interviewing top nonfiction authors about their latest work. all afterwards programs are also available as podcasts. adam: hi my name is adam. i worked with the hard times times for about four years. i've covered national security including the fbi in a reported extensively on the fbi's russia investigation. it's known as crossfire hurricane. on a think piece for coming on and having his frank discussion with me. he actually came up with the name crossfire hurricane . so much and how he came to use that code name. but before we get into the details of the book, that you have written about. one is you tell us a little bit about yourself and your counter intelligence back out of the fbi. peter: first thank you to cspan for hosting. i started in the in 1996. i've been in the army prior to that and then college. when into active-duty and then was with the fbi as an analyst with domestic terrorism back in 96. i saw the organization and the ages in a new but that was absolutely what i wanted to be doing. so i applied. and then in 98, and then from there, went to the academy for his assigned work to the cia that's what i did for my entire career. i was in boston working the case in the series of russian illegals. basis of current or past coalitions to the americans . a variety of bread and butter counterintelligence work that incurs in a midsize office. as was russia and china and espionage, economic espionage. from there, from being a street agent and then moved up the chain. a lot of the espionage focus is then increasing to a broader focus and working a lot of china and russia. in of the whole gamut of the counterintelligence work that the bureau does to the point were i was a deputy of the counter intelligence division. and then help called the fbi's counterintelligence operations. from there, worked the clinton investigation and also on mueller steam. and then i stepped it out with fbi personnel. it and was removed from that and returned to the research division for about a year. until i was terminated in 2018. adam: before we launch into this book. describe us between the difference between the primary intelligence investigation is and what a criminal investigation is that the fbi. i think that has been lost upon the public. in the midst of everything. peter: so criminal investigations frequently what the public think that when they think of the fbi. there's a bank robbery earth organized criminal digits there trying to build the case. they're looking at law which of course those various laws upon . demonstrate the evidence and have to including in a courtroom, where it will stand cross-examination by defense attorney. unable there is to prove or not to be able to improve the study violated the law. intelligence work is really different . counterintelligence, snoop and the fbi has been doing that for generations and generations of the coming on shore. northeast coastline anybody for that are the world war ii. looking at what foreign nations are doing from an intelligence perspective. that is really different from criminal work. in the standard division comfortably the material is classified. and the case is closed could get a person killed or destroyed sensitive information of what is going on overseas. so the goal is also fundamentally different. as unnecessary to prove that a crime occurred. the goal at the end of the day is to get an understanding of what any foreign nation whether it is russia, china or iran or cuba you name it . what they're doing from intelligence perspective and targeting the united states. with the fbi, legal encountering that intelligence activity. and again until very recently, very quiet line of work . classified nobody talks about it . spy case would be made and public imagination. but by and large what they do in the counterintelligence arenas to meet the circuited and need something not talked about. adam: why did you decide to write this book. for years he was essentially maintained your silence in congress 90 come out with this book. which is obviously highly critical. in the united states president trump. in accused him of being and people around him. why would you put yourself back out of the spotlight where trump can torture your twitter. peter: because the threat he poses is too important to ignore. it continues to this day. one of the reasons was to have an accurate account of what accord. there's been a lot of recounting and twisting of the historical narrative and bipartisan individuals seeking to twist but didn't didn't occur. which confused to the state. i wanted to book that could be relied on to be an accurate factual representation of exactly what we did. in 2016, and 17 and all the way to the court date. we just wanted to get the reader into the mind set of the counterintelligence agency what they think and how they see the world. one counter intelligence works is for that is . what were concerned with the one that is different from criminal court. in the last thing of course is the highlight, the threat continues to come out of the white house. things have not gotten better. directions are still attacking us of people need to understand why russia is doing what they're doing. and also the unique threat that exists within the person of president trump why that is so advantageous to brush up the why russia continues to try to get him in this case, reelected. >> why should we take your word. you have been cast as a villain. a sacred member of the cabal. this morning to take down the president. but as the narrative among the trump supporters. namely based on your testament. and type of bias. so you claim that you never found or they never found anything but you are among a fbi official trump has targeted. in the trump supporters think are as dirty cops. why