Special counsel John Durham’s investigation into the origins of the Trump–Russia collusion claims has prevented lawmakers from obtaining more information about possible misconduct at the FBI and the Department of Justice (DOJ), according to Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.).
Overall, Johnson said he’s “not particularly satisfied” with Durham’s probe and the lack of convictions, including what he described as a failure to secure a conviction for lawyer Michael Sussmann. Sussmann was accused by Durham of lying to the FBI while he was working for a law firm representing the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016 but was acquitted in May.
“And at a minimum, I certainly hope that whatever report [Durham] turns in to Attorney General Merrick Garland that that report be made public,” Johnson said. “The American public deserves to know the truth of the corruption that was occurring within the Department of Justice in the FBI.”
Igor Danchenko, a Russian-born national who was the alleged primary source for the controversial dossier concocted by former UK spy Christopher Steele, is slated to go to trial later this month. Danchenko, who has pleaded not guilty, could face up to 25 years in prison if he’s convicted.
Last week, U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga declined to throw out any of the five charges filed against Danchenko after hearing arguments from Durham’s team and lawyers representing Danchenko.
Danchenko’s lawyers argued on Sept. 29 that all the charges should be dismissed because Danchenko’s answers to the FBI were technically true, if not necessarily illuminating. But Durham said Danchenko’s statements, if examined in context rather than in isolation, will show that he knowingly lied.
“He knows exactly what the FBI is looking for, the context of those questions,” Durham said in a hearing last week.
Trenga acknowledged that the defense’s theory “can be a very persuasive, strong argument to a jury” but said that ultimately, the government met its burden to overcome a motion to dismiss. It will be up to a jury to determine whether the government can meet its burden of proving a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, a much higher standard. Trenga said he'll revisit the issue during trial after the government presents its case.
A spokesperson for Durham’s team didn’t respond to The Epoch Times’s request for comment.
Friends Read Free