The Mueller Report, the Durham Report, and the Use of Congressional Investigations

When comparing the Mueller Report and the John Durham Report, one difference stands out: the handling of key findings. This was discussed on the Main Justice podcast episode, Distractions and Sideshows. It's worth a listen.

In the Durham Report, a notable conclusion — that a purported Clinton email was actually a Russian fabrication — appeared only in the bibliography, not in the main text. This placement made it easy to overlook. By contrast, the Mueller Report placed its conclusions prominently. When it was suggested that the GOP platform in 2016 might have been altered to favor Donald Trump, the Mueller team investigated, determined the platform had not been changed, and presented that finding clearly in the body of the report.

This is not simply a stylistic distinction. While Republicans did not rewrite their platform specifically for Trump in 2016, its orientation had been moving in a compatible direction since at least the early 2000s.

Despite this, claims persist — such as those by Kash Patel — that Hillary Clinton sought to frame Donald Trump on Russia-related matters. Yet the Durham Report itself does not support that allegation. Calls to “investigate the investigators,” including Special Counsel Jack Smith, come after these matters have already been reviewed multiple times, making such proposals more performative than substantive.

There is also a longer history worth considering. Over the past several decades, Congress has engaged in numerous high-cost investigations, some of which have been criticized for their partisan nature.

• Benghazi — The House Select Committee spent approximately $7–$7.8 million over more than two years, while the State Department incurred an additional $14 million in compliance costs. The investigation did not produce new evidence of misconduct by then–Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

• Clinton Email Inquiries — Spread across several committees, these investigations overlapped with the Benghazi probes, cost millions more, and revisited allegations that had already been examined.

• 1990s Campaign Finance Investigation — Led by Rep. Dan Burton, this probe into alleged Democratic fundraising abuses cost over $7.4 million by 1998, at the time the most expensive congressional investigation in history.

By comparison, when Democrats have led high-profile investigations — such as the January 6th Committee or oversight into Iraq War contracting — they have typically been grounded in documented events and substantial evidence, rather than revisiting previously settled matters.

The contrast in both approach and frequency challenges the notion that “both sides” have engaged in equivalent patterns of politically driven investigations. The record suggests a recurring tendency by some to use the investigative powers of Congress in ways that serve political objectives as much as, or more than, the pursuit of new facts.

In today’s climate, where trust in institutions is already strained, the way investigations are initiated, conducted, and communicated matters as much as their conclusions. Overuse or misuse of these tools for partisan gain risks undermining the very credibility they depend on — leaving the public less informed and more divided.

---

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT