Pulitzer Prize given to Washington Post, New York Times should be taken back after Durham report: Sen. Graham
The New York Times and Washington Post both received a Pulitzer Prize for their coverage of the now-debunked Russian collusion hoax
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., argued the Pulitzer Prize awarded to The Washington Post and New York Times for their coverage of the Trump-Russia collusion investigation in 2018 should be "taken back" following the release of John Durham's final report on the probe. Graham made the suggestion during "America's Newsroom," Tuesday, while discussing the fallout from Durham's findings and what he thinks should be done following its release.
LINDSEY GRAHAM: Here's what I would say to Senator Durbin. If you're not disturbed by this, you just hate Trump too much. I don't care what your politics are. We have a situation where the FBI ran every stop sign available, kept pushing a warrant against an American citizen based on a Steel dossier that was a piece of fiction. The information was supplied the FBI by two Russian agents. It was used to get a warrant against an American citizen to turn his life upside down and create a cloud of the Trump presidency and try to deny him the presidency. Other than that, this is no big deal.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}Three things should happen. Garland should pick up the phone and call all those that were harmed by this and say, even though it didn't happen on my watch, I'll apologize to you, this is not the Department of Justice that I want you to believe in. I would like the FBI Director Wray to get on the phone and apologize to the people that had their lives ruined by the FBI. And I think the Pulitzer Prize given to The Washington Post and New York Times should be taken back because the entire episode was politically motivated crap. That's not something you should get a Pulitzer Prize for.
READ DURHAM’S REPORT ON THE ORIGINS OF THE FBI’S RUSSIAN COLLUSION PROBE
The FBI and Justice Department jumped to investigate former President Trump's campaign despite a lack of sound evidence, a "notable departure" from the way it resisted efforts to investigate claims against Hillary Clinton's campaign, according to Special Counsel John Durham's final report on the probe into alleged election collusion between Trump and Russia.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}Durham's long awaited report from his investigation into FBI's "Crossfire Hurricane" probe was delivered to Congress on Monday and revealed that FBI and DOJ "failed to uphold their mission of strict fidelity to the law" when it launched the Trump-Russia investigation.
Durham's report also highlighted that the Trump investigation was "markedly different" from the government's level of interest in Clinton's campaign.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}Durham's report said the FBI briefed Clinton staffers on information of possible threats aimed at the Clinton campaign, but ignored intelligence it received from "a trusted foreign source pointing to a Clinton campaign plan to vilify Trump by tying him to Vladimir Putin so as to divert attention from her own concerns relating to her use of a private email server."
Fox News' Brianna Herlihy contributed to this report.