Transcripts For CSPAN2 After Words Peter Strzok Compromised 20240712

Years. I Cover National Security including the fbi and ive recorded extensively on the fbi russia investigation known as crossfire hurricane. I want to thank pete for coming on and have this frank discussion. Im interested how he came to use that codename. Before we get into the details of the book, pete, why dont you tell the listeners a little bit about yourself and your counterintelligence background at the fbi. I was in boston worked on the case which on a series of russian illegals which formed the basis of past Television Show the americans but did a variety of the bread and butter counterintelligence work that occurs in a midsized office, russia, china, espionage. And then after being a street agent started moving up the management chain. I was the number two of all the fbi counterintelligence operations. Before we launch into the book, describe a little bit about the difference of counterintelligence investigation and what a criminal investigation is of the fbi. I think that has been lost upon the public in the midst of everything. Absolutely. Criminal investigations are frequently what the public thinks of when they think of the fbi. Is a bank robbery or organized criminal and agents throughout they are trying to build a case looking at violations of the law which has various elements of the crime. We have to demonstrate with evidence up to and including a courtroom where its going to withstand adversarial crossexamination by defense attorney and the goal there is to prove or not prove that somebody violated the law. Intelligence work is really different, counterintelligence nazi saboteurs coming on shore in the northeast coastline even before that part prior to world war ii its really different from criminal work. The standards are very different frequently the material and information is classified. There are things that if it was disclosed could get a source killed up until very recently very quiet line of work. Its beneath the surface and something thats just not talked about. Why did you decide to write this book for years you essentially maintained silence and spoken to congress now youve come up with this book which is obviously highly critical of the president of the United States. Basically accused him of being compromised. Why put yourself back out in the spotlight where trump contorts you on twitter . Because the threat he poses is too important to ignore. He was there in 2016, continues to stay. One of the reasons was to have an accurate account of what occurred. Theres been a lot of recounting and twisting of the historical narrative bipartisan individuals seeking to twist what did and did not occur which continues to this day. I wanted a book that could be relied on to be an accurate factual representation of exactly what we did through 2016, 17, all the way up to the current day. The other thing i wanted to do is get the reader into the mindset of what counterintelligence agents think and how they see the world and why counterintelligence work is what it is, what we are concerned with and why its different from criminal work. The last thing of course is the highlight, the threat that continues to come out of the white house and trump. Things havent gotten better. The russians are still attacking us, people need to understand why russia is doing what they are doing and the unique threat that exists within the person of President Trump and why that is so advantageous to russia and why russia continues to try to get him reelected. Why should readers take your word over abyou have been cast as a villain, a secret member of a cabal who wanted to take down the president. That is the narrative among Trump Supporters. Namely based on your Text Messages revealed in which you expressed antitrump bias. You claim in the ig never found Inspector General never found evidence of any operational decisions based on fines but you are among several fbi officials that trump has targeted and Trump Supporters think are dirty cops. Why should the public believe what you are writing . For a couple reasons. I think my historical record and it speaks for themselves part of why layout is this issue of cases that have worked the outcomes of those, and what we did and the reasons we did it. Its very plainly there, able to be corroborated and people can see the facts and go back and verify them. Places they should look to verify the reasons they should believe me as all these independent looks that books that have been done, theres two Inspector General that it investigations over three years 15 or more attorneys and analysts looking at every last thing they did every text every email every call every note, every communication all of which concluded that not only me but the entire team that there wasnt evidence of any act taken based on improper motive. You add on top of that multiple u. S. Attorneys that the department of justice is assigned take a look at her actions after the fact we look at all the congressional investigations that have tried not to mention all the media, you and other folks looking at what we did all these things all these deep investigations have come up with no indication no evidence that things were done based on proper acontrast that with the president s behavior he cant make it through press conference or town hall without Fact Checking at each event pointing out it occurs time and time again and folks in the media and others have catalogued the literally thousands of untruths that hes uttered. When i look at the targeting of us, not only me but others in the fbi who been lumped into this crazy conspiracy its apparent to me its being done by partisans and its being done specifically to undermine any sort of valid criticism for observations or investigations of trump because he scared of whats there he doesnt want the truth known and