Fact check: Did the Durham investigation turn up solid evidence against Hillary Clinton

1. Summary of the results

The Durham investigation did not turn up solid evidence against Hillary Clinton. While the investigation uncovered intelligence alleging that Clinton approved a plan to tie Donald Trump to Russia, the FBI was unable to verify this claim ^[1]. The declassified Durham annex contains information about a reported Clinton campaign plan to falsely tie Trump to Russia, but it does not provide conclusive evidence of these allegations ^[2].

Crucially, some of the supposed "evidence" against Clinton appears to be fabricated by Russian intelligence, according to assessments in the Durham annex itself ^[3]. The Durham report investigated matters related to intelligence activities from the 2016 presidential campaigns but does not provide a clear conclusion about the Clinton campaign plan to tie Trump to Russia ^[4].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question omits several critical pieces of context:

• Russian disinformation component: The analyses reveal that some of the alleged evidence against Clinton was likely manufactured by the Kremlin ^[3], which fundamentally undermines the credibility of the claims.
• FBI's investigative limitations: The FBI investigated the intelligence about Clinton's alleged plan but was never able to verify the claim ^[1], indicating the evidence was insufficient to substantiate the allegations.
• Political motivations: Senator Chuck Grassley and other Republican officials have promoted the Durham findings as exposing Clinton wrongdoing ^[5], while critics argue this represents a continuation of partisan attacks rather than legitimate evidence.
• Distinction between allegations and proof: The Durham investigation uncovered intelligence reports and allegations, but these should not be conflated with verified evidence or proof of wrongdoing.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains an implicit assumption that the Durham investigation produced "solid evidence" against Hillary Clinton, which contradicts the actual findings. This framing could mislead readers into believing that concrete proof of Clinton's wrongdoing exists when the analyses show:

• The investigation failed to verify key allegations ^[1]
• Some purported evidence was likely Russian disinformation ^[3]
• The Durham report does not provide conclusive evidence against Clinton ^[2]

The question's phrasing suggests a predetermined conclusion and may reflect partisan bias rather than an objective inquiry into the investigation's actual findings. Those who benefit from promoting this narrative include political opponents of Clinton and those seeking to discredit the original Russia investigation, regardless of the lack of substantive evidence.