
were simply ignored.
    If there's evidence that was inconsistent with the 
narrative, they didn't pay attention to it. They didn't explore 
it. They didn't take the logical investigative steps that 
should have been taken.
    Mr. Fry. Let's see how real this bias was. FBI Deputy 
Assistant Director Peter Strzok drafted and approved the 
Crossfire Hurricane opening communication. Is that correct?
    Mr. Durham. That's correct.
    Mr. Fry. In your investigation your office discovered text 
messages between Strzok and Lisa Page, who was a Special 
Assistant to the FBI Director McCabe, expressing strong bias 
against candidate Trump.
    Mr. Durham. That's true.
    Mr. Fry. For the record, let me read aloud. This was 
generated by staff, but this would look like they're text 
messages. On August 18, 2016, Page texted Strzok, ``Trump's not 
going to become president, right? Right?'' Strzok responded by 
saying, ``No, no, he's not. We'll stop it.''
    It's clear that there was no evidence of Russia collusion 
with the Trump Campaign in 2016. The American people deserve 
the truth and I'm proud to serve on this Committee to uncover 
these lies that were perpetuated for far too long.
    With that, Mr. Chair, with my remaining 30 seconds I will 
yield to you.
    Chair Jordan. The Chair will yield back. I'll wait for my 
time.
    I will now recognize the gentlelady from California.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. 
Durham, for being here this morning.
    The Ranking Member explored an item that I wanted to 
explore with you, which is based on the information provided to 
the U.S. Government by Australia that a campaign aide had told 
one of their diplomats that the Russians had dirt on Clinton in 
the form of thousands of emails that--and this is a quote from 
your report--

         . . . as an initial matter, there is no question the FBI had 
        an affirmative obligation to closely examine the Australian 
        information.

    So, that's in your report and I think the issue might be 
preliminary versus full because you agree that there was an 
obligation to look at it based on that. Is that correct? That's 
what you say in your report?
    Mr. Durham. When you say based on that, some of the 
premises of the question are inaccurate. Papadopoulos did not 
tell the--
    Ms. Lofgren. No, the question is do you disavow what you 
said in your report, that you had an affirmative obligation--
the FBI--to look at that?
    Mr. Durham. The answer to that question they had to look at 
it, yes.
    Ms. Lofgren. All right. I want to take a look at some of 
the other things that I didn't find in your report. In looking 
at the FBI's behavior did you find any evidence that the FBI 
was taking a look at the hacking of the Democratic National 
Committee and their investigation of that? If so, where is that 
in your report?
    Mr. Durham. That was outside the scope of what I was asked 
to do.
    Ms. Lofgren. In the Mueller Report he found that the 
Campaign Manager, Mr. Manafort, was giving inside information, 
private polling data, to the Russians, that there was a meeting 
in Trump Tower with the President's son-in-law and his son 
where the Russians had promised they had dirt and the email 
from the President's son was something to the effect, if so we 
love it.
    Did the FBI look at that? Did you examine that and if so, 
where is that in your report?
    Mr. Durham. That is not something I was asked to look at 
and we didn't look at that.
    Ms. Lofgren. I'm wondering, did you take a look at how the 
FBI evaluated the alleged ties to Alfa Bank? Did you hire cyber 
experts to actually take a look at those potential or alleged 
ties?
    Mr. Durham. Yes. Well, I didn't hire them. They were FBI 
experts.
    Ms. Lofgren. Where is that in your report?
    Mr. Durham. I can't--it's in there. I can find the page. My 
colleagues can find the page, but it is an entire section on 
Alfa Bank, the white papers and the data that were provided by 
Mr. Sussmann to the FBI, and then the subsequent investigation.
    Ms. Lofgren. No. No. My question was did you take a look--
did you hire experts to evaluate the FBI's evaluation?
    Mr. Durham. I did not hire experts to examine what the 
experts said, no.
    Ms. Lofgren. OK. Let me ask another question. I thought it 
was down a rabbit's hole, but you and Attorney General Barr 
went to Italy to take a look at some allegation about foreign 
servers and Italian officials gave you evidence that they said 
linked Donald Trump to certain financial crimes.
    Did the Attorney General ask you to investigate that matter 
that the Italians referred to you, and if so, did you take any 
investigative steps and did you file charges, or if not, did 
you file a declination memo for a decision not to charge in 
this case?
    Mr. Durham. The question is outside the scope of what I 
think I'm authorized to talk about. It's not part of the 
report. I can tell you this, that investigative steps were 
taken and grand jury subpoenas were issued, and it came to 
nothing.
    Ms. Lofgren. I'd like to yield the balance of my time to my 
colleague from California, Mr. Schiff.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Durham, DOJ policy provides that you don't 
speak about a pending investigation and yet you did, didn't 
you?
    Mr. Durham. I'm not exactly sure what you're referring--
    Mr. Schiff. When the Inspector General issued a report 
saying that the investigation was properly predicated you spoke 
out in violation of Department of Justice--Department of 
Justice Policy to criticize the Inspector General's 
conclusions, didn't you?
    Mr. Durham. I issued a public statement. I didn't do it 
anonymously. I didn't do it through third persons. There were--
    Mr. Schiff. Nonetheless, you violated department policy by 
issuing a statement while your investigation was ongoing, 
didn't you?
    Mr. Durham. I don't know that. If I did then I did. I was 
not aware that I was violating some policy.
    Mr. Schiff. You also sought to get the Inspector General to 
change his conclusion, did you not? When he was concluding that 
the investigation was properly predicated did you privately 
seek to intervene to change that conclusion?
    Mr. Durham. This is outside the scope of the report. If you 
want to go there, we asked the Inspector General to take a look 
at the intelligence that's included in the classified appendix 
that you looked at and said that this ought to affect portions 
of his report.
    Mr. Schiff. You thought it was appropriate for you to 
intervene with an independent investigation by the Inspector 
General because he was reaching a conclusion you disagreed 
with? You thought that was appropriate?
    Mr. Durham. That's not--the premise isn't right. The 
Inspector General circulated a draft memo to a number of 
agencies and persons. Our group was one of them. We were asked 
to review that draft and bring to his attention any concerns 
that we had or disagreements.
    Mr. Schiff. When he refused to change his--
    Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman--the time of the 
gentleman has--
    Mr. Schiff. --when he refused to change his report, you 
violated department policy.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I insist on regular 
order.
    Chair Jordan. It's not even his time. It's Ms. Lofgren's 
time. So, the gentleman yields back to Ms. Lofgren, who's not 
here. So, the time has expired.
    Mr. Durham, in the Summer of 2016 did our government 
receive intelligence that suggested Secretary Clinton had 
approved a plan to tie President Trump to Russia?
    Mr. Durham. Yes.
    Chair Jordan. Was that intelligence important enough for 
Director Brennan to go brief the President of the United 
States, the Vice President of the United States, the Attorney 
General of the United States, and the Director of the FBI?
    Mr. Durham. Yes.
    Chair Jordan. Was that intelligence put then into a 
memorandum--a referral memorandum?
    Mr. Durham. Yes.
    Chair Jordan. Was that memorandum then given to Director 
Comey and Agent Strzok?
    Mr. Durham. That's who it was addressed to, yes.
    Chair Jordan. Did Director Comey share that memorandum with 
the FISA Court?
    Mr. Durham. I'm sorry, can you--
    Chair Jordan. Did he share that memorandum with the FISA 
Court? Did Director Comey do that?
    Mr. Durham. I'm not aware of that if he did.
    Chair Jordan. Did he share with it with the lawyers 
preparing the FISA application?
    Mr. Durham. Not to my knowledge.
    Chair Jordan. Did he share it with the agents on the case 
working the Crossfire Hurricane case?
    Mr. Durham. No.
    Chair Jordan. Didn't share it with the agents on the case. 
Can you tell the Committee what happened when you took that 
referral memo and shared it with one of those agents, 
specifically supervisory Special Agent No. 1?
    Mr. Durham. We interviewed the first supervisor of the 
Crossfire investigation--the operational person. We showed him 
the intelligence information. He indicated he'd never seen it 
before. He immediately became emotional, got up and left the 
room with his lawyer, spent some time in the hallway, came back 
and--
    Chair Jordan. He was ticked off, wasn't he?
    Mr. Durham. Yes.
    Chair Jordan. He was ticked off because this is something 
he should have had as an agent on the case. It was important 
information that the Director of the FBI kept from the people 
doing the investigation.
    Mr. Durham. The information was kept from him.
    Chair Jordan. Who's Charles Dolan?
    Mr. Durham. Charles Dolan is a public relations person here 
in Washington, DC. He had prior involvement--professional 
involvement with the Russian government representing Russian 
government interests. He was a person that was associated with 
Igor Danchenko.
    Chair Jordan. He's also buddies with the Clintons, wasn't 
he?
    Mr. Durham. He had held positions when President Clinton 
was President--
    Chair Jordan. Their campaign advisor to Secretary Clinton's 
Presidential Campaign, Executive Director of the Democratic 
Governors Association. That's the same Charles Dolan we're 
talking about?
    Mr. Durham. Yes.
    Chair Jordan. Yes. Wasn't he also a key source for 
information in the dossier?
    Mr. Durham. He provided some information that was included 
in the dossier, yes.
    Chair Jordan. Ritz-Carlton stuff, the Manafort stuff. In 
the Crossfire Hurricane investigation and the Mueller 
investigation, when the FBI interviewed Mr. Dolan what did he 
have to say?
    Mr. Durham. To my knowledge, they didn't interview Mr. 
Dolan.
    Chair Jordan. They didn't interview this guy? Source for 
the dossier? Key information in the dossier? Buddies with the 
Clintons? They didn't talk to him?
    Mr. Durham. No. We report on that because even Christopher 
Steele on October 2016 identified Dolan as somebody that might 
have information--
    Chair Jordan. I find it interesting they didn't talk to 
him. Were there agents on the case who wanted to talk to Mr. 
Dolan, Mr. Durham?
    Mr. Durham. Yes.
    Chair Jordan. What happened to Analyst No. 1? She kept 
pushing to talk to Mr. Dolan. She was ultimately turned down. 
What happened to her the day that she was turned down and said, 
no, no, we're not talking to Dolan? What happened to her?
    Mr. Durham. At or about the same time she was assigned to a 
different project--
    Chair Jordan. They moved her. They said, we can't have 
this--we can't have that--we can't be looking into the 
Clinton's buddy, a key source for the dossier. They reassigned 
her. Then what did she do?
    Mr. Durham. She memorialized it.
    Chair Jordan. She entered a memo to the file because she 
said at some point the Inspector General is going to want to 
know this information. I'm going to make sure it's recorded 
contemporaneously. She put it in the file.
    I mean, it's crazy. They didn't talk to the key source. 
They kept key intelligence from the investigators. This is how 
bad this investigation was.
    Here's the scary part. I don't think anything has changed. 
The day your report came out five weeks ago, May 15th, you got 
a letter, Mr. Durham, addressed to you from the General Counsel 
at the FBI.
    Mr. Jason Jones writes you this six-page letter and he says 
not to worry, everything is fine. It's all been worked out at 
the FBI.
    He even says on page 2--he says,

         . . . had the reforms implemented by current FBI leadership 
        summarized below been in place in 2016 failures detailed in 
        your report never would have happened.

and he underlines it. He said, ``this would never happen 
because of the reforms we implemented in 2019 and 2020.''
    Then, he says on page 4--one of the specific reforms--he 
says, ``FBI executive management has instructed an 
investigation should be run out in the field and not from the 
headquarters.''
    That statement is not true. Five weeks ago, the FBI wrote 
you and said everything has changed when, in fact, it hasn't 
and the statement in there is absolutely false and we know it's 
false because two weeks ago today we interviewed Steven 
D'Antuono, former head of the Washington field office, Mr. 
Durham, and here's what he said in his transcript--head of the 
Washington field office when the Trump classified document 
investigation began. He said,

        That case was handled differently than I would have expected it 
        to be than any other cases handled. We learned a lot of stuff 
        from Crossfire Hurricane, that headquarters should not work the 
        investigation. It's supposed to be the field offices.

    My concern is that the Department of Justice was not 
following these principles. Nothing has--and that's the thing 
that scares me the most. Nothing has changed.
    Mr. Durham, let me just finish with this. Sixty percent of 
Americans now believe there's a double standard at the Justice 
Department.
    You know why they believe that? Because there is. That has 
got to change, and I don't think more training, more rules, is 
going to do it.
    I think we have to fundamentally change the FISA process, 
and we have to use the appropriations process to limit how 
American tax dollars are spent at the Department of Justice.
    I yield back.
    The gentlelady from Texas is recognized, Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Good morning.
    Mr. Durham. Good morning.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. You value the independence of a Special 
Counsel, do you not?
    Mr. Durham. I do.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. In a letter to Attorney General Garland 
submitting your report you asked him to allow you to continue 
your investigation unencumbered. You said,

        We want to thank you and your office for permitting our inquiry 
        to proceed independently without interference as you assured 
        the Members of the Judiciary Committee would be the case during 
        your confirmation hearings to become Attorney General of the 
        United States. You value your Special Counsel status.