anybody not just the fbi, look at people like jovanovich and colonel vindman, anybody who dares speaks the truth is immediately attacked because you dont want the truth out. This leads me to some things you write in the book. On the one hand you are cast as a central villain in this narrative. But when its convenient for trump allies, you are a ab walk us through a couple accounts in the book that sort of explain this, its almost like a conundrum. Walk us through how you handle the james comey memos that he wrote about that he wrote about regarding his conversation with President Trump and also your role in interviewing general flynn and expressing that he didnt have any signs in the cia deception but yet he lied to you. Walk us through those two accounts and how they fit into this conundrum. The fact of the matter is, i lay out the truth and on both sides of the partisan debate people are to find things that support arguments and rebut their arguments. Whats immediately apparent is the same members of some of the right are seizing on items that both tend to favor my credibility and on the other hand seek to undermine it. The example of general flynn we went in there, interviewed him, he knew we were there to interview him about conversations with ambassador kinsley ab i can now say were reviewed the conversations he said we knew he had discussed things like slowing down or dampening the russian response to the sanctions of the Obama Administration had just placed on the russians for attacking the elections. We knew he had spoken about un vote and asking russia to moderate or vote a certain way on that. Before we even walked in the room he talked to the Deputy Director and told him, you guys know what i said, why do you need to talk to me, you have it . At the same time in response to that he decided he didnt need of attorney or want one divide to us in two he didnt tell anybody in the white house and sat there knowing what we are going to ask him. Two or three weeks after he had conversations about this with the president with the front a ahe knew full well what we are going to talk about but he sat there and time and time again when we got to the two critical questions he didnt tell us the truth. A lot of people when they lie or dissembling they tend to have atheyll cover their mouth, lick their lips, look away reask the question. He didnt do any of those things. That doesnt mean he wasnt lying but it does mean there was something going on there that either hes a very good liar or that he thought he was telling the truth or Something Else was mentally going on. Of course when we left, talking about at my interview partner on the way back saying, that was really odd because he had quick answers and he didnt give any kind of visual or ab the bureau calls abthings that would make you think he was lying. At the same time he clearly had. He pled guilty not once but twice to two different judges orally and in writing that he had lied to us. We get back and we are trying to explain, it makes no sense because all the background i just told you, yet he doesnt choose to tell us the truth and he doesnt see, hes not doing anything that looks like hes nervous or looks like hes lying. When i relay all that, of course some of that goes in the write up of the interview called at 302, some of it comes up later and discussion in an interview i did with the ops of the special counsel, folks on the right say, look interviewing agents think he didnt like, they are credible experts they know what they are talking about, they are absolutely right, thats me im the one who said that. Its not how i said it but if youre gonna hold this up as a standard of somebody who is absolutely credible, they knew kant on the other hand seek the pillar in me and say not credible and biased and a so your doctoring the 302 so on one hand your writing ab you write that doesnt exhibit signs. [indiscernable] on the other hand abcan you explain that contradiction . I dont get it either. The 302 represents what he said in the interview. That is something my interview partner and i wrote. My interview partner took the lead, he gave it to me i made substantive changes based on my recollection confirmed with him i think this happened and that, we agreed on the substance of that and thats what he said. Thats why her name is on the 302, i gave it to somebody whos an excellent proofreader to sit there and say, does this grammatically makes sense. Thats common with 302 you will have some of the review it but this has been seized on by some on the crazy extremes to say this was rewritten several times. There was a missing 302, there is no missing 302. My interview partner began the drafting process somebody takes the lead in writing, they kick it to their partner who will sit there and review it adjust things, add things, because you have to bring together the recollection of two people and thats what occurred. We sat there, we came up with it and that 302 represents what flynn said and everything that 302, the notes i took notes my partner took, all that has been turned over not only to now the department of justice but provided to flints attorneys. There is nothing unproduced here, there is no secret but serves as this lies grist for some greats Conspiracy Theory that there is all kinds of ab that didnt happen. The one thing i understand also a part of this fact contradicts your critics, critics of the fbi and comeys leadership, they say you went into entrapment. You set up this interview you entrapped to them but when you read about documents that have been declassified and made public and handed over to flynns lawyers you see that jim comey, you read about this in the book, you see jim call me on the 23rd decides that you guys are just going to abby the 24s today you interviewed general flynn, he decided you can read back snippets of the electronic abfrom the discussions