John Durham's Report Concludes That Criminal Conduct Likely Occurred In the FBI's "Crossfire Hurricane" Investigation But Opts To Not Pursue Further Indictments -- A Lawsplainer on Why

Followed by a Chorus of Him Being Called an "Apologist" for the "Feds."

John Durham’s Report details extensive misconduct — criminal and otherwise — by government and private actors during 2016 and 2017 as part of the FBI’s investigation into the Russia Hoax perpetrated by the Hillary Clinton campaign in the summer of 2016. But Durham opted to not pursue further criminal cases, and no government actor other than former FBI Attorney Kevin Clinesmith will face any criminal charges.

From Page 5 of the Durham Report:

“Moreover, the law does not always make a person's bad judgment, even horribly bad judgment, standing alone, a crime. Nor does the law criminalize all unseemly or unethical conduct that political campaigns might undertake for tactical advantage, absent a violation of a particular federal criminal statute. Finally, in almost all cases, the government is required to prove a person's actual criminal intent - not mere negligence or recklessness - before that person's fellow citizens can lawfully find him or her guilty of crime. The Office's adherence to these principles explains, in numerous instances, why conduct deserving of censure or disciplinary action did not lead the Office to seek criminal charges.”

Should the law be otherwise? Not as part of any criminal justice system I want to be part of.

[N]ot every injustice or transgression amounts to a criminal offense, and criminal prosecutors are tasked exclusively with investigating and prosecuting violations of U.S. criminal laws. And even where prosecutors believe a crime occurred based on all of the facts and information they have gathered, it is their duty only to bring criminal charges when the evidence that the government reasonably believes is admissible in court proves the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Durham’s Report can be found here.

What prevented him from going forward given his factual findings that would have likely supported further indictments which can be obtained on a “probable cause” basis? A fair reading of his report does not lead to the conclusion that he found no other crimes had been committed — which is how Democrats and their friendly partisans in the media have been describing the report.