should the public believe what you are writing. peter: a couple of reasons. like historical record. speaks for itself. part of a layout cases that worked . the outcomes of those and why and what we did the reasons we did it. able to be collaborated and people can see the facts and go back and verify them. the reason they should blame is independent books have been done, over three years and 15 or more animals looking in every best thing i did, every e-mail every note. every communication, all of which have been concluded melanie but the entire team, there was not evidence of improper motive. add multiple attorneys to look at the actions after the fact. in all the investigations the tried to extend an ultimate all the media. all of these things in these deep investigations that come up no indication and no evidence that things were done and improper considerations. the president cannot begin to a press conference or town hall without fact checking in each event putting out the numerous and frankly fly spread things and he says that are not true this not a one-off occurrence . occurs time and time and time again . folks in the media, literally thousands of untruths that he is entered. others that have been lumped into this crazy conspiracy has occurred to me that the bipartisan, being dumped specifically to undermine any sort of valid investigations because he is trait and trent afraid of what is there and he does not want the truth known anybody, not just if you have of the people like you abundant anybody dirt speak the truth is immediately attacked because they don't want the truth out. adam: this leads me to some of the things that you write in the book. one part you are cast as a central who villain in this. what is convenient for the president trump allies, you are truth teller. walk us through a couple of accounts in the book the coyness. almost like a conundrum. walk us through how you handle the company memos regarding conversations with president trump and also you were interviewing general plan. and expressing that he did not have any signs of deception. but yet he lied to you. walk us through those accounts and how they fit into this conundrum. peter: so the fact of the matter is on at the truth. in both sides of the debate, people can find things to support their arguments and rebut the arguments. so some things, some of them are both tending to favor of my credibility and on the other hand, seek to undermine it. in the example is general flynn. he knew we were there to interview him. he was dangerously and recklessly but i cannot say, we knew we had reviewed the conversations that he had. he knew that he discuss things like the damping of the russian response in the obama administration. we know he had spoken about and asking russia to moderate or voted for certain way. so before we even walked the room, he had talked to the deputy director and told him you guys know what i said . what you need to talk to me. you have it. at the same time, in response to that, he has for his attorney decided he didn't think one of one. a few hours later, he did it leaving the white house. honey sat there knowing what we're good asking. to three weeks after he had conversations with this with the president and the vice president the chief of staff in the white house counsel. a new full well what we were going to talk to him about. and timing time getting the southern did not tell us the truth not only that, a lot of people when they lie, the cover the mouth sprayed the lick their lips, the look away. the rios the question. didn't do any of those things. doesn't mean he wasn't lying. but does mean there's something going on there eateries a very good liar all right thought he was telling the truth or something else was going on. proportionally left written were talking about it but might interview partner night with jackson is really not because he had boy didn't get any kind of visual ornate show of deception to make you think that he was lying. but at the same time, he clearly had. he pled guilty twice to two different judges orally and in writing that he lied to us. so we get back and were trying to explain, this make no sense. and yet he doesn't choose to tell us the truth. he's not doing anything that looks like he's nervous or looks like he's lying. so when i relight all of that and some of that goes into our right of the interview. someone comes up later in the discussion in an interview. photo right sees that as give me just don't think he lied. their credible experts and they know what they're talking about and uphold the rights. it was me. that was the one who said it. you know this up as a standard of somebody absolutely incredible. then on the other hand can't save not credible. an unbiased. adam: so on the one hand your writing accurate coming right that general flynn does exhibit signs. but you also want to take them down . can you explain that contradiction . because i don't get it . what i don't get it either. it is something that might interview partner and i took the lead on any given to me in i made subsidence changes made on my recollection the confirm with him, i think is happening that. that is what he said. david somebody was an excellent proofreader to sit there and say this is grammatically make sense. less common. ultimate review it. but this was some of the crazy extremes it's a this was rewritten several times. my partner and i began the traffic and conducting process. some may take the lead in writing the ticket up to the partner was there and review it. i just think, and things because you have to bring together at the recollection of two people. that is what is covered . in the three oh two, it represents what general flynn said. and as we took, all of that is been turned over