of the russians ab if youre going to entrap flint, why give him the benefit of reading the snippets of what he actually said on the electronic intercepts. Why give them the chance to tell the truth . This plainly was not an entrapment of any sort. This is not a perjury chat in any way shape or form. Whats interesting that morning you point out not only overnight that he said you can read him, you can give him some of the things you said but also in my notes from that morning, hours before interviewing him i note that the goal of the interview is to give flynn the opportunity to tell the truth about his relationship with the russians. That was the purpose of the interview. Surprisingly the department of justice and recent filings in dc with regard to flint and withdrawing his plea there is no mention of that. Its all because it directly rebuts some of the things that he argued the government is arguing in recent filings. Which i hope the court now will get to the bottom of the hold hearings to try to understand what happened with the rug drawl of flynns plea. At the end of the day you are absolutely right. We went in there because we needed to understand what flynns relationship with the russians was. We looked at flynn and in the late fall and early winter decided were not coming up with abwe were looking at him to see whether or not he was a potential match for what George Papadopoulos stated to a representative of friendly Foreign Government that there is this allegation that the government of russia had offered to assist the campaign and the release of materials and would be damaging to obama and clinton. We looked at flynn because a lot of connections he had to russia potentially one of those folks who might have been the person who heard that. We were moving away from that to the point that in the fall and early winter up to and including the director had been brief, were probably gonna close this case because it doesnt look like he is a likely candidate. Everybody had agreed, that occurred in the december timeframe. When you get these intercepts from flynn and kissling act that radically changes our understanding of flynns relationship to the russians. Suddenly he becomes a focus of investigative interest because of his relationship to russia. Theres a lot of this conspiracy, the office wanted to close it and the floor of the fbi stepped in. Nonsense. Another theory is there was an intentional leak in the Washington Post about flynns calls with justlyabisnt it tru you already knew about the calls well before that was revealed in the Washington Post . I think as early as january. Obama had asked the Intelligence Community figure out why putin hadnt responded to sanctions you guys finding your holdings that flynn in fact had talked to kisliack, did that leak matter. Were you going to interview flynn anyway or was it just convenient for you. Walk me through that. And the fbi one of the roles i had was leading investigations of leaks to the media. For many many years whether a i dont condone that by the way. Im a hardened supporter of freedom of the press but im also our supporter of prosecuting people who illegally leaked classified information to you. I can hold both of both of those things in my head at once. I investigated countless illegal leaks of classified information to the media put several people in jail. a we dont investigate reporters, thats not something we do. The First Amendment i think there is some Supreme Court ruling the rules of the race are set but the outcome is not. That leak in particular the one to ignatius did have an impact on our investigation. I was very concerned and you look at my communications i made at the time throughout this period i was deeply concerned about the impact the leaks were having on our investigation. The kind of crazy conspiracy theorists who think this is all part of an organized plan, look to the record look at all my repeated concern about the way the government was hemorrhaging classified information and how it was damaging and impacting our investigation. Those are not the words of a man seeking to undermine trump. Those are the words of somebody wants to quietly conduct an investigation to get to the bottom of the truth and is discouraged, disappointed and bothered that all of these bits of information are coming out. They put us on a much more compressed timetable but what it did do is bring things up into the open when things become public it gives you a reason to go ask about it. If i know something is classified and i go talked to you its gonna burn that source if theres a big newspaper article about it that gives me a chance to go to you and sit down and say i read this article like you did, i want to talk to you about it, can you explain it . That was part of the impetus that pushed us on the path to interviewing flynn. One last bit on flynn and we can move on. I think one of the arguments has been you guys were very concerned, sally was the acting attorney general, very concerned when Vice President pence went on tv and said flynn told me he didnt talk about sanctions which we know is patently false. When you heard that, when pence relayed the story, what happened, what were you thinking at the time . Did that elevate why you needed to talk to flynn . Was this a greater concern now . One of the things that i cant remember if it was in the motion to drop the charge against flynn but barr mightve set it. Flynn lying to pence was not a critical issue, something that shouldve been dealt with in the white house. Is not an fbi matter. Put that in context. I disagree with that. The fact of the matter is we didnt know what was going on when pence made that statement. Knew it wasnt true. There are two options, either pence has been lied to and repeating the lie, which he claims is the case, or in the alternative theres a lot going on seeking to cover up this