Durham Fires Back at Dem Rep. Hank Johnson Over Sussmann: 'That Wasn't Your Question' (June 21, 2023)

Special Counsel John Durham would not let a Democrat rewrite the verdict. When Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., told him that Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann had been “found innocent” by a unanimous jury, Durham shot back: “That’s not true.” A moment later he added: “What’s true is a grand jury found probable cause to indict Mr. Sussmann” [1].

The clash came about 90 minutes into Durham’s June 21, 2023, testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on his report on the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation, code-named Crossfire Hurricane. The video above shows the heart of the exchange. Quotes from the hearing are from the official transcript, Serial No. 118-28 [1].

”That Wasn’t Your Question”

Johnson came in swinging. “None of the individuals you prosecuted were ever charged with being part of a hoax, a fraud, a witch hunt, or a politically motivated, deep-state conspiracy against Donald Trump, isn’t that correct?” he asked.

“I would not say that’s accurate,” Durham said.

“You mean you did charge somebody with being a part of a hoax?” Johnson asked. Durham said his office had charged Sussmann over false information he gave the FBI about Alfa Bank, the Russian bank at the center of claims of a secret computer link to the Trump Organization [1][2].

“He was acquitted, though, right?” Johnson pressed.

“That wasn’t your question,” Durham replied.

Johnson tried again: “He was found innocent by a jury of—by an unanimous jury of 12.”

“That’s not true,” Durham said. “What’s true is a grand jury found probable cause to indict Mr. Sussmann.” When Johnson asked, “You’re not, you’re not going to disagree on that, are you, Mr. Durham?” the prosecutor answered: “I’m going to try to answer your question as it was asked” [1].

Durham’s distinction is a real one. A jury’s verdict is “not guilty,” not “innocent.” When the jury acquitted Sussmann on May 31, 2022, it found that Durham’s team “had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt” that Sussmann lied when he told the FBI’s top lawyer in September 2016 that he was not working for any client, Fox News reported. Prosecutors said he was in fact working for Hillary Clinton’s campaign and technology executive Rodney Joffe [2].

The tip Sussmann carried did not hold up either. According to Durham’s report, the FBI “was unable to substantiate any of the allegations” in the white paper Sussmann handed over, and FBI agents in Chicago concluded the Alfa Bank and Trump Organization servers “almost certainly did not communicate intentionally or covertly” [3].

Not Comey, Not Clinton, Not Hunter Biden

Johnson then ran down a list of people Durham did not charge. “Contrary to the fervent prayers of some on this panel, former FBI Director Jim Comey and former CIA Director John Brennan were not among those three who were indicted, isn’t that correct?”

“That’s correct,” Durham said. He gave the same answer for Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

“Couldn’t even indict Hunter Biden, correct?” Johnson asked.

“We didn’t investigate Mr. Hunter Biden,” Durham said [1].

He was right about that. Durham’s assignment was the government’s handling of the 2016 campaign investigations. The October 2020 order that made him special counsel covered intelligence, counterintelligence and law enforcement activities “directed at the 2016 presidential campaigns,” including Crossfire Hurricane and the Mueller investigation [4]. Hunter Biden’s gun and tax cases were brought by a different prosecutor, Justice Department special counsel David Weiss [13].

The $6.5 Million Question

Johnson also went after the price tag. He said that by the time Attorney General William Barr named Durham special counsel in October 2020, the investigation “had already cost the American taxpayers over $6.5 million, isn’t that correct?”

“At that point, probably not, no,” Durham said. Asked what it had cost so far, he said: “As I understand the figure, having looked at it, it’s around $6.5 million” [1].

The Justice Department’s own expense reports back Durham’s correction. The special counsel spent about $934,000 from Oct. 19, 2020, through March 2021, nearly $1.9 million from April to September 2021, nearly $1.7 million from October 2021 to March 2022 and nearly $2.1 million from April to September 2022, for a total of more than $6.5 million, The Washington Post reported. All of it was spent after his October 2020 appointment. Costs from the first year and a half, when Durham was still the U.S. attorney in Connecticut and was not required to report them publicly, are not included [5].