    So, it is accurate that Attorney General Garland let you 
proceed on your case as you wish. Is that true?
    Mr. Durham. That's true.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes or no, it was important to you that as 
a Special Counsel your investigation was supposed to be 
independent. Is that correct?
    Mr. Durham. That's correct.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Because Special Counsels and Special 
Attorneys are supposed to be independent, right?
    Mr. Durham. Special Counsels.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes, and independent. They're supposed to 
be independent. Is that correct?
    Mr. Durham. Special Counsel is independent of the Attorney 
General's office.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. Why is that the case, in your 
view.
    Mr. Durham. So, there can be some confidence on the part of 
people looking at the investigation that was done, the 
decisions which were made that--
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. Special Counsels and Special 
Attorneys are supposed to be for the American public to prevent 
the potential of a conflict of interest between the government 
and a sensitive investigation.
    By appointing a Special Counsel, an Attorney General is 
supposed to be finding an unbiased party to do the 
investigating. This was at a very high level. This was dealing 
with potential Presidential candidates.
    This was dealing with Russia collusion and undermining the 
very fabric of the United States of America and they are 
supposed to leave that person alone, as you commended Attorney 
General Garland for doing.
    So, unlike Attorney General Garland, Attorney General Barr 
was very involved in your investigation, wasn't he?
    Mr. Durham. He was not involved as a--when I became a 
Special Counsel. Prior to that, I worked under the supervision 
of the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. He was very involved, was he not? Let me 
just bring you to this point. Barr established early on that he 
was very interested in your investigation. On June 8, 2018, he 
sent then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein an unsolicited 
memo arguing that the Mueller investigation should not be able 
to force the President to submit to interrogation about 
obstruction. In his text message sending the memo, Barr wrote 
that, ``he feels very deeply about some of the issues taking 
shape in the Mueller matter.''
    How often did you meet with Attorney General Barr in 2019?
    Mr. Durham. Before I was Special Counsel, maybe--well, with 
himself maybe every 2-3 weeks, something of that sort, and 
sometimes more frequent.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Then after? Then after?
    Mr. Durham. After, I had been appointed Special Counsel, I 
don't know. I'm sure that I saw him, but I didn't meet with him 
on the investigation.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. A lot.
    Mr. Durham. No, it was not a lot.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. How often did you speak or text with the 
Attorney General? This is during the investigation.
    Mr. Durham. I wouldn't--during the--when I was Special 
Counsel or prior to that?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Special Counsel, sir.
    Mr. Durham. I don't know how many times I've texted with 
him.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, according to now public records Barr 
scheduled at least 18 meetings or calls with you between March-
October 2019, and you and he text messages with each other 
frequently, didn't you? Text messages?
    Mr. Durham. I was appointed as Special Counsel in October 
so before that, yes, there were probably any number of text 
messages. After that I don't know.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Here are some examples.
    On August 31, 2019, he sent you a message that said, 
''John, strongly suggest that you a lot of interesting 
things.''
    On February 6, 2020, you text him, ``Sir, just emerging 
from a SCIF. Are you open to a call earlier this morning?''
    On February 14, 2020, Barr texts you, ``Call me when you 
get a chance.''
    On March 19, 2020, Barr texts, ``Can I call you later?'' 
and you respond, ``Most certainly.''
    On March 27, 2020, you sent him the best phone number for 
you all during the time of being Special Counsel, and here's an 
interesting one.
    On September 24, 2019, the day that the Speaker Pelosi 
announced a formal impeachment inquiry into President Trump 
Attorney General Barr texted you, ``Call me ASAP,'' and later 
that day you text back, ``Do you have a minute for a quick 
call, Durham?''
    What was the purpose of this call, Mr. Durham? Were you 
discussing the impeachment inquiry?
    Mr. Durham. I never had any conversation with the Attorney 
General Barr about the impeachment inquiry.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Durham, this is an awful lot of direct 
interactions with the Attorney General for impose--supposedly 
independent counsel prosecutor. During these messages does that 
sound to you like appropriate interactions? Do they sound like 
appropriate interactions between an attorney general and a 
prosecutor investigating the administration?
    Mr. Durham. Before I was appointed Special Counsel, I 
worked for the Attorney General of the United States. That's 
who supervised me.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. You subsequently became Special Counsel. I 
know that. You subsequently became. Not only did you interact 
with the Attorney General frequently you also regularly engaged 
with one of his top deputies, Seth DuCharme. What was your 
relationship with Mr. DuCharme?
    Mr. Durham. Seth DuCharme was then an Assistant United 
States Attorney in the Eastern District of New York. He works 
with one of my sons. We were friends and at the time was 
working in the Office of the Attorney General.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. It seems that rather than having--
    Chair Jordan. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. --an independent investigation there was a 
lot of interaction between the Attorney General and the special 
prosecutor--
    Chair Jordan. The time of the gentlelady has expired. I've 
been generous with the time--
    Ms. Jackson Lee. --which shows that the Attorney General 
was actively directing your work. I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields. The gentlelady yields 
back.
    I think this is amazing, Mr. Durham. You had eight text 
messages with the Attorney General of the United States in 11 
months' time period. That's amazing. I can't believe that--
    Ms. Jayapal. Mr. Chair, parliamentary inquiry. Whose time 
is that you were speaking of?
    Chair Jordan. That was that time that was yielded to me. I 
yield it back.
    Ms. Jayapal. Mr. Chair, that is absolutely inappropriate.
    Chair Jordan. I was just pointing out something that I 
think is so--
    Ms. Jayapal. Mr. Chair, that is not appropriate.
    Chair Jordan. We will go to Mr. Cline for five minutes. The 
gentleman from Georgia--from Virginia, excuse me, is 
recognized.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you.
    Mr. Durham, your report is not just sobering, as you 
stated. It's outrageous and deeply troubling. Can you confirm 
the several main points that it found? The FBI did not have an 
adequate basis on which to launch Crossfire Hurricane, correct?
    Mr. Durham. That's correct.
    Mr. Cline. The FBI failed to examine all available 
exculpatory evidence, correct?
    Mr. Durham. Correct.
    Mr. Cline. FBI leadership continued the investigation even 
when case agents were unable to verify the evidence, correct?
    Mr. Durham. That's correct.
    Mr. Cline. The FBI did not interview key witnesses in 
Crossfire Hurricane, correct?
    Mr. Durham. Correct.
    Mr. Cline. Individuals within the FBI abused their 
authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 
correct?
    Mr. Durham. Correct.
    Mr. Cline. The FBI immediately opened Crossfire Hurricane 
as a full counterintelligence investigation. What other options 
could the FBI have taken rather than immediately opening such 
an investigation?
    Mr. Durham. Attorney General Edward Levi essentially 
created the guidelines in this area, these three divisions of 
assessments, preliminary, and then full, although they were 
different names at the time. That has evolved over time and 
become more particular.
    In this instance, the information that they had received 
from Papadopoulos about a suggestion of a suggestion and not 
anything about emails, but just the suggestion of a suggestion 
was sufficient and would have required the FBI to take a look 
at it--well, what is this about.
    You open it as an assessment and then you would 
analytically go try to collect intelligence that either 
supports or refutes or explains that information. That's the 
whole purpose of it.
    You assess it and then you can move to a preliminary 
investigation, and if the evidence bears it out you go to a 
full investigation where you have all the tools available, 
including the most intrusive physical surveillance and 
electronic surveillance of U.S. citizens.
    Here, they just immediately went to--opened it as a full 
investigation without ever having talked to the Australians or 
gathered other evidence.
    Mr. Cline. Right. So, investigators relied on misstatements 
by the confidential human source, ignored exculpatory 
statements made by Papadopoulos and submitting the FISA 
application to surveille Carter Page, correct?
    Mr. Durham. That's correct.
    Mr. Cline. Is it true that an FBI employee fabricated this 
evidence? Can you expand on that fabrication and the reliance 
to support that--
    Mr. Durham. Sure. In connection one of the extensions, the 
final extension of renewal of the FISA on Carter Page, one of 
the agents who had come on board wanted to be certain that 
there was information that--was there information as to whether 
or not Carter Page had been a source of information in the CIA, 
and pressed Kevin Clinesmith in the General Counsel's Office of 
the FBI on that point.
    Clinesmith got a hold of people at another government 
agency, intelligence agency, on the issue, and that person 
indicated--not indicated, said--that, yes, in FBI parlance, 
Carter Page was the source, and put that in writing.
    When Clinesmith talked to the agent who was saying, ``we 
want to be sure on this, was he or was he not a source,'' 
Clinesmith said, ``no.'' He said he's not. He said, ``do we get 
that in writing?'' Clinesmith said ``yes,'' and then said, 
``well, I want to see it.'' Then Clinesmith altered the other 
government agency document to reflect this to say that Page was 
not a source when he in fact was a source. That's the gist of 
it.
    Mr. Cline. What did the investigators mean when they said 
they hoped the returns on the Carter Page FISA application 
would, quote, ``self-corroborate''?
    Mr. Durham. That was another troublesome thing. The agent 
was saying, well, if we can get surveillance--electronic 
surveillance of Page, then we'll find out essentially whether 
we really do have probable cause or not. He would self-
corroborate in that sense.
    Mr. Cline. Are investigators supposed to corroborate 
information before or after it's included in a FISA 
application?
    Mr. Durham. Yes. You have to have that before you intrude 
on the liberties of American citizens.
    Mr. Cline. In fact, the FBI is required to follow its Woods 
Procedures, which the FBI adopted to ensure the accuracy of the 
information contained in FISA applications, correct?
    Mr. Durham. That's correct.
    Mr. Cline. Did the FISC ever criticize the FBI's handling 
of the Page FISA application?
    Mr. Durham. Yes.
    Mr. Cline. What were some of those concerns that they 
raised?
    Mr. Durham. Ultimately, the FISC issued an order--a 
memorandum indicating that had the information, and it was 
disclosed in the investigation done by Inspector General 
Horowitz, a very thorough job and a good job and a well written 
report--had they had known that at least the second and third 
renewal applications would not have established probable cause 
and I think the bureau--I'm sorry, the Department of Justice 
acknowledged that as well.
    If the FISC had all the information that I think is 
included in this report, it's highly doubtful that there would 
have ever been an application submitted and if it was submitted 
that the FISC would have ever granted that order.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Durham, you were appointed by whom?
    Mr. Durham. So, I was--
    Mr. Cohen. Who recommended you? Who appointed you?
    Mr. Durham. As the Special Counsel?
    Mr. Cohen. No, as a U.S. Attorney.
    Mr. Durham. As U.S. Attorney it was President Trump at the 
time with two Democratic Senators from Connecticut supporting 
the nomination.
    Mr. Cohen. Mr. Trump appointed you. Do you believe Mr. 
Trump has pretty good judgment on people, their abilities, and 
their character?
    Mr. Durham. I'm not going to characterize Mr. Trump or my 
thoughts about Mr. Trump.
    Mr. Cohen. Mr. Barr appointed you Special Counsel. Is that 
correct?
    Mr. Durham. That's correct.
    Mr. Cohen. Mr. Trump has called Mr. Barr a gutless pig, a 
coward, and a RINO. Which of those is correct and which isn't?
    Mr. Durham. In my experience, none of those are correct.
    Mr. Cohen. So, Mr. Trump isn't that good of an expert on 
character and judging people? In your opinion he isn't because 
he's none of those. He's not a gutless pig. Trump says he is.
    Mr. Durham. That's outside the scope of my report.
    Mr. Cohen. Also, outside the scope of your report 
apparently--
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Cohen. Also, outside of the scope of your report was 
apparently the meeting at Trump Tower between the Russians and 
the Trump boys where they talked about, allegedly, adoptions, 
but we know it was really about sanctions. How was that outside 
of your report?
    Mr. Durham. Yes, I'm sorry. I didn't quite follow that.
    Mr. Cohen. The meeting at the Trump Tower attorney--the 
Russian attorney came to Trump and Donald Trump, Jr., was just, 
wonderful, wonderful. We love it. We love it. Russian decisions 
to interact with the Trump Campaign and influence the actions 
of the campaign allegedly for adoption law, but really for 
sanctions relief. The FBI came up with that, did they not?
    Mr. Durham. A meeting took place at Trump Towers on June 
9th. The lure, as I understand it, was that there was 
information--derogatory information on Clinton was going to be 
provided. They met and, as I believe, in a HPSCI report the 
HPSCI report fully laid that out that the discussion then at 
Trump Towers was about adoption, not about anything relating to 
Ms. Clinton.
    Mr. Cohen. It's was totally about sanctions and trying to 
get rid of the Magnitsky law. Adoptions are a ruse.
    Should you not have gone and looked into that and seen what 
the Russians were wanting in return for that because that's the 
biggest thing Putin wanted at the time was to get Trump to 
relieve his people of Magnitsky sanctions.
    Mr. Durham. I think that Director Mueller investigated 
that, and I believe one of your House Committees explored that. 
That was outside the scope of what we were looking at.
    Mr. Cohen. It was outside of the scope of your authority to 
look at Kilimnik and Manafort meeting and changing polling 
data?
    Mr. Durham. What's that? I'm sorry, I'm not following you.
    Mr. Cohen. Manafort. Do you remember Manafort, the crook 
that managed the campaign for nothing, but got tons of money 
from different Russian people over the years that you 
pardoned--Mr. Barr later got--helped him with a commutation or 
a pardon? I think it was a pardon. Manafort.
    Mr. Durham. I know who Mr. Manafort is.
    Mr. Cohen. Yes. He met with Kilimnik and they discussed 
polling data. You don't know about that?
    Mr. Durham. I know that Mr. Kilimnik met with a lot of 
people, including people with the State Department--
    Mr. Cohen. He met with Manafort and discuss polling data. 
Do you not know about that?
    Mr. Durham. I'm aware of that.
    Mr. Cohen. All right. Why did you then not think it was a 
good idea for you to look into it and see if the FBI wasn't 
correct in that there was collusion, a connection between 
Russia and the Trump Campaign to elect Trump?
    Mr. Durham. My assignment was to look at the conduct of the 
intelligence community agencies, not to conduct a separate 
investigation that was done by--how served, as done by the 
Senate, or was done by Director Mueller.
    Mr. Cohen. You don't think that if there were the 
intelligence communities, the FBI, others came up with this 
information and did good work that this should be part of your 
balanced report?
    Mr. Durham. I'm not following your question. I apologize. 
If it's a--
    Mr. Cohen. Well, I followed your report. Mr. Donald Trump, 
Jr., would have called it a nothing-burger. You got no 
convictions. You got nothing. It was all set up to hurt the 
Mueller Report, which was correct and was redacted, to hurt the 
Bidens and to help Trump and you were a part of it.
    You have a good reputation. You had a good reputation. 
That's why the two Democrats supported you. The longer you hold 
on to Mr. Barr and this report that Mr. Barr gave you as 
Special Counsel your reputation will be damaged as everybody's 
reputation who gets involved with Donald Trump is damaged. He's 
damaged goods. There's no good dealing with him because you 
will end up on the bottom of a pile.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Durham. Sure.
    Mr. Issa. Can we presume the gentleman is undecided on how 
he feels about the former President?
    [Laughter.]
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman--the witness can respond.
    Mr. Durham. Yes. My concern about my reputation is with the 
people who I respect, my family, and my Lord, and I'm perfectly 
comfortable with my reputation with them, sir.
    Chair Jordan. Well said. God bless you.
    [Applause.]
    Chair Jordan. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Wisconsin, Mr. Fitzgerald.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Durham, thank you for being here today. 
On October 3, 2016, the FBI met with Christopher Steele, who 
confessed to relying heavily on a Russian national living in 
Washington, DC, as a subsource. That subsource was later 
identified as Igor Danchenko.
    Steele not only used Danchenko to create the dossier, but 
according to your report Steele was unable to corroborate any 
of the substantial allegations made in the dossier. Is that 
correct?
    Mr. Durham. That's correct.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Even after the FBI offered Steele a million 
dollars if somehow, he could actually follow through and 
underscore some of those specific items. Is that correct?
    Mr. Durham. That's correct.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. So, the FBI interviewed Danchenko and 
Steele's subsource--the Steele subsource for three days from 
January 24-26, 2017. However, according to your report, 
Danchenko could not provide any evidence corroborating 
allegations contained in the dossier. Is that correct?
    Mr. Durham. That's a fact.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Yet, the FBI paid Danchenko $220,000 during 
his time as a confidential human source. Is that correct?
    Mr. Durham. That's correct.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Did the FBI propose making continued future 
payments to Danchenko totaling more than $300,000?
    Mr. Durham. That's correct.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Danchenko becomes a confidential human 
source that enlists his own subsource, Charles Dolan, as was 
brought up earlier, who was a Democrat operative and had 
previously served as an adviser to Hillary Clinton's 2008 
Presidential Campaign. Is that your understanding? Is that 
correct?
    Mr. Durham. That's correct.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Did Danchenko ever disclose his 
relationship with Charles Dolan to the FBI that you're aware 
of?
    Mr. Durham. He did not during the interviews that were 
conducted in January. Subsequently, he was specifically asked 
in an interview with his then handler, do you know Charles 
Dolan.
    He listened to the recording. He hesitates for some awkward 
period of time and then said, ``Yes, I know who Dolan is.'' So, 
he acknowledged knowing Mr. Dolan.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Do you think it had anything to do with he 
was simply worried that disclosing a Democrat operative as a 
subsource might jeopardize the whole payroll deal that the FBI 
had set up with him?
    Mr. Durham. When we lay these facts out as we do other 
facts in the report, leave it to others to draw the reasonable 
conclusions or inferences from those facts.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Very good. Of the hundreds of individuals 
who the FBI interviewed through the course of Crossfire 
Hurricane and Mueller's Special Counsel investigation--this 
came up earlier--was Charles Dolan ever interviewed by the FBI?
    Mr. Durham. He was not.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Do you have any insight as to why the FBI 
would not interview him or overlook such a high-profile person 
in this whole investigation?
    Mr. Durham. That's something of a mystery. Going back to 
October 3rd, according to the ALAB--the assistant legal attache 
for the bureau--when he first--I'm sorry, going back to July 
5th when he first met with Steele, Steele had indicated to him 
at the time that H.C. was aware of what he, Steele, was doing.
    When the bureau went back to interview Steele on October 
3rd about matters relating to Crossfire Hurricane, Steele, in 
fact, had provided the bureau with Dolan's name as somebody who 
might have information relating to Trump. He was never 
interviewed.
    So, yes, I don't know why they never interviewed Trump--I'm 
sorry, why they did not interview Mr. Dolan, but they didn't. 
The explanation that was given to the intelligence analyst 
who's referred to in the report essentially was that this would 
be outside the scope of their mission--outside of their role.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Very good. You note in your report on page 
168, that one of the analysts of the Mueller team was told, 
quote, ``to cease all research and analysis related to Dolan.''
    This was the same analyst who, according to your footnote, 
prepared a timeline in the event she was later interviewed 
about her role on the Mueller Special Counsel investigation. Is 
that correct?
    Mr. Durham. That's correct.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Igor Danchenko had also relied on other 
subsources, mainly Olga Galkina and Sergei Millian. When the 
FBI interviewed those two subsources, were either of them able 
to verify the information in the Steele Dossier?
    Mr. Durham. Well, speaking first to Millian, we interviewed 
Millian, as well. He was outside the country. He claims to fear 
for his safety and what not. He adamantly denied ever talking 
to Danchenko or providing any information akin to what was in 
the Steele reporting.
    In fact, he is a supporter of President Trump, which made 
it seem highly unlikely that he would be providing derogatory 
information to somebody he had never met or spoken to. So, 
that's as to Millian.
    With respect to Ms. Galkina, Ms. Galkina was somebody who 
provided some information to Danchenko, provided some 
information to Dolan.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm out of time.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Special Counsel Durham, in March 2019 before releasing the 
Mueller Report to the public Attorney General Barr released a 
statement mischaracterizing its findings and conclusions and 
shortly thereafter Attorney General Barr announced that he was 
investigating the FBI for investigating Putin's interference in 
the 2016 Presidential Election.
    Then, in April or May 2019, Attorney General Barr appointed 
you to lead that investigation. Isn't that correct?
    Mr. Durham. He did appoint me to lead the investigation, 
yes, sir.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Then, in October 2020, Attorney 
General Barr appointed you as an independent Special Counsel, 
so that you could continue investigating the origins of the 
``Russia, Russia, Russia investigation,'' once Trump was out of 
office, correct?
    Mr. Durham. I was appointed Special Counsel in October, 
yes.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. By that time, your investigation 
had already cost the American taxpayers over $6.5 million, 
isn't that correct?
    Mr. Durham. At that point, probably not, no.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, at this point, how much has 
it cost?
    Mr. Durham. As I understand the figure, having looked at 
it, it's around $6.5 million.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. After 3\1/2\ years of investigation 
and $6.5 million of taxpayer money spent, your investigation to 
led to the indictment of only three individuals, correct?
    Mr. Durham. That's correct. Well, it was an indictment of, 
yes, indictment of--
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Contrary to the fervent prayers of 
some on this panel, former FBI Director Jim Comey and former 
CIA Director John Brennan were not among those three who were 
indicted, isn't that correct?
    Mr. Durham. That's correct.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. To the extreme disappointment of 
some on this panel, your investigation failed to produce 
indictments against Hillary Clinton, correct?
    Mr. Durham. That's correct.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Didn't indict Barack Obama?
    Mr. Durham. That's correct.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Didn't indict Joe Biden?
    Mr. Durham. That's correct.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Couldn't even indict Hunter Biden, 
correct?
    Mr. Durham. We didn't investigate Mr. Hunter Biden.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Of your three prosecutions, one 
ended with a guilty plea to an unrelated to the origins of the 
FBI investigation, and that individual received a probated 
sentence with no jail time, correct?
    Mr. Durham. Parts of that are correct.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. The other two men you prosecuted 
went to trial on the charges, charging--they were accused of 
lying to the FBI, and both were slam-dunk acquitted, isn't that 
correct?
    Mr. Durham. They were acquitted.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. None of the individuals you 
prosecuted were ever charged with being part of a hoax, a 
fraud, a witch hunt, or a politically motivated, deep-state 
conspiracy against Donald Trump, isn't that correct?
    Mr. Durham. I would not say that's accurate.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. You mean you did charge somebody 
with being a part of a hoax?
    Mr. Durham. We charged Mr. Sussmann with having not only 
provided false information to the FBI regarding Alfa Bank and 
lying and--
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. He was acquitted, though, right?
    Mr. Durham. That wasn't your question.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, he was, Mr. Sussmann was 
acquitted after you charged him, correct?
    Mr. Durham. The grand jury found--
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. He was found innocent by a jury 
of--by an unanimous jury of 12.
    Mr. Durham. That's not true.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well--
    Mr. Durham. What's true is a grand jury found probable 
cause to indict Mr. Sussmann.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. A jury of his peers acquitted him, 
though, correct?
    Mr. Durham. A trial jury--
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. You're not, you're not going to 
disagree on that, are you, Mr. Durham?
    Mr. Durham. I'm going to try to answer your question as it 
was asked.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, let me ask you this. Because 
in your report, you related or alluded to allegations of 
misconduct against Mr. Sussmann and Mr. Danchenko, as if those 
allegations had been proven true at trial, when, in fact, both 
those individuals had been acquitted and your allegations 
disproven. Do you believe that it's ethical to state something 
as a fact in an official government report, when the court 
system found that you could not prove those allegations?
    Mr. Durham. Well, I think if you read the report, you'd see 
that we talked about the results of the trial, and we included 
all the evidence that we had available; unfortunately, not all 
which was admitted at trial. So, it's matter of--
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, let me ask you this, Mr. 
Durham: You closed your investigation after you failed to find 
that the FBI investigation into Putin's interference into the 
2016 election was politically motivated and was a deep-state 
conspiracy against ex-President Trump. You were unable to prove 
that this was true.
    Mr. Durham. That isn't what we--
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. So, you--
    Mr. Durham. That is not what I was investigating.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, but you did not find that was 
true, correct? You found it to be false, as a matter of fact.
    Mr. Durham. If you've had a chance--
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Isn't that correct?
    Mr. Durham. If you have a chance to read the report, the 
report's, in fact--
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, I did, and--
    Mr. Issa. Mr. Chair, could we--the time has expired.
    Could the gentleman be allowed to answer the question?
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. This--
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman can respond.
    The time of the gentleman from Georgia is expired. The 
witness can respond.
    Mr. Durham. To say, if you, if you read the report, we lay 
the facts out in the report as to these matters. I'm not here 
to talk about Mr. Trump. I'm not here to talk about deep-state, 
or whatever other characterizations you made.
    This report is factual. Nobody has raised any issues as to 
whether it's factually inaccurate in any way. People can draw 
their own conclusions based on those facts.
    Chair Jordan. Mr. Durham, you've been at it an 1\1/2\ hours 
here. We could keep going if you can keep going. Just let us 
know if and when you might need--
    Mr. Durham. Yes, I'm fine. Whatever the Committee wants.
    Chair Jordan. OK. Great.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 
Issa.
    Mr. Issa. Mr. Durham, each of us on the panel has a 
different background and a different idea of what's best to get 
out of this report and the work that you have done so 
faithfully, not just for the last four years, but your entire 
career.
    So, I'm going to start off by asking, is it true that you 
have the Attorney General's Exceptional Service Award, a 
decoration for your service?
    Mr. Durham. That's true.
    Mr. Issa. Is it also true that you have the Attorney 
General's Distinguished Service Award?
    Mr. Durham. That's true.
    Mr. Issa. Who awarded you that?
    Mr. Durham. It goes back in time. Attorney General Reno 
had--
    Mr. Issa. No, no, 2012.
    Mr. Durham. Oh, I'm sorry, in 2012. I'm trying to remember 
what award it was. I don't, frankly, recall. I don't really--
    Mr. Issa. Just for the record, it's Eric Holder.
    Mr. Durham. Yes. That was, that was the CIA investigation. 
That's right, it was Attorney General Holder.
    Mr. Issa. It was.
    Mr. Durham. Yes.
    Mr. Issa. You had to deal with some of the most despicable 
people and do the things that we do sometimes when wrong has 
been done. So, I want to thank you for that.
    It seems like for your entire career you've been a go-to 
for difficult situations, not necessarily the standard ``I'm 
trying to rise quickly award,'' but, in fact, you are a career 
investigator, and I would imagine, pretty closely, that you've 
got your 82 percent overall.
    I want to talk about something that I'm not qualified to 
talk about, but I can ask you. Are there, what you would call, 
unindicted co-conspirators in this? In other words, are there 
people at all levels who did things wrong who were not charged 
with crimes because of the limitation of the ability to bring 
charges against them for what they did, even if it was wrong?
    Mr. Durham. We brought charges where we thought, in good 
faith, that we could prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
    Mr. Issa. OK, but--
    Mr. Durham. Is there evidence beyond that? Of course.
    Mr. Issa. Sure. So, in your experience as a career 
prosecutor, when people break the rules and it changes the 
outcome of something--like launching an investigation without a 
predicate, like the President, the Vice President, the Attorney 
General, and a host of others, the FBI Director--knowing that 
this had been started with a false predicate, knowing that 
Hillary Clinton's Campaign, with her approval, in fact, had 
authorized this, not op research, but this weaponizing of a 
false claim, when they did that, they, in fact, changed the 
outcome, whether criminal or not, of many things, including, 
certainly, some things in voters' mind, isn't that correct?
    Mr. Durham. I mean, generally speaking, there are lots of 
bad things that people do that aren't crimes. We can only 
charge those that are crimes.
    Mr. Issa. I appreciate that. So, when people are constantly 
making this point that somehow you didn't put enough people in 
jail, you gave us 300 pages that give us a responsibility. As I 
said, I'm not going to try to pretend that I'm the smart lawyer 
up here at all, or even a lawyer, but I am somebody that 
understands organization, oversight, and transparency.
    In your report, you do note the changes made, and so on. 
Unless we make changes in transparency to outside individuals 
who can be counted on to be ombudsmen to the process, isn't it 
true that, if the President, the Vice President, the Attorney 
General, and a host of other top people at the FBI and 
Department of Justice, choose in the future to push to make 
change, to make outcomes occur that would not occur according 
to their own printed rules, that no rule per se is going to 
change that?
    Mr. Durham. I think that's true. As we say in the report, 
ultimately, what this comes down to is the integrity of the 
people who are doing the job. Are they adhering to their oath 
or are they not adhering to their oath? Are they following the 
law? Are they not following the law?
    Mr. Issa. Well, in my 20-plus years on this side of the 
dais, what I've found is that people, when the light of day is 
shed on them, follow the rules much better than they aren't.
    So, for all of us up here, I want to thank you for your 
contribution and your service. Hopefully--I know you're going 
into, you've gone into retirement--but, hopefully, in the 
future, as we begin looking at reforms that can be counted on 
and believed by the American people, at reforms that create 
better transparency, at reforms that do not allow FISA judges 
to be misled by people with an agenda, that you'll be available 
to at least give us some of the guidance from your decades of 
knowing how it's done right at the Department of Justice.
    Mr. Chair, I want to thank you for your indulgence, and 
with so many people, I will not take excess time. I believe 
this witness' 300-plus pages speaks extremely well for itself.
    I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from California is recognized.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Durham, just so people remember what this 
is all about, let me ask you, the Mueller investigation 
revealed that Russia interfered in the 2016 election in 
``sweeping an systemic fashion,'' correct?
    Mr. Durham. That's correct.
    Mr. Schiff. Russia did so through a social media campaign 
that favored Donald Trump and disparaged Hillary Clinton, 
correct?
    Mr. Durham. That's what the report says, yes.
    Mr. Schiff. Mueller found that a Russian intelligence 
service hacked computers associated with the Clinton Campaign, 
and then, released the stolen documents publicly, is that 
right?
    Mr. Durham. That report speaks for itself as well.
    Mr. Schiff. Mueller also reported that, though he could not 
establish the crime of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt, he 
also said, quote, ``A statement that the investigation did not 
establish certain facts does not mean there was no evidence of 
those facts.'' That also appears in the report, doesn't it?
    Mr. Durham. It's language to that effect, yes.
    Mr. Schiff. In fact, you cited that very statement in your 
own report, did you not, as a way of distinguishing between 
proof beyond a reasonable doubt and evidence that falls short 
beyond a reasonable doubt?
    Mr. Durham. Correct.
    Mr. Schiff. As an illustration of this, both Mueller and 
Congressional investigations found that Trump's Campaign Chair, 
Paul Manafort, was secretly meeting with an operative link to 
Russian intelligence named Konstantin Kilimnik, correct?
    Mr. Durham. That's my understanding, yes.
    Mr. Schiff. That Manafort, while Chair of the Trump 
Campaign, gave that Russian intelligence operative the 
campaign's internal polling data, correct?
    Mr. Durham. That's what I've read in the news, yes.
    Mr. Schiff. That Manafort provided this information to 
Russian intelligence while Russian intelligence was engaged in 
that social media campaign and the release of stolen documents 
to help the Trump Campaign, correct?
    Mr. Durham. You may be getting beyond the depth of my 
knowledge, but it's--
    Mr. Schiff. Well, let me say, very simply, while Manafort, 
the Campaign Chair for Donald Trump was giving this Russian 
intelligence officer internal campaign polling data, Russian 
intelligence was helping the Trump Campaign, weren't they?
    Mr. Durham. I don't, I don't know that, but that sounds 
right.
    Mr. Schiff. You really don't know those very basic facts of 
the investigation?
    Mr. Durham. I know the general facts, yes. Do I know that 
particular fact myself? No. I know that I've read that in the 
media.
    Mr. Schiff. Are you aware, Mr. Durham, that Mueller and 
Congressional investigations also revealed that Don Jr. was 
informed that a Russian official was offering the Trump 
Campaign, quote, ``very high-level and sensitive information,'' 
that would be incriminating of Hillary Clinton and was part of, 
quote, ``Russia and its government's support of Mr. Trump''? 
Are you aware of that?
    Mr. Durham. Sure. People get phone calls all the time from 
individuals who claim to have information like that.
    Mr. Schiff. Really? The son of a Presidential candidate 
gets calls all the time from a foreign government offering dirt 
on their opponent? Is that what you're saying?
    Mr. Durham. I don't think this is unique in your 
experience.
    Mr. Schiff. So, you have other instances of the Russian 
government offering dirt on a Presidential candidate to the 
Presidential candidate's son? Is that what you're saying?
    Mr. Durham. Would you repeat the question?
    Mr. Schiff. You said that it's not uncommon to get offers 
of help from a hostile foreign government in a Presidential 
Campaign directed at the President's son. Do you really stand 
by that, Mr. Durham?
    Mr. Durham. I'm saying that people make phone calls making 
claims all the time, that you may have experienced.
    Mr. Schiff. Are you really trying to diminish the 
significance of what happened here and the secret meeting that 
the President's son set up in Trump Tower to receive that 
incriminating information? Trying to diminish the significance 
of that, Mr. Durham?
    Mr. Durham. I'm not trying to diminish it at all, but I 
think the more complete story is that they met, and it was a 
ruse, and they didn't talk about Ms. Clinton.
    Mr. Schiff. You think it's insignificant that he had a 
secret meeting with Russian delegation for the purpose of 
getting dirt on Hillary Clinton, and the only disappointment 
expressed at that meeting was that the dirt they got wasn't 
better? You don't think that's significant?
    Mr. Durham. I don't think that was a well-advised thing to 
do.
    Mr. Schiff. Oh, oh, not well-advised?
    Mr. Durham. Right.
    Mr. Schiff. Well, that's the understatement of the year. 
So, you think it's perfectly appropriate, or maybe just ill-
advised, for a Presidential Campaign to secretly meet with a 
Russian delegation to get dirt on their opponent? You would 
merely say that's inadvisable?
    Mr. Durham. Yes. If you're asking me would I do it, I hope 
I wouldn't do it. It was not illegal. It was stupid, foolish, 
and ill-advised.
    Mr. Schiff. Well, it is illegal to conspire to get 
incriminating opposition research from a hostile government 
that is of financial value to a campaign. Wouldn't that violate 
campaign laws?
    Mr. Durham. I don't know--I don't know all those facts to 
be true.
    Mr. Schiff. Well, your report, Mr. Durham, doesn't dispute 
anything Mueller found, did it?
    Mr. Durham. No, our object, our aim, was not to dispute 
Director Mueller. I have the greatest regard, highest regard, 
for Director Mueller. He's a patriot.
    Mr. Schiff. The only distinguishment between his 
investigation and yours is he refused to bring charges where he 
couldn't prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and you did.
