WATCH: Rep. Adam Schiff Grills Special Counsel John Durham on Sham Report
Washington, DC — Today, Congressman Adam Schiff questioned Special Counsel John Durham, handpicked by former President Donald Trump’s Attorney General, in a House Judiciary Committee hearing on the sham report issued by Durham in May.
The Republican-led hearing was an attempt to elevate Durham’s sham report following his four-year long inquiry into former President Trump’s false theory that the FBI’s investigation on the Trump 2016 campaign’s ties to Russia stemmed from partisan roots.
To watch a video of the exchange, click HERE for part one and HERE for part two. Read the full transcripts below:
Adam Schiff: Mr. Durham. DOJ policy provides that you don't speak about a pending investigation. And yet you did, didn't you?
John Durham: I'm not exactly sure when.
Schiff: When the inspector general issued a report saying that the investigation was properly predicated. You spoke out in violation of the Department of Justice policy, to criticize the inspector general's conclusions. Didn't you?
Durham: I issued a public statement. I didn't do it anonymously. I didn't do it through third persons. There were.
Schiff: Nonetheless, you violated department policy by issuing a statement while your investigation was ongoing. Didn't you?
Durham: I don't know that. If I did, then I did. But I was not aware that I was violating some policy.
Schiff: And 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?
Durham: This is outside the scope of the report, but 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 that ought to affect portions of his report.
Schiff: And 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.
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.
Schiff: And when he refused to change his report, you violated department policy. […]
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 a sweeping and systemic fashion, correct?
Durham: That's correct.
Schiff: And Russia did so through a social media campaign that favored Donald Trump and disparaged Hillary Clinton. Correct?
Durham: That’s what the report says, yes.
Schiff: And Mueller found that a Russian intelligence service hacked computers associated with the Clinton campaign and then released the stolen documents publicly. Is that right?
Durham: That report speaks for itself as well.
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?
Durham: There's the language of that effect. Yes.
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 of proof beyond a reasonable doubt?
Durham: Correct.
Schiff: As an illustration of this, both Mueller and congressional investigations found that Trump's campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, was secretly meeting with an operative linked to Russian intelligence named Konstantin Kilimnik. Correct?
Durham: That's my understanding, yes.
Schiff: And that Manafort, while chairman of the Trump campaign, gave that Russian intelligence operative the campaign's internal polling data. Correct?
Durham: That's what I've read in the news. Yes.
Schiff: And 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?
Durham: You may be getting beyond the depth of my knowledge, but —
Schiff: Well, let me say very simply. While Manafort, the campaign chairman for Donald Trump, was giving this Russian intelligence officer internal campaign polling data, Russian intelligence was helping the Trump campaign, weren't they?
Durham: I don't know that.
Schiff: You really don't know those very basic facts of the investigation?
Durham: I know the general facts. Yes. Do I know that particular fact myself? No. I mean, I know that I've read that in the media.
Schiff: And 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”, unquote, that would be incriminating of Hillary Clinton, was part of, quote, “Russia and its government's support of Mr. Trump.” Are you aware of that?
Durham: Sure. People get phone calls all the time from individuals who claim to have information like that.
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?
Durham: I don't think this is unique in your experience.
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?
Durham: Would you repeat the question?
Schiff: You said that it's not uncommon to get offers of help from a hostile foreign government or a presidential campaign directed at the president's son. You really stand by that, Mr. Durham?
Durham: I'm saying that people can make phone calls making claims all the time — that you may have experienced.
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? You're trying to diminish the significance of that. Mr. Durham?
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 Mrs. Clinton.
Schiff: And you think it's insignificant that he had a secret meeting with the Russian delegation for the purpose of getting dirt on Hillary Clinton. And the only disappointment expressed in that meeting was that the dirt they got wasn't better. You don't think that's significant?
Durham: I don't think that that was a well-advised thing to do.
Schiff: Oh, not well advised.
Durham: Right.
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?
Durham: If you're asking me what I’d do, I hope I wouldn't do it. But it was not illegal. It was stupid, foolish, ill-advised.
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?
Durham: I don't know. I don't know all those facts to be true.
Schiff: Well, your report Mr. Durham doesn't dispute anything Mueller found. Did it?
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.
Schiff: The only distinction 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.
###