Durham Shoots Down Nadler's Tally of His Probe: 'No' (June 21, 2023)

Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., came to the Durham hearing with a tally: more than $6.5 million, dozens of FBI employees and federal prosecutors, “some of whom resigned in protest,” and roughly four years of work. “Is that correct?” he asked.

“No,” said Special Counsel John Durham [1].

Nadler, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, spent the June 21, 2023, hearing casting Durham’s report on the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation as a political exercise. The video above pairs that exchange with part of Nadler’s opening statement, in which he listed what he called “fairly glaring investigative missteps” by the FBI. Quotes from the hearing are from the official transcript, Serial No. 118-28 [1].

”No. There Were Multiple Parts of That.”

Nadler’s question packed four claims into one sentence. “Mr. Durham, your investigation cost more than $6.5 million, involved the work of dozens of FBI employees and Federal prosecutors, some of whom resigned in protest, and took, roughly, four years to complete. Is that correct?”

“No,” Durham said.

“It’s not correct?”

“No. There were multiple parts of that.”

Nadler asked about one part. “Did it take four years to complete?”

“Correct,” Durham said [1].

Durham did not say which of the other claims he disputed, and Nadler did not ask. On the money, the Justice Department’s expense reports show the special counsel’s office spent more than $6.5 million between October 2020 and September 2022, The Washington Post reported. Those reports do not cover Durham’s first year and a half, when he was still the U.S. attorney in Connecticut and did not have to report costs publicly [2].

Nadler then walked Durham through his trial record. Durham agreed that he had filed three criminal cases, took two to trial and lost both, and that the one conviction came from a guilty plea to a single count [1]. Former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith pleaded guilty to altering a government email used to justify surveillance of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page and got one year of probation [2].

Trump’s Indictment Comes First

Nadler made clear what he thought the hearing was really about. His opening statement began not with Durham but with Trump: “On June 8th, a Grand Jury in Miami indicted former President Trump on 37 counts related to his mishandling of extraordinarily sensitive national security information.”

When his turn to question Durham came, he said it again. “Let me remind you that Donald Trump was Federally indicted on 37 counts for mishandling classified information—37 counts. That’s why you’re here today, not because of anything that happened in 2016” [1].

That case never reached a jury. On July 15, 2024, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed it, ruling that Special Counsel Jack Smith’s appointment “violates the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution,” Fox News reported. Trump had pleaded not guilty to all 37 counts [3]. After Trump won the 2024 election, Smith asked the appeals court to pause his appeal to “afford the Government time to assess this unprecedented circumstance” [4].

The FBI “Missteps” Nadler Listed

In his opening statement, Nadler said Durham’s report itself “outlines some fairly glaring investigative missteps.”

“The FBI apparently never even looked at a thumb drive of key evidence related to allegations of contact between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government via a Russian cell phone,” Nadler said. “Nor says the report, did the FBI ever examine questionable computer contacts between the Trump organization and Alfa Bank, one of the largest banks in Russia” [1].

The report tells a fuller story about Alfa Bank. Those allegations reached the FBI through Michael Sussmann, a lawyer who, the report says, “was billing the work to the Clinton campaign.” The FBI’s investigation “concluded that it was unable to substantiate any of the allegations” in the white paper Sussmann delivered, and FBI agents in Chicago assessed that the Alfa Bank and Trump Organization servers “almost certainly did not communicate intentionally or covertly.” A cybersecurity firm hired by Alfa Bank, Mandiant, also found “no evidence to support the allegations of a secret communications channel” [5].

Nadler also said the report “fails to recommend a single remedial measure that the Justice Department or the FBI might take” [1]. The report did say it “does not recommend any wholesale changes in the guidelines and policies” in place. But it did make one recommendation: that the department “seriously consider” a proposal for an official to challenge “both a politically sensitive FISA application and other stages of the investigation” [5].

”Affirmative Obligation,” and the Next Sentence

Nadler’s biggest point was that the FBI had good reason to open its case. He quoted the report as saying “the FBI had an affirmative obligation to closely examine the Australian information,” a reference to a 2016 tip from Australian diplomats about Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos.

“The FBI had an obligation to examine the information,” Durham agreed [1].

Nadler left out what comes next. The report’s sentence reads: “there is no question that the FBI had an affirmative obligation to closely examine the Paragraph Five information.” The following sentence says: “The Paragraph Five information, however, was the sole basis cited by the FBI for opening a full investigation into individuals associated with the ongoing Trump campaign.” The FBI opened that full investigation “before any preliminary discussions or interviews” with the Australian diplomats or Papadopoulos, the report says, and “within three days” of receiving the tip, decided “without further analysis” that it was enough [5].

”Russia Hoax” or Russian Interference?

Nadler accused Republicans of pushing a “Russia hoax,” which he defined as “the theory that Russia did not actually interfere in the 2016 Presidential Election.” He asked whether Durham’s report disputed the intelligence community’s 2017 finding that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign.

“As I said, there was a real Russian threat,” Durham said. Asked for a yes or no, he said: “No” [1]. He also agreed that Mueller had indicted 12 Russian intelligence officers in July 2018 [1].

On the collusion claim itself, though, Durham’s report is blunt: “Neither U.S. law enforcement nor the Intelligence Community appears to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion in their holdings at the commencement of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.” The FBI opened and ran the case “based on raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence” [5]. Special Counsel Robert Mueller reached a similar bottom line in 2019: “The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities” [6].

By the Numbers

More than $6.5 million: the special counsel’s reported spending from October 2020 through September 2022 [2].
3 cases, 2 trials, 2 acquittals, 1 guilty plea: Durham’s prosecution record, which he confirmed under Nadler’s questioning [1].
37 counts: the classified documents case Nadler cited, dismissed in July 2024 [3].
3 days: how quickly the FBI decided, “without further analysis,” that the Australian tip justified a full investigation [5].
1 recommendation: the report’s call for an official to challenge politically sensitive FISA applications and investigations [5].
12: Russian intelligence officers Mueller indicted in July 2018 [1].

What Happened Next

Nadler retires: In September 2025, Nadler announced he would not seek an 18th term in 2026 [7].
Comey charged: A federal grand jury indicted former FBI Director James Comey on Sept. 25, 2025, on charges of false statements and obstruction tied to his Sept. 30, 2020, testimony to Congress [8]. A judge dismissed the case in November 2025, ruling that the interim U.S. attorney who brought it had been unlawfully appointed, and the Justice Department appealed [9].
No charges yet: A federal investigation in Fort Pierce, Florida, into whether Obama- and Biden-era officials took part in a long-running effort to keep Trump from returning to office has scrutinized Comey and former CIA Director John Brennan. Joseph diGenova, who had been running the inquiry for the Justice Department, resigned in September 2026, and prosecutors had not filed charges, Fox News reported [10].