The FRONTLINE Interviews
Frank Montoya, Jr.
Former FBI Special Agent in Charge
Frank Montoya, Jr. is a retired FBI special agent who also served as the director of the Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive from 2012-2014.
This is the transcript of an interview with FRONTLINE’s Michael Kirk conducted on May 9, 2018. It has been edited for clarity and length.
This interview appears in:
TOP
Frank Montoya, Jr.
Chapters
Text Interview:
Highlight text to share it
Our film starts with the moment where the four [then-]IC leaders—[Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, CIA Director John Brennan, National Security Adviser Michael Rogers and FBI Director James Comey]—go into Trump Tower on the 7th of January to deliver the reports from their agencies and the bureau.Jim Comey will then, at the end of the process, quietly take Trump aside and show him the dossier and talk about it.From the perspective of law enforcement, the IC, what's the importance, do you think, of that moment with the president-elect?
Well, it’s huge.Let me start just by saying that even before that, we knew we were in a “damned if you do/damned if you don’t” situation.It started with the [Hillary] Clinton investigation, email investigation, and then transitioned into the new administration, primarily because there was knowledge inside the organization of the Russia investigation and where it might lead.
And when the dossier, the Steele dossier came out, there was a lot of concern about how it would be—or should it be briefed, how it would be briefed, in the sense that it wasn’t finished intelligence.At the same time, there were a lot of media outlets that at least were indicating that they had access to it, begin[ning] with the David Corn report in October.Other indicators were out there that this information was going to lead.
And it just felt like the decision was such that they needed to make the principals aware of it.That’s why they briefed it to the president of the United States, Barack Obama, at the time, but also why they felt like they needed to tell the president-elect.Were there concerns about how he might react to it?I think there were.But I also think that, you know, when you look at Jim Comey’s point of view, for instance, in that they thought that he would act responsibly with that information, that he would be appreciative of it, because it was going to be out there.
It was an indicator that his intelligence services not necessarily were looking after his back, so to speak, but were doing their due diligence and providing this information to the incoming president.His reactions to it, I think that—at least what we know publicly now, based on what Jim Comey has talked about, what's in the memos, some of the other public reporting that’s out there about how he reacted to this news and other news related to it, I think folks were really taken aback by that kind of reaction.It was unlike anything that we had ever experienced before when it came to briefing individuals at that level.It was shocking.
In what way?
Well, first of all, that we had to brief it in the first place.But then, just in terms of the focus on his reactions, whether it was an overreaction on the salacious parts of it, there really wasn’t any comment at all from him on the other information that was presented in, what, 17 different memos that comprised the dossier.It was just that single-minded focus on the salacious part, I think.
When those fellows went in there, Clapper and others, … was there any doubt in their minds, do you think, that the Russians had gotten involved, … that the emails from [Clinton campaign chair John] Podesta and others had been spread by WikiLeaks, that Putin had been on top of it all, any doubt in their mind that all those things were true?
That’s another great question.The short answer is no.And I think that that’s based on—well, I can say from my own perspective that it’s based on years and years of experience dealing with Russians and from a counterintelligence as well as an intelligence perspective.The only surprise, perhaps, was that they would try it at that level, because the spy versus spy game has been going on for decades.It’s ebbed and flowed with current events, you know.After the fall of the Wall, there was this relief or idea that it would slow down or stop.
It never did.In fact, it’s arguable that it got even more bold.And there was more activities after the Wall fell down.I think there was surprise that it was so bold and audacious as it turned out to be, but the fact of the matter is, nobody was surprised that the Russians were continuing to conduct intelligence activities against us.
And the Steele dossier, had you seen it before it was released publicly?
I did not.I left in September of 2016.… You know, the Clinton email investigation, the Russia interference investigation, those were very close-hold kinds of activities, where only the folks that were involved in them really had the details.
As a special agent in charge of a field office, I met on a weekly basis with the director—all of the SACs [special agents in charge] did—and we would get updates of a certain nature, for instance, on the email investigation, that yes, it was continuing.At this point, there's no updates.Another week, they might explain that we’re about to make an announcement.“And here is why we’re going to make this announcement."So there were discussions like that.There was an awareness that there were things that were going on, but other than that, there wasn’t a lot of detail.My first recollection of the dossier was like everyone else’s, when it came out in the media.
So when Jim Comey presents it to him, how hard is that to do?You must have presented things before to officials.
Well, actually, it wasn’t the presidential level, but it was former presidential level, and it’s always difficult.You go in there because you're not quite sure how this individual, who is or was the most powerful person on the planet, is going to react to information that can be perceived as very personal.
… The big question mark was that possibility, however remote it might have seemed in July or September or October, about Trump.What would happen if he won?Especially with the knowledge that was growing about this Russia interference aspect of the election, it was a real wild card. …It wasn’t just the Russia interference investigation that gave people cause to pause.It was the comments that he was making on the campaign trail, whether it had to do with the handicapped or minorities or women, the federal judge [Gonzalo Curiel].I took that exceedingly personally.I'm Mexican-American.I was the head of an FBI office in Washington state.I did not ever think that I could be biased in my outlook just because of my ethnicity, and for him to say that about Judge Curiel, it struck home, and it made a lot of people wonder.But it certainly made me wonder what it was going to be like under his—if, in fact he won, what it would be like under his command, so to speak.
You’ve seen things like the Steele report all your life, basically raw intelligence.
Absolutely.