not only now to the department of justice but provided to general flynn's attorney. there was nothing unproduced here. there is no secret here but again it serves as a side of life some great conspiracy theory. that there's no activity going on. it just didn't happen. adam: also are the country diction here. your critics say in the fbi, they said that you will in there to trap him. if something revealed in any trust him . but when you read about these documents have been made public, you see that jim coming on the 23rd two sides that you guys are going to ask questions but then by the 24th on the day you interview general flynn, coming decide you can red back snippets of the electronic stats. going to entrap flynn, why give him the benefit of reading the snippets of what he actually said on electronic intercept. why give him a chance to tell the truth. peterpeter: this was not a perjy chat. but what's interesting about that as you point out, not only overnight, becoming think about it and save you give him some of those things you said. i noticeable in the interviews to give him the opportunity to tell the truth with the relationship with russia. that was the purpose of the interview. surprisingly department of the justice it was odd because i rebutted some of the things that the government is arguing in the recent filing. i hope the court now will get to the bottom of it and hold hearings to try and understand what happened. but ended the day, right. limited there because we needed to understand what his relationship with russians was. we decide in the fall and winter, not coming up with a lot. were looking at them see whether or not he was a potential match for what george, this allegation the government of russia and the release of material would be damaging to obama and clinton. we had looked at flynn because there was a lot of connections to russian potentially one of those folks can might've heard that. but in the fall and early winter, in the director had been briefed. probably only to close the case. betty had agreed. when you get these intercepts between flynn radically changes our understanding of his relationship to the russians. and suddenly he becomes again a focus of investigative interest because of his relationship to russia. the field office wanted to close it in the form of the fbi stepped in. adam: pete, another theory is it was an intentional leak in the washington post about plans because. right hard that the right is very upset, he was meant to take out fun. it that late rate of it is true that you already knew about it. will before that was revealed in washington post . think that was early january. obama had asked the intelligence community to figure out why food intended responded . device on your holdings that flynn in fact had talked to him. did that leak matter. are you going to interview him anyway. or was it convenient for you. i think you're right about it in the book . walk me through that. it. peter: as you know, any of the i, was leading investigation to the leaks to the media. so for any years, . adam: i don't condone that by the way pete. peter: i'm hold both of those with my head at once. look, if the section chief is the supervisor feels. i investigated countless illegal leaks of information to the media. "several people in jail for doing it. adam: i'm not going to answer that. peter: is not something we do. the first amendment. supreme court ruling the rules are set but the absence is not. that leak in particular and anxious to have an impact on our investigation. i was very concerned. if you look at my kind of communications i made at the time for this. thomas deeply concerned about the impact the leaks were having our investigation. the crazy conspiracy theory that it was all part in organized plan for look at the repeated concern about the way the government was hemorrhaging as fight information. i was impacting our investigation. those are not the words of a man seeking to undermine trump. this lowers of somebody wants to highly conduct an investigation to get to the bottom of the truth. and discourage and bothered that this information is coming out. it was not ideal and put us on a much more compressed timetable. but what it did do a split things out into the open. and frankly when things become public, while not great. one thing it does is it gives you a reason to go ask about it . stuff i know something in a classified way. you talk to them it's going burn that source . is a big newspaper article about it will it gives me a chance together and say hey, i read this article like you did great can you explain it. that was part of that pushes on the path. adam: one last thing on. i think one of the arguments is that you work very concerned to retaliate. reaction with the attorney general and very concerned with the vice president pets went on tv and said, flynn told me he didn't talk about this which we know is false. when you heard that, when pence relayed that story, what were you thinking at the time. do the elevated why do you needed to talk with him. was it even a greater concern. and i think one of the things i can't remember if it was in the motion to drop the charge against him but it was idea or maybe garcetti. he can remember this was a political issue. him lying was not a crime it was something that should've been dealt with at the white house. son fbi matter. peter: so i disagree with that. we did not know what was going on when he made that statement. we knew it wasn't true. either pence had been light duties repeating the light. which he claims is the case or in the alternative, there's something seeking out there to cover up the conversation between flynn and russians . in a might include others in the white house including vice president pence