    I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from Colorado is recognized.
    Mr. Buck. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Durham, I want to, as a fellow alum of DOJ, (1) I want 
to thank you for your service and (2) welcome you to Congress.
    Mr. Durham. It's a real pleasure, really.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Buck. I want to ask you some questions about FISA and 
some of your most recent experiences as the Special Counsel and 
what your specific advice would be, I guess.
    I am concerned with the conclusions in your report, and I 
just want to--they've been mentioned several times here. In 
your opening statement, you talk about ``lack of investigative 
discipline, a failure to take logical investigative steps, and 
bias.''
    It appears to me that the lack of an investigative 
discipline and the failure to take logical investigative steps 
are a result of bias. Is that fair?
    Mr. Durham. I think that's fair. When you look at what is 
involved here, this is a Presidential Campaign. It's not a run-
of-the-mill investigation. This is so highly sensitive; it 
could affect the outcome of a Presidential Election and the 
future of the Nation. You would expect that the discipline that 
would have been followed would have been higher than ever. That 
didn't happen here. The sort of analytical rigor, the 
discipline in how we investigate criminal matters, that was 
just absent here in large measure.
    Mr. Buck. Fair to say that there was a rush to judgment?
    Mr. Durham. I'm sorry?
    Mr. Buck. Fair to say that there was a rush to judgment? In 
other words, the judgment of proceeding with the investigation 
before following proper procedure.
    Mr. Durham. As has been alluded to here, the information 
that they had received from the Australian diplomats, not 
Australian intelligence or law enforcement, but Australian 
diplomats, about something that was said at a bar, within three 
days of that information having been received at FBI 
headquarters, the Deputy Director of the FBI, according to Mr. 
Strzok, told him too immediately open that. It was opened as a 
full investigation on a weekend with Mr. Strzok not only 
writing the opening electronic communication, the opening memo, 
but approving that memo as well.
    Mr. Buck. This is the same Mr. Strzok who we saw the text 
message from that had a clear bias regarding President Trump?
    Mr. Durham. It's the same person, yes.
    Mr. Buck. How long did Director Comey serve in the FBI 
before he became Director? I'm not saying Department of 
Justice; I'm saying FBI.
    Mr. Durham. Right. To my knowledge, he was not in the FBI 
prior to becoming Director.
    Mr. Buck. He promoted the people--Andy McCabe, Peter 
Strzok, others--to the position at headquarters, and then, 
dealt with them there? Is that fair?
    Mr. Durham. He would have certainly had a role in the 
advancement of people in the upper management of the FBI, yes.
    Mr. Buck. My concern is that the bias that has been 
demonstrated there, whether it has been eradicated or dealt 
with, could exist in any of these agencies. These agencies have 
access to very sensitive information that we in Congress allow 
for counterterrorism/counterintelligence activities--and it 
really goes around the Constitution because it does not deal 
with U.S. citizens. I'm talking about the FISA rules now.
    Have you heard of backdoor searches?
    Mr. Durham. I've heard the term, yes, sir.
    Mr. Buck. It refers to the ability of an agency to look at 
a U.S. citizen's communications because the communication was 
with a foreign individual, and it was recorded because that 
foreign individual was being looked at. Is that fair?
    Mr. Durham. That's fair.
    Mr. Buck. If there was this bias in an agency like the FBI 
that we saw previously, and they wanted to go after a U.S. 
citizen, they could use that technique to go after that 
citizen. My question to you is, how do we prevent that? How do 
we in Congress take a look at FISA, try to maintain the 
national security interests, but at the same time protect U.S. 
citizens from a rogue agency, a biased agency, or agent--I 
shouldn't say ``agency'' and condemn everyone, but individuals 
in the agency--how do we protect American citizens from what 
could occur?
    Let me give you another quick example. Going out and buying 
information from private data sellers to obtain information 
that you couldn't obtain with a search warrant because you 
don't have probable cause, those techniques are all available 
under FISA. What should we do?
    Mr. Durham. That's, clearly, beyond my background and 
experience. These are very complicated questions, particularly 
when we know that adversaries are doing the same thing. What do 
we do under those circumstances?
    I think you've got a very tough job in figuring out how do 
you balance the liberties of the American people, and protect 
the liberties of the American people, while at the same time 
protecting the country and the Nation, and the people of the 
United States. I don't feel qualified really to provide you 
with any helpful information along those lines, but I know that 
it is a serious issue and it's of serious concern.
    Mr. Buck. I thank you, and I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    Before going to the gentleman from California, the 
gentlelady from Texas has a unanimous consent, I think.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes, I do.
    Chair Jordan. OK.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to 
submit records from the Department of Justice reflecting 
meetings with the U.S. Attorney John Durham. These records were 
in response to American Oversight's request for DOJ 
communications between the Offices of the Attorney General and 
the Deputy Attorney General and Durham or his first assistant. 
I ask unanimous consent to place this in the record of this 
hearing.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chair, I have a unanimous consent request.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman from California.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chair, you and your colleagues have 
continually cited to Steve D'Antuono's transcribed interviews 
using selected statements taken out of context. I move for 
unanimous consent to enter the entire transcript into the 
record, so the American public can see for itself exactly what 
he said.
    Chair Jordan. Yes, we will work on that. Yes, we'll work on 
that. We don't want to--we've got to--we'll talk with the 
Chair--we want to make that fully available with the Ranking 
Member.
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chair you're objecting to a unanimous 
consent request and to something--
    Mr. Issa. Mr. Chair, I object.
    Chair Jordan. OK.
    Mr. Schiff. So, if I understand correctly, Mr. Chair, 
you're happy to cite selected portions of the transcript out of 
context, but you're not happy to see--
    Chair Jordan. We'll make a--
    Mr. Issa. Mr. Chair, there's an objection. Is there further 
action?
    Mr. Schiff. You don't want the American public to see this, 
Mr. Issa?
    Participant. Roll call vote, please.
    Mr. Issa. There's no vote on that.
    Chair Jordan. I just want to clarify for the gentleman, we 
want to put the transcript out, but there's a couple--we've got 
a little work to do on certain names that have to be redacted 
for obvious reasons. Yes, we definitely want to put the 
transcript out.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chair, I suggest, then--
    Chair Jordan. We'll work with the minority to make sure 
that happens. I thought it was an amazing interview by Mr. 
D'Antuono, the former head of the Washington Field Office. We 
want that information out to the public and we'll make sure it 
happens.
    Mr. Schiff. Can I suggest to the Chair that you grant the 
request, subject to redactions to protect personally private 
information?
    Chair Jordan. Without objection, so ordered.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman from California is--
    Ms. Jackson Lee. You have accepted my submission. I didn't 
hear it.
    Chair Jordan. I did that right away, right away.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman from California is recognized.
    Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Durham, many of my MAGA colleagues want 
you to be someone who you are not and to say something that 
you, clearly, won't.
    So, I want to just start by thanking you for your many 
years of service to our country as a Federal prosecutor.
    I want to talk a little bit more about the independence of 
a Special Counsel, and just clarify, you did send multiple 
texts to the Attorney General after you were appointed as 
Special Counsel. Did you ever text message with Attorney 
General Garland once he took over as Attorney General?
    Mr. Durham. No. Attorney General Garland had me communicate 
through the Principal Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Weinsheimer.
    Mr. Swalwell. Did you ever travel overseas with Attorney 
General Garland?
    Mr. Durham. No. I have with the Attorney General, but I 
didn't travel overseas with him.
    Mr. Swalwell. President Biden, through the Attorney 
General, could have had you removed, fired, is that right?
    Mr. Durham. I'm sure he could have.
    Mr. Swalwell. You stayed on?
    Mr. Durham. I completed my term as Special Counsel.
    Mr. Swalwell. Was there anyone you wanted to indict that 
you were prohibited from indicting by Attorney General Garland?
    Mr. Durham. No.
    Mr. Swalwell. So, if you wanted to, you could have indicted 
Hillary Clinton, but you never asked, is that right?
    Mr. Durham. If I had the evidence, yes, we could have for 
sure.
    Mr. Swalwell. If you wanted to indict President Biden, you 
could have asked, right?
    Mr. Durham. Yes. That was not part of our mission. We 
weren't really looking at that, but--
    Mr. Swalwell. If you could have indicted Director Comey, 
you could have asked, is that right? You didn't?
    Mr. Durham. Yes, the Attorney General Garland had never 
asked me not to indict somebody.
    Mr. Swalwell. Right. So, I just want to make clear to my 
colleagues, you had all the power in the world to indict anyone 
that you had evidence to indict, and you were never blocked 
from doing it. That's correct?
    Mr. Durham. That's correct.
    Mr. Swalwell. I also want to compare you to the last major 
Special Counsel investigation that we had. You agree Special 
Counsel Mueller charged dozens of individuals and you indicated 
three, is that correct?
    Mr. Durham. Indicted two, and another, a third, pleaded 
guilty.
    Mr. Swalwell. Right. Special Counsel Mueller had dozens of 
convictions, some at trial, but no defendant was outright 
acquitted, is that right, in the Mueller investigation? 
Outright acquitted? Across the board, every charge, acquitted?
    Mr. Durham. Right. I don't believe there are any 
acquittals. I'm not sure there were dozens of convictions. 
There were dozens of--they're, yes, more than a dozen people 
who were indicted.
    Mr. Swalwell. You were wise earlier to not weigh in on 
Donald Trump's character. You are under oath, after all. Did 
anything in your report prove false that Russians met with 
Trump's family during the campaign at Trump Tower after an 
offer of dirt on Hillary Clinton? Anything prove that this 
meeting didn't happen?
    Mr. Durham. I don't have any evidence that this did not 
happen.
    Mr. Swalwell. Anything prove false that in the 2016 
Campaign Donald Trump tried and concealed from the public a 
real estate deal he was seeking in Moscow?
    Mr. Durham. I don't know anything about that. There's 
nothing in the report about it. It's not something we 
investigated.
    Mr. Swalwell. Anything in there prove false that Donald 
Trump publicly asked Russia to hack Hillary's emails, and then, 
hours later, they did?
    Mr. Durham. If you're referring to--
    Mr. Swalwell. Did you prove--did Donald Trump not say at a 
press conference, ``Russia, if you're listening, you should get 
Hillary's emails.''? Did you prove that he didn't say that?
    Mr. Durham. Yes, no, we didn't.
    Mr. Swalwell. OK.
    Mr. Durham. We didn't investigate that.
    Mr. Swalwell. Did you prove false in the 2016 Campaign that 
Trump's Campaign Manager gave polling data to a spy for a 
Russian intelligence service?
    Mr. Durham. We didn't investigate that.
    Mr. Swalwell. Anything in your report say that Donald Trump 
in 2016 acted the way that Americans would want a Presidential 
candidate to act with regard to Russia?
    Mr. Durham. I'm sorry, could you repeat that?
    Mr. Swalwell. Are you signing off on the way Donald Trump 
acted with Russia in 2016?
    Mr. Durham. Our report doesn't address that.
    Mr. Swalwell. You agree that Russia interfered in the 2016 
election?
    Mr. Durham. Agree that there's substantial evidence to show 
that.
    Mr. Swalwell. Thank you.
    Mr. Durham, my MAGA colleagues want you to be someone 
you're not and they want you to say something you won't. They 
want you to join the law firm of Insurrection, LLC, which, 
incidentally, and probably appropriately, is chaired by a guy 
who never passed the bar exam, and you're wise not to do that.
    You see my colleagues today; they are making themselves 
footnotes and foot soldiers in the history books that will 
chronicle Donald Trump's corruption.
    I yield my remaining time to Mr. Schiff.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Durham, returning to your decision to speak 
out during the pendency of your investigation, did you have 
staff on your team advise you against making statements during 
the pendency of your investigation?
    Mr. Durham. They didn't advise me either way, no.
    Mr. Schiff. Did any of your staff raise ethical concerns 
about your speaking out either in an interim report or after 
the Inspector General investigation? Any of your staff raise 
ethical concerns with your doing so?
    Mr. Durham. Not that I recall, no. Yes, raise a technical 
concern? No, not that I'm aware of.
    Mr. Schiff. Did they raise concerns with your speaking out 
during the pendency of the investigation?
    Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    The witness can respond.
    Mr. Durham. I'm sorry--
    Mr. Schiff. Did any of your staff raise concerns about your 
speaking out during the pendency of your investigation, in 
contrast to DOJ policy?
    Mr. Durham. Not that I recall.
    Mr. Schiff. Thank you.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentlelady from Florida is recognized.
    Ms. Lee. Good morning, Mr. Durham.
    Mr. Durham. May I just complete that answer more?
    I don't want to lay any blame at their--I made that 
decision to make a statement. They were not involved in it.
    Mr. Cohen. Did Nora Dannehy?
    Mr. Durham. Did Nora Dannehy?
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady from Florida--
    Mr. Durham. Right. Nora Dannehy, a friend of mine, a very 
good lawyer, an honest person.
    Mr. Schiff. Why did she resign?
    Mr. Durham. That's Nora Dannehy. That's why we brought her 
on.
    Mr. Schiff. Why did she resign?
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The gentleman can--
    Mr. Schiff. You can answer the question if you'd like.
    Mr. Gooden. Mr. Chair, who's in charge here? Because it's 
not Mr. Schiff, I don't think.
    Chair Jordan. It's the lady's time from Florida.
    Ms. Lee. Good morning, Mr. Durham.
    Mr. Durham. Good morning.
    Ms. Lee. As a former Federal prosecutor, I want to begin by 
telling you how much I appreciate your work, that of your team, 
and your presence here today.
    You may begin by answering the prior question, if you wish.
    Mr. Durham. With respect to Ms. Dannehy, I have the 
greatest respect for her. She is a friend of mine. She is very 
well educated; she is an honest person. We had some 
disagreements on issues, and I don't really have any comment 
beyond that. I am not going to discuss the internal management 
and decisionmaking.
    I will tell you this, that every agent and every lawyer who 
worked on this project had a full voice in the decisions that 
were going forward. I made the final decisions.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Durham. I would like to focus on 
the Department of Justice's procedures as to FISA applications 
when that process is conducted appropriately. To begin with, so 
FISA surveillance application must include an affidavit from a 
Federal law enforcement officer, correct?
    Mr. Durham. That is correct.
    Ms. Lee. That affidavit must demonstrate cause to believe 
that the target of the surveillance is an agent of a foreign 
power, is that also right?
    Mr. Durham. Right, if it relates to U.S. citizen. It has to 
be that they are a knowing agent. If it is a non-U.S. person, a 
knowing element is not required.
    Ms. Lee. It is intended that this affidavit should rely on 
reasonable, trustworthy information, is it not?
    Mr. Durham. That is correct.
    Ms. Lee. In some cases, and including the case of Carter 
Page, those affidavits, that information can include that use 
of information obtained from a confidential human source, 
correct?
    Mr. Durham. That is correct.
    Ms. Lee. When information from a confidential human source 
is included, would you agree that it is important that material 
related to the reliability or trustworthiness of that 
confidential human source is disclosed within the affidavit?
    Mr. Durham. Yes.
    Ms. Lee. I believe you testified here earlier today that in 
this case, information in that Carter Page application related 
to the reliability and credibility of the confidential human 
source was not included in these applications. Is that right?
    Mr. Durham. I believe that is correct.
    Ms. Lee. Would you tell us, in your experience, in your 
many years working with the department, why is it important 
that this type of information is included and disclosed to both 
Federal prosecutors and to the court?
    Mr. Durham. When matters are submitted to the court, it is 
for a reason, to a judge. It is to let an independent judicial 
officer weigh the questions of whether probable cause exists or 
not.
    In providing that information to independent, objective 
judicial officers and judicial magistrates, if there is 
confidential human source information that is being provided, 
it is important for the person, the judge who is reviewing 
this, to know what is the basis of the person's knowledge. Is 
it hearsay or do they have personal knowledge, as an example.
    Then whether or not there is some track record of basis to 
believe that the information would be credible coming from this 
person.
    Ms. Lee. Of course at this stage of the proceeding, the 
person who is the subject of the investigation has no idea that 
this application is even being made or considered or reviewed 
by the court in most cases.
    Mr. Durham. That is correct.
    Ms. Lee. So, it solely rests with the government, the 
responsibility to ensure that this power, that this 
surveillance power that is being used is being done in a way 
that is appropriate and compliant with the law.
    Mr. Durham. That is correct.
    Ms. Lee. You mentioned something earlier about that in this 
case, agents immediately moved to the most intrusive 
investigative means that were available, referring of course to 
the interception of live communications, correct?
    Mr. Durham. That is correct. In this instance, the Bureau 
almost immediately, when they opened this full investigation, 
the umbrella case, Crossfire Hurricane, and then the four 
subfiles, the immediately went to try to get FISA coverage on 
Papadopoulos, which they weren't able to do. Then Carter Page.
    Ms. Lee. Some of the techniques, for law enforcement there 
are myriad of other things they can do to collect surveillance 
information short of this interception of the communications. 
Like pole cameras, pen registers, trap and trace, trash pulls, 
correct?
    There are many things that in investigations are often 
utilized prior to taking this step of attempting to intercept 
live communications.
    Mr. Durham. Right. Those are typically building blocks for 
electronic surveillance.
    Ms. Lee. So, based on your testimony so far, what we are 
hearing is that here, a FISA application was pursued without 
disclosing some relevant information to prosecutors or the 
court, without following standard procedural rules, utilizing 
investigative techniques that were the most intrusive without 
first exhausting other techniques. Instead pursuing the most 
invasive method possible from the outset against Mr. Page.
    Mr. Durham. That is essentially correct, yes.
    Ms. Lee. Now, one other thing. You mentioned earlier during 
your testimony that the failures identified during your 
investigation, that if they were not addressed, they would 
result in national security risks and continued public lack of 
confidence in our institutions of justice. That there were no 
overnight fixes, but we needed accountability standards and 
consequences. Would you elaborate please?
    Chair Jordan. The time of the gentlelady has expired. The 
witness can respond.
    Mr. Durham. The national security interests here include 
liberties of the American people. One of the things that was 
most disturbing about the dossier, the Steele Dossier, is 
whether or not this is--at least some of it was Russian 
disinformation.
    Whether Igor Danchenko, who personally wrote that he was 
responsible for 80 percent of the intelligence in the dossier 
and 50 percent of the analysis, whether or not Mr. Danchenko 
was the source of Russian disinformation.
    If you don't run some of those things to ground, it does 
affect the liberties, or potentially affects the liberties of 
the American people and the national security interests of this 
country.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, sir.
    Chair Jordan. Gentlelady yields back. The gentleman from 
California is recognized.
    Mr. Lieu. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Before I begin my questioning, I want to say that the House 
Judiciary Committee is responsible to helping to ensure the 
rule of law. The Chair of this Committee ignored a bipartisan 
Congressional subpoena. The precedent set by this Chair has 
damaged the ability of Congressional Committees to get 
information from witnesses and damaged the rule of law.
    Now, Mr. Durham, thank you for being here voluntarily 
today. In your report, not only did the FBI have information, 
as stated before, that the Australians knew that Trump Foreign 
Policy Advisor George Papadopoulos had suggested that the 
Russians were going to release anonymous information damaging 
to Hilary Clinton.
    The FBI also knew and had information that the Democratic 
National Committee was hacked by the Russians and information 
was being released to the American public.
    The FBI also had information from various media reports 
that Trump had relations with different Russian businessmen, 
and the FBI had information that Trump said, ``Russia, if 
you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 3,000 emails 
that are missing.''
    The FBI had all that information prior to opening Operation 
Hurricane, correct? Crossfire Hurricane, is that right?
    Mr. Durham. That is correct.
    Mr. Lieu. OK. If the FBI had chosen to do so, the multiple 
pieces of information they had would have allowed them to open 
a preliminary investigation, is that right?
    Mr. Durham. Not a report but I would say that the FBI 
certainly had an obligation to assess the information perhaps 
make it a preliminary investigation.
    Mr. Lieu. OK, in fact, it would have been a dereliction of 
duty for the FBI to have just sat on their hands and done 
nothing with the information that they had, isn't that right?
    Mr. Durham. The FBI should not have ignored that 
information.
    Mr. Lieu. OK. It is also true, isn't it, that the Inspector 
General of the Department of Justice looked at this situation 
and concluded that not only did FBI have enough information to 
open a preliminary investigation, but the FBI had enough 
information to open a full investigation. That was the 
conclusion of the Inspector General, correct?
    Mr. Durham. My recollection is that the Inspector General 
said it is a low bar and he thought it had been met. Inspector 
General didn't necessarily address--
    Mr. Lieu. So, thank you. I would like to enter the 
Inspector General's report dated December 2019 into the record, 
Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Without objection.
    Mr. Lieu. OK. It turns out the FBI was correct. The 
Department of Justice found that the Russians interfered in our 
elections in a ``sweeping and systematic manner.'' A bipartisan 
U.S. Senate Report confirmed that the Russians interfered in 
the 2016 elections, and that interference benefited Donald 
Trump.
    Paul Manafort, Trump's former Campaign Chair also publicly 
admitted to giving internal Trump Campaign data to the 
Russians. The U.S. Treasury Department found that this data, 
which it said was ``sensitive information on polling and 
campaign strategy'' was then passed to Russian intelligence 
services.
    There is a phrase to describe the facts I just set forth. 
It is called Russian collusion.
    Mr. Chair, I would like to enter both the Treasury 
Department documents dated April 2021, as well as the 
bipartisan Senate Report intelligence dated August 2020.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Without objection.
    Mr. Lieu. OK, now, Mr. Durham, I would like to ask you the 
following simple yes-or-no questions. Trump's former Campaign 
Chair Paul Manafort was convicted, correct?
    Mr. Durham. I'm sorry, could you just repeat that one.
    Mr. Lieu. That Trump's former Campaign Chair, Paul 
Manafort, was convicted, correct?
    Mr. Durham. That's correct. Not in connection to--
    Mr. Lieu. Trump's former Foreign Policy Advisor to the 
campaign, George Papadopoulos, was convicted, correct?
    Mr. Durham. That is correct.
    Mr. Lieu. Trump's former Deputy Campaign Manager, Rick 
Gates, was convicted, correct?
    Mr. Durham. Not in connection with a Russian matter.
    Mr. Lieu. Trump's--all right. Mr. Durham, you can hold 
yourself out as an objective Department of Justice Official or 
as a partisan hack. The more that you try to spin the facts and 
not answer my questions, you sound like the latter.
    So, I am just going to ask this simply. Trump's former 
National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, was convicted, 
correct?
    Mr. Durham. That is correct.
    Mr. Lieu. Trump's longtime advisor, Roger Stone, was 
convicted, correct?
    Mr. Durham. I am sorry, I missed the last thing you 
mentioned.
    Mr. Lieu. Trump's longtime advisor, Roger Stone, was 
convicted, correct?
    Mr. Durham. Correct.
    Mr. Lieu. In contrast, multiple Trump associates were 
convicted, you brought two cases to jury trial based on this 
investigation, and you lost both. So, I don't actually know 
what we are doing here. Because the author of the Durham Report 
concedes that the FBI had enough information to investigate. 
Thank goodness the FBI did, because multiple Trump associates 
who committed crimes were held accountable. The best way to 
summarize what happened is thank you to the brave mem and women 
of the FBI for doing their jobs.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentleman's time has expired, 
he yields back. The gentleman from California, Mr. McClintock, 
is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. McClintock. First, Mr. Durham, I apologize for the 
personal attacks that have been leveled on you from sources on 
the other side of the aisle. This is what they do, this is how 
they argue. So, we have gotten used to it, and I hope you will 
too at some point.
    The central charge in the Russian collusion hoax was that 
Trump Campaign operatives were in contact with Russian 
intelligence sources. Were Clinton Campaign operatives in 
contact with Russian intelligence sources?
    Mr. Durham. That is beyond the scope of our report. I can 
only speak to the former, and the former is there was no such 
evidence. As we reported in the report, there was--
    Mr. McClintock. Well, was Danchenko a Russian intelligence 
source?
    Mr. Durham. Mr. Danchenko had been investigated by the FBI 
for espionage. They closed the case when they mistakenly 
thought he had left the country. Mr. Danchenko's status in 
connection with that espionage matter was never resolved by the 
Bureau. The Bureau, in fact, never opened it or pursued it.
    Mr. McClintock. He was the source for much of the Steele 
Dossier.
    Mr. Durham. He said that he was responsible for 80 percent 
of the intelligence in the dossier and 50 percent of the 
analysis.
    Mr. McClintock. Who commissioned the Steele Dossier?
    Mr. Durham. The Steele Dossier was done by Fusion GPS, who 
was hired by Perkins Coie, who represented the Clinton Campaign 
and the DNC.
    Mr. McClintock. So, what role did the Clinton Campaign play 
in this hoax?
    Mr. Durham. What, I am sorry, did they play?
    Mr. McClintock. What role did the Clinton Campaign play in 
this hoax?
    Mr. Durham. The Clinton Campaign funded the work, the 
opposition research, that was done by Fusion GPS. GPS paid Mr. 
Steele for the dossier.
    Mr. McClintock. Who in the Clinton Campaign approved that 
relationship?
    Mr. Durham. Well, we lay some of the out in the report. I 
think it was Mr. Elias, who was General Counsel to the 
campaign, who engaged the services of Fusion GPS.
    Mr. McClintock. Mr. Jordan referenced the Clinton plan 
intelligence. Exactly what was the Clinton plan?
    Mr. Durham. Based on declassified documents in the public 
record, there was intelligence information that was received at 
virtually the same time that the information came from the 
Australians. I mean, within a day or two.
    That intelligence included information that there was a 
purported plan designed by one of Ms. Clinton's foreign policy 
advisors to create a scandal tying Donald Trump to the 
Russians. That is the essence of the intelligence as contained 
in the declassified information.
    Mr. McClintock. Did the President receive this 
intelligence?
    Mr. Durham. On August 3, 2016, then-Director Brennan had 
briefed the President, Vice President, Director of National 
Intelligence, the FBI, the Attorney General, and others.
    Mr. McClintock. When you say the FBI, you mean Mr. Comey?
    Mr. Durham. On August 3rd it was conducted at the White 
House, so it was Director Comey himself.
    Mr. McClintock. So, Mr. Comey knew about this, President 
Obama knew about this. Vice President Biden knew about this. It 
wasn't provided to the agents on the case or provided to the 
secret FISA Court, is that correct?
    Mr. Durham. That is correct.
    Mr. McClintock. Why wasn't it?
    Mr. Durham. We can tell you what the facts are. People can 
draw their own conclusions from them.
    Mr. McClintock. About the Papadopoulos comments at the bar 
that were used as justification for this whole thing, what 
would the FBI have learned had it looked into this information 
honestly?
    Mr. Durham. If before opening Crossfire Hurricane they had 
checked their own files and communicated with other 
intelligence agencies and the like, they would have found that 
there was nothing at that time in their files that would 
corroborate the information, the suggestion of a suggestion 
that the Russians might provide some kind of assistance. There 
is nothing in their files that would corroborate that.
    Mr. McClintock. The Steele Dossier was entered into the 
Congressional Record. Was it true?
    Mr. Durham. I am sorry, the Steele Dossier--
    Mr. McClintock. The Steele Dossier was entered into our 
Congressional Record. Was it true?
    Mr. Durham. There is not a single substantive piece of 
information in the dossier that has ever been corroborated by 
the FBI or to my knowledge anyone else.
    Mr. McClintock. You mentioned that the FISA Court 
criticized the misleading and false information that was used 
to request the FISA warrants. Did the FISA Court hold anyone in 
contempt for that?
    Mr. Durham. Not to my knowledge.
    Mr. McClintock. Did they apply any sanctions to anyone 
responsible for that?
    Mr. Durham. Not to my knowledge. They issued--
    Mr. McClintock. Did they even yell at anybody?
    Mr. Durham. They issued an appropriately harsh memo, 
something about what the expectation is when a document is 
submitted to that court, that it be truthful and accurate and 
complete. That was the expectation, is the expectation.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from Washington.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Durham, thank you for being here today to speak with us 
about the report you have produced looking at the FBI's 
investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. 
Your report took four years and over six and a half million 
dollars in taxpayer dollars to produce.
    Mr. Durham, how many cases did you bring to trial during 
your time investigating the 2016 election?
    Mr. Durham. I'm sorry, just missed part of that because--
    Ms. Jayapal. How many cases did you bring to trial?
    Mr. Durham. Two.
    Ms. Jayapal. Two. In how many of those two cases did the 
juries vote to convict?
    Mr. Durham. Neither one.
    Ms. Jayapal. Neither one. Neither jury voted to convict the 
gentleman that you prosecuted. In fact, in one case, the trial 
judge threw out one of your charges because the claim that you 
were charging as false was, as he put it, ``literally true.''
    Mr. Durham, I think you were given an impossible task by 
Attorney General Bill Barr. He asked you to figure out how to 
make Donald Trump's Spygate claims true. You couldn't do that 
because you quickly realized that the claims were false. So, 
you set about, as many Republicans on cable news do, trying to 
find a way to blame Hilary Clinton for Donald Trump's woes.
    Mr. Durham, do you know how many people Special Counsel 
Mueller indicted or obtained guilty pleas from?
    Mr. Durham. They indicted or charged a number of people. I 
think--
    Ms. Jayapal. It was 34 people and three companies. Do you 
know how many of those indictments were of individuals who were 
acquitted in court?
    Mr. Durham. I don't know that anybody was acquitted.
    Ms. Jayapal. That is right, the answer is none. So, I think 
the difference between your investigation and Mr. Mueller's was 
that Mr. Mueller actually found actual evidence of crime.
    We know that Russia did attempt to interfere in the 2016 
election. We know that Russia did hack into the DNC email 
server. Mr. Mueller's prosecutions reflected that reality, such 
as the case of 12 Russian military intelligence officers who he 
charged with crimes related to the hacking and the leaking of 
leading Democrats' emails in 2016.
    Similarly, the Mr. Mueller found repeated instances of 
Trump Campaign associates lying when asked about their 
interactions with Russian interests. As a result of Mr. 
Mueller's investigation, George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty in 
October 2017 to making false statements to the FBI.
    Trump Campaign aide Rick Gates pleaded guilty to one false 
statement charge and one conspiracy charge. Trump National 
Security Advisor Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to making false 
statements to the FBI.
    In November 2019, Trump advisor Roger Stone was convicted 
on seven counts, including lying to House Intelligence 
Committee and tampering with a witness.
    Again, Mr. Mueller indicted or got guilty pleas from 34 
people and three companies.
    Mr. Durham, you are a career prosecutor, correct?
    Mr. Durham. That is correct.
    Ms. Jayapal. You started working as a State Prosecutor in 
1977, and you joined the Justice Department in 1982. Yes or no, 
prosecutors prioritize bringing cases to court that have a high 
likelihood of winning.
    Mr. Durham. I would not say that is the standard, no.
    Ms. Jayapal. So, you don't think that to call an 
investigation successful, you should at least reveal some new 
information. Most of your report, Mr. Durham, is a rehashing of 
old news, including process-related concerns that the FBI had 
already addressed.
    In fact, that is why you said you were not recommending any 
further changes to FBI policies or procedures. So, at the very 
least, I would think that you would need to win some of the 
cases on their merits. That is not what happened, and that is 
not what many Republicans are looking for.
    Chair Jordan seems to be looking for any excuse to 
discredit law enforcement and DOJ, who are finally holding 
Donald Trump accountable for his serious violations of the law. 
Violations, by the way, that Donald Trump just admitted to last 
night on Fox News. Americans will see through this facade.
    I wanted to ask Mr. Schiff if he wants my additional 40 
seconds of time. If so, I yield.
    Mr. Schiff. Thank you. I just want to followup on my 
question before. Nora Dannehy was a very well-respected member 
of your team. Why did she resign?
    Mr. Durham. I am sorry?
    Mr. Schiff. Nora Dannehy was a very well-respected member 
of your team. Why did she resign?
    Mr. Durham. That is not part of the report and I'm not 
going to discuss internal matters--
    Mr. Schiff. Did she resign over disagreements she had with 
you about how you were handling the investigation?
    Mr. Durham. Not part of the report and I am not going to 
discuss it.
    Mr. Schiff. It is not part of the report, but you--
    Mr. Durham. I have the highest regard for Ms. Dannehy.
    Mr. Schiff. You know the answer, Mr. Durham. Why won't you 
tell us?
    Mr. Durham. Because that is not part of the report, that's 
not part of the mission. I am not going to discuss internal 
discussions.
    I can tell you this, that with respect to every major 
decision that was made by our team, every agent, and every 
lawyer, had full voice in expressing their opinions, and we 
proceeded accordingly when we made the final--
    Mr. Schiff. Some voted with their feet to leave your 
office.
    Chair Jordan. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
    Ms. Jayapal. I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back. The gentleman 
from Texas is recognized.
    Mr. Gooden. Thank you, Mr. Durham. That is not part of the 
report is a lot of what I have heard from my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle. One of my colleagues from California 
said, ``I don't know what we're doing here.''
    What we are doing here is going through this very damning 
report. The FBI has failed many times over the years that you 
investigated them.
    I would like to ask, did the FBI open Crossfire Hurricane 
without speaking to the people who provided the information?
    Mr. Durham. Yes.
    Mr. Gooden. Did the FBI open Crossfire Hurricane on a 
Sunday, only three days after reviewing the information?
    Mr. Durham. Yes.
    Mr. Gooden. Did the FBI open Crossfire Hurricane without 
any significant review of its own intelligence data base?
    Mr. Durham. Yes.
    Mr. Gooden. Did the FBI open Crossfire Hurricane without 
interviewing the essential witnesses?
    Mr. Durham. Yes.
    Mr. Gooden. Did the FBI open Crossfire Hurricane without 
using any of the standard analytical tools typically employed 
in evaluating intelligence?
    Mr. Durham. Yes.
    Mr. Gooden. Did the FBI consider the possibility that it 
was the target?
    Mr. Durham. It didn't appear so to me, from the evidence.
    Mr. Gooden. So, I am curious if you could tell me, because 
I am not a prosecutor. Some of my colleagues here are, but the 
average American is not. Can you tell us why and under what 
motivation would a prosecutorial agency act in such a way where 
it willfully ignores multiple instances of exculpatory evidence 
throughout the course of its investigation? Because I just 
don't understand that.
    Mr. Durham. That, in my experience, is not the norm. That 
is not how the FBI performs. In this particular case, as is 
reflected in the report, there appear to be people, persons in 
the FBI who were central to opening the investigation that had 
rather strong views concerning then-candidate Trump.
    Mr. Gooden. We have heard in your report that you reference 
confirmation bias. A lot of times, or sometimes we see that the 
investigators, perhaps the FBI investigators, they have a 
confirmation bias because they want a guilty outcome. They want 
to find the suspect guilty.
    We did not see that to be the case for Hilary Clinton. So, 
it makes me think that based on the investigation into the 
conduct and the continuous disregard for duty, there was 
obviously a special motivation to find this suspect, Donald 
Trump and his campaign, guilty above anyone else. Would you 
agree?
    Mr. Durham. I can speak to what the facts show, as 
documented in the report. Again, people draw their reasonable 
inferences, conclusions from those facts. With an honest 
reading of the report.
    Mr. Gooden. If either you or someone on your team willfully 
ignored exculpatory evidence, refused to interview key 
witnesses, favored one suspect over another, or did any or all 
the things that the FBI did there in Crossfire Hurricane, would 
you face repercussions?
    Mr. Durham. There ought to be repercussions if that ever 
happened in connection with an agent that I was working with 
and I knew about it.
    The first thing would be to report it to the court.
    The probable second thing would be to report it to their 
superiors.
    The third thing would be to ensure that agent never worked 
with me again.
    Mr. Gooden. I appreciate that. I also appreciate your 
remarks earlier in your opening testimony where you said,

