John Durham made false statements to Congress during congressional hearing: journalist

Former special counsel John Durham, who was appointed by the Trump administration to investigate the origins of the FBI's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, made false statements when testifying before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, journalist David Corn wrote for Mother Jones.

"When Durham came before the committee, House Republicans eagerly picked over the scraps in his final report, which has been muchcriticized, and they treated him as a hero," wrote Corn. "But under questioning from Democratic and Republican members, Durham misrepresented key aspects of the Russia scandal, suggesting he was either unfamiliar with basic facts or was purposefully trying to mislead the committee and the American public."

At times, Durham couched his claims in cautious language like, "I'm not aware," when asked by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) about efforts by Russian officials to hack into Hillary Clinton's email server.

But at other times, he simply stated things that were clearly false.

For example, when Schiff questioned Durham about the infamous meeting between the Trump campaign and a Russian lawyer in Trump Tower, Durham said, “The more complete story is that they met, and it was a ruse, and they didn’t talk about Mrs. Clinton.” But former special counsel Robert Mueller's report already found they did, in fact, talk about Clinton. Durham also said that, “There was no such evidence" anyone on Trump's team met with Russian intelligence officials, even though it is established Paul Manafort met with Konstantin Kilimnik, believed by U.S. officials to be a Russian agent.

"Durham’s investigation and report raised several questions about his aims," wrote Corn. "Was he running a fair and balanced probe or weaponizing a government inquiry to buttress Trump’s self-serving lies about the Russia scandal? Durham’s false statements to Congress about essential facts provide more reason for suspicion, and they further undermine his credibility. They might even merit their own investigation."