in may maybe even trump. russian and just intervene in our election that is undisputed. even between the intelligence community and others. it is very clear and undisputed that russia intervened to assist trump in getting elected. sore trying to understand what the nature of that relationship was. but at the end of the day it is important to know whether or not he was knowingly lying to us are not telling the truth. but at the end of the date on the much more fundamentally important issue in question is was he doing that because of something that trump told him to do or otherwise directed him to act. and it wasn't going there and figure out what he said or did it say because you really know it. the underlying question was is this something that flynn is doing in the context of the rest of the administration. and interestingly, that key question, muller asked. trump refused to sit down to be interviewed. and you can see all the questions that were asked. and that set of question is a very detailed list of these interactions and plan, and getting to this question. this critical question. and trump did not even answer anything. not a single word . elected completely unaddressed. and the fact of the matter is, the key concern and the entire issue driving our interaction to understand what the russians were doing. particularly as it related to others including the president. has never been answered. that's why we are so interested in flynn. adam: you had already been removed by the time general flynn had already been charged. and were you involved in that charge decision. peter: no i was not. there made by the department of justice. something the prosecutors do and certainly we have it interactions with but in this case it was made by the special counsel. when they would point out that is clear from the material the special counsel report that is been made public, flynn was under investigation for a lot of variety of potentially illegal activities. first and foremost and register activity in the behalf of the government. the turkey in the rhythm of been charged. it and certainly for allegedly excluding information from the clarence . so there were a variety of things that played the breed and the fact the matter is set to bargain, is a bargain. you are a green two or admit guilt to in exchange for not being in any cases, not being prosecuted for other potential violations of law. so the idea that this is activity that was an attack, part of a perjury trap. well, okay going back away from that. then the school again look at this potential activity that occurred. it was investigated. in the government agreed not to pursue as part of the sleep. in fact that what is happening to flynn, is a window into a dismantling of special counsel actions. something about the fbi. roger sentencing in the way the government behaved with that. it was unloading anything that the special counsel does. it sang with flynn. and just going on and on and on down the list of things that the director muller had done and now this department of justice refused to online in a way that is an absolute travesty. adam: i think the attorney general has described your investigation by one of the greatest travesties in american history. ". which leads me to another thing that you write in the book about what happened after sorry, director jim comey was fired in may of 2017. peter: is something i thought a lot about. i think you write about some of this in the book. after mccabe, you know comey is documenting his conversations with top rated and is very alarmed by these conversations. and is memorializing it. right. actually some of this is even in the showtime documentary. in these memos, comey is relying to you guys that he does not like mccabe. he is singling out mccabe and mccabe's wife, ran for interstate legislator and is a democrat and even in when comey is fired in the firing letter, the mike schmidt about in his book. he says that one of the reasons you fired comey was because of mccabe's involvement in the end and the hillary e-mail investigation. i can remember. i believe it is may 15th. i think you write that in this may 15th . that the fbi decides to open up this obstruction and counterintelligence investigation. into the president of the united states. it's really unprecedented. you suspect that trump might be an agent of a foreign power, prussia. given that was mr. mccabe opening that investigation, given his history with trump. should he not have done that rated was he conflicted. .. .. it was an abuse of power. you think he should have stepped aside? why not go and get cover from d.o.j. before opening the most -- one of the most talked about investigations in the bureau's history. >> absolutely. part of what i talk about is the discussions we had shortly after the inauguration going forward about the fact that we had sufficient predication to open the counter intelligent case on the president and we didn't do it. for a variety of reasons. the legal issues, the constitutional issues in doing so, the nitty-gritty and how to investigate the president. you're not going to surveilled the secret service motorcade, you can't go get his out of the oval office. so investigating, or financial records you can't do that. based on how many there are. so for a variety of reasons, had the argument against it. because i didn't think we needed to do it. but that sort of discussion, those counterintelligence was going on month before the actual decision to open the case. it was only after director comey said we have no other choice. nobody wanted to open that case. nobody was eager to do are seeking to find a reason. it was the opposite. we were trying not to do it. but that was so grievous and impactful on what we are doing. but in terms of