        My colleagues and I carried out our work in good faith with 
        integrity in the spirit of following the facts wherever they 
        lead without fear or favor.

I believe you did that.
    I am disappointed in some of my colleagues that have said 
disparaging remarks about you. I have seen very few that 
actually talk about your report. They want to talk about 
everything else, which tells me you are onto something.
    I would also yield the balance of my time to the Chair.
    Chair Jordan. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.
    So, Danchenko's the primary subsource. A few years before 
he does this work, he was investigated by the FBI for 
espionage. Is that right, Mr. Durham?
    Mr. Durham. Correct.
    Chair Jordan. That case was halted because the FBI thought 
he left the country, right?
    Mr. Durham. Correct.
    Chair Jordan. Had he left the country?
    Mr. Durham. No.
    Chair Jordan. Where was he living?
    Mr. Durham. He remained living in the place that he was 
living when they opened the investigation.
    Chair Jordan. Right here in DC, right.
    Mr. Durham. Yes.
    Chair Jordan. He hadn't left anywhere, he was right here in 
DC. We are going to stop this. Then they go hire him, use the 
tax money of the people I get the privilege of representing to 
pay this guy, who they obviously knew was a Russian spy. They 
hire him, who is the source of all the false information. Is 
that true?
    Mr. Durham. They paid him, they hired him, and they paid 
him.
    Chair Jordan. A couple hundred thousand if I recall, right?
    Mr. Durham. It was over $200,000.
    Chair Jordan. Yes, and then this guy is hanging out with 
Dolan, Charles Dolan, who is a buddy of the Clinton's, who's 
also a source for the false dossier that was used to spy on an 
American citizen. He is hanging out with Dolan. In fact, don't 
they meet on a park bench somewhere in Arlington, Virginia, on 
New Year's Day?
    Mr. Durham. New Year's Day, middle of the day.
    Chair Jordan. This is straight out of the movies, right. 
The FBI says but we are not going to talk to Charles Dolan. 
This is two of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
    They won't talk--they pay a guy who is a Russian spy who is 
the source of the dossier. The other source of the dossier is 
Charles Dolan, who meets with that guy on a park bench in 
Arlington, and they don't want to interview him.
    You can't make this stuff up. That is what Comey's FBI did. 
They are still doing this kind of baloney, because Mr. 
D'Antuono told us so. Running operations, running 
investigations out of headquarters, instead of assigning a U.S. 
Attorney, a job you did for a long time and did very well.
    That is a huge problem. Your report, that is why your 
report is valuable.
    I yield back to the gentleman who was out of time, and we 
now recognize the gentleman from--oh, Mr. Correa. Oh, we got 
it. Oh, I am sorry, right here. The gentlelady from 
Pennsylvania is recognized for five.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. Thank you for coming to testify 
today, I know it's not a comfortable experience, obviously. 
Clearly the questions have exposed that we have many areas of 
disagreement across the aisle.
    I am relieved that we have no disagreement about one of the 
fundamental conclusions of your report, that it was incumbent 
on the FBI to open some form of investigation when presented 
with evidence that a Presidential candidate and his associates 
are either coordinating campaign efforts with a hostile Nation, 
or being manipulated by such a hostile Nation.
    This is a fundamental conclusion, right? Some of form of 
investigation was necessary.
    Mr. Durham. Right. The FBI, when they receive information, 
this information, other information, they almost always have 
some obligation to assess that information.
    Ms. Scanlon. Sure.
    Mr. Durham. That is what the assessment is about.
    Ms. Scanlon. Sure. So, we have established over the course 
of question that the current Attorney General, Merrick Garland, 
allowed you to run your investigation, I think you said, 
independently and without interference, right?
    Mr. Durham. That is correct.
    Ms. Scanlon. You have talked about the thoroughness of your 
investigation as you performed it over the course of 4-4\1/2\ 
years, $6.5 million, hundreds of FBI agents, six million pages 
of documents. Not hundreds of FBI agents, hundreds of personnel 
working with you.
    Mr. Durham. That would not be accurate, but.
    Ms. Scanlon. OK, well, you also had the benefit of prior 
investigations, including the Mueller Report.
    Mr. Durham. Correct.
    Ms. Scanlon. The 2019 Department of Justice Office of 
Inspector General's Report, which concurred with you that there 
was an obligation to investigate, right?
    Mr. Durham. Yes.
    Ms. Scanlon. Although it disagreed with you about precisely 
the form, correct?
    Mr. Durham. I think it is more than form, but we had a 
disagreement in that regard.
    Ms. Scanlon. There was also a 2020 select, Senate Select 
Committee Report on intelligence run by Senator Rubio that 
affirmed that Russia, in fact, had sought to interfere in our 
elections to benefit the Trump Campaign, correct?
    Mr. Durham. That report--I don't remember if Senator Rubio 
was the Chair at the time or not.
    Ms. Scanlon. OK, but there was.
    Mr. Durham. I don't think he was.
    Ms. Scanlon. OK. So, with all that, you and Attorney 
General Barr had both been appointed by President Trump, right?
    Mr. Durham. I am sorry, can you just repeat that one again?
    Ms. Scanlon. You and Attorney General Barr had both been 
appointed to serve at that time by President Trump, correct?
    Mr. Durham. I had been nominated by President Trump. I 
believe that Mr. Barr was nominated to be Attorney General by 
Mr. Trump.
    Ms. Scanlon. OK, and the AG Barr appointed you to be 
Special Counsel, right?
    Mr. Durham. He appointed me as Special Counsel, yes.
    Ms. Scanlon. OK. In contrast to the independence and lack 
of interference, which you have noted on multiple occasions 
that has been performed by Merrick Garland, Agent Barr had a 
very active role in your investigation. I just wanted to 
mention a couple instances.
    First, shortly after your appointment, you and AG Barr both 
traveled overseas and met with Italian officials who provided 
some allegations with respect to criminal activity by the 
former President, correct?
    Mr. Durham. We traveled to--well, this is outside the 
report, so I am not sure that I'm authorized to talk about it. 
We went to Italy to try to pursue leads involving a particular 
mysterious professor.
    Ms. Scanlon. OK. So, you don't mention in your report those 
allegations of misconduct concerning the former President, 
correct? It is not in your report. You didn't include that 
information in your report, right?
    Mr. Durham. Which information?
    Ms. Scanlon. About your trip to Italy with AG Barr.
    Mr. Durham. No, I don't know why I would have put that in a 
report.
    Ms. Scanlon. OK, and the day the Inspector General's report 
was published, you issued a press releases saying that you 
didn't agree with some of his conclusions. Did AG Barr ask you 
to issue that press release?
    Mr. Durham. Absolutely not.
    Ms. Scanlon. OK, who did?
    Mr. Durham. I made that decision. Do you want to know why 
or no?
    Ms. Scanlon. Actually, I wanted to know first can you 
identify any other occasion in which a Special Counsel has 
released a press statement questioning another Special Counsel 
or Inspector General's Report? Can you name one?
    Mr. Durham. Yes, I don't know of any.
    Ms. Scanlon. OK.
    Mr. Durham. They may have, but I don't know about it.
    Ms. Scanlon. OK. So, did you communicate with AG Barr about 
your press statement before his released the same day, or was 
that just a fantastic coincidence?
    Mr. Durham. Did I communicate with Attorney General Barr 
about what?
    Ms. Scanlon. About your press release questioning the IG's 
Report.
    Mr. Durham. I told Attorney General Barr, I didn't ask his 
permission, I told him that I was going to do it.
    Ms. Scanlon. OK, one more question. There has been mention 
of the resignation, Nora Dannehy, in the Fall 2020. Isn't it 
true that she resigned in protest concerning pressure by AG 
Barr for you to deliver an interim report or other results 
before the 2020 Presidential Election?
    Mr. Durham. You would have to ask Ms. Dannehy that. I am 
not going to discuss the internal discussions in our group.
    Ms. Scanlon. Or we could Google it. Thank you, I yield 
back.
    Mr. Durham. It's a pretty good source of information.
    Chair Jordan. Sure is. The gentlelady yields back.
    The gentleman from Oregon is recognized.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you, Mr. Durham, for being here today and for your 
patience with us. I want to talk about that space between law 
and policy, I guess, if you will. I want to go back to--I got 
your words written during your opening statement where you said 
there were troubling violations of law and policy. Do I have 
that right?
    Mr. Durham. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Bentz. So, the assertion has been that perhaps there 
should have been more indictments, more people brought before 
the court for their actions, but it appears to me that you 
tried that and perhaps encountered--I have not looked at the 
two trials that turned out not to reach convictions, but was it 
a situation where there was something wrong, but it didn't rise 
to the level of a crime? Is that what was going on in that 
space?
    Mr. Durham. You conduct these investigation--conducted this 
investigation, the other public corruption investigations, 
organized crime investigations. When there's sufficient 
evidence that you believe that the evidence is sufficient to 
prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt, that case should be 
brought, and maybe evidence that you have, but you're not 
confident that would be sufficient to prove a case beyond a 
reasonable doubt and sustain that case on appeal and you don't 
bring the action. Here there was conduct, some of which was 
misconduct. There's conduct that was probably criminal, but you 
couldn't prove it. That's true here it appears in other 
instances as well.
    Mr. Bentz. Right, and I think the phrase ``political bias'' 
or ``confirmation of bias'' has been used a number of times. Is 
that a crime?
    Mr. Durham. Confirmation of bias is not a crime; it's part 
of our human condition, I suppose.
    Mr. Bentz. Yes. So, you may well have found; and this 
sounds like you did, troubling violations of law and policy 
which perhaps would not lead to, and did not of course, 
convictions, but it doesn't make it any less wrong when we have 
our law enforcement agencies engaging in this kind of conduct. 
I think that is why you call it troubling. Do I have that 
right?
    Mr. Durham. You have that right.
    Mr. Bentz. The question I suppose is what can we do about 
this situation looking forward? If it is not a crime, but we 
know it is wrong, what should we be doing? I think you made 
some suggestions. Can you recite those for us and what--you 
spent four years in this space, and there is, obviously, things 
going wrong that we can't convict people for, or at least it 
doesn't rise to the level that will warrant that approach. What 
should we be doing?
    Mr. Durham. Yes, the real difficulty, in my view, is trying 
to figure out how to hold people accountable for their conduct. 
It's not a simple problem to solve.
    In the context of the FISA situation, for example, or maybe 
it would be the case in any instance in which there's what's 
referred to in the bureau as a sensitive investigative matter, 
a SIM, that there are additional rules that apply there, you 
know? Maybe, there's--it's time where if an agent is going to 
sign a FISA application in a sensitive investigative matter 
that they not only understand that they're signing under the 
penalties of perjury, but if the bureau determines that they 
intentionally misstated anything that their employment will be 
terminated. There's real teeth in--when somebody signs an 
affidavit, swears to something before a judicial officer, there 
are consequences if that is untrue. There are criminal 
penalties, but there sure as heck ought to be other penalties 
as well. I mean, there are things like that in these sensitive 
cases.
    This is not a normal case. This is a Presidential Election 
and it affected the Nation. Maybe they ought to instill a 
practice, for example, of red teaming, which we tried to do to 
the extent in our investigation, which is you have a group of 
people who take the opposite side to make the argument to try 
to point out either where the weaknesses are or where 
additional evidence needs to be developed.
    It may be that the benefit--that the bureau would benefit, 
as it said in the report, from having something of an ombudsman 
who would look at FISA applications or look at the 
investigative effort being undertaken in these sensitive 
investigative matters who looks at how the investigation is 
progressing and whether or not in that person's estimation the 
investigation is being done independently and in a disciplined 
way. There are those kinds of things. Ultimately, I don't know 
how you hold people responsible absent their integrity and that 
kind of overview, or review of what the investigation is doing.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Durham.
    I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from Colorado is recognized.
    Mr. Neguse. I thank the Chair.
    Mr. Durham, thank you for testifying today. Thank you for 
your service to our country.
    Mr. Durham. It's been a real pleasure.
    Mr. Neguse. Well, we appreciate your service to our 
country, to the Department of Justice. I have read your report, 
as I suspect most of the Members of the Committee have, and 
appreciated your work.
    I want to talk a bit about your interactions with main 
Justice, with the Department of Justice, in particular, with 
Attorney General Garland. Did Attorney General Garland permit 
your inquiry to proceed independently?
    Mr. Durham. Yes.
    Mr. Neguse. Did Attorney General Garland interfere with 
your inquiry, your investigation in any way?
    Mr. Durham. No.
    Mr. Neguse. Did Attorney General Garland attempt to prevent 
or stop you or your team from taking any investigative step 
that you deemed necessary?
    Mr. Durham. He did not.
    Mr. Neguse. Did Attorney General Garland provide support to 
your efforts?
    Mr. Durham. In terms of occasionally we'd need some 
personnel, in a couple of instances we had a person that was 
detailed from main Justice, yes. So, in that respect, yes.
    Mr. Neguse. Did Attorney General Garland decline to 
implement any of the recommendations that you have made?
    Mr. Durham. I don't know that.
    Mr. Neguse. The letter, the report; I believe it is on page 
3 of your report, you say, and I'll quote,

        After the inauguration of President Biden, Attorney General 
        Garland met with the Office of the Special Counsel. The office 
        very much appreciates the support consistent with his 
        testimony.

Referring to Attorney General Garland,

         . . . during his confirmation hearings that the Attorney 
        General has provided to our efforts and the department's 
        willingness to allow us to operate independently.

You stand by that, I suspect?
    Mr. Durham. I do.
    Mr. Neguse. Sounds like the Department of Justice and the 
Attorney General were supportive of your efforts, did not 
interfere in any way with the work that you did over the course 
of the last several years. There are some folks here in 
Congress, some colleagues of mine on the other side of the 
aisle, who have talked about or indicated their desire to 
defund the Department of Justice. Do you believe the Department 
of Justice should be defunded?
    Mr. Durham. I don't believe these discussions about 
defunding the police make any sense at all for the security of 
the Nation and I don't think defunding cornerstone law 
enforcement entities make a whole lot of sense. Maybe more 
oversight. Defunding in our cities and streets and so forth? 
No, that doesn't make sense to me. I've only been at this for 
40 years.
    Mr. Neguse. Sure. As I said, I am grateful to your service 
and--for your service rather and I guess I just want to put a 
finer point it because I don't--I guess I didn't hear that in 
your answer. You said a cornerstone of law enforcement. I take 
that you mean the Department of Justice. The Department of 
Justice obviously should not be defunded, right? You have 
committed your career to the Department of Justice. You are a 
former U.S. Attorney, a former Acting U.S. Attorney, 35 years 
as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, you have a decorated record of 
service to the department. I am hoping you are willing to say 
on the record clearly that you don't believe the department 
should be defunded.
    Mr. Durham. I don't believe the Department of Justice or 
the FBI should be defunded. I think there maybe ought to be 
some change and the like. Defunded? No.
    Mr. Neguse. Thank you. I appreciate your candor. I agree 
with you.
    With respect to the Office of the Special Counsel, of 
course you have concluded your service. As you know, there are 
different Special Counsels that are appointed from time to 
time. You have served in that capacity multiple times yourself. 
There is discussion of defunding Special Counsels. Do you 
support more broadly the principle of defunding the Office of 
the Special Counsel?
    Mr. Durham. Yes, I guess I would have to the particulars of 
what the discussion is, but the general notion that you had 
established Special Counsel Office--Special Counsels doing 
investigation, that you're going to defund it would not make 
sense to me, no.
    Mr. Neguse. I agree. Just to put a finer point on this, you 
served as Special Counsel for a period of years. During the 
course of your investigation for the bulk of that time 
Democrats were in control of the U.S. House of Representatives. 
There was no effort that I am aware of to defund your office. I 
assume that you would have construed that if someone had made 
an effort to defund the Office of the Special Counsel, your 
office, as you were undertaking your investigation, as 
political interference to the extent that was being done to try 
to impair or impinge on your investigation. Is that an accurate 
statement?
    Mr. Durham. Yes, if it were our office, our team, I guess 
I'd have to know the basis of that to see if I thought it was 
political or that we were--
    Mr. Neguse. Well, let's say it is because people--
    Mr. Durham. --we were spending too much money.
    Mr. Neguse. Sure. Let's say it is because people disagreed 
with the work that you were doing. They didn't like the 
investigation. They disagreed fundamentally with decisions you 
were making. I presume you would construe that as political 
interference.
    Mr. Durham. Special counsels should operate independently. 
That's the whole purpose of Special Counsels, so--
    Mr. Neguse. I certainly agree. I again, I thank you for 
being here.
    I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from Alabama is recognized.
    Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Durham, I appreciate you being here today. Sobering I 
think is a pretty good word. I think that is a good description 
of what we are talking about. When I read your report and as we 
talk about it, when I am in the district very often one of the 
major concerns is the weaponization of investigations in the 
Department of Justice against certain people in our society.
    So, yes or no, did the FBI place significant reliance on 
information given to them by President Trump's political 
opponents?
    Mr. Durham. I'm sorry. Could you just repeat that one?
    Mr. Moore. The FBI, did they place significant reliance on 
information given to them by President Trump's opponents?
    Mr. Durham. The Crossfire Hurricane investigation--well, 
the FISA, in particular, and Carter Page, the bureau had 
concluded itself, absent the dossier, they wouldn't have been 
able to establish probable cause. There was--
    Mr. Moore. Did the dossier come from President Trump's 
political opponents?
    Mr. Durham. It was funded by the Clinton Campaign and the 
DNC. So, in that degree, yes, it came--that's how it was paid 
for.
    Mr. Moore. Can you connect the dots between the Trump--I'm 
sorry, between the Clinton Campaign and the investigation of 
the FBI?
    Mr. Durham. We were investigating--did investigate what was 
behind that investigation, how did it get started, was it 
properly predicated as a full investigation by the FBI, and why 
did it then continue even after Director Mueller had found lack 
of sufficient evidence concerning conspiracy or collusion?
    Mr. Moore. Mr. Durham, is that what you call sobering? 
Would that be sobering to you?
    Mr. Durham. What's sobering to me in connection with this 
investigation is the FBI, the people who were involved in the 
Crossfire Hurricane investigation, ignoring exculpatory 
information, discarding information that was inconsistent with 
the investigative narrative, with using information; in this 
instance from the Steele Dossier, to establish probable cause, 
to electronically surveil a United States citizen who happened 
to be a Naval Academy graduate. Those things are sobering to 
me.
    Mr. Moore. Are sobering? I would agree with that. Did the 
FBI ever fail to take or delay taking action in an 
investigation involving Hillary Clinton?
    Mr. Durham. Well, there's a portion of the report that 
relates to the disparate treatment. So, did the FBI delay? 
There are three instances that are identified in the report 
where the FBI's investigative efforts were considered 
considerably more disciplined than was the case with respect to 
Mr. Trump.
    Mr. Moore. More disciplined you mean biased? Let me move 
on, Mr. Durham. I don't want to run out of time.
    Did the FBI give the Clinton Campaign a defensive briefing?
    Mr. Durham. They--in a particular matter the FBI gave Ms. 
Clinton's legal representatives a debriefing of a defensive 
nature, yes.
    Mr. Moore. Why wasn't the same done for the Trump Campaign 
and President Trump?
    Mr. Durham. We explored that during the course of the 
investigation. What we learned is set out in the report. It 
would appear, from at least what we were told, very little 
thought went into whether they should give anybody on the Trump 
Campaign a defensive briefing. They didn't do it.
    Mr. Moore. A lot of thought went into giving Hillary 
Clinton's Campaign a defensive briefing apparently, but not 
President Trump.
    Mr. Durham. In one incidence the--I think you're referring 
to the submission of a FISA application. In that matter against 
the foreign interest was premised on them giving a defensive 
briefing to Ms. Clinton and some other political--
    Mr. Moore. Mr. Durham, is it safe to say that the Clinton 
Campaign colluded with the Russians to accuse Donald Trump of 
colluding with the Russians?
    Mr. Durham. I could not phrase it that way. I could say is 
that the Clinton Campaign funded the information that showed up 
in the dossier. The Clinton Campaign funded the information 
that was put together concerning an alleged secret 
communications channel between Trump and Alfa Bank, which was 
presented to the FBI through Mr. Sussmann. So, yes, there are 
those things that definitely occurred. The evidence establishes 
that.
    Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Durham. I appreciate your 
service.
    I yield back to the Chair.
    Chair Jordan. I thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Durham, Carter Page is an American citizen who--a Naval 
Academy grad--served our country. Why not just talk to him 
before you spy on him?
    Mr. Durham. In this instance, I don't know if people looked 
at this in the report--there was a particular piece of 
information that had been given to Michael Isikoff and appeared 
in a Yahoo! News article--
    Chair Jordan. Yes.
    Mr. Durham. --on September 23rd in which Mr. Isikoff lays 
out what he's obviously been told. It's clearly the information 
from Steele, but it also included a statement that a senior law 
enforcement official confirmed that Carter Page was on the 
radar screen. That matter was never referred for investigation 
as to who leaked that. This was an investigation that was 
supposed to be closely held--
    Chair Jordan. Yes.
    Mr. Durham. --a confidential, sensitive investigative 
matter. That's never referred to. Nobody ever looked at who's 
the senior law enforcement officer who gave the information to 
Michael Isikoff that Carter Page was on their radar screen? 
That's No. 1.
    Chair Jordan. Who do you think it was?
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chair, the time is well-expired. The 
witness could answer the question. You cannot ask another one.
    Chair Jordan. I appreciate that, Ranking Member, for 
pointing that fact out.
    Mr. Durham. OK. I'm not sure. Am I supposed to answer or 
not? I'm I done?
    Mr. Nadler. You are done.
    Chair Jordan. I will let you answer.
    Mr. Durham. Oh, OK. So, then with respect to Carter Page, 
Carter Page within two days of that article wrote a letter to 
Director Comey saying,

        I didn't do the things that are suggested. I didn't meet with 
        these people. I'm willing to sit down and talk to the FBI. Tell 
        me when and where essentially.

    Chair Jordan. He offered to be interviewed.
    The gentlelady from Texas is recognized for unanimous 
consent.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Let me 
submit into the record an article dated June 18, 2023. ``After 
Years of Political Hype the Durham Inquiry Failed to Deliver.'' 
I ask unanimous consent.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I would then ask unanimous consent to 
place into the record this language from a letter directed to 
Mr. Durham on May 15, 2023.

        The Federal Bureau of Investigation appreciate the Special 
        Counsel's independent review. We also appreciate your 
        acknowledgement of the extensive cooperation the FBI provided 
        to your team throughout the review including production of 
        nearly seven million pages of documents, assignment of full-
        time FBI special agents to assist in your fact finding process 
        and provision of FBI technical.

