當地時間5月15日，針對美國前總統特朗普“通俄門”的最終調查報告出爐，美國特別檢察官約翰·達勒姆釋出報告稱，聯邦調查局（FBI）在發起針對特朗普2016年競選團隊與俄羅斯關係的調查時沒有“證據基礎”。

據《紐約時報》報道，達勒姆在新發布的長達306頁的最新報告中得出結論，稱美國情報和執法部門對特朗普2016年競選團隊與俄羅斯關係的調查存在“嚴重缺陷”，沒有“證據基礎”，並且過於依賴特朗普政治對手提供的線索來推動調查。

早在2016年美國大選之前，FBI從一名澳大利亞外交官那裡得到線索，對特朗普與俄羅斯的關係展開了全面反間諜調查。當時這名外交官透露，特朗普的競選助手喬治·帕帕佐普洛斯，曾吹噓俄羅斯人已經獲得並準備釋出有關特朗普的民主黨對手、前國務卿希拉里·克林頓競選活動的破壞性資訊。

達勒姆在報告中寫道：“FBI忽視或故意忽略了不支援特朗普與俄羅斯有關係的材料資訊，”“同樣，FBI檢查部的報告稱，調查人員一再忽視與特朗普通俄理論相悖的證據…似乎存在…一種惡意假設的模式。”

按照達勒姆報告所說，FBI在“通俄門”調查中做到了“大膽假設，大膽求證”，卻在其他案件調查中存在“雙標”。達勒姆批評說，FBI將“通俄門”與其他政治敏感調查案件區別對待，後者包括幾起涉及特朗普的民主黨競爭對手希拉里·克林頓的調查。

特朗普稱達勒姆“為這份報告花了很長時間，是一位非常徹底的調查員。就結果來說是明確的，就正義而言絕對是一場災難。”

特朗普說：“我，更重要的是當時的美國公眾，一直是這場由民主黨發起的長期叛國騙局的受害者。”“他們所做的事對國家安全的影響非常嚴重，讓我們的國家渡過難關時必須付出沉重的代價。”

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The long-awaited report by special counsel John Durham about the FBI's probe  into the 2016 Trump campaign and its alleged ties to Russia was released publicly today. 

Durham was appointed by former Trump Attorney General William Barr to look  into what many on the right saw as a politically motivated investigation. 

While Durham's report offers no significant new evidence, it is deeply critical of the FBI. 

Durham called their handling of parts of the investigation seriously deficient and wrote  that investigators were too credible towards partisan actors, writing: "Senior FBI personnel  displayed a serious lack of analytical rigor towards the information that they received."  Washington Post reporter Devlin Barrett has been following all this, and he joins me now. 

Devlin, thank you so much for being here. 

This is the culmination of four years of work by John Durham. What else does this report say?  DEVLIN BARRETT, The Washington Post:  The report basically goes through all the steps taken in the investigation known as  Crossfire Hurricane and faults the FBI again and again for how they did it. 

But it also doesn't particularly tell us much more than we already knew. And, frankly,  many of these criticisms have been said before, years before, by others who looked at this. 

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: So what Durham seems to be arguing is that the FBI received  a lot of information about the Trump campaign back in 2016,  and that the FBI should have treated that information as more suspect than they did?  Is that is that the gist here?  DEVLIN BARRETT: Basically. 

What they're basically saying in this report is,  the FBI actually didn't have a lot in the — in terms of allegations to go on, and didn't  do enough careful analysis and work to try to stand up the kinds of allegations it was getting. 

And, basically, their argument is, the FBI rushed forward to investigate Trump, when,  if you look at some past Clinton cases, the FBI was more cautious. But the truth is, the FBI  ultimately investigated both Trump and Clinton, so I don't know how powerful that criticism is. 

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: So did Durham say that there was no reason that  the FBI should have been looking at the Trump — Trump campaign?  DEVLIN BARRETT: The report, interestingly, actually says it makes sense for the FBI  to have examined this initial tip they got from an Australian diplomat, which, frankly,  is in some ways a walk-back from other suggestions Durham has made in the past. 

I think the report is actually fairly cautious and not particularly critical  on what was supposed to be his biggest criticism, which is that the case never  should have been opened at all. But that's not actually what the report ends up saying. 

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Well, former President Trump, as I'm sure you have seen on his  Web site TRUTH Social, said: "Durham concludes the FBI never should have  launched the Trump-Russia probe! In other words, the American public was scammed."  Again, to the point you're making, that's not what this report is indicating. 

DEVLIN BARRETT: No. 

And, in fact, as I read the Durham report, what he's basically arguing is, the FBI should have  opened a preliminary report, as — preliminary investigation, as opposed to a full investigation. 

That's a fine distinction. But I think only lawyers and  agents care about that level of granular detail. 

And I don't think, in the end, it matters that much. 

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Who does Durham specifically point his critical  judgment at? Is it senior levels of the FBI and the DOJ or more rank-and-file members?  DEVLIN BARRETT: It's definitely the senior level that he is most critical of. 

And there's particular agents who oversaw these cases that have been criticized in the past. 

And he is even more critical of them, arguing that they essentially have a confirmation bias,  that they were naturally suspect of Trump, and that colored their  thinking. That is something that, frankly, those officials have denied and said, look,  we, as the FBI, had an obligation to investigate these allegations. 

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: As you mentioned before, the inspector general of the Department  of Justice issued a report several years ago that covered a lot of this material. 

And, then, the FBI and the DOJ had to respond to that. Have they,  FBI or DOJ, responded to this revelation today?  DEVLIN BARRETT: They have, but their point is that they have  already instituted a significant number of changes to policies and practices  where there were things that were found to be wrong and shouldn't have happened. 

And, frankly, most of the people who made those decisions are long gone from the FBI. 

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Devlin Barrett of The Washington Post, thank you so much for being here. 

DEVLIN BARRETT: Thanks for having me.