instructing the investigation as well as pointing to what is going on, you remember the very next day he's crowing about it. a great weight has been lifted. bill reason we know about it is because the russians are photographing it that's how american finds out about it. as for the top cover keep in mind to, immediately after, within a week of this being ope open, deputy acting director along go up to the hill. to the house speaker and senate and they sit down the gang of eight. and so senator mcconnell's there, speaker the house ryan is their chairman of the house speaker intelligence committees there. payment of the senate burisma there. they lay out in detail the cases we have opened on trump, the perjury investigation on sessions. the attorney general open comment all these other investigations. precisely to do, exactly what you're asking about. to give the ability for a bipartisan group, outside of the executive branch to challenge those decisions. to ask questions for you to make they are comfortable with them. and you know what? all of those questions were answered. none of them objected. all of them gave to with the fdi in the d.o.j. justified braid this was not some active retribution done in a state of angst. this is a very long buildup that we had actively been trying to not do. we finally decide we have to get because of the president's actions, we immediately went to the hill to make that a much more open decision. something that involves a bipartisan inclusion and briefing about it. >> you been criticized for not going to rod rosenstein for not seeking his -- you didn't need to but at least not going to consult with him for the counterintelligence investigations. why not do that? >> that's a question for the acting director at the time but i can say rosenstein has been in the office for a week? i mean not for long at all. the question was, not knowing anything about him, we had been arguing, director comey had been arguing with the department of justice to open the perjury investigation on attorney general sessions based on his not telling the truth during the senate confirmation hearing. whether he was lying or not, he clearly was not charged. but that was of some concern to us. it'd been referred to investigate by the senate. director comey had been rebuffed time and time again this conversations with rosenstein about opening that case. he just did not answer the question. then, add to that the fact that the deputy attorney general which hassett of the clinton investigation, has nothing to do with the actual reason why trump fired the director. it somehow that is being used as a fig leaf to provide justification for the firing. now there's a real concern as we look at that, what are the deputy attorney general's motives? again he's new, his patterns of behavior concerned with the national security advisers, campaign manager, attorney general, the list goes on and on and on. now have a brand-new attorney general who writes a letter on the pretext for comey's firing that has nothing to the actual reasons he was fired. the reasonable question with the guys mind where is this man's motivation? why is he acting the way he did? is this something worries acting in good faith? is he being duped? and inexplicably he allowed himself to be used in that way. we also have to consider the worst case is he acting in concert with the fbi or with the white house to illegally or not illegally but to commit obstruction by firing comey? all of that is kind of in the mind of those of us. i cannot speak i do not want to put myself in that acting director's head or the general counsel's head, but i'm speaking how i thought. and how we talked about it. stewing to work with questions or to run out of time. i want to touch on the dossier which we've taken on a larger than life russian investigation. as a wiretap, you guys sought and obtained a wiretap to do electronic surveillance on carter page, it turned out what you use in part to justify getting this application, which i'm a former mi six intelligent official is provided with hennessey dossier on some serious issues with the dossier. in the department of justice inspector general later found the applications were used. my question for you on the subject everybody knew the fbi including yourself, including the officials that the spies application would probably be one day be scrutinized by congress. you knew everything you are doing will be scrutinized by congress. on this sensitive aspect of the investigation seeking the wiretap application, why push forward with the dossier that had not been vetted? i understand the sources reputable to be provided to you. get a good reputation with the fbi. the underlying information that he used against the dossier had not been vetted. why push forward in music? why not be cautious and say hey you know what? let's examine all of this. once we get to a comfort level we can say 50% of its correct, 75%, let's use it to move forward? why do it at the moment? student because as the common way counterintelligence way that you receive. certainly the way you view this intelligence in many ways before you can dive in and try to cooperate, a lot of it goes to a comment what is the issue of the source? going to be very careful this and not confirming or denying what you said. i think the most is if they work for a foreign government buried having said that though when information comes to the door you continue to source for even if you've not run to ground, a lot of things going to tell you do potentially. its reliability and potential reliability. look at the history of the source relook at the access of trading information the past. look at some of the broad context of the information. is that consistent with information we