    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
    The gentlelady from Pennsylvania is recognized.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you, Special Counsel Durham, for being here today. As 
has been noted, it has been four years and $62 million of an 
investigation of an investigation. The Durham Reports makes no 
new recommendations to change FBI policy or procedure. It does 
not conclude that the Crossfire Hurricane investigation should 
not have been opened. It even acknowledges that the Clinton 
Campaign did nothing worthy of prosecution. Sadly, the Durham 
Report dredges up allegations from unsuccessful prosecutions 
including claims that have been rejected by judge and jury.
    The flaws of the Durham process were so troubling that some 
aides resigned in protest. I did google, and, in fact, read the 
news articles around the resignation of Nora Dannehy that--it 
is reported that she resigned because of pressure on and the 
Special Counsel group to produce a report or an interim report 
prior to the Presidential Election.
    You can't comment on Nora Dannehy's personnel matter. Were 
you ever encouraged, persuaded, pressured to issue an interim 
or a report prior to the Presidential Election?
    Mr. Durham. I can say without hesitation I was not 
pressured into doing anything.
    Ms. Dean. Was it suggested to you?
    Mr. Durham. It was not suggested to me.
    Ms. Dean. Yet, it might have been suggested to someone who 
worked under you, separate from you?
    Mr. Durham. I don't believe so.
    Ms. Dean. OK. Mr. Durham, would it have been a dereliction 
of duty if the FBI sat on its hands and did not investigate 
with the information, they had in front of them? Isn't it 
true--
    Mr. Durham. I'm sure the Bureau has an obligation to 
investigate. They should investigate information that they 
receive from the public or otherwise. Generally speaking, yes, 
they have an obligation to look at and assess information.
    Ms. Dean. In this case, they had an affirmative duty to 
investigate, would you agree?
    Mr. Durham. They had an affirmative duty to assess the 
information they had gotten from the Australian diplomat.
    Ms. Dean. Which would be an investigation. You were 
assigned to investigate that investigation. Mr. Durham, when 
did you first meet with Attorney General Barr about a potential 
investigation into the Mueller Report, the Mueller 
investigation?
    Mr. Durham. I was appointed in May 2019. I had met Attorney 
General Barr after--not in connection with these matters, but I 
think I initially met the Attorney General when I came the U.S. 
Attorney for Connecticut, so I--
    Ms. Dean. Let me just put the calendar together. It was on 
March 22nd that the Mueller Report was submitted to Attorney 
General Barr. Would you agree with that?
    Mr. Durham. That's yes, March 22nd, correct.
    Ms. Dean. According to public records you met with Attorney 
General Barr on March 25th, three days later?
    Mr. Durham. OK.
    Ms. Dean. On March 24th Attorney General Barr released his 
so-called summary document of a 448-page report which blatantly 
mischaracterized the findings in the Mueller Report. Would you 
agree with that?
    Mr. Durham. No.
    Ms. Dean. Did you discuss the Mueller Report during your 
meeting with Mr. Barr on March 25th?
    Mr. Durham. I don't believe so. I think that--
    Ms. Dean. The timing was three days after he received the 
report, and you don't think in your meeting you talked about 
the Mueller Report?
    Mr. Durham. I don't think that it was when I was meeting 
the Attorney General because I had become the U.S. Attorney in 
Connecticut in mid to late-February.
    Ms. Dean. Maybe you could search your memory and get back 
to us on that. It is troubling to me because it is clear you 
were brought in by Attorney General Barr the same week the 
Mueller Report was released and the day after his misleading 
letter, which hung out there for 25 days before the public got 
our hands and our eyes on the redacted report.
    You were hired to investigate the investigators. One week 
after you met with Mr. Barr, on April 13th, Attorney General 
Barr's counselor Seth DuCharme emailed you offering assistance 
on behalf of Barr saying, quote,

        John, the AG has made me aware of the redacted material you're 
        working with him on and he asked me to provide you with my 
        support and assistance.

Is that true?
    Mr. Durham. I think that's correct.
    Ms. Dean. OK.
    Mr. Durham. I don't remember the date, but that sounds 
right.
    Ms. Dean. That is only April, so I am wondering if you 
weren't yet put into this field.
    Donald Trump was very vocal on Twitter, as he always has 
been, about his belief that the Mueller investigation should 
never have been taken. Are you aware of his tweets?
    Mr. Durham. I know that the former President was a tweeter, 
yes.
    Ms. Dean. He was a tweeter. Some Republicans on this 
Committee believe that part of your purpose was to exonerate 
Mr. Donald Trump. I want to take you back to your opening 
statement. It is at paragraph 4. As you know, Mr. Durham, you 
said this morning:

        If repeated or left unaddressed these issues could result in 
        significant national security risks and further erode public 
        faith in our justice system.

    We now sit with a former President indicted 37 counts of--
around the documents, the classified documents that he took, he 
held, me moved, he concealed, he lied about, and he showed to 
other people. Thirty-seven counts. If repeated or left 
unaddressed these issues could result in significant natural 
security risk and further erode public faith in our justice 
system.
    I thank you for your service, for pointing out what really 
matters when we have a very dangerous former President and 
criminal indictment to come, a mess of Mr. Trump's on making.
    Chair Jordan. The time--
    Ms. Dean. I am baffled by this Committee's lifting up of a 
corrupt President.
    Chair Jordan. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
    Ms. Dean. I thank you for indulging me just as you indulged 
yourself. Thank you.
    Chair Jordan. God bless you. That's right.
    Ms. Dean. God bless you.
    Chair Jordan. Equal opportunity.
    Mr. Durham, if you can go one more round--
    Mr. Durham. You do this every day?
    Chair Jordan. Yes. Well, this is relatively calm to some 
hearings we have. If you can go one more and then we will give 
you a break. We will recognize the gentleman and we will give 
you a quick break, maybe 5-10 minutes, then we will come back 
and finish.
    The gentleman from California is recognized for five.
    Mr. Kiley. Mr. Durham, several people today, including 
Ranking Member Nadler and three representatives from 
California: Mr. Schiff, Mr. Swalwell, and Mr. Lieu, have 
attacked you. Ranking Member Nadler called your report a 
political exercise with ethical ambiguity. Mr. Lieu called you 
a partisan hack. However, it seems that they are taking issue, 
not so much with the conclusions of your report as those of Mr. 
Mueller's Report, which concluded that the investigation did 
not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or 
coordinated with the Russian government in its election 
interference activities.
    That conclusion directly contradicted statements made on 
the record by those representatives. For example, Mr. Schiff in 
2017-2018 made statements such as:

        The Russians offered help, the campaign accepted help, the 
        Russians gave help, and the President made full use of that 
        help, and that is pretty damning.

He also said,

        There's clear evidence on the issue of collusion. I think 
        there's plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy in plain 
        sight.

    Mr. Durham are those statements supported by the 
conclusions of the Mueller Report?
    Mr. Schiff. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Kiley. No.
    Mr. Durham, are those statements supported by the Mueller 
Report?
    Mr. Durham. I don't believe so.
    Mr. Kiley. Mr. Nadler stated,

        It's clear that the campaign concluded and there's a lot of 
        evidence of that. The question is was the President involved?

Mr. Nadler also said, ``There was obviously a lot of 
collusion.''
    Mr. Durham, were those statements supported by the Mueller 
Report?
    Mr. Durham. I don't believe they were supported by the 
Mueller Report.
    Mr. Kiley. Mr. Lieu stated in a press release in March 
2017,

        The bombshell revelation that U.S. officials have information 
        that suggests Trump associates may have colluded with the 
        Russians means we must pause the entire Trump agenda. We may 
        have an illegitimate President of the United States currently 
        occupying the White House.

    Mr. Durham, did the Mueller Report establish that we had an 
illegitimate President occupying the White House?
    Mr. Durham. Not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Kiley. Mr. Swalwell stated in 2018, ``In our 
investigation we saw strong evidence of collusion.'' Did the 
Mueller Report support that there was strong evidence of 
collusion?
    Mr. Durham. Not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Kiley. Even here today we had Mr. Schiff raise 
questions about your public statement during the investigation 
saying that somehow violated a DOJ policy, however Mr. Mueller 
himself made a public statement in January 2019. This is an 
article from CNN headlined ``Mueller's Office Disputes Buzzfeed 
Report that Trump Directed Michael Cohen to Lie to Congress.''
    So, whatever policy there might exist in the DOJ with 
respect to public statements by Special Counsels it would seem 
that you and Mr. Mueller would be on equal footing with respect 
to it. Is that correct?
    Mr. Durham. Would seem so.
    Mr. Kiley. Ranking Member Nadler also suggested that we are 
only here today because of the recent indictments of President 
Trump, however you received your assignment as Special Counsel 
in 2019. Is that correct?
    Mr. Durham. That's correct. In 2020--Special Counsel was in 
2020.
    Mr. Kiley. In 2020. Was that before or after the events 
alleged in the recent indictments by the President?
    Mr. Durham. That was before.
    Mr. Kiley. Is it customary for a Special Counsel to come 
testify in Congress on the issuance of their report?
    Mr. Durham. This is my first experience with this sort of 
thing, so I know that Director Mueller had the occasion to 
testify before Congress, so I guess this is not unique.
    Mr. Kiley. So, it is pretty likely you would have been here 
whether or not the President had been recently indicted?
    Mr. Durham. Yes.
    Mr. Kiley. Contrary to Ranking Member Nadler's statement?
    I want to quote from you a part of your report where you 
say,

        There are reasons why in examining politically charged and 
        high-profile issues the office must exercise and has exercised 
        special care.

One of those statements you said is that,

         . . . even when prosecutors believe that they can obtain a 
        conviction there are some instances in which it may not be 
        advisable to expand government time and resources on a criminal 
        prosecution, particularly, where it could create the 
        appearance, even unfounded, that the government is seeking to 
        criminalize the behavior of political opponents or punish the 
        activities of a specific political party or a campaign.

    Could you just expound on that a little bit, this idea that 
there are prudential considerations that may counsel against 
prosecution even if there has been some technical violation of 
a statute?
    Mr. Durham. Sure. The standard principles of Federal 
prosecution include kind of as a bedrock that you ought not to 
bring a prosecution unless you believe in good faith that 
there's sufficient evidence to prove a case beyond a reasonable 
doubt and the jury will convict and that the conviction can be 
sustained on appeal.
    There may be those instances, in which, you're pretty well 
convinced that a crime was committed and can identify the 
person who committed it, but you can't in good faith say a jury 
is likely to convict in this case, we believe that a jury will 
convict and that we can sustain it on appeal. Those are the 
principles we tried to apply here, that we followed here, the 
same principle I've followed for 40 years as a Federal 
prosecutor.
    Mr. Kiley. What are you referring to when you say that 
there might be additional considerations involving the 
perception that you are criminalizing the behavior of political 
opponents?
    Mr. Durham. Yes, these are difficult things. For example, 
take in this case, I think all the Members of the Committee 
have had access to--whether they took advantage or not I don't 
know, but we filed a classified appendix here, right? So, there 
are some prosecutions where it may very well be that it looks 
like and you think you can prove the crime beyond a reasonable 
doubt, but because of the classified nature of much of your 
evidence it's never going to see the light of day. So, that 
might preclude a prosecution. Things of that sort come up that 
are part of the prudential judgment that a prosecutor has to 
make in these matters.
    Mr. Kiley. I yield back. Thank you.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    The Committee will take a short break, short recess. If we 
can come back in 10 minutes, so at 12:05, we will come back. 
Give everyone a short break before we resume.
    [Recess.]
    Chair Jordan. The Committee will come to order. The 
gentlelady from Texas is recognized for five minutes.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. 
Durham. Mr. Durham, after Inspector General Horowitz found 
serious errors last year with one aspect of the Russia 
investigation but found accusations of a politically motivated 
FBI plot to be baseless, Donald Trump said, quote,

        I look forward to the Durham Report which is coming out in the 
        not too distance future. It's got its own information which is 
        this information.

Meaning the Horowitz information, ``plus, plus, plus.'' Mr. 
Durham, do you consider your report to be the Horowitz report 
``plus, plus, plus''? Can you turn your mic on? I'm sorry.
    Mr. Durham. I suppose that's for other people to judge. The 
report speaks for itself in my view.
    Ms. Escobar. OK. Your one criminal conviction was for 
doctoring an email about a surveillance warrant, wasn't it?
    Mr. Durham. That's correct.
    Ms. Escobar. Who referred this information for prosecution?
    Mr. Durham. That matter was referred by the Inspector 
General's office.
    Ms. Escobar. OK. This individual pleaded guilty. Isn't that 
right?
    Mr. Durham. That's correct.
    Ms. Escobar. OK. Can you tell us what his sentence was?
    Mr. Durham. He was sentenced to 12 months' probation--
    Ms. Escobar. That's right.
    Mr. Durham. --for fabricating a document which was used to 
get a surveillance order on an American citizen.
    Ms. Escobar. Did you charge any high-level FBI or 
intelligence officials with a crime?
    Mr. Durham. No.
    Ms. Escobar. Right, you did not. In your report, you are 
highly critical of the FBI's Russia investigation. Is that fair 
to say?
    Mr. Durham. Certain aspects of it, yes.
    Ms. Escobar. OK. Did you recommend new charges as a result 
of those criticisms?
    Mr. Durham. We weren't able to prove matters--I couldn't 
say under the guiding principles to be able to prove matters 
beyond a reasonable doubt because of lack of recollections, 
passages of time, and inconsistent statements. So, no, we 
didn't.
    Ms. Escobar. So, no, you did not. Right. Did you suggest 
any significant changes to how future investigations should be 
conducted?
    Mr. Durham. I guess it's for others to judge whether 
they're significant suggestions or not. I think that more 
disciplined approaches to these matters can be affected by some 
of the recommendations we made, yes.
    Ms. Escobar. OK. I would say you did not suggest any 
significant changes. In the FBI statement in response to your 
report, it said that the FBI conduct you examined was, quote,

        The reason that current FBI leadership already implemented 
        dozens of corrective actions which have now been in place for 
        some time.

Mr. Durham, do you know why the corrective actions have been in 
place for some time at the FBI?
    Mr. Durham. I think I know, yes.
    Ms. Escobar. OK. Is it because the Inspector General 
finished his report 3\1/2\ years ago, making recommendations 
for changes that the FBI could make?
    Mr. Durham. In part.
    Ms. Escobar. OK. In the four years that you spent tracking 
down Donald Trump's conspiracy theories, other investigations 
were conducted and completed. These investigations and the 
Horowitz investigation primarily identified the problems with 
the FBI investigation. The one thing the Horowitz Report did 
not do was give Donald Trump and my Republican colleagues 
across the aisle talking points for their conspiracy theories. 
On that front, you delivered. I'd like to yield the remainder 
of my time to my colleague, Mr. Schiff.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Durham, your report attempts to make a case 
that the investigations of Clinton were given more favorable 
treatment to that of President Trump. You leave out one very 
notable example and that is your report makes no discussion of 
the fact that the email investigation to Hillary Clinton was 
made very public before the election, was it not?
    [Crosstalk.]
    Mr. Schiff. You had James Comey discussing Hillary 
Clinton's emails on the days leading up to the election?
    Mr. Durham. If I follow your question, I don't think that 
the report says that the Clinton--that Ms. Clinton was given 
more favorable treatment. I think what the report says is that 
the RBI exercised some considerable discipline and how it was 
going to approach those matters as compared to how the FBI 
people who were involved in Crossfire Hurricane--
    [Crosstalk.]
    Mr. Durham. --approached Crossfire Hurricane.
    Mr. Schiff. Why, Mr. Durham, would you leave out a glaring 
contrast between the FBI's public discussion of the Clinton 
investigation right before the election and it's keeping 
confidential the Trump investigation? Wasn't that a glaring 
disparity in how they were both treated?
    Mr. Durham. I don't know. I mean--
    Mr. Schiff. You really don't know the answer to that 
question?
    Mr. Durham. --the FBI did, and Mr. Comey did what they did. 
I was asked to--
    Mr. Schiff. Yes, they did what they did and in glaring 
contrast how they treated the Trump investigation which was 
kept secret before the election whereas the Clinton 
investigation was discussed publicly affecting the outcome. 
Isn't that correct?
    Mr. Durham. I can tell you that the FBI had that 
information and sat on it for months before they acted and 
making a public disclosure.
    Chair Jordan. Gentleman's time is expired. The gentleman 
from Texas is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Durham, thank you for 
coming to testify today before the Committee. I'm a recovering 
attorney and a former judge.
    Mr. Durham. God love you.
    Mr. Moran. Thank you. As such, I know firsthand the 
importance of following procedures. I know law enforcement and 
prosecutors across this Nation do that on a daily basis. They 
do that because they want to ensure that the criminal 
investigation is conducted properly.
    They need to adhere to a full due process of law and fair 
application of the law. Quite frankly, process matters because 
how we go about our investigations will either give credibility 
to our conclusions or will belie or conclusions. Do you agree 
with that?
    Mr. Durham. Wholeheartedly.
    Mr. Moran. Would you agree that some of the important steps 
in an investigation would including simply vetting the initial 
information in claims, obtaining the relevant documents, 
talking to the relevant witnesses, determining the credibility 
of those witnesses and documents, and doing a lot of that by 
seeking corroboration of what is either provided in written 
testimony or oral testimony or in documentary form? Is that 
true?
    Mr. Durham. That's absolutely true.
    Mr. Moran. The definition of corroboration is not 
difficult. Evidence that supports or confirms a statement, 
theory, or finding is effectively confirmation. That's what we 
need in an investigation is we need to confirm whether or not 
an allegation is true or not, correct?
    Mr. Durham. Yes.
    Mr. Moran. As your report showed, the FBI did not follow 
its well established procedures and did not corroborate the 
information that they were receiving. Is that fair to say?
    Mr. Durham. That's a fair statement.
    Mr. Moran. Take, for example, page 54 of your report. You 
show that the FBI opened a full investigation into George 
Papadopoulos. They did so a mere three days after receiving 
intelligence from Australia. During those three days, do you 
think the FBI attempted to corroborate the information they had 
initially received?
    Mr. Durham. If they did, we didn't see any evidence of that 
fact.
    Mr. Moran. In fact, on page 112 in your report, you say, 
quote,

        Despite the lack of any corroboration of the Steele reports, 
        sensational allegations. However, in short order, portions of 
        four of the reports were included in the initial Carter Page 
        FISA application without further verification or corroboration 
        of the allegations contained therein.

You also state on page 57 about Australia.

        Australia could not and did not make any representation about 
        the credibility of information.

That's because they couldn't verify or corroborate that 
information. Is that truth?
    Mr. Durham. That's correct.
    Mr. Moran. You further go on to say on page 57 that, quote,

        The Office of Special Counsel found no indication from witness 
        testimony, electronic communications, emails, calendar entries 
        or other documentation that at the time the FBI gave any 
        consideration to the actual trustworthiness of information 
        diplomats received from Papadopoulos.

Do you remember writing that portion of the report?
    Mr. Durham. I do.
    Mr. Moran. It seems amazing to me that the FBI would not 
give consideration to the actual trustworthiness of certain 
information found in an investigation at this level. You write 
extensively on how the FBI elected to not interview Carter 
Page, George Papadopoulos, or Charles Dolan. Would interviews 
with those key individuals have helped to corroborate or 
dispute the information that the FBI was receiving?
    Mr. Durham. Yes.
    Mr. Moran. Through your investigation, did you uncover any 
reason as to why the FBI elected to not interview these 
individuals?
    Mr. Durham. I know that the people--operational people 
doing the investigation were told they could not interview Mr. 
Page until the seventh floor authorized it. Then the director 
didn't authorize the interview of Mr. Page until March 2017.
    Mr. Moran. You also noted that it took 75 days to pass the 
Steele Dossier to the Crossfire Hurricane team. Seems to me 
that is belying the ability of the investigative team to 
actually corroborate what the allegations were. Would you agree 
with that as well?
    Mr. Durham. I would agree with that.
    Mr. Moran. Mr. Durham, in my opinion, a failure to 
corroborate information leads to holes in credibility. It also 
gives rise to potential corruption or actual corruption. The 
American people now know based on your report that during the 
peak of the Presidential Campaign, the FBI elected not to 
follow its own basic procedures and instead watch a politically 
motivated investigation into a leading Presidential candidate.
    I am confident and hopeful that there are still many good 
agents within the FBI who are there to perform their sacred 
duty of protecting and serving our Nation that undertake 
investigations on a daily basis without regard to political 
affiliation. That's my hope. That's my belief.
    Mr. Durham. That's my experience.
    Mr. Moran. Your report, Mr. Durham, shows that at least top 
FBI leadership in this case was politically motivated and did 
not follow longstanding procedures necessary for a proper 
criminal investigation. I heard you say to my colleagues on the 
left a little while ago, quote, ``Nothing in the files would 
corroborate the claims.'' Another quote, ``Not one single fact 
in the Steele Dossier has been corroborated.''
    It is amazing to me that we would go through a high-level 
investigation like this and fail to adhere to a basic principle 
of investigative procedures and that is corroborate the witness 
testimony and corroborate the evidence. With that, I yield my 
time. I thank you for your efforts on this.
    Mr. Massie. [Presiding.] The gentleman yields back. Now, 
I'll recognize Ms. Ross from North Carolina for her questions.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Durham for 
your endurance. You have cited and discussed the Justice 
Department's principles of Federal prosecution. I'd just like 
you to explain for the public what that is. What are those 
principles?
    Mr. Durham. Sure. The general principles of Federal 
prosecution, as I've indicated, provide that Federal 
prosecutors should not bring criminal charges unless he or she 
believes that the evidence that will be admissible at trial is 
sufficient to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable 
doubt and that a jury can convict based on evidence. That if 
the conviction were obtained, then the conviction would be 
sustained on appeal or upheld on appeal.
    Ms. Ross. OK.
    Mr. Durham. Those are the basic principles we operate 
under.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you very much. One major goal of the 
principles is to ensure that individuals' rights are, quote, 
``scrupulously protected.'' Is that correct?
    Mr. Durham. That's correct.
    Ms. Ross. The principles also contain a limitation on 
identifying uncharged third parties publicly. Is that correct?
    Mr. Durham. There's a limitation on that, yes.
    Ms. Ross. It states that,

        In all public filings and proceedings, Federal prosecutors 
        should remain sensitive to the privacy and reputation interests 
        of uncharged third parties.

I'm just quoting it. Is that correct?
    Mr. Durham. That is correct.
    Ms. Ross. Great. Do you believe that you adhere to this 
limitation in your prosecutorial filings in the Sussmann and 
Danchenko cases?
    Mr. Durham. Yes.
    Ms. Ross. Now, that's very interesting because many legal 
scholars noted that in your filings you laid out not just the 
prosecution for the court to consider, but you appear to be 
alleging a conspiracy that you did not intend to prosecute. 
Rather than indicting Mr. Sussmann on the narrow charge of 
lying to the FBI, this is a charge which a unanimous jury of 
his peers acquitted him of. Your filing broadly alleges a vast 
Clinton conspiracy identifying various individuals and at least 
one of whom you never prosecuted.
    After the Sussmann indictment was filed, on September 16, 
2021, for example, President Trump's allies used the broad 
conclusions you allege to construct a political narrative 
damaging the reputations of uncharged individuals. In fact, on 
September 19, 2021, Eric Trump spoke with the Washington 
Inquirer treating these uncharged allegations as fact. The next 
day on September 20, 2021, Trump associate Kash Patel told Fox 
News that the indictment offers a good view into future 
charges, including what he called a very well laid out 
conspiracy charge that will envelope people in and around 
Hillary Clinton's Campaign. Did you read these interviews or 
are you aware of them?
    Mr. Durham. I did not read them. I can imagine that's what 
people were saying. I did not read them. I don't read a lot of 
newspapers or listen to a lot of news.
    Makes my life a lot easier.
    Ms. Ross. Had you known that was what was going to be done 
with the indictment, would you have used greater caution?
    Mr. Durham. I think we took great care in drafting and 
crafting that indictment and did to the best of our ability 
comply with all the departments' policies and procedures 
regarding third persons. I think if you take a look at the 
indictment and any number of instances, for example, people's 
identities were masked. We didn't use a person's name.
    Ms. Ross. So, I'm just going to reclaim my time because I 
think that there were people who were implicated and there was 
not a narrow enough tailoring of the indictment. Then, in fact, 
after the February 11th filing in the Sussmann case, Donald 
Trump told Fox News that the conspiracy he claims you described 
but never prosecuted amounted to treason at the highest

        If you read the filing and have any understanding of what took 
        place and I called this a long time ago. You're going to see a 
        lot of other things happening having to do with what really 
        just is a continuation of the crime of the century.

