Trump-Russia Collusion: Any Laws Broken?

The investigation into possible ties between Russia and Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, also known as the Trump-Russia investigation, concluded with the final report by special prosecutor John Durham in May 2023. While the report offered criticism of the FBI, it fell short of Trump's prediction of uncovering the crime of the century. The investigation found major flaws and instances of misconduct, but the specific question of whether Trump broke any law through collusion with Russia remains unanswered.

John Durham's Trump-Russia investigation

In 2019, US Attorney General William Barr appointed federal prosecutor John Durham as a special counsel to investigate the origins of the FBI's probe into Russian interference in the 2016 US elections. This investigation, code-named Crossfire Hurricane, was initiated based on claims by Trump and his allies that it was motivated by a conspiracy within US intelligence agencies.

Durham's investigation lasted over three years and concluded that the FBI should not have launched a full-scale investigation into the Trump campaign's connections with Russia. He criticized the FBI for acting hastily and relying on unconfirmed intelligence. However, Durham's findings contradicted those of a previous Justice Department inspector general investigation, which found sufficient justification for the inquiry.

Durham's report also stated that the FBI showed confirmation bias and lacked analytical rigor in its handling of information. He further noted that the FBI used a different standard when assessing concerns about alleged election interference by Hillary Clinton's campaign. Despite his criticisms, Durham did not recommend any wholesale changes to FBI policies or procedures.

During his investigation, Durham indicted three men, but only secured one conviction—that of an FBI lawyer who pleaded guilty to altering an email used in a surveillance warrant application. The other two defendants were tried and acquitted.

FBI's probe into Trump's 2016 campaign

In 2019, the US Justice Department's inspector general found that the FBI's probe into advisers of Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign was legitimate and properly authorised. The probe investigated potential coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia. While the investigation found substantial contacts between Russians and Trump associates, no criminal conspiracy was alleged.

The investigation, led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, examined Russian interference in the 2016 election. Mueller found that Russia wanted Trump elected and that his team welcomed the help. However, no evidence of a criminal conspiracy between them was found.

Following the Mueller probe, former President Trump appointed prosecutor John Durham to investigate further. Trump supporters expected Durham to reveal a "deep state" plot behind the US government's investigation into ties between Russia and the Trump campaign. However, Durham's three-year investigation fell short of these expectations, resulting in two trial acquittals and an FBI attorney sentenced to probation.

The outcome of Durham's probe led to scrutiny over its purpose and raised questions about the current attorney general's next steps. Despite casting an unflattering light on aspects of the Russia investigation, Durham's inquiry failed to uncover significant misconduct or evidence of an orchestrated scheme by the FBI.

Misconduct by US government officials

The investigation into possible misconduct by US government officials during the FBI's probe of ties between Russia and Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign found significant flaws in the process. While it offered withering criticism of the FBI, it fell short of Trump's prediction of uncovering the "crime of the century". The report by special prosecutor John Durham criticised the FBI for acting too hastily and relying on unconfirmed intelligence when initiating the Trump-Russia investigation. It also noted that the FBI exhibited "confirmation bias", disregarding information that contradicted their premise.

The investigation, which lasted four years, resulted in only one conviction related to the alteration of an email concerning the surveillance of a former Trump campaign aide. Two other cases of alleged false statements to the FBI resulted in acquittals. Despite these limited outcomes, the report still provides ammunition for Trump supporters who denounced the Russia investigation, while opponents point to the meagre court record as proof of a politically-motivated probe.

The Durham report also disagreed with the findings of a Justice Department inspector general inquiry, which concluded that there was a legitimate basis to initiate the full investigation into potential collusion. The inspector general report acknowledged significant errors in FBI warrant applications but did not find evidence of political bias.

In response to the criticism, the FBI highlighted the corrective actions it has implemented since 2016, noting that these measures would have prevented the errors identified in the report. The FBI also emphasised that the conduct mentioned in the report occurred before the tenure of the current director, Christopher Wray.

Kevin Clinesmith's guilty plea

Kevin Clinesmith, a former FBI lawyer, pleaded guilty to altering an email during the Russia investigation. The email was used to justify the surveillance of ex-Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. Clinesmith's actions were set forth in detail in the Inspector General's Report on the Four FISAs.

Clinesmith's plea suggests that Special Counsel John Durham is almost done with his investigation. The plea could have been made a long time ago if this was the only criminality that Durham uncovered. Since this plea was so long in coming, it implies that Durham did uncover additional criminality.

Clinesmith's guilty plea could also be an indication that Durham is targeting Team Mueller on Flynn-related misconduct. It is likely that Clinesmith has been cooperating with Durham and providing valuable information.

Clinesmith was sentenced to one year of probation for his actions.

Confirmation bias

In the context of the question "Did Trump break any law colluding with Russia?", confirmation bias could manifest in the following ways:

• Biased search for information: Individuals with strong beliefs about Trump's guilt or innocence may selectively seek out information that confirms their existing views, ignoring or dismissing contradictory evidence. For example, they may focus on evidence of Trump's business dealings in Russia while disregarding evidence that suggests no illegal collusion took place.
• Biased interpretation of information: People with differing political leanings may interpret the same set of facts differently to support their pre-existing beliefs. For instance, some may interpret Trump's comments about Russia as evidence of collusion, while others may see them as benign.
• Biased memory recall: Individuals may selectively remember information that aligns with their beliefs about Trump's involvement with Russia, forgetting or minimizing contradictory details. For example, they may recall specific instances of Trump praising Vladimir Putin while forgetting instances where he criticized Russia.

To counter confirmation bias, it is important to actively seek out diverse viewpoints, consider alternative hypotheses, and critically evaluate information rather than passively accepting it. By doing so, individuals can make more informed and unbiased judgments about Trump's involvement with Russia.

Frequently asked questions