previously received? in the case of fisa, all of those concerns were highlighted. there was a page long footnote talks about our understanding of where the information is coming from and it might be opposition research. uncertainties and application the first application with fisa. and kind of letting out where we have gaps and concerns of what those are. it isn't ever the case at intelligence that particularly if we have it coming through the source that we sit there and waits. i mean think about it. if you have an allegation of terroristic activity pray that comes in from a source that has been reliable in the past, alleging something is going to happen. the fbi does not sit and wait to act on that. to wait and get a fisa until we can run around and dig down and clarify every little bit. the fact of the matter is the broad contours of what the materials provided were consistent with what we had been seeing. >> your talk about 20000-foot level, russian interference. [inaudible] civic sorry. the last owner want to make is we were close. i remember we had talked to d.o.j. about getting fisa on page before we ever receive this deal information. this has been on the transcript system release from the hill on various interviews. prior to hearing the first thing about steels in this reporting, we had talked and were fighting with d.o.j. about trying to get to fisa. it was a very close ball and check call. it was 51 -- 49 whether we have enough. my point was i was much more interested and we were running out of time for given the magnitude of what we are facing, we need to either get fisa upward because a wasting time. if we don't have enough we don't have enough bread let's stop goofing around. there concerns us highlight those concerns. let's put this in further court and let the court decide. because all we have to get to the bottom of is too important to be waiting. this has been there clearly problems with the steel material. civic there are huge problems. >> but that happens with sources all the time. i can't tell you how many sources in my career may come in with stuff that is inaccurate or made up, anyone who has run a source, journalist or an sources i guarantee the same thing. >> we meet with people and provide the content. so whatever help you sleep at night and, that's fine. i'll let you call it whatever you want. scenic let's move on from the dossier. attorney general william barr had appointed john durham, federal prosecutor to review the fbi's handling of the russian investigation. it reached the origin of it. and it has grown. were not exactly sure of the scope of it is. but durham, durham had reached out in his interview for people about russia acting fbi agents, and the official there. you heard from vern? who's pretty key players have not been approached in the interview. and i don't know why. if durham reaches out and was a talk to what is your position? spin echo certainly consider it. i have a couple of concerns but he has a reputation for decades being a tenacious objective investigator. where this destruction it takes from the program, whether it's looking into the interactions with the fbi with its looking at the u.s. attorneys. i'm really concerned i see things like his deputies who has worked with him as i understand for decades and a very, very close capacity. who felt compelled to resign, to quit the team last week because elise what is reported concerns about political pressure being placed on the investigation. that is unheard of, one. someone has been a teammate of hymns for decades cannot allow them to continue work? that is a huge red flag. this joins a parade of prosecutors who have quit the team's. at the four attorneys that left the roger stone case. look at the lead attorney who left the full prosecution. some of those attorneys i know they are dedicated men and attorneys of integrity. i think the world of them. but again has an absolutist turning reputation. but i see her quit it gives me a lot of concern. when ig releases a report on what the origins of the crossbar investigation, that's my recollection a truth of exactly what happened to bradford durham u.s. attorney to actually go out and make a public statement that he disagrees with that, akon i don't know why he makes that statement. that is unheard of for any u.s. attorney or u.s. attorneys office to make comments like that in the middle of an investigation. and more importantly, they are obsoleted at odds my understanding with the truth of what happened. they're all these flags out there that concern me and i just can't help but be worried that between the attorney general and the white house this has become a politically driven process. that whatever comes out has to be taken with a huge grain of salt. >> you raise an interesting point here. durham's dispute with the inspector general mr. horwitz with the predication to open cross for hurricane in the russian investigation. as a full investigation allowed you to go to the fisa court to get a wiretap application, righ right? but durham said it should bid a preliminary explained to the people put that dispute means? >> i've seen that reported i don't know if it is at the heart of what durham agrees or disagrees with. there's a clear factual level of predication needed for full investigation for a plumbing air investigation. the inspector general sends out volumes and page after page after page explaining what that standard is and how we met that standard. that is absolutely discretionary a reasonable decision. the other thing i point to as crossfire hurricane, that allegation was opened as an umbrella investigation. does an allegation in which the person who allegedly received this offer is unknown. opened an umbrella investigation on that allegation. and under it