    This is such a big event. Nobody has seen anything like it. 
Given that kind of politicization of what you did, do you think 
that you could've exercised more caution again with respect to 
third parties?
    Mr. Durham. I exercised my judgment under the guiding 
principles that I had and whether or not an indictment ought to 
be returned and decided on that basis. Did I give consideration 
to what Donald Trump might say about it? I would say that was 
not part of my consideration.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
    Mr. Massie. The gentlelady yields back. The gentleman from 
New Jersey is not recognized for his questions.
    Mr. Van Drew. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Durham, thank you 
for being here. I know it's been one heck of a slog. I wish 
that we could just stick to the matter at hand which is your 
report. It's been interesting. We've been all over the place.
    Fidelity, bravery, and integrity, these are the words that 
have guided the FBI through countless generations. Dishonesty, 
deception, and corruption and I'm sad to say, historic contrast 
and unfortunately reality we now find ourselves in. A reality 
that has revealed a politicized, weaponized, and corrupted 
Federal Bureau of Investigation in desperate need in my opinion 
for complete restructuring.
    One of the most egregious examples of dishonest that the 
Durham Report reveals relates to a critical piece on page 16 
that summarizes a deeply troubling chain of events. Igor 
Danchenko who is instrumental in the formation of a Steele 
Dossier claim that one of his subsources was Sergei Millian, a 
Belarusian-American businessman and publicly known to be a 
Trump supporter. The report goes on to highlight that Danchenko 
claimed to have received an anonymous phone call from an 
individual he later claimed to be Millian.
    On page 173, it is stated this call supposedly revealed, 
quote, ``a well-developed conspiracy of cooperation between the 
Trump Campaign and Russian leadership'' The kicker here? The 
kicker is Danchenko had never meeting nor spoke with Millian 
prior to this call and told the Crossfire Hurricane team that 
despite never actually meeting Millian, he recognized his voice 
from a YouTube video.
    This blatant lie was taken at face value by both 
Christopher Steele and the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane 
investigation. Think about that. Everybody think about that.
    Danchenko was a foreign agent who the FBI was paying by the 
way. We haven't talked about that much. Hundreds of thousands 
of your taxpayer dollars, tells a blatant lie which leads to 
four FISA applications and lays the foundation for the Trump-
Russia collusion hoax. That's what it was.
    You may not like it, but that's what it was. One of the 
greatest disgraces this country in my opinion has ever seen. 
Americans are literally paying the price for this corruption.
    Such an egregious and intentional abandonment of the common 
procedures that FBI agents are supposed to follow truly 
encapsulates why so many Americans including myself are calling 
for complete restructuring of the FBI. There's a reason why now 
years later the country finds itself so divided. Mr. Durham, is 
it accurate to say the Crossfire Hurricane investigators made 
little to no effort to corroborate Danchenko's version of 
events relating to Millian?
    Mr. Durham. That would be correct.
    Mr. Van Drew. Thank you. Is it accurate to say that despite 
not corroborating this information that Crossfire Hurricane 
still used the Millian accusation to bolster the Carter-Page 
FISA applications?
    Mr. Durham. That information was used in the initial FISA 
application and the three renewal applications.
    Mr. Van Drew. So, the answer is yes?
    Mr. Durham. Yes.
    Mr. Van Drew. Given the lack of effort by the Crossfire 
Hurricane investigators to validate Danchenko's assertions 
about Millian and their use of these unverified allegations in 
the Carter-Page FISA application, does this raise any legal or 
ethical concerns about the validity of these FISA applications?
    Mr. Durham. I think it's been recognized by the department 
and certainly by the FISA Court to do it respective at least 
some of those applications. They would never have been 
authorized. So, it wouldn't have been granted had the 
information been disclosed.
    Mr. Van Drew. So, it did help in achieving FISA approval?
    Mr. Durham. Without question.
    Mr. Van Drew. OK. We're getting into the real--these are 
the real issues, disinformation, bad people, moving forward, 
getting FISA applications, doing all that they did. I have one 
quick last question. Do you believe the FBI has been 
politicized and weaponized and is in need for complete 
restructuring?
    I know I do. I know you have a softer version of it. I 
think too much happened. Too many bad things happened that you 
just can't move a few people around and make some minor 
changes.
    I think you need some major changes. I also want to say 
there are many good people that work for the Department of 
Justice and work for the FBI. Proud to know them. These folks 
surely were not.
    Chair Jordan. [Presiding.] Gentleman's time has expired. 
The witness may respond if he chooses.
    Mr. Durham. What I can say is that there were identified 
documented significant failures of a highly sensitive, unique 
investigation that was undertaken by the FBI. The investigation 
clearly reveals that decisions that were made were made in one 
direction. If there was something that was inconsistent with 
the notion that Trump was involved in a well-coordinated 
conspiracy with the Russians and that information was largely 
discarded or ignored. I think unfortunately that's what the 
facts bear out.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentlelady 
from Georgia is recognized.
    Ms. McBath. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Special 
Counsel Durham, for your time today. I yield the balance of my 
time to my colleague from California, Representative Adam 
Schiff.
    Mr. Schiff. I thank you for yielding. One of my colleagues 
in the Republican side of the aisle took issue with my saying 
that the Trump Campaign invited Russian help, received Russian 
help, made use of it, and then lied about it. So, let's break 
this down.
    Let's go to invited Russian help. Mr. Durham, you're aware 
of Donald Trump's public statements along the lines of, hey, 
Russia, if you're listening, hack Hillary's emails. You'll be 
richly awarded by the press. Are you aware of that?
    Mr. Durham. I'm aware of that.
    Mr. Schiff. You're aware that Mueller found that hours 
after he made that plea for Russian help, the Russians, in 
fact, tried to hack one of the email servers affiliated with 
the Clinton Campaign or family.
    Mr. Durham. If that happened, I'm not aware of that.
    Mr. Schiff. You're not--
    Mr. Durham. It could very well. I just don't know.
    Mr. Schiff. --aware of that in the Mueller Report? When 
you're saying you're not aware of evidence of collusion in the 
Mueller Report, it's because apparently you haven't read the 
Mueller Report every well if you're not aware of that fact. Let 
me ask you about something else.
    Mr. Durham. Sure.
    Mr. Schiff. Don Jr. when offered dirt as part of what was 
described as Russian government effort to help the Trump 
Campaign said, ``if it's what you say, I love it.'' Would you 
call that an invitation to get Russian help with dirt on 
Hillary Clinton?
    Mr. Durham. The words speak for themselves, I supposed.
    Mr. Schiff. I think they do. In fact, he said, especially 
late in summer. Late in summer was around when the Russians 
started to dump the stolen emails, wasn't it?
    Mr. Durham. Late in the summer, there was information that 
was disclosed by WikiLeaks in mid to late July. I think there 
had been some in June, and then there was maybe some later in 
October was it, I think. Don't hold me to those dates.
    Mr. Schiff. This gets to the receipt of help, second thing 
I mentioned, receiving Russian help. The dumping of those 
emails by the way just as forecast by what Papadopoulos told 
the Australian diplomat. That is that the Russians would help 
by leaking dirt anonymously through cutouts like WikiLeaks and 
DCLeaks.
    Mr. Durham. I don't think that's exactly what he told the 
Australians.
    Mr. Schiff. Well, he said that he was informed that the 
Russians could anonymously release this information, right?
    Mr. Durham. Release what?
    Mr. Schiff. By anonymously releasing information damaging 
to Hillary Clinton, right?
    Mr. Durham. I think if you read what's in the cable and 
what's in the report as to what the diplomats reported there 
was a suggestion of a suggestion that the Russians could help. 
They have damaging information as to Ms. Clinton.
    Mr. Schiff. By releasing it anonymously, right? That's 
exactly what happened, isn't it?
    Mr. Durham. I don't--
    Mr. Schiff. You really don't know?
    Mr. Durham. I'm not sure--when you say exactly what 
happened--
    Mr. Schiff. Well, the Russians released stolen emails 
through cutouts, did they not?
    Mr. Durham. There were emails that were released by 
WikiLeaks.
    Mr. Schiff. It's a very simple question. Did they release 
information, stolen information, through cutouts, yes or no?
    Mr. Durham. I'm not sure that--
    Mr. Schiff. You really don't know the answer to that? The 
answer is yes, they did. Through DCLeaks--
    Mr. Durham. In your mind, it's yes.
    Mr. Schiff. Well, Mueller's answer is yes. More important 
than mine, Mueller's answer was yes. Now, that information, of 
course, was helpful to the Trump Campaign, wasn't it?
    Mr. Durham. I don't think there's any question that 
Russians intruded into hacked into the systems.
    Mr. Schiff. Well, I just want to get--
    Mr. Durham. They released information.
    Mr. Schiff. That was helpful to Trump Campaign, right?
    Mr. Durham. The conclusion in the ICA and in the Mueller 
investigation was that the Russians intended to assist--
    Mr. Schiff. Can you answer my question, Mr. Durham? That 
was helpful to Trump Campaign, right?
    [Crosstalk.]
    Mr. Schiff. Trump made use of that, as I said, didn't he, 
by touting those stolen documents on the campaign trail over 
100 times?
    Mr. Durham. Like I said, I don't really read the newspapers 
or listen to the news.
    Mr. Schiff. You were totally--
    Mr. Durham. I don't find them reliable, so I don't know 
that.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Durham, you were totally oblivious to 
Donald Trump's use of the stolen emails on the campaign trail 
more than 100 times?
    Mr. Durham. I'm not aware of that.
    Mr. Schiff. Did that escape your attention?
    Mr. Durham. I am not aware of that.
    Mr. Schiff. Are you aware of the final prong that I 
mentioned, that he lied about it, that the Trump Campaign 
covered it up? It's the whole second volume of the Mueller 
Report. I hope you're familiar with that.
    Mr. Durham. Yes, that's a section of the report, the second 
volume relating to their obstruction of justice.
    Mr. Schiff. Well, thank you for confirming what my 
Republican colleague attacked me about. He also criticized the 
use of the word collusion. Apparently giving private polling 
data to the Russians while the Russians are helping your 
campaign, they don't want to call it collusion.
    Maybe there's a better name for it. Maybe they would prefer 
we just call it good old fashioned GOP cheating with the enemy. 
Maybe that would be a little bit more accurate description.
    Mr. Durham. Yes.
    Mr. Schiff. Because this is what happened. They seem 
allergic to calling it for what it is. I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. Gentleman yields back. Gentlelady from 
Indiana is recognized.
    Ms. Spartz. Mr. Durham, I recall excepts from your report 
describing the actions in Trump's case. You call them sobering. 
I call them alarming.
    Rapid opening, made no sense, no sound reason, no 
explanation, difficult to explain, no followup on corroborated 
evidence, unevaluated information, rumors and speculation, thin 
intelligence, and exculpatory statements were not included.
    Misrepresentation of the recorded conversation, noticeable 
departure, not using typical tools, serious lack of rigor, 
choose to ignore red flags, unwarranted delay, ignoring all 
recommendation to disclose intelligence, not informed.
    Inconsistent, did not give proper attention to facts, 
didn't adequately examine, did not receive satisfactory 
explanation, was not informed, never corrected assertion, never 
advised, never been apprised, and never give proper 
consideration.
    No action, failure to make known, failure to act, failure 
to follow logical leads, failed to interview, failed to revise 
the paperwork, failure to take even the basic steps, failure to 
determine, failure to provide, and failure to integrate.
    Failure to fully explore the materials, failure to 
critically analyze information, failure to properly consider, 
failure to correct errors, ignored contrary evidence, was never 
brought to the attention, and intentionally falsified material 
documents.
    Fabricated delegation, omission of material fact, numerous 
significant facts, 17 material errors and omissions, inaccurate 
representation, deliberately shut down, told not to write and 
provide findings, orally incorrectly noted, and missed 
opportunity.
    Omitted email, omitted information, did not corroborate, 
never sought to obtain records, resisted efforts, conflicted 
recollection, failure of recollection, not a single FBI 
employee, changing assessment, and key players declining to be 
interviewed.
    Lacks sufficient probable cause, frustration on the part of 
investigators, sense of betrayal, highly unusual instruction, 
director was really, really shocking, and the list goes on.
    Dolan with extensive connection to the Democrat Party had 
access to senior Russian officials and Putin's think tank was 
never interviewed. Request was denied. Case was never open.
    On an instruction to cease all research and analysis 
related to Dolan. Leadership directed to dedicate no resources 
to Dolan. FBI interviewed hundreds of individuals, yet they did 
not interview Dolan.
    [Inaudible] failure to properly consider prior Russian 
counterespionage case, FBI's validation unit raise serious 
concern. Management ignored and resisted nearly all 
recommendations and supported continued payment to him.
    [Inaudible] Special Envoy Secretary Kerry to lead it, who 
worked as lobbyist for Russian oligarch Deripaska with ties to 
Putin. Disseminated the dossier to U.S. officials and destroyed 
his record. Deripaska was allowed to buy, control, and package 
in uranium company with extensive mining projects in the United 
States approved by Secretary Clinton's State Department in 
2010.
    The former head of the FBI's Counterintelligence Division 
in New York, McGonigal, involved with this case recently was 
accused of taking money from Deripaska. Clinton case from your 
report stands in stark contrast, lack of action, considerable 
caution, never open inquiry, in limbo, linger, defensive 
briefing, corroborate information, no effort to investigate 
cease and desist due to decline to issue subpoenas.
    Your concerned with FBI's reputational harm, but it appears 
to me using [inaudible] lexicon, this case has all classic 
earmarks of collusion and cover-up. However, not one person 
went to jail, and Clinton Campaign operatives like Jake 
Sullivan, now have the highest national security position in 
our government who's actually driving a very slow response to 
the Russian invasion of Ukraine. So, you believe that justice 
has been served?
    Mr. Durham. I can speak to what my team and I did, which 
was to try to--
    Ms. Spartz. Just tell me yes or no. Do you believe it has 
been served?
    Mr. Durham. We try to serve justice to the best of our 
ability. I can speak on that.
    Ms. Spartz. You also State Russian intelligence 
investigation for the Clinton Campaign before Crossfire 
Hurricane was open. Still subsources could have been 
compromised by Russia. However, FBI have not considered the 
possibility that there are still reports of Russian 
disinformation. Is that correct?
    Mr. Durham. We're talking about Mr. Danchenko?
    Ms. Spartz. No, just you said--this is in your report. You 
say that Russian FBI never considered the possibility that 
still reports of Russian information and [inaudible]. Is that 
correct? Do you know why?
    Mr. Durham. I don't know why.
    Ms. Spartz. OK.
    Mr. Durham. I think that's correct.
    Ms. Spartz. OK. Another one.
    [Inaudible] Stefan Halper invited Page at the request of 
FBI to conference in UK, created Manafort-Page conspiracy 
allegation in direct consequence his recordings. FBI never 
fully transparent. Recording misstated that Crossfire Hurricane 
significant [inaudible] on Page-Session conversation. He 
wouldn't [inaudible] subpoena [inaudible] case in 1980's. In 
your report, you were able to establish the CHS intentionally 
lied to the FBI, but we are not able to establish. Why and what 
you did?
    Mr. Durham. OK. I'm not sure I--
    Ms. Spartz. CHS-1.
    Mr. Durham. I'm sorry?
    Ms. Spartz. CHS-1, you said that you were not able to 
establish that CHS-1 intentionally lied to the FBI. What did 
you do or didn't do to establish it--not able to establish?
    Mr. Durham. Let me see. This is on page 89?
    Chair Jordan. Gentlelady's time has expired. We'll let the 
witness answer. I think she's referring to Confidential Human 
Source No. 1, Mr. Durham.
    Ms. Spartz. Yes, you said you were unable to establish. 
It's at the end of your report. It's on page 243.
    Mr. Durham. 243? OK.
    Ms. Spartz. Yes.
    Mr. Durham. So, the context of that is in the Steele 
reporting, one of the pieces of information that had been used 
in the dossier was that Mr. Page allegedly--
    Ms. Spartz. Did you interview him? What did you do to 
establish?
    [Crosstalk.]
    Chair Jordan. Gentlelady's time is expired. We'll let the 
witness answer the question. We are going to have to stick 
close now--closer to the five-minute rules because they're 
holding votes on the floor until we finish today's business.
    Mr. Durham. OK. So, I can--
    Chair Jordan. You can answer really quick, sure.
    Mr. Durham. So, one of the things in the Steele Report was 
that Carter Page allegedly had met with two sanctioned Russians 
when he was in Moscow in July. We are able to establish that 
this was not the truth. I mean, look at the evidence.
    That's not true. The FBI should've been able to detect that 
and they didn't detect it. That was a meeting that supposedly 
occurred in July 2016, or meetings, one of them with Mr. 
Sessions.
    Later, when the FBI had opened Crossfire Hurricane and in 
December 2016, CHS-1 met with Mr. Page, again, recorded a 
conversation with Mr. Page. He several days later told his 
handling agent that, oh, I forgot to tell you that Page said 
that Page's most recent trip to Russia where he worked or had 
business interest, he met with Sessions. The FBI when you look 
at the communications in the FBI, they're saying, that sounds 
kind of screwy here, but we should look at that.
    They apparently never looked at that. We went and got the 
recording of that conversation that had occurred between CHS-1 
and Mr. Page in December 2016. Page never said that he had meet 
with Sessions on his most recent visit.
    Mr. Ivey. Mr. Chair, that overruns--I appreciate the fact 
you gave him a chance--
    Chair Jordan. You're definitely going to get asked your 
question. The Republicans will be squeezed. I think the 
gentlelady's times has expired. We'll now go to the gentlelady 
from--I appreciate your answer, Mr. Durham. I think we 
understand what you're headed. The gentlelady from Missouri is 
recognized for five minutes.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you. St. Louis and I are here today to set 
the record straight about this political investigation 
conducted on behalf of the twice impeached, twice-indicted, 
former White-supremacist-in-chief Donald Trump. From the start, 
this entire investigation has been an attempt to undermine the 
findings of the Mueller investigation and distract the people 
of this country from Donald Trump's corruption. That's why it 
began just days after the release of the Mueller Report. That's 
why four years later and no matter how much my colleagues 
across the aisle claim otherwise, the Durham investigation did 
not exonerate Mr. Trump or any of his associates.
    Mr. Durham, I'd like to briefly discuss a few of the 
different Trump-related items that your report does not touch 
on. In the interest of time, you can just simply answer yes or 
no. The Mueller Report found that Trump Campaign Chair Paul 
Manafort knowingly shared internal polling data and information 
on battleground States with a Russian spy. Did you find this to 
be untrue?
    Mr. Durham. I did not find that to be untrue.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you. Thank you for that. The Mueller Report 
found that Mr. Manafort shared this internal polling data with 
a Russian asset with the expectation it would be shared with 
Putin-linked oligarch Oleg Deripaska. Did you find this to be 
untrue?
    Mr. Durham. I didn't find it to be untrue, but I didn't 
look at it either.
    Ms. Bush. The Mueller Report found that Russian military 
hackers first targeted Hillary Clinton's personal office within 
hours of Trump's infamous July 27, 2016 press conference, which 
we've heard already where he said, ``Russia, if you're 
listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that 
are missing.'' Did you find this to be untrue?
    Mr. Durham. When you say, this, what? Mr. Trump clearly 
said that. It was publicly recorded.
    Ms. Bush. Did you find--the Mueller Report found that 
Russian military hackers first targeted her personal office 
within hours of the infamous press conference where Trump said, 
``Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 
30,000 emails.''
    [Crosstalk.]
    Ms. Bush. Did you find this to be untrue?
    Mr. Durham. I would not--I did not find that to be untrue.
    Ms. Bush. OK. Thank you. So, again, your investigation, Mr. 
Durham, did not undercut the basic findings of the Mueller 
Report. Those who read your report as exonerating Donald Trump 
are willfully deluding themselves and the people of this 
country.
    Let's take a step back for a minute. In the chaos created 
by all these conspiracy theories and other propaganda amplified 
by right-wing hate machine, the one we continue to hear, a very 
simple point is getting lost. Republicans will do anything, say 
anything, and spend any amount of money to hide the basic truth 
that their leader is a criminal, corrupt, narcissistic buffoon.
    That's why we're still talking about Carter Page. That's 
why anyone even knows who John Durham is. That's why 
Republicans are still carrying on Mr. Durham's work by 
launching frivolous investigations that end with them 
embarrassing themselves, by propping obvious lies. It has 
always been about gaslighting the country.
    So, instead of holding these farcical hearings about 
farcical investigations, I urge my colleagues, my Republic 
colleagues, to get serious and start legislating on behalf of 
their constituents instead of helping the twice impeached, 
twice indicted Donald Trump further evade accountability. Thank 
you and I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. Gentlelady yields back. The gentleman from 
Texas is recognized.
    Mr. Nehls. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Durham, I thank you 
for being here today and thank you for your tireless work on 
this, as you called it, a very sobering report. The American 
people were forced to endure years of the Trump-Russia probe 
and for what?
    I'll tell you why. It's because my Democrat colleagues 
across the aisle, the Clintons, the dishonest mainstream media, 
and the rest of the deep-state have been terrified of Donald 
Trump from the beginning. Their hatred and fear remain today.
    From the 34-count felony indictment from the radical DA in 
Manhattan to the most recent 37 count felony indictment in Mar-
a-Lago that just won't stop. They won't stop. Mr. Durham, I 
want to walk through a few things for the American people in 
this 300-page report on Crossfire Hurricane.
    For those that are watching who don't know, this was the 
codename for the investigation undertaken by the FBI into 
whether the Trump Campaign was coordinating with Russia to 
interfere in the 2016 Presidential Election. Mr. Durham, it 
says on page 9, at the direction of FBI Deputy Director Andy 
McCabe and FBI Deputy Assistant Director for 
Counterintelligence Peter Strzok, Crossfire Hurricane was 
opened immediately. Is that correct?
    Mr. Durham. That's correct.
    Mr. Nehls. First, let's talk about who these two characters 
where. On page 9 of your report, it says, ``Strzok and Deputy 
Director McCabe, Special Assistant, have pronounced hostile 
feelings, hostile feelings toward Trump.'' In text messages 
before and after the opening of Crossfire Hurricane, the two 
had referred to him as loathsome, an idiot, Donald Trump an 
idiot, someone who should lose to Clinton 100 million to zero.
    Strzok once wrote, ``we'll stop mini-Trump from becoming 
President.'' So, here we have these two leaders and the FBI. 
Strzok clearly expressing his hatred toward Trump from the 
beginning, opening an investigation six months before the 2016 
election. Where are these two guys now?
    McCabe, he's been a contributor at CNN, the Clinton News 
Network, since 2019. Strzok is an expert on the Mar-a-Lago 
raid. Strzok is an expert on the Mar-a-Lago raid.
    Both continue to dispel lies to the American people. On 
page 10 in your report,

         . . . within days after opening Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI 
        opened full investigations on members of the Trump Campaign 
        team.