conversation between flynn and the russians that might include others in the white house. Including pence, most importantly potentially including trump. Keep in mind, russian had just intervened in our election to help elect trump as undisputed, even between the Intelligence Community assessment and others its very clear and undisputed that russia intervened to assist trump in getting elected. We are trying to understand what the nature of that relationship was, understanding what russia did and at the end of the day its important to know whether or not flynn was knowingly lying to us are not telling us the truth but at the end of the day the much more fundamentally important issue in question is, was he doing that because of something trump either had told him to do otherwise directed to act and it wasnt going there figured out what flynn said or didnt say because you already know it. The underlying question is, is there something flynn is doing in the context of the rest of the Incoming Administration . Interestingly, that key question mueller asked, trump refuse to sit down and be interviewed, they answered questions, at the end of the Mueller Report you can see the questions asked at part of the appendix. Theres a very detailed list of his interactions with flynn, what he knew about the calls with kislyak, getting to this question, this critical question, you know what trump responded, he just didnt answer the question at all. Not a single word. He just left it completely unaddressed. I know he said he was fully cooperative, the fact of the matter is, the key concern, the entire issue driving our interaction with flynn to understand what the russians were doing particularly as it related to others up to and including the president has never been answered. Thats why we were so interested in flynn and thats why its so concerning that he didnt tell us the truth. You were already removed from special counsels office by the time general flynn had reached an agreement with prosecutors and lying to the fbi, were you involved in that decision . I was not. Charging decisions are made by the department of justice that something prosecutors do, certainly agents have interactions and discussions but that the doj call. In this case it was made by the special counsel. One thing i point out thats clear from both material and the special counsels report and thats been made public, flynn was under investigation for a lot a variety of potentially illegal activity. First and foremost, his unregistered activity on behalf of the government of turkey which others around him had been charged for that activity, certainly for allegedly excluding information from his clearance paperwork. There was a variety of things at play and the fact of the matter is the phrase pleabargain, its a bargain, there something you are agreeing to admit guilt to an exchange for not being in many cases not being prosecuted for other potential violations of law. The idea that this is some demented mess activity and attack as part of a perjury trap and no other adverse information there, okay, if you want to back away from that, lets go look at all this other potential activity that occurred that was investigated that the government agreed not to pursue as part of this plea and the fact of whats happening to flynn is a window into a broad dismantling of actions the special counsel took. This isnt anything about the fbi. Roger stone sentencing and the way the government has behaved is directly unwinding everything the special counsels office did against him. The same with flynn. Going on and on down the list of things that now this department of justice is seeking to unwind in a way thats absolutely a travesty. I think attorney general barr has described your investigation as one of the greatest travesties in american history. Which leaves me to lets move forward a little bit, leads me to another, some other stuff you read in the book, about what happened after what happened after andrew abim sorry, director jim, he was fired in may 2017. Something i thought about a lot and i think you write about some of this in the book, after mccabe abyou know that comey is documenting his conversations with trump. Hes very alarmed about these conversations, in fact, hes immortalizing them. Some of us is in this new showtime documentary. In these memos comeys were laying, also belaying to you guys, that he doesnt like mccabe. Hes singling out mccabe, mccabes wife ran for state legislature in virginia and the democrat. Even when comey is fired in the firing letter that mike schmidt writes about in his book he says one of the reasons he fired comey because words his involvement in the end and the hillary email investigation. I cant remember exact language but trump says its essentially unconscionable. I believe its may 15, i think you right its may 15 that the fbi decides to open up this obstruction and counterintelligence investigation into the president of United States. This is really unprecedented territory. You suspect trump might be an agent of a foreign power, russia. Given that was mr. Mccabe opening that investigation and given his history with trump, should he not have done that . Was he conflicted . I think a lot of people could look at that and say that was a retaliatory action by the Deputy Director that hes getting back at trump for singling out his wife and saying bad things about her. He was conflicted and shouldnt have done that. In a minimum he shouldve gone to Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney general, since sessions was refused and saw his approval. Do you think this was an abuse of power do you think andy should have stepped aside and why not go to rod and get hardcover from doj before opening the most politically a amaybe the most politically b ainvestigation and the bureaus history . Just how the legal issues, constitution issues doing so down