should been individual cases of those people who might fit that. then in my experience sometimes the umbrella is full you (minera's underneath. that's buried by supervisor cases, that then all kinds of ways. at the end of the day, at the end of the day, it is clear, undeniably and unequivocably the facts we had at hand for far more than suspicion to merit and just by opening a full investigation, that is exactly what the inspector general found. spin at one of the biggest criticisms from the riot is never found collusion even by may of 17 you never found quote unquote collusion or conspiracy however you want to describe it. the investigation should been shut down. more is there ever talk earlier the fbi shutting the stone earlier? i mean how long, how long are you going to investigate this? >> there's never a discussion perth is an overwhelming volume of investigation that merited getting looked into. they release a thousand pages, almost a thousand pages detailing counterintelligence concerns that we face. the fact of the matter is the threat from russia is never going away. the fbi's always going to be looking at rush is doing in seeking to understand how they are interacting with those elements of the government to achieve their foreign-policy goals. so part of that to say it's not merited and there's collusion is false. muller could not demonstrate to a legal standard sufficient to bring charges any sort of behavior that would fall into this nebulous word collusion. the fact of the matter is, he specifically also stated that it was insufficient to bring charges. but that does not mean there was not information there. his job as a prosecutor going to bring charges or you're not going to make the allegation because he does not unless they would to tara someone's reputation for that's a completely different standard than counterintelligence investigators look at. we are looking at russia. were trying to understand the nature of that relationship. the things going on the trump campaign dwarf the routine sort of a counterintelligence and encoders on a day-to-day basis. trying to understand what russia's doing. some assertion this was not merited, it's absolutely unsupported by who has ever worked counterintelligence. and i think anybody who has would look and said that assertion is laughable. >> some might make the argument that this investigation should have been closed earlier. and everything is a fruit of a poisonous tree. said that again? >> and their critics of the crossfire hurricane said the investigation should've enclosed much earlier. and everything that came from it is a fruit of a poisonous tree. [laughter] how does critics are how did the american people, how to look at a fact pattern, really have a national security adviser who did not tell the truth to the fbi, but guilty to with russia. how do they explain a former campaign manager would run explain contact with the russian intelligence services who is giving detailed campaign data later pled guilty to a variety of clock crimes in regard to his activities how do we have a former hoot lied to the fbi and hid his association with the government of russia? how to explain a campaign manager who is involved in the same illegal activity? how do they explain an informal advisor and roger stone who appears to have conversation and interactions not only with potentially. [inaudible] involved in releasing information we bluestone by the russians. how on earth could any american citizen look at all of that behavior and say, fbi should just ignore it. this is not worthy of either looking into. to me that makes no sense. you can't come to any other conclusion that what we did was appropriate and proper and should have continued in the way that it did. >> one other thing. do you think, as you look back on the steps you took and what happened these last few years, what are your biggest regrets? i'm in clearly regret the text messages, correct? >> absolutely. >> you did. you acknowledged and you apologize but you did harm to the bureau, you know that? you did harm the fbi. and they trying to recover from this. >> i think it's important that of course i regret sending the texan how they were weaponize and used to do the work they did. i also want to drive fine point here. those texts were, i'm assuming the department of justice because those texts are released illegally in the middle of the night in secret to reporters who were told they can't achieve that to the department of justice. that release in turn allowed partisans in the media, on the hill, in the white house and elsewhere to attack our work that we were doing. so while i regret it, those were personal opinions expressed on a private channel but these were not what i said on facebook twitter or meeting parade these were personal opinions like every fbi agent has. and every fbi agent may express in private. so i get it was stupid to write that in a text. but let's also be clear about assigning responsibility where it appropriately lies. the fact of the matter is, there was a legal release done in a way to cause partisan benefit to undermine the work that was going on. that was to use a legal term that was not foreseen or perceivable. that's something the department of justice has ever done in the middle of an ig investigation. a completed interviewing people and information when they get to the end of it, they sell there's no indication it looks bad but there's no indication anything was ever done. so i just want to be clear that we look at those things where they belong. post to the broader question, i think my biggest regret looking back is that we did not appreciate the power of social media in terms of how the russians might use that with this information and what historically is called