The FBI then began working on requests of the use of FISA 
authorities against Carter Page. Is that correct?
    Mr. Durham. That's correct.
    Mr. Nehls. Folks, let me highlight who this American hero 
is. Carter Page was painted as an alleged Russian agent. Carter 
Page served his Nation honorably. He was a Naval Academy 
graduate and the FBI spied on Carter Page through the use of 
FISA authority. Sir, do you believe that this FISA warrant 
against Carter Page was flawed?
    Mr. Durham. Yes.
    Mr. Nehls. Mr. Durham, Section 702 of FISA expires this 
year. I'm sure you're familiar with FISA and Section 702. Just 
for the people listening at home, FISA stands for the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act which is created in 1978.
    In 2008, FISA 702 was added. Section 702 was created for us 
to have the authority to spy on non-U.S. citizens, non-U.S. 
citizens. Mr. Durham, we all know that Carter Page is an 
American citizen who served his Nation honorably.
    Yet, the FBI conducted surveillance, including wire taps 
based on falsified information provided by agents in the FBI. 
Mr. Page was an honest American, innocent man. Mr. Durham, the 
FBI obviously abused its FISA authority.
    They went after Carter Page. It is my intent and I hope the 
intent of my colleagues that we do not reauthorize Section 702 
because the FBI cannot be trusted. Finally, I want to talk 
about Charles Dolan and Mr. Danchenko who was the main source 
of the Steele Dossier.
    Dolan had played multiple roles in the Democrat National 
Committee, Democrat Party. He worked on both Clinton Campaigns, 
Bill and Hillary. He was working with them, friends.
    On page 15 of your report, it says that in the Summer and 
Fall of 2016, Dolan and Danchenko travel to Moscow in 
connection with a business conference. The business conference 
was held at the Ritz-Carlton in Moscow which, according to the 
Steele Reports, was allegedly the site of salacious sexual 
conduct on the part of Trump. Parents, if you're watching, 
earmuff your kids now, folks. Put earmuffs for your children.
    Mr. Durham, was this salacious sexual conduct--what is 
that?
    Mr. Durham. The allegation was that--
    Mr. Nehls. OK. Don't answer it. I will.
    Mr. Durham. OK.
    Mr. Nehls. Think about this, America. In the game of 
politics, it gets dirty and nasty. The people will say anything 
to beat their opponent. This is the government doing it. Even 
the Director of the FBI, Comey, said, ``it's possible Trump was 
with hookers peeing on each other.'' Christopher Steele said an 
infamous Trump pee tape probably exists. Alleged pee tape 
incident was the only sex Trump party in Russia.
    You want to irritate the suburban mom at home, five months 
before an election, tell them the Republican leading candidate 
is peeing on prostitutes. We are aware of the Member of this 
Committee having an alleged affair with a Chinese spy I refer 
to as Yum Yum. This is a new low for anyone. I would hope Mr. 
Swalwell would agree with me. Imagine if somebody would've 
said, and taken this step further, Mr. Swalwell was peeing on 
Yum Yum.
    Chair Jordan. Time of the gentleman--
    Mr. Nehls. It's unacceptable. This has got to stop. The FBI 
needs to--
    Chair Jordan. Time of the gentleman has expired.
    Mr. Nehls. I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman--
    Mr. Ivey. Mr. Chair, I ask that the last comments be 
stricken with respect to Mr. Swalwell.
    Mr. Nehls. My point is this. If you're going to say the 
President of the United States was in Russia peeing on 
prostitutes or vice versa, I'm just saying could you imagine 
how that would affect any Member of this Committee. It would 
affect you. You're going to pick up a primary opponent, I'll 
guarantee that.
    Mr. Ivey. That's a little different than making a specific 
allegation about a specific individual on this particular 
Committee.
    Chair Jordan. If I could, the gentleman from Maryland. The 
Chair has been very lenient in things being said. Previous 
speaker from the Democrats called the former President of the 
United States all kinds of things, and we sat here and let it 
go.
    Probably should've said something then. Maybe everyone 
should be careful about what they say. The gentleman from 
Maryland is recognized for his five minutes. We have to move 
fast.
    Mr. Ivey. Before we get to that, Mr. Chair, those rules 
don't cover--the rules that govern this Committee don't cover 
statements about people--
    Chair Jordan. I'm talking about decorum in--
    Mr. Ivey. --who are not on the Committee.
    Chair Jordan. I'm just talking about general decorum.
    Mr. Ivey. They do cover statements about Members of the 
Committee and Members of the House.
    Chair Jordan. I've admonished the gentleman, he should 
watch what he says, just like other Members should watch what 
they say about the former President of our country. Gentleman 
from Maryland is recognized for five minutes of questioning.
    Mr. Ivey. The former President is not a Member of the 
Committee--
    Chair Jordan. I know that.
    Mr. Ivey. --and is not protected by the House rules--
    Chair Jordan. I understand that.
    Mr. Ivey. --that govern these kinds of statements.
    Chair Jordan. I understand. The gentleman is recognized for 
five minutes to question the witness.
    Mr. Ivey. Well, Mr. Durham, good afternoon. I appreciate 
you being here, although I'm sure as you expressed earlier 
there are probably other places you'd rather be. I did want to 
followup on your prior testimony about the trip that you and 
the Attorney General Barr took to Italy. I wanted to ask you to 
elaborate on that. I take it that was at the point to you 
becoming Special Counsel, but not by much. Is that right?
    Mr. Durham. It was prior to that. I think it was a while 
before.
    Mr. Ivey. The dates I've got, just to help out, August 15th 
and September 27, 2019. Does that sound about right?
    Mr. Durham. Yes, and I was appointed Special Counsel in 
October 2020, so more than a year before that.
    Mr. Ivey. OK. Why did you go on that trip?
    Mr. Durham. I want to be careful as to what I'm authorized.
    Mr. Ivey. Sure.
    Mr. Durham. I'm here speaking outside the report. I think 
Members are probably aware of the fact that there was a 
particular person who supposedly have provided or had made 
statements to Papadopoulos. Papadopoulos, not when he talked to 
the Australians, but when he was interviewed by the FBI, 
attributed information he had to this particular person who's a 
European. There's a reason to believe that person lives in 
Italy or had been in Italy.
    Mr. Ivey. All right. Let me ask just to followup on that. 
Why did the Attorney General come with you to investigate that?
    Mr. Durham. This is my understanding. These weren't 
communications I had. The Italian authorities wanted to deal 
with a person at an appropriate level, not with me. So, that's 
what that was about. That's my understanding.
    Mr. Ivey. All right. Was it unusual for the Attorney 
General of the United States to go on trips to interview 
witnesses, whether overseas or even domestically?
    Mr. Durham. Yes, he didn't--to my knowledge, the Attorney 
General didn't interview any witnesses. My understanding was 
that in accordance with what the Italian authorities wanted, he 
was going to go over--did go over and introduce me to them so 
that they would work with us to see if they could be of 
assistance in our locating a particular witness.
    Mr. Ivey. All right. So, he personally traveled to Italy in 
the pursuit of this investigative lead?
    Mr. Durham. In opening the door for our group--
    Mr. Ivey. To pursue an investigative lead. All right. Then 
you said you'd been at the Department of Justice for 40 years?
    Mr. Durham. I have been.
    Mr. Ivey. All right. Do you recall the Attorney General of 
the United States ever taking a step like that to travel 
overseas in pursuit of a lead and an investigation?
    Mr. Durham. I don't know. It may happen all the time. I can 
only talk by my experience.
    Mr. Ivey. Fair enough. Fair enough. Fair enough. I take it 
that whatever investigation was done over there in Italy didn't 
lead to any type of prosecution or convictions in your 
investigation?
    Mr. Durham. That's correct.
    Mr. Ivey. All right. I want to yield the remainder of my 
time to Mr. Schiff.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Durham, did you seek communications 
pertaining to someone named Mr. Bernard from a Federal District 
Judge?
    Mr. Durham. I'm not--assuming that prosecutors go to judges 
for certain kinds of orders there, typically sealed 
proceedings. I'm not speaking--
    Mr. Schiff. Did you seek an order to--
    Mr. Durham. I'm not going to comment on anything that I 
believe is under seal.
    Mr. Schiff. Did you seek a court order to obtain personal 
communications returning to Mr. Bernard?
    Mr. Durham. I'm not going to speak beyond the report and 
that point. I'm not going to violate any--
    Mr. Schiff. Were you--
    Mr. Durham. --sealing orders.
    Mr. Schiff. I don't think it violates any sealing orders to 
tell us if you sought personal communications by court order. 
Did you?
    Mr. Durham. Again, beyond the report--
    Mr. Schiff. Well, let's not even--
    [Crosstalk.]
    Mr. Durham. --subject to sealing orders--
    Mr. Schiff. Did you seek court orders to obtain particular 
records? Were you denied by the judge?
    Mr. Durham. I think the question is intended to suggest 
that I don't want to disclose something I'm uncomfortable with.
    Mr. Schiff. The question is what I asked you, Mr. Durham. 
You get to give the answer, not the question. The question is, 
did you seek a court order to get records from a judge 
pertaining to private communications? Were you turned down by 
the judge for lack of a sufficient basis?
    Mr. Durham. I told it's beyond the report.
    Mr. Schiff. Yes or no?
    Mr. Durham. I don't think I'm authorized to talk about, and 
I'm not going violate--
    Mr. Schiff. It's not beyond the report. It's not beyond the 
report.
    Mr. Durham. Do you see anything in the report about that?
    Mr. Schiff. Yes. Did you seek an order, and were you turned 
down? Then did you seek to go around the court order by going 
to the grand jury?
    Mr. Durham. No. Would you like to know what that was about?
    Mr. Schiff. What I would like to know, Mr. Durham, is does 
Ms. Dannehy who resigned from your team raise ethical concerns 
about your trying to go around the court order?
    Mr. Durham. To my knowledge, no.
    Mr. Schiff. Then why did she leave?
    Mr. Durham. I told you before previously that I have the 
highest regard for Ms. Dannehy. Ms. Dannehy and I are friends. 
Ms. Dannehy--
    Mr. Schiff. You know why she left, right?
    Mr. Durham. I'm not sure--
    Mr. Schiff. You do know the answer to the question. You 
know why she left, right?
    Chair Jordan. Time of the gentleman has expired. The Chair 
now recognizes--
    Mr. Ivey. Mr. Chair, if I might ask unanimous consent to 
offer two articles for the record. The first is by Charlie 
Savage, Adam Goldman, and Katie Benner, ``How Barr's quest to 
find flaws in the Russian inquiry unraveled.''
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    Mr. Ivey. Then the second is Anna Momigliano, sorry, 
``Italy did not fuel U.S. suspicion of Russian meddling, Prime 
Minister says,'' both from The New York Times.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection. The gentleman from North 
Carolina is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Bishop. Mr. Durham, I've got a number of things I want 
to ask you. Do you desire to address what was being raised just 
now in fairness?
    Mr. Durham. Yes, apparently, Mr. Schiff's questions are 
from an unsourced The New York Times article written by Charlie 
Savage. I don't believe there's anything in that article that 
is attributed to Ms. Dannehy in my recollection. I could be 
mistaken. My recollection is that Ms. Dannehy did not comment 
or wasn't quoted anyway in that article. So, to the extent that 
The New York Times wrote an article suggesting certain things, 
it is what it is.
    Mr. Bishop. What Danchenko's status as a paid confidential 
human source concealed from you for any period of time?
    Mr. Durham. I'm not sure it was concealed. We found that 
out. Once--
    Mr. Bishop. When did you learn about it?
    Mr. Durham. When we started to, the investigation and how 
long it took for the FBI to identify the principle subsource 
and why the principle subsource wasn't identified earlier. 
That's when we came across Danchenko. We then asked the Bureau 
for--we found out he was a confidential human source. We asked 
the Bureau for his informant file. That's when we gleaned that 
information.
    Mr. Bishop. OK. So, it was from his informant file once you 
got that from the FBI. Was there any delay in furnishing that 
to you?
    Mr. Durham. Not that I recall, no.
    Mr. Bishop. Do you have any recollection--you were 
investigating you said from May 2019, he was a CHS until 
October 2020?
    Mr. Durham. Yes.
    Mr. Bishop. Do you know when in that period of time roughly 
you learned that he was a CHS?
    Mr. Durham. Probably halfway through there. I'm not 
certain.
    Mr. Bishop. OK. Why didn't you interview him while he was a 
paid source for the FBI?
    Mr. Durham. So, with respect to Mr. Danchenko, he was 
interviewed by the Bureau in February 2017. We had brought it 
to the attention of the new administration and the FBI. Mr. 
Danchenko's circumstances including the prior espionage case 
that they never resolved or addressed.
    Mr. Bishop. Right. I understand all those details. I'm 
asking why you didn't interview him.
    Mr. Durham. So, when we were dealing with that section, Mr. 
Danchenko was represented by counsel. Mr. Danchenko as you may 
know in the normal course, you have to advise people whether 
they're subjects or targets of investigations. We did not 
arrive at a point where we could interview Mr. Danchenko.
    Mr. Bishop. Now, FBI made Danchenko a CHS on March 7, 2017. 
After the factual predicate for Crossfire Hurricane in the 
Steele Dossier or had collapsed in January 2017 in his 
interview because he could not corroborate the dossier. He 
revealed to the FBI that he was not a Russian based source nor 
did he have a high-level network of sources.
    The next day, March 8th, the FBI finalized talking points 
drafted by Lisa Page on direction of Andrew McCabe for use in 
briefing the Gang of Eight in Congress. Congress was briefed 
prior to Director Comey's testimony on March 20th. Attorney 
General Barr told the Nation December 2019 that you were 
examining the continuation of the investigation beyond the 
January collapse of the supposed factual basis. Looking at 
irregularities, misstatements, and omissions, yet your report 
makes no mention of the March 8th talking points prepared for 
Congress. Why?
    Mr. Durham. I'm aware that there were talking points. It 
just was part of the crux of the proportion of what we're 
reporting on.
    Mr. Bishop. I want the clerk to put up on the screen what 
is marked #7 while I'm asking you this question. These talking 
points emerged into public as a defense exhibit in the Sussmann 
case. They contained lurid allegations about Manafort operating 
high-level contacts with the Kremlin through Carter Page, that 
Steele had a primary subsource who was Russian-based.
    The primary subsource had a network of high-level 
Republican subsources. Same garbage that Danchenko had debunked 
in his January interview, these talking points were circulated 
among senior FBI leaders and Department of Justice leaders, 
more than a dozen. Did you interview them all about how this 
could occur or consider this material as the basis of 
prosecutable offenses?
    Mr. Durham. We identified and interviewed many people in 
the FBI. I guess I would have to know who this particular email 
was circulated to, to be able to tell you whether we 
interviewed each of those persons or not.
    Mr. Bishop. Last point, I guess, because I'm about out of 
time, you identified the failure of the FBI to interview Dolan 
as sort of inexplicable, totally agree. As I go through your 
report and look, there are people who declined to be 
interviewed, not only Dolan, Danchenko, Comey, McCabe, 
Priestap, Strzok, Page, Glenn Simpson, among others. Seems 
inexplicable to me that you didn't compel their testimony. Can 
you explain that?
    Mr. Durham. Sure. First, let me make it clear that it is as 
disappointing, perhaps more disappointing to me and my 
colleagues that these people would not agree to be interviewed. 
I know some of them had a lot to say publicly. They refused to 
be interviewed by our folks.
    I'm not going to speak to any particular person because I 
don't want to violate any rules. I'm going to give you the 
general kinds of considerations that go into these things. 
First, the only way in which you can compel as it were a 
person's testimony would be to get a court order after somebody 
asserted their Fifth Amendment privilege.
    So, one factor, there are multiple factors. One factor is 
that a grand jury subpoena doesn't give a Federal prosecutor 
the authority to simply force people to talk about things that 
the prosecutor or this instance the investigative reviewers 
might be interested in. To properly use a grand jury subpoena, 
you need to have an active grand jury investigation that's 
ongoing and a reasonable belief to believe that the person you 
want to have come in has relevant information about that 
information.
    Otherwise, you run up against claims of grand jury abuse or 
claims of trying to set a perjury trap or other bad faith 
reasons. So, you can't just subpoena people to make them talk. 
You can subpoena people when you believe they have relevant 
information. So, that's a factor.
    You also take into consideration if a person has previously 
refused to cooperate. They won't cooperate with you on matters, 
even matters that they previously talked about. On prior 
occasions, as people have repeatedly said, I don't recall, I 
don't remember, and so forth and so on.
    You have to make the prudential judgment, well, OK, if you 
were to subpoena a person because you can make an argument that 
they have information that might be relevant to the 
investigation, is it going to be worth the effort to have them 
come in and then repeatedly say, I don't recall, I don't 
recall? You look at the most sensitive piece of information you 
all saw in classified information, right, that source. Mr. 
Comey was asked about that in a Congressional hearing under 
oath, and he didn't recall. So, you make the decision, OK, are 
we likely to get something or not.
    Ms. Balint. Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Durham. We over?
    Chair Jordan. Yes.
    Mr. Durham. All right. Thanks for--
    Chair Jordan. Gentlelady from Vermont, our newest Member, 
is recognized for five minutes.
    Ms. Balint. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Durham, thanks so 
much for being here. I know we've been at this for hours now, 
so I'll get right to it.
    Nothing in the report that I've heard so far today that 
I've read exonerates Donald Trump. You didn't find that his 
campaign did not overtly flirt with Russia. You didn't find 
that he did not attempt to overturn the 2020 election.
    You also cannot exonerate Donald Trump for the things he 
does in the future obviously, just as you cannot control the 
agenda of Congress or what we do here in our hearings under 
Chair Jordan. Now, Mr. Durham, I don't necessarily agree with 
the origins of your investigation, nor the conclusions that you 
reach in the report. I do absolutely respect your position as 
Special Counsel and the actions of the DOJ as an independent 
entity. So, Mr. Durham, I think it's really important for us to 
establish do you agree that it's important for the Justice 
Department to be independent from the rest of the Executive 
Branch?
    Mr. Durham. Obviously, the Department of Justice plays some 
role in connection with--
    Ms. Balint. It must be independent?
    Mr. Durham. --the department decisions.
    Ms. Balint. Must have some independence?
    Mr. Durham. Right.
    Ms. Balint. It was important to you that Attorney General 
Garland did not interfere with your Special Counsel 
investigation, correct?
    Mr. Durham. Correct.
    Ms. Balint. In fact, as we mentioned earlier, you thanked 
him for giving you the latitude to operate without his 
involvement or interference, correct?
    Mr. Durham. Correct.
    Ms. Balint. Donald Trump has consistently eroded the 
barrier between the DOJ and the rest of the Executive Branch. 
During his administration, Trump interfered in Mueller's 
prosecutions such as when he criticized Roger Stone's 
sentencing recommendations as, quote, ``horrible and very 
unfair,'' which resulted in the DOJ overturning its 
recommendation and all four career prosecutors handling the 
case, actually withdrew within hours of that decision for 
ethical objections. Are you familiar with the Roger Stone 
sentencing recommendations? Do you follow that at all?
    Mr. Durham. I'm sorry, the Roger Stone sentencing 
recommendation?
    Ms. Balint. Yes.
    Mr. Durham. No. I know there was one made. I don't recall 
what it was.
    Ms. Balint. OK. So, regardless of the sentencing 
recommendations, is it appropriate for any President to 
interfere with a Special Counsel's prosecutions?
    Mr. Durham. No, the Special Counsel is supposed to be 
independent of the Department of Justice.
    Ms. Balint. That's right. Not appropriate. Never 
appropriate. Donald Trump has promised to do more of this if 
he's reelected. He has said it publicly on numerous occasions. 
So, Mr. Trump, should the DOJ continue to operate independently 
from the President, again, any President, yes or no?
    Mr. Durham. I'm sorry. Can you just repeat that one?
    Ms. Balint. Should the DOJ continue to operate 
independently from the President, yes or no?
    Mr. Durham. Yes, the Department of Justice should operate 
independently.
    Ms. Balint. Thank you, Mr. Durham. As I said, Donald Trump 
has made it clear that if he is reelected, he wants to use the 
DOJ to go after his political enemies regardless of the facts. 
He has shown that he is willing to dismantle American democracy 
if it will put him on top.
    He has demonstrated his willingness to do this as 
President. He's promised publicly to continue to do this if he 
is reelected. Taking apart our institutions is a refrain that 
we have heard over and over again from some of my Republican 
colleagues.
    We even have seen a Subcommittee created under Chair Jordan 
that is essentially tasked with rooting out examples of our 
government being weaponized. Those branches of government and 
those agencies within government that are trying to hold people 
accountable should be dismantled. I think they're essentially 
being accused of weaponizing specifically because they're 
choosing to hold people accountable.
    I find that deeply disturbing as an American. I think we 
all should be alarmed by this trend. I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. Gentlelady yields back. Gentleman from Texas 
is recognized.
    Ms. Balint. Mr. Chair, if I could. I have some documents to 
ask to be--
    Chair Jordan. If you do it really quickly. They're going to 
call votes. We want to get moving.
    Ms. Balint. Yes. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the 
record William Barr's February 6th letter.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    Mr. Balint. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the 
record Order No. 4878--from October 19, 2020.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    Ms. Balint. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Jordan. Gentleman from Texas--
    Mr. Durham. Mr. Chair, could I just add one thing?
    Chair Jordan. Sure.
    Mr. Durham. I'm unsure that I understood your question. 
When you say the department should operate independently of the 
White House, and I think in investigations and so forth and so 
on, that's absolutely true. The Department of Justice obviously 
plays a role in, and the Executive Branch of the government 
represents the President on occasion and so forth and so on.
    So, I was talking about should the White House interfere 
with criminal investigations and the like. The answer is 
absolutely no. In terms of operating completely independent of 
the White House, that would not be accurate.
    Chair Jordan. They're part of the Executive Branch. 
Gentleman is recognized.
    Mr. Roy. I thank the Chair. Mr. Durham, October 3, 2016, 
the FBI offered Christopher Steele a million dollars to provide 
corroborating evidence of the allegations in his reporting. Is 
that correct?
    Mr. Durham. Yes.
    Mr. Roy. Was that paid to him?
    Mr. Durham. I'm sorry. What that what?
    Mr. Roy. Was that paid to him?
    Mr. Durham. That money was never paid out.
    Mr. Roy. Right.
    Mr. Durham. There was no corroborating information.
    Mr. Roy. Mr. Steele relied solely on a single unnamed 
subsource, correct?
    Mr. Durham. He said that he had a primary subsource who had 
a network of subsources.
    Mr. Roy. On October 18, 2016, the FBI submits the 
application for FISA surveillance relying heavily on the Steele 
Dossier. No corroboration, correct?
    Mr. Durham. No corroboration for the substantive claims in 
that.
    Mr. Roy. They knew Steele was a sign up paid informant. 
Could've asked for sources. Never did. Said he was reliable. No 
record of reliability, correct?
    Mr. Durham. Mr. Steele had provided information in other 
areas, not in this area, prior occasions.
    Mr. Roy. The FISA application relied, according to your 
report, at least in part on the Clinton plan intelligence, 
correct?
    Mr. Durham. I'm sorry?
    Mr. Roy. The FISA application relied, according to your 
report, at least in part on the Clinton plan intelligence, 
correct?
    Mr. Durham. Yes.
    Mr. Roy. They knew Steele had been hired by Fusion GPS. 
Fusion had been hired by a law firm on behalf of senior 
Democrats that H.C. was aware, correct?
    Mr. Durham. At various points in time, those things became 
known to the FBI, yes.
    Mr. Roy. In December 2016, the FBI determined that Igor 
Danchenko, a Russian nationalist previously subject to FBI 
investigation to be Steele's subsource, correct?
    Mr. Durham. Yes.
    Mr. Roy. They do not talk to Danchenko before the next FISA 
application, correct?
    Mr. Durham. Correct.
    Mr. Roy. On January 12, 2017, the FBI goes back to renew 
the application for FISA surveillance, correct?
    Mr. Durham. Yes.
    Mr. Roy. Coincidentally, one week before Trump is 
inaugurated, correct?
    Mr. Durham. Correct.
    Mr. Roy. They then after two trips to FISA finally talked 
to Danchenko. Basically, determined it's all crap, because 
they've been relying on a Democrat operative, Dolan, correct?
    Mr. Durham. Well, part of that is they clearly had relied 
on the information in the Steele Dossier. There's a portion of 
one report from Steele that was definitely tied to Mr. Dolan.
    Mr. Roy. Then in March 2017, Jim Comey testified here on 
Capitol Hill that the FBI under its counterintel authorities 
has investigated Trump for collusion with Russia and people 
might get indicted, correct?
    Mr. Durham. Correct.
    Mr. Roy. Is it normal for the FBI Director to talk about 
FISA-related investigations publicly as a general matter?
    Mr. Durham. I would say general matter, I would say no.
    Mr. Roy. Right. Again, knowing full well the uncorroborated 
allegations and knowing full well the genesis of said 
investigation was tied to Hillary Clinton's Campaign which the 
FBI Director would've known?
    Mr. Durham. People in the FBI knew that.
    Mr. Roy. Correct. In April 2017, they go back to FISA. They 
report they've interviewed principal source, that the source is 
credible. They leave out the entire fact that it's only 
credible in making clear what they relied on before was total 
garbage. They continued to the Summer of 2017, correct?
    Mr. Durham. That's correct.
    Mr. Roy. Under Federal law and FISA rules, once they know 
there's an error. Some material fact is incorrect in previous 
applications. You've supposed to correct that, right?
    Mr. Durham. That's correct.
    Mr. Roy. Was that done here, yes or no?
    Mr. Durham. Not at the time.
    Mr. Roy. Was Deputy Director McCabe in charge of this 
investigation?
    Mr. Durham. Deputy Director McCabe had direct involvement--
    [Crosstalk.]
    Mr. Roy. Was Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok heavily 
involved in the investigation? Was FBI Director Comey briefed 
on the investigation?
    Mr. Durham. The evidence we came on was, yes, they were 
definitely. This is driving by--
    [Crosstalk.]
    Mr. Roy. Each FISA application is a verified application, 
and there's a Woods file with every factual assertion kept in a 
file, correct?
    Mr. Durham. Correct.
    Mr. Roy. Is it reasonable to believe that senior FBI 
leadership and indeed senior leadership at the DOJ did not know 
all these failures to ensure truthful facts were used for each 
FISA application, an application directly focused on an 
American Presidential Campaign? Is it reasonable to believe 
that senior FBI leadership and indeed senior leadership at DOJ 
did not know these failures?
    Mr. Durham. I would distinguish between what the FBI knew 
and what Department of Justice knew.
    Mr. Roy. So, FBI leadership knew it?
    Mr. Durham. The FBI and people in the FBI knew this 
information. Not everybody knew everything, but they had all 
this information.
    Mr. Roy. Two final questions, in the fall of 2021, our 
colleague, Mr. Schiff, said in an interview, but that the 
beginning of the Russia investigation, I said that any 
allegation should be investigated. We couldn't have known, for 
example, people were lying to Christopher Steele. Is it 
remotely conceivable that the Chair of the House Intelligence 
Committee and the lead prosecutor of the impeachment of 
President Trump was uninformed that this investigation was 
kicked off based on a Clinton Campaign Democrat funded report 
where they witnessed Mr. Steele claiming facts that were 
uncorroborated and that ultimately came from a subsource, a 
Democrat operative, Mr. Dolan. Is that conceivable?
    Mr. Durham. No.
    Mr. Roy. In fact, is evidence out of the House Intelligence 
Committee that directly contradicts that and he did know, in 
fact?
    Mr. Durham. Yes, I wouldn't know what Mr. Schiff would know 
at the time.
    Mr. Roy. Finally, a final question. For the average 
American watching this besides being fired, have Jim Comey, 
Andrew McCabe, or Peter Strzok been held accountable for these 
glaring violations? Have they been hauled before a grand jury 
or charged in any way? If not, why not?
    Mr. Durham. So, they have not been--I'm not going to talk 
about matters that occurred before the grand jury because I 
can't. With respect to have any of those individuals been 
charged, the answer is no.
    Mr. Roy. I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. Time of the gentleman has expired. The 
gentleman from Texas--the other gentleman from Texas is 
recognized.
    Mr. Hunt. Thank you, sir. Thank you so much for appearing 
today. I really appreciate it. I want to tell you about how my 
friends, neighbors in Tomball, Spring, Texas and of course 
Americans across this country are feeling today after listening 
to this.
    They feel that we have a two-tiered justice system in this 
country and it's terrifying. So, I applaud your work. I 
actually find it to be sincere in working on behalf of the 
American people. I recognize that.
    I also feel like we need to hold the people accountable for 
participating in a sham of an investigation. I'm going to tell 
you why. What happened in 2016 was unprecedented.
    The same government agencies that were investigating 
President Trump and his campaign were looking the other way 
when it came to the allegations against the Clintons. At the 
same time, the Clinton Campaign paid for the Steele Dossier the 
DOJ and FBI were helping to cover up Clinton's crimes. We know 
this to be a fact.
    Thirty-three thousand emails miraculously disappeared. 
Phones were smashed with hammers by the FBI. Even CNN fact 
checked this, and it turned out to be true. Yes, CNN. They 
refused to prosecute her.
    This selective prosecution doesn't only favor the Clintons, 
those as we have seen in very recent history. Sir, I'm sure you 
are familiar with what's going on with Hunter Biden's plea deal 
and his refusal to pay his taxes and a separate agreement to 
dismiss his felony gun possession, both of which were announced 
yesterday. Are you familiar with that, sir?
    Mr. Durham. Yes.
    Mr. Hunt. Hunter Biden will likely serve no jail time for 
his offenses, and yet there was no early morning SWAT raid on 
Hunter's home in coordination with the media either. The 
American people are sick and tired of this two-tiered justice 
system. As a Black man, I'm tired of seeing this kind of 
