Former Attorney General Merrick Garland restricted Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation into the FBI’s handling of Russian interference claims tied to the 2016 election, according to sources familiar with internal DOJ deliberations speaking exclusively to Sleuth News. Insiders claim Garland’s actions contradicted his public statements, including a May 15, 2023 letter to Congress where he asserted no significant interference occurred—a disclosure required under federal rules if he overruled key investigative steps.
Durham’s probe, launched in 2019 by Attorney General William Barr, examined potential misconduct in the FBI’s investigation of ties between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia. The allegations of Garland’s influence emerged from an individual with knowledge of the discussions, though they spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter.
The timeline begins with Garland’s October 2021 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, where he pledged no interference with Durham’s work. “There will be no political or otherwise undue interference,” Garland said, according to hearing transcripts. Yet, sources allege that as Durham prepared for the trial of Michael Sussmann—a Clinton-connected lawyer charged with lying to the FBI—Garland directed him to avoid new investigative steps or additional indictments then under consideration.
Under 28 CFR § 600.9, the Attorney General must notify Congress of any “substantial investigative or prosecutorial actions” blocked during a Special Counsel’s tenure, a rule meant to balance independence with oversight. The regulation doesn’t precisely define “substantial,” leaving room for interpretation. In his May 15, 2023 letter to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, Garland wrote, “There were no such instances during Special Counsel Durham’s investigation,” but sources familiar with Garland’s statements suggest that while his interference campaign didn’t focus on a specific proposed action, it constituted a broader mandate not to pursue additional investigation.
“I need to insist that you are done,” Garland reportedly said.
The timing of the 2022 conversation, which included former Associate Deputy Attorney General Brad Weinsheimer, took place within days of reporting by Margot Cleveland, Jerry Dunleavy, and our own reporting linking Georgia Tech researchers Manos Antonakakis and David Dagon to the attribution for the DNC hack and Special Counsel Mueller, raising the specter that Garland shut Durham down to avoid further investigation of their role. The purpose of the briefing primarily involved a text message produced by James Baker from Michael Sussmann that reiterated the false statement Sussmann had been criminally charged with.
Durham’s final report, released in May 2023, criticized FBI practices but drew mixed reactions for its limited indictments. In June 2023 testimony before Congress, Durham faced repeated questions about interference. Durham answered “No”, to questions from Congressman Joe Neguse asking whether Garland interfered or attempted to stop Durham from taking any investigative step. Sources dispute this, alleging Durham lied about Garland’s efforts to stymie the investigation and describe Garland’s interference as a recurring issue for the investigation.
The fallout left key leads unpursued. One example: the apparent role of cyber researchers tied to the Alfa Bank allegations assisting Mueller’s 2018 indictment of Russian GRU officers (Netyksho et al) for allegedly hacking the Democratic National Committee in 2016. Sleuth News has previously reported on the potential overlap with the debunked Alfa Bank-Trump server claims.
These unprobed areas could fuel calls for a new investigation. Readers can explore Garland’s letter on the DOJ site and Durham’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. Sleuth News continues to investigate.
Thank you. Keep up the great work.
Keep after it!