On Monday, U.S. Special Counsel John Durham found that the FBI lacked “actual evidence” to investigate Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and relied too heavily on his opponents’ suggestions.

In May 2019, then-Attorney General William Barr appointed Durham, a veteran prosecutor, to investigate the FBI’s early “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation into potential contacts between Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and Russia. The report concludes a four-year investigation.

In March 2019, Special Counsel Robert Mueller found no criminal conspiracy between Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia.

Durham’s 306-page assessment found no “actual evidence” of Trump campaign-Russia connection before the Crossfire Hurricane.

He also accused the bureau of treating the 2016 Trump probe differently from politically sensitive inquiries, including some involving Trump’s Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.

He said Clinton and other officials received defensive briefings on Russian meddling, but Trump did not before the FBI launched probes into four campaign members.

“The Department and the FBI failed to uphold their important mission of strict fidelity to the law in connection with certain events and activities described in this report,” Durham wrote.

“Senior FBI personnel displayed a serious lack of analytical rigor towards the information that they received, especially information from politically affiliated persons and entities.”

The FBI claimed it had taken dozens of long-standing corrective actions in response to the report.

After Attorney General Merrick Garland received Durham’s report on Friday, Congress received it unredacted on Monday. Republican House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan tweeted that Durham will testify on his findings next Thursday.

Durham’s findings are likely to be used by Trump, who plans to run for re-election in 2024 despite facing criminal charges in New York and two federal investigations by Special Counsel Jack Smith into Trump’s retention of classified records and his role in efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

Trump wanted Durham’s research to hurt President Joe Biden’s 2020 candidacy.

After two juries acquitted Durham’s 2022 defendants, his inquiry had little influence.

In one case Durham presented, a Washington, D.C. jury acquitted Hillary Clinton’s former campaign attorney Michael Sussmann of lying to the FBI in September 2016 when he shared a tip about probable interactions between Trump’s business and a Russian bank.

Durham’s investigation suffered another major setback a few months later when a Virginia jury acquitted Russian researcher Igor Danchenko of charges that he lied to the FBI about the sources of information he provided for the “Steele dossier.”

Christopher Steele’s dossier, which included sensational claims about Trump’s 2016 election campaign’s ties to Russia, was never proven.

The Justice Department’s inspector general found that the FBI improperly relied on the Steele dossier when applying for court-approved warrants to monitor Carter Page, a former Trump campaign adviser.

Durham obtained a guilty plea from former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith, who was singled out in the inspector general’s report for modifying an email to justify Page’s government wiretap application.

Durham’s Monday report repeated the inspector general’s worries about the FBI’s wiretap application process to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.