”Slam-Dunk Acquitted”

“The other two men you prosecuted went to trial … and both were slam-dunk acquitted, isn’t that correct?” Johnson asked.

“They were acquitted,” Durham said [1].

Michael Sussmann: acquitted of lying to the FBI on May 31, 2022, after a two-week trial in Washington [2].
Igor Danchenko: the primary sub-source for the anti-Trump Steele dossier, found not guilty on all four counts of making false statements to the FBI on Oct. 18, 2022. “While we are disappointed in the outcome, we respect the jury’s decision and thank them for their service,” Durham said at the time [6].
Kevin Clinesmith: Johnson described this case as a guilty plea “unrelated to the origins of the FBI investigation” that ended with probation. “Parts of that are correct,” Durham said [1]. Clinesmith, a former FBI lawyer, admitted altering a government email used to justify secret surveillance of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, and he was sentenced to one year of probation [5].

Johnson also charged that the report described allegations against Sussmann and Danchenko “as if those allegations had been proven true at trial.” Durham answered that the report “talked about the results of the trial, and we included all the evidence that we had available; unfortunately, not all which was admitted at trial” [1].

”This Report Is Factual”

Johnson’s time ran out as he insisted Durham had failed to prove the FBI probe was “politically motivated.” “That is not what I was investigating,” Durham said. Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., asked that the witness be allowed to finish, and Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, agreed.

“I’m not here to talk about Mr. Trump. I’m not here to talk about deep-state, or whatever other characterizations you made,” Durham said. “This report is factual. Nobody has raised any issues as to whether it’s factually inaccurate in any way. People can draw their own conclusions based on those facts” [1].

Minutes earlier, Durham had brushed off Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., who warned that his reputation would be damaged by his association with Trump. “My concern about my reputation is with the people who I respect, my family, and my Lord, and I’m perfectly comfortable with my reputation with them, sir,” Durham said, drawing applause in the hearing room [1][7].

By the Numbers

What the report and the record show:

No evidence at the start: “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” [3].
Raw intelligence: The FBI opened and ran the case “based on raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence” [3].
The bottom line: The Justice Department and FBI “failed to uphold their important mission of strict fidelity to the law” [3].
Three prosecutions: one guilty plea and two acquittals [5][6].
More than $6.5 million: spent from October 2020 through September 2022 [5].
34 people and three companies: charged by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, whose Russia investigation was part of what Durham was authorized to examine [4][8].

What Happened Next

The fight over the Russia investigators did not end with Durham’s report.

Comey charged, then case tossed: A federal grand jury in Virginia indicted Comey on Sept. 25, 2025, on one count of making false statements and one count of obstructing a congressional proceeding, both tied to his Sept. 30, 2020, testimony to Congress. “I’m innocent,” Comey said [9]. In November 2025, U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie threw out the case, ruling that interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan had been unlawfully appointed. The Justice Department appealed to the 4th Circuit [10], and at a Sept. 15, 2026, hearing the judges sounded skeptical of the government’s case for Halligan’s appointment [11].
The “grand conspiracy” probe: A federal investigation based in Fort Pierce, Florida, has issued dozens of subpoenas and scrutinized Brennan and Comey, among others. 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 [12].
Hunter Biden: The man Durham never investigated was convicted by a Delaware jury on three federal gun charges on June 11, 2024 [13], then pardoned by his father on Dec. 1, 2024 [14].

For the rest of the hearing, see how Rep. Matt Gaetz grilled Durham over the Mueller team’s wiped phones, how Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., pressed Durham about a Trump aide and a Russian spy, how Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., tallied up the probe and what Durham told Rep. Dan Bishop, R-N.C., about the officials who refused to be interviewed.