discretion used to favor people like Hunter Biden because he's 
White and a son of a President.
    Hunter Biden will serve no jail time for these charges. 
Black men across this country are imprisoned for years for the 
exact same crimes. I'm not surprised because I guess selective 
justice shouldn't become as a surprise to anyone in this room. 
Because after all, Joe Biden was one of the authors of the 1994 
crime bill, one of my all-time favorites.
    We can see what that has done to Black men across this 
country. Back to this report, this report concerns, one, many 
investigations into Trump that led absolutely nowhere with vast 
amounts of resources and time to spread lies, rumors, and 
innuendos about Trump across this country. What we know is that 
the Clinton Campaign and the DNC paid for the Steele Dossier 
which was used as a basis for the FISA warrants to spy on an 
incoming President. Correct, sir?
    Mr. Durham. Much of that the dossier was paid for was from 
the campaign through Perkins Coie hiring of Fusion and Fusion's 
hiring of Steele.
    Mr. Hunt. Thank you, sir. The biggest problem that I have 
is that not of the significance has been prosecuted over this 
sham investigation. No one who participated in this 
investigation is serving any jail time today.
    I think we've kind of heard that resonate throughout the 
halls of this room today. Meanwhile, the DOJ, the same agency 
that is responsible for this phony investigation in 2016 is at 
this very moment seeking to put Donald Trump in prison for over 
400 years over a document issue. Last I checked, President 
Biden has a bit of a document issue himself before he was even 
the sitting President of this country.
    Again, it's another example of this two-tiered justice 
system. My colleagues on the left talk about democracy. Well, 
here's what I know about democracy.
    In 2016, Donald Trump was elected by the American people to 
be their Commander in Chief. He wasn't allowed to serve in that 
capacity because he and his administration spent four years 
responding to Democrat invented scandal after Democrat invented 
scandal. Here we are seven years later, still talking about 
President Trump and this Democrat invented scandal.
    This does not look like a Democracy to me. As a West Point 
graduate and combat veteran, I fought broad against 
authoritarian countries. I know what they look like, and I know 
what those countries do and how they treat their people.
    I also know what democracy looks like. My fear is that this 
looks like the death of democracy. It's up to us in this room 
to do something about it.
    Sir, I thank you very much for your time. Thank you for 
hanging in there. I really appreciate it, and I yield back the 
rest of my time, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. [Presiding.] The gentleman yields 
back. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Durham, did you see evidence of collusion 
between Russia and the Trump Campaign in 2016?
    Mr. Durham. No.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, the American public that has been told 
this hoax for years, it was just that, a hoax. Is that correct?
    Mr. Durham. Our investigation showed that there were a lot 
of failures in the FBI and how they did this investigation that 
did not disclose or reveal information or evidence concerning 
any conspiracy or collusion between Mr. Trump and Russian 
authorities.
    Mr. Tiffany. By the way, I hope you'll give me a full five 
minutes, Mr. Chair. Are you familiar with the January 5, 2017, 
meeting that was held in the White House? President Obama was 
there. Vice President Biden was there. Susan Rice was there and 
others. Are you familiar with that meeting?
    Mr. Durham. I know that meeting occurred.
    Mr. Tiffany. Do you know that FBI Director James Comey was 
there?
    Mr. Durham. That's my understanding.
    Mr. Tiffany. Did you get access or try to get access to 
Director Comey's notes?
    Mr. Durham. We reviewed--in connection with our inquiry, we 
looked at phone records, notes, those sorts of things. I don't 
recall seeing any notes of Mr. Comey's from that meeting. They 
could exist, but I don't recall having seen them.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, Special Counsel, you were authorized to 
investigate whether any Federal official, employee, or any 
other person violated the law in connection with individuals 
associated with campaigns and individuals with the 
administration, including Crossfire Hurricane. Did you think 
this wasn't relevant to go after these notes? January 5, 2017, 
or in the process of the transition, weren't you inquisitive 
about that?
    Mr. Durham. Yes, as I said, I don't know. We had sought 
from the FBI all such records. What I can't tell you is that 
there were any records. That's what I'm saying.
    Mr. Tiffany. Could you repeat that last answer?
    Mr. Durham. Sure. I think as we set out in the report, the 
Bureau produced in excess of--I think it was 6,800,000 pages of 
records that were reviewed. Among the records that we sought 
from the FBI were relevant notes, records, telephone records, 
and the like. What I can't tell you is whether--and Mr. Comey 
being one of them. What I can't tell you because I just don't 
know is whether or not there were notes of Mr. Comey's from 
that meeting.
    Mr. Tiffany. Are you aware that in 2017 prior to the 
Department of Justice filing a motion to dismiss the case 
against General Flynn? They interviewed Mr. Priestap?
    Mr. Durham. Yes.
    Mr. Tiffany. During that interview, the Department of 
Justice found Mr. Priestap's notes, which suggested that the 
FBI was trying to entrap Mr. Flynn. Why didn't you interview 
Mr. Priestap?
    Mr. Durham. With--
    Mr. Tiffany. Why do you think it wasn't relevant to 
subpoena Mr. Priestap to gather information on his involvement 
with Crossfire Hurricane, especially the Attorney General at 
the time said they're trying to lay a perjury trap for Mr. 
Flynn?
    Mr. Durham. Sure. So, as it relates specifically to Mr. 
Priestap and it's reflected in the report, Mr. Priestap did 
agree to talk to us with regard to the Alfa Bank matter. So, we 
interviewed him on that matter. He was not willing to talk 
beyond that. As previously indicated, we were disappointed with 
some of these decisions on the part of high-ranking members of 
the FBI not to cooperate as you are.
    There are reasons. If you've got to subpoena someone to the 
grand jury which is one of the more powerful tools that you 
have, you've got to look at a number of factors that determine 
whether or not it's appropriate, whether it makes sense, 
whether it be productive. In this case, not speaking to Mr. 
Priestap's situation alone, but one of the decisions was, OK, 
does Priestap have information that would be relevant or is 
likely to be relevant to the criminal matters, not the general 
inquiry into what happened in the investigation of the 
campaign, but the criminal matters the grand jury is looking at 
or not.
    Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Durham, I only have 30 seconds here.
    Mr. Durham. Oh, OK.
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes, we're very disappointed also. I keep 
hearing this term, disappointed all day long. Let's sum it up. 
Vice President Biden and President Obama knew about it. Hillary 
fabricated it.
    The FBI orchestrated it, and the media sold it to the 
public. It's still out there. The question is, who watches the 
watchmen?
    The FBI has become a praetorian guard here protecting the 
Nation's capital but not the people of the United States of 
America. It is going to be up to us as Republicans and solely 
us as Republicans starting on this Judiciary Committee to get 
accountability to the FBI in the United States of America.
    Chair Jordan. [Presiding.] The gentleman yields back. I 
apologize, Mr. Durham, but we are going to have to--I apologize 
to my colleagues. I was wanting to get this done before votes, 
and we've been working with the floor.
    Unfortunately, they have called them. So, we're going to 
recess. It'll probably be 30 minutes, more or less. Then we'll 
come back and you can make yourself comfortable.
    Again, I apologize to our team here. I was hoping to be 
able to get through that. We'll be back in approximately half 
an hour. Committee stands in recess.
    [Recess.]
    Chair Jordan. Committee will come to order. The Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky for five minutes.
    Mr. Massie. I yield 30 seconds to the gentlelady from 
Indiana.
    Ms. Spartz. A quick followup on CHS-1 from page 243, who, 
according to your report, created conspiracy allegation in 
direct conflict with his recording and misstated significant 
material fact to the FBI, among other things, and you are 
unable to establish his intent. Would you be able to provide to 
the Committee recording of your CHS-1 interview on April 6, 
2021, for page 192, and any other interviews in your 
possession, yes or no?
    Mr. Durham. Did you refer to page 43? I'm sorry. If I can 
just find it on page 43.
    Ms. Spartz. Page 192. Will you provide recording to the 
Committee that you list, yes or not?
    Chair Jordan. The recording with Confidential Human Source 
1, I think is what she is asking about.
    Mr. Durham. Oh.
    Chair Jordan. She would like that provided--she is asking 
if that could be provided to the Committee, Mr. Durham.
    Mr. Durham. It's a piece of evidence that belonged to the 
FBI. I think probably that's better directed to the FBI.
    Chair Jordan. OK.
    Mr. Massie. Reclaiming my time. Mr. Durham, this seems to 
all started with one person, but I don't see his name in your 
report. I see it in Mueller's Report 89 times. Who did Mr. 
Papadopoulos meet with that gave him this supposed Russian 
information?
    Mr. Durham. When Mr. Papadopoulos was interviewed by the 
FBI, he had identified Joseph Mifsud as the person who had 
provided him that information.
    Mr. Massie. Did you interview Joseph Mifsud?
    Mr. Durham. We attempted to interview him. We pursued every 
lead that we had. We talked to a lawyer that he had in Europe, 
but we never were able to actually make contact with him so we 
could interview him.
    Mr. Massie. Do you think he is a Western source? Is he 
associated with Western intelligence?
    Mr. Durham. It's hard to say who Mr. Mifsud is associated 
with. He was tied up with Link University, Mr. Scotti, who had 
been involvement in the Italian government, and they were 
appointed--hard to say who Mr.--
    Mr. Massie. I am going to yield the remainder of my time to 
Mr. Gaetz.
    Mr. Gaetz. Hard to say who Mifsud is? He is the guy who 
started the whole thing. We have known it for years.
    Go ahead and play the video.
    [Video played.]
    Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Durham, was that what you were doing?
    Mr. Durham. I'm sorry. Is that what?
    Mr. Gaetz. Was finding out who Mifsud was what you were 
doing?
    Mr. Durham. We pursued that avenue yes.
    Mr. Gaetz. Right, but was he--this whole thing was an op, 
Mr. Durham. This wasn't like a bumbling fumbling FBI that like 
couldn't get FISAs straight. They ran an op. So, who put Mifsud 
in play? You don't know, do you?
    Mr. Durham. I do not know that. I can't give you the answer 
to that.
    Mr. Gaetz. You had years to find out the answer to what Mr. 
Jordan said was the seminal question, and you don't have it. It 
just begs the question whether or not you were really trying to 
find that out, because it is one thing to criticize the FBI for 
their FISA violations, to write a report. They have been 
criticized in plenty of reports. Some have referred to your 
work as just a repackaging and regurgitation of what the 
Inspector General already told us. So, if you weren't going to 
do what Mr. Jordan said you were going to do in that video and 
give us the basis for all of it, what has this all been about?
    Mr. Durham. Well, I'm not exactly sure of the import of 
your question. If your question is did we try to locate and 
interview Mr. Mifsud, the answer is yes.
    Mr. Gaetz. Why didn't you--
    Mr. Durham. We expended--
    Mr. Gaetz. Wait. Why didn't you subpoena him to a grand 
jury?
    Mr. Durham. I'm sorry. Why what?
    Mr. Gaetz. Why didn't you send him a grand jury subpoena?
    Mr. Durham. Mr. Mifsud? You'd have to find Mr. Mifsud 
before you could serve a grand jury subpoena on him.
    Mr. Gaetz. You guys were out in Italy. Were you and Bill 
Barr looking of authentic pasta over there or Mifsud?
    Mr. Durham. No, we were looking for information that might 
help us locate Mifsud.
    Mr. Gaetz. You know who I think would probably locate him? 
The features of Western intelligence and possibly our own 
government that put him in play. Like your report seems to be 
less an indictment of the FBI and more of an inoculation, lower 
case I of course. Like many inoculations it may have worse 
consequences down the road. We will have some time to discuss 
this matter further, but it is just hard to pretend as though 
this was a sincere effort, when you don't get to the 
fundamental thing that started the whole deal. I yield back.
    Mr. Durham. I was away from my family for four years 
essentially doing this investigation. This, my view, is a 
sincere effort. The fact that you can't find somebody overseas 
should not come as a big surprise.
    Mr. Gaetz. Could you find out [inaudible]?
    Mr. Massie. Reclaiming my time. Is he alive or dead?
    Mr. Durham. We don't know.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman's time is expired.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. 
Biggs.
    Mr. Biggs. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Durham, isn't it true that Danchenko admitted that 
information he provided to Christopher Steele in June 2016 was, 
quote, ``rumor and speculation''?
    Mr. Durham. Correct.
    Mr. Biggs. Danchenko himself estimated that he was 
responsible for 80 percent of the intelligence and 50 percent 
of the analysis in the Steele Dossier. Is that right?
    Mr. Durham. That's correct.
    Mr. Biggs. Do you agree with his estimate or his estimate 
of his participation in the dossier?
    Mr. Durham. Yes, we have no reason to doubt that. I mean 
Steele identified him as the primary subsource or the principle 
source of the information.
    Mr. Biggs. Yes, and that is that I mean. Steele used that 
rumor and speculation to build his dossier. We have wandered 
all of this. None of the statements were corroborated at all. 
Yet, Danchenko's reputation for veracity was considered bad. He 
was considered a boastful man who had low credibility, right?
    Mr. Durham. There was information that the bureau had along 
those lines. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Biggs. Yes. In fact, when he lost his visa, his work 
permit, he used a Russian business as a front to basically 
fraudulently get a visa to work in the United States? That 
right? Page 128 of your report?
    Mr. Durham. Yes, he went to work for a company in the 
United States and Steele was paying him through a cut-out 
through that company in the United States.
    Mr. Biggs. Yes, most of us who look at that area of the law 
regularly like I do would say that is immigration fraud. It is 
also true--we talked about this. It is true there was an FBI 
counterespionage investigation into Danchenko 2009-2011. That 
was a result of him approaching some--a Brookings Institution 
coworker trying to essentially solicit espionage on behalf of 
the Russian government. Then even though the Washington Field 
Office is right there and he lived just a few miles from the 
Washington Field Office, the case was closed on Mr. Danchenko, 
that investigation. Right?
    Mr. Durham. The Danchenko Investigation was being done by 
Baltimore, the Baltimore Field Office, but that's right. He 
stayed where he--
    Mr. Biggs. Nonetheless, he lived--I live out there. I know 
it is literally around the corner from there.
    So, let's take a look at--let's boil this down. After 
determining that nothing that Danchenko told Steele could be 
verified, it was all a pack of lies, innuendo, and rumor, to 
further determining that he had attempted to solicit espionage 
for Russia, and he had himself been the subject of an 
investigation by the bureau, and after having committed 
immigration fraud the FBI hired him on as an informer and paid 
him 220 grand and proposed an additional 300 grand to be paid 
to him. That is your testimony. That is in the report. It is 
all there. That is even after the Validation Management Unit 
has determined that Danchenko was a concern and likely had 
connections to Russian intelligence. That is in your report as 
well.
    Mr. Durham. Correct.
    Mr. Biggs. Very Special Agent Helson knew most of these 
facts, but continued to endorse Danchenko's recruitment and 
payment as a confidential human source, right?
    Mr. Durham. That's correct.
    Mr. Biggs. So, I am going to give you these things and I 
think you understand why so many of us are over--underwhelmed 
with some of your recommendations for the FBI but overwhelmed 
by what is going on here.
    The FISA application. We have talked about that, where that 
came from. We have talked about that the FBI has conducted 
millions of unconstitutional back door FISA-702 searches. 
Disparate treatment of Hillary Rodham Clinton, which you 
discuss in your report. The sweetheart Hunter Biden plea deal 
that would send normal Americans to jail for years. He is 
getting nothing.
    We have 50 intelligence officers signing onto a letter 
stating they would rather have a job in the Biden 
Administration than tell the truth to the American people. The 
Hunter Biden laptop suppression. The DOJ targeting parents at 
school board meetings. A Federal prosecutor setting a quota, 
essentially an additional--January 6th individuals. He said he 
has got to get 2,000 more. That is a quota. That is a bounty. 
DHS targeting Catholics at church. Hoaxes villainizing border 
agents while the border itself is under attack. That is all 
from this agency.
    I understand that you are loyal to your institution. I get 
that. Ms. Spartz gave an excellent enumeration of all the 
things that you found in your report. That is why people like 
me; and I don't want to speak for anybody else on here, we are 
baffled, just utterly baffled that more people have not been 
held accountable for their crimes. Because these are crimes.
    What is going on in this country, the division in this 
country today I can trace back to one thing: It isn't Trump 
going down the escalator. It is the Steele Dossier paid for by 
Hillary Clinton through the cut-outs. That has caused the 
division in this country today. I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The witness can respond.
    Mr. Durham. I'm not sure there was a question at the end.
    Chair Jordan. No, I am just giving you the opportunity.
    Mr. Biggs. I was going to. I didn't get there.
    Chair Jordan. Yes. The gentleman from Florida is 
recognized.
    Mr. Gaetz. Yes, I agree with Mr. Biggs. You have given us 
testimony today that you are disappointed that the FBI didn't 
cooperate more, right? That was your testimony?
    Mr. Durham. Said that.
    Mr. Gaetz. Yes, so we are disappointed too, but the 
difference is when regular folks do things that are wrong and 
unlawful, there is typically greater effort to try to get those 
people before a grand jury, to utilize criminal process where 
appropriate, not for other purposes. It is just like oh, well, 
Bill Priestap, the guy who might have set this whole op in 
motion, he just didn't want to talk to you about certain 
things. You were really accommodating to that.
    Then Mifsud, the person who juices Papadopoulos to create 
this predicate that you find improper, I mean did you ever know 
who is lawyer was, Mifsud's lawyer?
    Mr. Durham. Talked to his lawyer in Europe, not in--I don't 
know--
    Mr. Gaetz. So, wait.
    Mr. Durham. --his representative in the United States.
    Mr. Gaetz. You could find the guy's lawyer, but you 
couldn't find him?
    Mr. Durham. We contacted somebody that we knew had 
represented him in part of the effort to try to locate him.
    Mr. Gaetz. You got the lawyer. Then now you are sitting 
here in from the Judiciary saying you could find the guy's 
lawyer, but you couldn't effectuate the service of a subpoena 
because you couldn't find him?
    Mr. Durham. Well, first,--
    Mr. Gaetz. Do you know how silly that sounds?
    Mr. Durham. --as you may or may not know, we wouldn't have 
the authority to serve a subpoena overseas. The lawyer didn't 
know where Mifsud was. He was in communication with him but 
claimed not to know where he was. We were trying to arrange an 
opportunity to talk to Mifsud.
    Mr. Gaetz. Did you take possession of two BlackBerry phones 
from Mifsud in any way?
    Mr. Durham. There were phones that were provided to us by 
his lawyer.
    Mr. Gaetz. So, you could find the phones, but not the guy?
    Mr. Durham. Correct.
    Mr. Gaetz. Do you see how silly this looks? Like you found 
the lawyer, you found the phones, but the actual dude who got 
ordered by Western intelligence to go start this thing you 
couldn't find? It is kind of laughable. It seems like more than 
disappointment. It seems like you weren't really trying to 
expose the true core of the corruption, that you were trying to 
go at it another way.
    Mr. Durham. Yes, as we said in the report and as I said in 
my opening remarks, we pursued the facts as best we could.
    Mr. Gaetz. Well, how about this fact?
    [Crosstalk.]
    Mr. Gaetz. OK. How about this fact, Mr. Durham? The entire 
Mueller team does a hard reset on their Apple phone in 
synchronization to wipe away evidence. Did you investigate 
that?
    Mr. Durham. I've read that.
    Mr. Gaetz. Well, why didn't you investigate it? Who gave 
the order on the Mueller team to wipe the phones?
    Mr. Durham. Yes, that was not something that we were asked 
to look at. We didn't look at that.
    Mr. Gaetz. Well, no, that is not true, Mr. Durham. That is 
not true because I am holding the document that authorizes your 
activity and it specifically says the investigation of Special 
Counsel Robert Mueller.
    Mr. Chair, I see unanimous consent to enter into the record 
the order that says that you are supposed to investigate these 
things.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    Mr. Gaetz. So, like whether it is the Mueller team, 
Mifsud--how about Azra Turk? What is Azra Turk's real name? Do 
you know that?
    Mr. Durham. I'm not going to be disclosing the names of FBI 
personnel that are otherwise unavailable.
    Mr. Gaetz. Oh, so the FBI sent somebody to go honey pot 
George Papadopoulos. Who gave the order to do that?
    Mr. Durham. I think that's beyond the scope of what's in 
the report.
    Mr. Gaetz. It is literally the scope of what your charging 
order is. Who put it in motion? We get, after it was put in 
motion, the FBI did a bunch of wrong and corrupt things. 
Totally understand. We are trying to deal with that. When you 
are part of the cover-up, Mr. Durham, then it makes our job 
harder.
    Mr. Durham. Yes, well, if that's your thought, there's no 
way of dissuading you from that. I can tell you that it's 
offensive and that the people who worked on this investigation 
have spent their lives trying to protect the people in this 
country and pursue within the law--
    Mr. Gaetz. You went 0-for-2, Mr. Durham.
    Mr. Durham. --what it is that we could and we are 
authorized to do.
    Mr. Gaetz. Wait. Hold on. You tried two cases; lost both of 
them. Then the one guilty plea you got, Clinesmith, Clinesmith 
is back to practicing law in Washington, DC, today.
    Mr. Durham. Yes, that's beyond my control.
    Mr. Gaetz. Right, but the fact that you allowed that plea 
to occur, right, and then the punishment was insufficient, the 
fact that you didn't charge Andrew McCabe, you didn't convict 
lying Democrats or the lying Russians, you didn't investigate 
Mifsud or the Mueller probe even though as we sit here today in 
black letter that was your charge--have you ever heard of the 
Washington Generals?
    Mr. Durham. The Washington Generals? Yes.
    Mr. Gaetz. Yes, and they are the team that basically gets 
paid to show up and lose, right?
    Mr. Durham. Well, I'm sure that the players who exert 
blood, sweat, and tears don't view it that way, but you might.
    Mr. Gaetz. I think they do. I think they do, because the 
job of the Washington Generals is to show up every night and to 
play the Harlem Globetrotters. Their job is to lose.
    Mr. Durham. So, I'm thinking, I'm sorry, of a different--I 
was thinking of a different--
    Mr. Gaetz. Yes. Yes, so their job is to lose. I am kind of 
wondering--and it just seems so facially obvious that it is not 
what is in your report that is telling. It is the omission; it 
is the lack of work you did. For the people like the Chair who 
put trust in you, I mean you let them down. I think you let the 
country down. You are one of the barriers to the true 
accountability that we need.
    Mr. Durham. Do I get to respond to that or comment on that?
    Chair Jordan. Go ahead.
    Mr. Durham. Yes. Well, I don't know if you've ever 
investigated a crime. If you've ever investigated a crime--
    Mr. Gaetz. I don't know that you have. You didn't 
investigate these, Mr. Durham.
    Mr. Durham. Whether or not--
    Mr. Gaetz. How about Andy McCabe? Did you charge him? Did 
you investigate him?
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman's time is expired. The witness 
can respond and then we will move onto our last--
    Mr. Durham. I don't know, sir, whether or not you've ever 
had occasion to try to investigate crimes under the rules and 
regulations and under the Constitution that we're bound by. We 
can gather evidence, in particularly, lawful ways. Can't charge 
people because we might have something we can charge people--
    Mr. Gaetz. It's not just that you didn't charge. You didn't 
investigate.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman's time--
    Mr. Gaetz. You didn't investigate the Mueller team wiping 
their phones and you won't tell us who gave the orders because 
you are protecting those people.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman's time is expired.
    The gentlelady from Wyoming is recognized.
    Ms. Hageman. Mr. Durham, in reviewing your report I 
sincerely wanted to understand the work that you did and 
decipher the various investigations that we have been 
discussing: The origins, the history, the back story, the whos, 
the whys, the whats, the what ifs, and the hows.
    I desperately wanted to figure out what happened to what 
was once our flagship law enforcement agencies: The FBI and the 
DOJ, to determine what went wrong and to evaluate how we can go 
forward from here. I have listened with great interest hoping 
to find some answers to the burning questions of the day and I 
have reached a few conclusions that I do not believe are 
subject to dispute or debate.
    Now, I truly appreciate your regard for the agency you have 
dedicated your career to. I am sure that as your investigation 
progressed you must have been truly saddened by what you found. 
What you have exposed however is that we are dealing with 
something so corrupt and so rotten that no amount of face 
paint, deflection, or whitewashing can fix this.
    You have been asked lots of questions about predicates, 
protocols, the Steele Dossier, the Australian connection, Mr. 
Papadopoulos, Mr. Carter, the FISA Court, and Crossfire 
Hurricane, among others. Your responses have been enlightening, 
but let's get to the brass tacks.
    None of those people or documents or reports were relevant 
to the FBI when it identified Donald Trump as Public Enemy #1. 
What do I mean? The accuracy and veracity of the Steele Dossier 
was irrelevant to the FBI. The accuracy and veracity of the 
reports coming from the Australian Embassy were irrelevant to 
the FBI. The fact that the Russian experts in the CIA, FBI, 
NSA, and other agencies had no evidence of any kind of 
relationship between Mr. Trump and Putin or Russia was 
irrelevant to the FBI. The fact that there was no verifiable 
evidence such as testimony, documents, videos, or recordings of 
Russian collusion was irrelevant to the FBI.
    Nothing, and I repeat nothing that the FBI did was designed 
to show that Donald J. Trump was a Russian asset. That wasn't 
the purpose of the entire charade. How do I know this is true? 
Because they told us so. The very people who cooked this up, 
the ones who ran this entire operation: Strzok, Lisa Page, 
Andrew McCabe, Clinesmith, Steele, the DNC, and Perkins Coie. 
It was never their purpose to prove Russian collusion. In fact, 
from the very beginning they knew that no such thing actually 
existed.
    They knew that the entire Russian collusion narrative was 
fabricated by the Clinton Campaign to deflect attention from 
her mishandling of classified materials and destruction of 
official emails. They didn't need to prove Russian collusion. 
They just had to keep the investigation alive. So long as they 
had a complicit press, and so long as they had people in this 
very body who has been here--one of the gentlemen who has been 
here much of the day who would go on TV every night and lie 
about the smoking gun, they could further their personal and 
political agendas.
    No, the purpose of Crossfire Hurricane wasn't to prove 
Russian collusion. It was to destroy Donald J. Trump. They told 
us that with the text messages that are set forth on page 49 
and 51 of your report--49 and 50 of your report.
    Then if they failed at blocking Mr. Trump from being 
elected as President, well they had a backup plan. They had 
their insurance policy, to use Strzok's terminology, which was 
to make it impossible for him to govern, to use whatever tools 
were available to taint his Presidency, the legitimacy of his 
election, his ability to work with foreign leaders and to make 
everything about Russia, Russia, Russia.
    How has this corruption and rot manifested itself in our 
everyday lives, in our natural culture, and our ability to 
solve the problems we are facing? It has destroyed some of the 
key foundations of this country, a foundation built on equal 
protection, on the belief that justice is blind, on the belief 
that you will be held accountable if you commit a fraud of the 
magnitude of what we have been discussing here today, on the 
belief that due process, justice, and constitutional rights are 
more than mere words.
    It has left a smoldering hot volcanic mess where the soul 
of this country used to be, all because a few people in the FBI 
decided they wanted to destroy a political candidate and 
ultimately a President and anyone associated with him.
    While these folks set out to destroy a Presidential 
candidate and later a Presidency the fact is that they 
destroyed so much more, and that will be their ultimate legacy. 
One casualty is America's faith in our institution and another 
casualty is the erosion of a justice system that is supposed to 
apply equally to all Americans, but that has been weaponized to 
protect the favored few elites: The Clintons, the Bidens, while 
targeting political enemies.
    That is the current legacy of the FBI and DOJ.
    Mr. Durham, here is my question: How long do you think that 
this country will survive a two-tiered justice system that 
seeks to persecute people based on their political beliefs?
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chair, the time is expired. She can't ask 
her question.
    Chair Jordan. The witness may respond. The gentlelady's 
time is expired.
    Mr. Durham. Do I respond?
    Chair Jordan. Sure.
    Mr. Durham. I don't think that things can go too much 
further with a view that law enforcement, particularly FBI or 
the Department of Justice, runs a two-tiered system of justice. 
The Nation can't stand under those circumstances.
    Chair Jordan. Well said.
    Ms. Hageman. I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
    This concludes today's hearing.
    Mr. Durham, we thank you.
    Ms. Hageman. Could I put--with unanimous consent could I 
put two documents into the record?
    Chair Jordan. I take that back. The hearing is not over. 
The gentlelady may make her unanimous consent request.
    Ms. Hageman. One is ``Don't Miss the Most Damning Durham 
Finding,'' and the other is ``6 Documented Instances Of 
Systematic Pro-Democrat FBI Corruption.''
    Chair Jordan. Without objection, so entered.
    Again, Mr. Durham, thank you. Thank you for your work. 
Thank you for long time being here. Almost six hours is a lot 
of work, so we appreciate that.
    Without objection, all Members will have five legislative 
days to submit additional written questions for the witness or 
additional materials for the record.
    Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 2:47 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

    All items submitted for the record by Members of the 
Committee on the Judiciary can be found at https://
docs.house.gov/Commit-tee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=116122.

                                 [all]