to the nittygritty about how to investigate the president. And akamai survey all the secret service abyou cant get trash out of the oval office. Investigating or even getting financial rights you cant do that, just based on how many there are. For a variety of reasons why we all debated doing it, i was steadfastly arguing against it because i didnt think we needed to do it that sort of discussion certainly within the Counterintelligence Division was going on months before the decision to open the case. It was only after director comey was fired that was like we have no other choice. Nobody wanted to open that case. Nobody was eager to do it or seeking a reason to do it we were trying not to do it that firing was so grievously impactful on what we were doing both in terms of obstructing the investigation as well as pointing to whats going on because we remember the very next day hes crowing about it to ambassador kislyak and the oval office a great weight has been lifted and the only reason we know about it was not because the u. S. Press in the room but Russian Press were in their. As the top cover, keep in mind, immediately after within a week of this big open acting director mccabe along with Rod Rosenstein go up to the hill to the house and senate and sit down with a gang of eight and Senate Majority leader mcconnell speaker of the house ryan is there, chairman of the house Intelligence Community nunez is there, chairman of the senate Intelligence Community is there and they lay out in detail the cases we opened on trump, the perjury investigation on sessions, the attorney general that had been opened and all these other investigations, precisely to do exactly what you are asking about, to give the ability for a Bipartisan Group outside of the executive branch to challenge those decisions to ask questions to make sure they are comfortable with them and none of them all the questions were answered none of them objected all of them gave their ato what the fbi and doj had just done. This wasnt some active rupture bhushan done in the state of anger this was a product of a very long buildup we had actively been trying to not do and when we finally precipitously how to do it because of the president s actions, we immediately went up to the hill to make that a much more open decision and something that involved a bipartisan inclusion and a briefing about it. But you been criticized for not going to Rod Rosenstein and seeking abyou would need to but for not going to consult with him before you opened the obstruction counterintelligence investigation. Why not do that . Thats a question for the acting director at the time. I cant tell you that rosenstein had been in the office for i think a week, not very long at all and the question was, not knowing anything about him we had been arguing, director comey has been arguing with the director, department of justice to open a perjury investigation on sessions based on not telling the truth about his Senate Confirmation hearings whether he was lying or not, he clearly wasnt charged. That was of some concern to us and have been referred to to investigate by the senate. Director comey had been rebuffed time and time again in this conversations with a rosenstein about opening that case, he just didnt answer the question. Then add to that the fact that Deputy Attorney general writes a letter which has to do with the claim investigation which has nothing to do with the reason the actual reason why trump fired the director yet somehow thats being used as the fig leaf to provide justification. As we look at that there is a reasonable concern that what are the Deputy Attorney generals motives. We are seeing a pattern of behavior we are concerned about the president and his National Security advisors Campaign Manager, attorney general, the list goes on and on and now we have a brandnew Deputy Attorney general who writes a letter that used as a pretext for his firing that has nothing to do with the reason that hes fired and its a reasonable question but in the fbis mind where are this mans motivations . Why is he acting the way he did and is there something where hes acting in good faith or being duped, which i ultimately think inexplicably he allowed himself to be used in that way or we also have to consider the worst case, is he acting in concert with the fbi or the white house to commit obstruction by firing comey. All of that is in the mind of those of us in the fbi. I cant speak to that, i dont want to put myself in the acting directors head or the general counsels head but im speaking for how i saw it and how we talked about it. To abtwo more quick questions. Lets touch on the dossier, which has taken on a largerthanlife significance in the rush investigation. You guys sought and obtained a wiretap application to abit turned out the material used in part to justify getting this application was from a former michigan six intelligence official who provided whats known as the dossier turned out there was some serious issues with the dossier and the department of justice Inspector General later found that the applications that were used together were riddled with errors. My question for you on the subject you write about the dossier with the book everybody knew the fbi including yourself, including doj officials that this pfizer application can be scrutinized by congress. You know everything you are doing could be scrutinized by congress. On this sensitive aspect of the investigation seeking this wiretap application why push forward with the dossier that havent been vetted. I understand the source was reputable who provided it to you and he himself had a good reputation at the fbi but the underlying information you used to get the dossier had not been vetted. Why push forward and use it . Why not be cautious and say, lets examine all this and once we get to a Comfort Level we can say 50 of it