active measures. it's something the russians have already done. clearly their inter- fiction unchecked interference in our collections is nothing new goes back decades and generations. they said jackson was a homosexual there putting things in the paper about that. spent quite in the fbi descend the magnitude of that? that seems to be on top of everything that was the cheapest and most destructive things the russians just which has polarized this country? >> that's right it is and it was something we did not appreciate at the time how they might leverage social media to sort of explode these divisions within american society and social issues. that is something i think shame on us because the russians were certainly doing that within russia and within their and abroad in the country surrounding russia. the elections and environment. but we, we, the fbi, the cia come the state department and others if anybody is sitting there saying hey, we in the u.s. might be vulnerable to it, it was not making it to the team. that is something particular would look at the terrorism side there's all kinds of concern about how youtube was being used sue sort of a radicalized people's homeland. but nobody looked at that and said hey if they can do it what could the russians do? that's my feeling that is our feeling. that is something again in retrospect, had been seen earlier, we might've made a significant difference in 2016. >> what do you make of the allegation that republicans are using or relying on russian generated plans, operations, activities to sort of damage joe biden. riesling came out that a member of the ukrainian parliament was identified by treasury as a russian agent. somebody that rudy giuliani had actually met with. it seems to be that is okay. what are you seeing now that really disturbs you? >> it is not an allegation and it is not okay. this guy was in the treasury last week that he was not only for ten years, but for ten years he was an active russian agent. this is the person has been providing information to the senate homeland security committee about biden. they're actively in receipt and acting on russian disinformation to the point where the public reporting people within the u.s. government within the u.s. branch went and warned them to be careful about the information they're receiving from the sky. because it is russian propagand propaganda. so the fact that then you see the continued sort of attacks into biden based on information that has been demonstrated as of last week and the official statement with the department of treasury is the product of an active russian agent? what the hell is going on here? how is that possibly okay? to see rudy giuliani running around in recorders making documentaries about others and have the truth about joe biden, again sitting across the coffee table with this active russian agent that's nothing anybody should tolerate. [inaudible] >> last question. would you give rudy a defensive briefing? or would you open a counterintelligence investigation? >> think it depends on context of what he knew or should have known in the meeting. to their snares either we would have given him at briefing or information that he knew better, there's other illicit activity that could have gone another way. >> that that you've answered all of my questions. [laughter] thanks. >> thank you for talking with m me. >> this program is available as a podcast on all "after words" programs can be viewed on website and booktv.org. here is a look at some books being published this week. and where law ends, andrew weissman's lead prosecutor at robert mueller special council office, gives it inside look into russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election. corey lu and david bossi, senior advisors to president trump's reelection campaign for their case for why the president deserves a second term and try, america first. and in rise up, civil rights leader al sharpton makes his case for americans who take action to create a better country for all people. also being published this week, and the man who ran washington journalist peter baker and susan glasser look at the life and career former white house chief of staff and former secretary james baker. jennifer offers her thoughts on how the average american suffers when the rich commit white-collar crimes and big dirty money. and in live, not by lies, american conservative senior editor argues that american christians are facing encroaching totalitarianism. find these titles this coming week wherever books are sold. and watch for many of the authors in the near future on book tv, on cspan2. and welcome to book tvs coverage of the 20 annual national book festival. its first year, 2001 it was held on capitol hill. then it moved to the national mall as it grew in size. and the last several years it has been at the washington convention center. this year, for the first time, it is virtual. book tv has several hours of coverage coming up tonight and tomorrow night as well. including live call-in opportunities. tonight you will have the chance to talk with "new york times" columnist gail collins and pulitzer prize-winning historian john beauchamp. that is all coming up along with authors melinda gates, colton whitehead, and many others. follow-up on social media at book tp is our handle to get a full schedule update. : : :

Related Keywords

Akon , Khabarovskiy Kray , Russia , China , Boston , Massachusetts , United States , Whitehouse , District Of Columbia , Turkey , Russian , Americans , America , Russians , American , David Bossi , Colton Whitehead , Flynn Adam , Mike Schmidt , Adam Goldman , Al Sharpton , Susan Glasser , John Beauchamp , Joe Biden , Rudy Giuliani , John Durham , James Baker Jennifer , Jim Comey , Pete Peter ,