The Durham Investigation: A Deep Dive into Conspiracy Theories and Disinformation
John Durham’s investigation into the origins of the FBI’s Russia probe took a significant turn in September 2019, as he began to pursue conspiracy theories surrounding Hillary Clinton. This shift coincided with increased involvement from Attorney General William Barr’s office, which provided Durham with a binder of materials and directed his focus. A key meeting on September 17, 2019, with a “HQ Analyst-3” introduced the theory of Russian intelligence (SVR) involvement in compromising sources used by Christopher Steele, the former British spy who compiled the infamous dossier on Donald Trump. This meeting marked the beginning of a series of interviews with the analyst, whose identity remains largely shrouded in mystery though possibly Brittany Herzog, that would shape Durham’s narrative.
The analyst’s testimony revolved around SVR intelligence information that became available to the FBI in 2018, suggesting that Steele’s subsources may have been compromised by the Russians before the first dossier report was even compiled. This information, potentially unearthed following the DOJ Inspector General’s investigation into the handling of SVR material during the Hillary Clinton email investigation, became a central pillar of Durham’s claims. The analyst revealed that after she discovered evidence of potential subsource compromise in 2018, senior FBI officials instructed her to halt documentation of her findings. Despite escalating her concerns up the chain of command, including to then-Deputy Director David Bowdich, the FBI’s response remains unclear, raising questions about why these potential leads were seemingly suppressed.
Durham’s investigation however seemed to selectively highlight and interpret information. While he relied on the analyst’s testimony to bolster his claims of compromised sources, he simultaneously downplayed or ignored evidence that contradicted his narrative. For instance, Durham cited the DOJ IG report to establish that Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska was aware of the Steele dossier project by July 2016. Yet, in a separate section of his report, he casually asserted, citing the New York Times, that Steele worked for Deripaska—a claim that could have been easily verified through existing FBI documentation. This selective use of information and inconsistent citation practices raises concerns about Durham’s objectivity and commitment to uncovering the truth.
The FBI’s reluctance to investigate the possibility of disinformation within the Steele dossier, both in 2018 and after the Mueller report established Paul Manafort’s connections to Deripaska, further complicates the narrative. Manafort had shared campaign strategy with Deripaska while seeking debt forgiveness, and later discussed plans to divide Ukraine. This connection, along with the potential for Russian disinformation campaigns targeting both Trump and Clinton, should have warranted further scrutiny. However, individuals aligned with Trump’s narrative appeared unwilling to delve into Deripaska’s relationship with Steele and the potential for bidirectional disinformation flows.
Durham’s reliance on Analyst-3’s testimony also highlights the importance of the SVR intelligence and its interpretation. The analyst detailed the contents of the SVR material, including information on Russian hacking activities, but found no evidence of a Trump campaign conspiracy with Russia. She also noted that while the SVR possessed information on Manafort, it was unrelated to the 2016 election. Interestingly, Analyst-3 was not among those who supported Durham’s theory regarding the authenticity of the Leonard Benardo emails, which purportedly linked the Clinton campaign to a Russian disinformation effort.
The series of interviews Durham conducted with Analyst-3 provides a glimpse into the evolution of his investigation. In August 2019, she informed Durham that the SVR material contained no evidence of Trump campaign collusion with Russia, nor did it contain information on key figures like Carter Page, Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, or Paul Manafort related to the election. Subsequent interviews in September and December 2019 focused on the timing and targets of Russian hacking operations, as well as the specific information obtained. In a February 2020 interview, the analyst revealed the internal pushback she faced within the FBI after raising concerns about the potential compromise of Steele’s sources. This resistance within the Bureau further muddies the waters, raising questions about whether institutional biases or political pressures influenced the handling of sensitive information related to the Russia investigation. The analyst’s December 2021 testimony provided additional details about the instructions she received to suppress her findings and her subsequent efforts to escalate her concerns within the FBI. This complex interplay of intelligence, internal dissent, and political maneuvering underscores the challenges in unraveling the truth behind the origins of the Russia probe.