is correct, lets use it and move forward, why do it at the moment . Because thats the common way and counterintelligence investigation you approach intelligence you receive. Certainly the way you view that intelligence in many ways before you can really dive in and try to corroborate or not, a lot of it goes to whats the history of the source. I want to be very careful to say im not confirming or denying what you said and where you said it works. I think the most thats been said they worked for a Foreign Government. When information comes to the door from any source even if we havent yet run it to ground a lot of things go into how we do its reliability and potential reliability. We look at history of the source. The access, training information they provide in the past we look at some of the broad context of the information. Is not consistent with information we previously received. In the case of this fives are, all the concerns were highlighted. Theres a page long footnote that talks about our understanding of where the information is coming from that it might be Opposition Research and flagging on these issues to the court about our concerns this is certainly an application of the first application for fivesabthe fbi doesnt sit and wait to act on that to wait and get one until we can run around and dig down and verify every last little bit because the fact of the matter of is the broad contours of what steals material and provider provided were consistent with what weve been seeing. Your talking on the 20,000 foot level restroom interference using associates of trump. Thats right. The last point i make is like we were close, i remember before we had talked with the doj about getting a fifsa on page before we ever received the information. This has come out in transcripts that have been released through the hill on various interviews. Prior to ever hearing the first thing about steel and his reporting we had talked and fighting with doj about trying to get a fifsa and it was a very close call. Somebody described it as 51b9 whether we had enough. I was much more interested in we are running out of time. Giving the magnitude of what we are facing we need to either get a fifsa up because we are wasting time and if we dont have enough then we dont have enough but lets stop goofing around, if theres concerns lets highlight concerns lets get this in front of the court and let the court decide because what we have to get to the bottom of is too important to be waiting. There are clearly problems with the steel material. There are huge problems with the steel dossier. That happens with sources all the time. I cant tell you how many sources in my career they come in with stuff thats inaccurate or made up source after source after source, anybody whos from a source, whatever helps you sleep at night, thats fine, i will let you call it whatever you want. Lets move on from the dossier. Attorney general william barr ended up appointing john durham, federal prosecutor from connecticut to review the fbis handling of the rush investigation. Released origins of it. Were not sure what the scope is of this thing. Durham had reached out and interviewed people about russia the rush investigation including active fbi agents. And officials there. Have you heard from durham . I have not. I dont understand something. You are a key villain in this drama in this narrative, Trump Supporters believe that to be so. How come you havent heard from durham yet . I dont know, thats a question you have to ask him, from what ive seen and read, a aother key players have not been approach let alone interviewed and i dont know why. If durham reaches out and wants to talk to you, whats your position . I would certainly consider it. I have a couple concerns. He has a reputation for decades of being a tenacious objective investigator and handled very charged investigations. Im really concerned when i see things like this deputy who has worked with him as i understand for decades very close capacity who felt compelled to resign to quit the Team Last Week because at least whats reported in the hartford current concerns about political pressure being placed on the investigation. Thats unheard of and for somebody whos essentially teammate of him for decades to feel so compelled that their conscience can allow them to continue work, thats a huge red flag. It joins this parade of prosecutors who quit the teams. Look at them for attorneys who left the rajasthan persecutor team. Look at the lead attorney who left the flynn prosecution. Some of those attorneys i know and they are dedicated men and attorneys of integrity and i think the world of them. I dont know abut she has an absolutely sterling reputation. When i see her quit, that gives me a lot of concern. What i hear when ig releases a report talking about the origins of the crossfire investigation which is my recollection and the truth of exactly what happened for durham a u. S. Attorney to go out and make a Public Statement that he disagrees with that i dont know why he makes that statement that its unheard of for any u. S. Attorneys office to make comments like that in the middle of an investigation and absolutely at odds with my understanding of the truth of what happened. As all these flags out there that concern me and i cant help but be worried that from the attorney general in the white house this is become a politically driven process that whatever comes out has to be taken with a huge grain of salt. You raise an interesting point with durhams dispute with the Inspector General over the predication of the open crossfire person abyou did a full investigation allow you to go to the fifsa court to get a wiretap obligation. But durham says it shouldve been a prelim, explain to people what that dispute means . Ive seen that reported i dont know if thats at the heart of what durham agrees or disagrees with. There is a clear factual level of predication needed for full investigation and for a preliminary investigation. The Inspector General, page after page after page explaining what the standard is and how we met that standard. Thats absolutely a discretionary call if we go in and got sufficient information and allegations to opening a full investigation that is absolutely in my opinion and my history a reasonable decision. The other thing i point to as crossfire hurricane, the term is that allegation was opened as an umbrella investigation. Was an allegation in which the person who allegedly received this offer is unknown. If you open whats called number l investigation on that allegation and then under it you are going to open individual cases on the people who might fit that in my experience sometimes the umbrella is opened as full any open preliminaries that varies by supervisor and case agent ive seen in my career at dawn all kinds of ways. At the end of the day it is clear undeniably and unequivocally the facts we have at hand were far more than sufficient to justify an open investigation and thats exactly what the Inspector General found. One of the biggest criticisms from the right is never found collusion even by may 2017 you never found collusion or conspiracy, however you want to describe it. The investigation shouldve been shut down. Was there ever a talk earlier at the fbi shutting this down earlier . How long were you going to investigate this . There was never discussion of that. The fact is there was an overall volume of information. abreleased a thousand pages detailing this pervasive set of counterintelligence concerns that we face. The fact of the matter is, the threat from russia is never going away to stop the fbi is always going to be looking at what russia is doing and seeking to understand how they are interacting with those elements of our government to achieve their Foreign Policy goals. To say this is not merited that there is no collusion, thats false, mueller could not demonstrate to a Legal Standard sufficient to bring charges any sort of hager that would fall under this nebulous word collusion. The fact of the matter is, he specifically also stated that it was insufficient to bring charges but that doesnt mean there wasnt information there. Muellers job as a prosecutor hes either going to abits a completely different standard than what counterintelligence investigators look at. We are looking at russia, we are trying to understand the nature of that relationship. The things that were going on in the Trump Campaign in the administration dwarf the routine counterintelligence work that occurs on a daytoday basis in trying to understand what russia is doing. The some assertion that this wasnt merited is absolutely unsupported by anybody whos ever worked counterintelligence and i think anybody who has done that would look at that and find the assertion laughable. Some might make the argument that this investigation shouldve enclosed earlier and everything that came from what is a fruit of the poisonous tree. Say the last part . I think there are critics of crossfire hurricane who said the investigation shouldve been closed much earlier and everything that came from it is the fruit of the poisonous tree. [laughter] how to those critics, more important, how does the American People how they look at a fact pattern where we have a National Security advisor who didnt tell the truth to the fbi and pled guilty about concealing his contact with the russians, how they explain a former Campaign Manager who had undisclosed contact with ab how do they explain the deputy Campaign Manager who was also involved in the same sort of illegal activity with russian oligarch. Had appears had conversations and interactions not only with wikileaks but potentially Julian Assange were involved in releasing information we believe was stolen by the russians. How on earth could any american citizen look at all that behavior and say fbi should just ignore it. This is worthy of even looking into. To me that just makes no sense. There is no way anybody looking at that fact pattern could come to any other conclusion that what we did was appropriate and proper and it should have continued in the way that it did. Do you think as you look back on the steps you took and what happened these last few years what are your biggest regrets . Clearly you regret the Text Messages, correct . Absolutely. You acknowledge this in the book and you apologized, but you did harm to the bureau, you did harm to the bureau, you did harm to the fbi, they are trying to recover from this. Of course i regret sending the text, i regret the way they were westernized and used to undo the work we did. Those texts, im assuming that affirmative justice because those texts were released illegally in the middle of the night in secret to reporters who were told they can attribute that to the department of justice. That illegal release in turn allowed partisans in the media, on the hill, and the white house and elsewhere to attack our work that we were doing. While i regret it, at the same time, those were personal opinions expressed in a private channel, these werent things i said on facebook and twitter in front of the unit meeting, these were personal opinions like every fbi agent has, and like every fbi agent may express in private. So i get, it was stupid to write that in the text but lets also be clear about assigning responsibility where it appropriately lies. The fact of the matter is, there illegal release was done in a way to cause partisan benefit to undermine the work that was going on. That was neither to use a legal term that was not foreseen or foreseeable. When they get to the end of it they say theres no indication there is no indication anything was ever done. Based on improper consideration. I want to be clear that we lay that those things where they belong. To your broader question, i think my biggest regret looking back is that we didnt appreciate the power of social media in terms of how the russians might use that with disinformation and what historically is called active measures. Something the russians have always done, clearly they are interference in our elections is nothing new, it goes back decades, generations they were trying to plant stories that jackson was a homosexual, planting stories in the papers or think about el salvador. Why did the fbi understand the magnitude of that . That seems to be on top of everything that seems, one of the most destructive things the russians did which has polarized this country it was something that we didnt appreciate at the time how they might leverage social media to explode these divisions within American Society and on social issues. That is something i think, shame on us because our russians were certainly doing that within russia they were certainly doing it in their near broad and countries surrounding russia and their political elections and environment but we didnt take and we use a big week, the fbi, the cia, the state department and others, if anybody was sitting there saying we in the u. S. Might be vulnerable to it it wasnt making it to the team and that is certainly something when you look at the terrorism side there was all kind of concern about how youtube was being used to radicalize people within the homeland. Nobody looked at that and said, abwhat can the russians do. Thats our failing and something in retrospect had we seen earlier we could have it mightve made a significant difference in 2016. What do you make of the allegations that republicans are using relying on russian generated plans, operations, activities to damage joe biden. Recently came out that a member of the Ukrainian Parliament was identified by treasury as a russian agent. Somebody Rudy Giuliani actually met with. It seems to be thats okay. What are you seeing now that really disturbs you . Its not an allegation and its not okay. This guy he said he was not only for 10 years but for 10 years he was an active russian agent and this is the person whos been providing information to the Senate Homeland Security Committee about biden so they are actively and receipt and active on russian disinformation to the point where theres been public reporting that people within the u. S. Government within the executive branch warned them to be careful about the information they were receiving from the sky because it is russian propaganda. The fact that then you see the continued sort of attacks into biden based on information that has been demonstrated as of last week in an official statement by the United States government and the department of treasury to be the product of an active russian agent, what the hell is going on here . Of course to see Rudy Giuliani running around with the same guy and reporters from oe and making documentaries about unearthing the truth about joe biden. Again, sitting across the coffee table from this active russian agent nothing that anybody should tolerate. [multiple speakers] last question, would you have given defense everything or would you of open counterintelligence investigation . I think it depends on the context of what he knew or should have known in the context of what he was meeting, i can envision scenarios i wouldve given defense briefing or information he knew better or some sort of other Illicit Activity mightve gone another way. You answered all my questions. [laughter] thank you for taking the time. Of course, thanks for talking with me. This program is available as a podcast, all after words programs can be viewed on our website on booktv. Org. You are watching booktv on cspan2. Every weekend with the latest nonfiction books and authors. Cspan2, created by americas Cable Television company as a Public Service and brought to you today by your television provider. Here are some of the current bestselling nonfiction books according to powells bookstore in portland oregon. Topping the list is my own words, collection of the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader ginsburg speeches and writings followed by Pulitzer Prize winning author isabel workout dominic wilkersons exploration of what she calls a hidden caste system of the United States. Then in rage Pulitzer Prize winning Journalist Bob Woodward examines abafter that, abram candy argues america must choose to be antiracist and work toward building a more Equitable Society and how to be an antiracist. Wrapping up our look at some of the bestselling nonfiction books according to portland oregons powells bookstore is the nickel boys. Polson whiteheads fictionalized history of the jim crow era and the civil rights movement. All these authors have appeared on booktv and you can watch them online at booktv. Org. Welcome back to booktvs continuing coverage of the 20th annual National Book festival sponsored by the library of congress. For 20 years booktv has been a part of the National Book festival when it was held on capitol hill the national mall, Washington Convention center and of course this year it is virtual. Several author programs are coming up this evening, the full schedule is available on our website at booktv. Org or on your program guide. Some of the authors you will hear from include madeleine albright, robert gates, aband youll also have the chance to talk with author Rick Perlstein who writes about conservative politics and as an addition tonight we are doing a live calling program with diamond and silk, their book is called uprising. Thats a little later this evening. Right now we are going to kick off our sunday coverage with an athe widow of carl sagan and the coauthor of cosmos. [instrumental music] hello, im annie and im speaking to you from my home in ithaca new york. The democratic ideal so it is my great honor to