When you read the Steele report after the fact, how typical is it of what it is, of a kind of—
It’s actually pretty extraordinary.Especially on the counterintelligence side of things, we open up cases on a variety of information provided by a variety of sources.The thing about the Steele Dossier is, one, Christopher Steele was a known entity to us.He had provided information in the past that had been an integral part of investigations that we had conducted, whether it was on the criminal side or on the counterintelligence side.The nature of his own past history—you know, former British secret intelligence service officer with experiences in Russia, had subsources in Russia—so yeah, you're going to pay attention to it.We’re going to at least take it seriously.
Even though in this case the investigation into the Russia investigation or interference wasn’t predicated by the dossier, it certainly was going to lend some urgency to our investigation of it.From my perspective as a former senior counterintelligence officer, yeah, we’d have been all over it to try to corroborate the dossier itself, and in particular starting with those parts that seemed to be the most likely to be corroborated, not necessarily the salacious aspects of it, but the financial aspects of it, or some of the travel that was indicated in there.
… And if information from it showed up in a document like a FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] application, yeah, it would have been corroborated.There would have been information that we could have presented to a judge as part of our overall probable cause to get a warrant.And the only reason why we would have put it in there would have been to establish that probable cause.There wouldn’t have been a political motivation.There wouldn’t have been a fabrication of any kinds of information.It would have just been based on the facts that were available to us.
… Let’s leave the salacious stuff out.Let’s just present the other thing, and salacious is not really—we don’t have it nailed down, and let’s not overdo this.What was the argument for keeping it in?What would the argument be to show it to the president-elect?What's the justification from law enforcement’s perspective?
Again, another “Damned if you do/damned if you don’t” proposition.It was going to come out.It was going to get leaked, so to speak.We were convinced of that.So do you leave it out and then get accused of withholding information, or do you add it and possibly get accused of providing too much information?The decision was made to provide it for that reason, because it was going to be out there anyway.
Perhaps the intensity of the reaction thus far—you know, the attacks on the institution, the attacks on individuals—was perhaps not foreseen, but we all knew that there was going to be a reaction to it nonetheless.
He says it felt like a shakedown.It’s just, these guys came in, these Obama guys, and they're shaking me down, and Comey is using that dossier as leverage on me.
Yeah.Again, I don’t understand that logic.If I'm in his position, I'm thanking the FBI; I'm thanking the intelligence community for providing me with this information.I'm certainly not reacting to it the way that he is reacting to it, whether it’s the focus on the salacious aspects of it, or it is calling it a witch hunt or a sham.I have faith in the rule of law and the process by which we uphold the rule of law, and I let the investigation run its course, if, of course, I'm not guilty as charged.
If you believe in the rule of law, Frank, what does he believe in?What is Trump’s law?
Trump.He believes in himself, and only in himself and what serves him.It’s evident in the year-plus that he’s been president of the United States that the only interest is a self-interest.And that’s what's frustrating to a lot of us who swore the oath and upheld the Constitution and defended the rule of law, that there's this person out there who does not have that same regard for the institutions, for the principles, for the values that we have upheld over the courses of our careers and beyond that, in the history … that we have attempted to live up to.
To me, that is the most frustrating and outrageous and difficult thing to accept about this presidency, is that we have a man, a conman in the office, who has no regard for those things that we hold true.And that’s why we’re in this situation that we’re in.
On the 2nd of January, two days after he’s inaugurated, to thank the law enforcement that helped with the inauguration, there's a gathering in the Blue Room of the White House.Jim Comey is there.He’s been told to come.He’s trying to blend into the curtains, not easy for Comey.And Trump calls him across the room and gives him a handshake and tries to give him a hug, and kind of comes into him.What do you think Comey—you know Comey.What’s Comey thinking at that moment?
He’s aghast.He’s embarrassed.He describes his own reaction in his book, and that’s true to Jim Comey.The last thing in the world that he wants in that moment in time is to be recognized, period, let alone by this president.He talks about that, too, where he didn’t even want to go.But at the same time, he’s representing the FBI, so he’s kind of in another one of those “damned if you do/damned if you don’t” situations.He would have much preferred not to have been called forward, and when he was, that I think was one of the more embarrassing moments in his career.
Tell me who Jim Comey is to you, how well you know him, what caused his star to rise and shine so brightly inside the bureau?
You know, that’s a really good question.I met him for the first time when he first came into the organization.I was the FBI senior detailee, or representative to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, so I was working very closely with Jim Clapper at the time.I played a role in first helping them come together to meet and develop a relationship, to establish that rapport.Jim Clapper was very good at building those kinds of relationships that he needed with the senior leadership throughout the intelligence community.
One of the things that I'm proudest about, in terms of my experiences over there, is that oftentimes the FBI, when referred to inside the intelligence community, it was the Big Five, so the DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency], NSA, CIA, NRO [National Reconnaissance Office] and NGA [National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency], as the Big Five intelligence community representatives, plus one, meaning the FBI.There were 17 agencies and organizations, but that was really the focus.And when I left, it was the Big Six.And, you know, I started that only by conducting, facilitating the first introductions.
But the reality is, that was Jim Comey who built on those relationships, who saw things the way that Jim Clapper saw them, in terms of how you collaborate, how you cooperate, how you share information, how you look to the future.You have a plan, a vision.And they worked very well together.That was not just the leadership qualities and traits of Jim Comey, but also Jim Clapper.They were in many regards the same kind of personality when it came to leadership—a lot of selflessness, a lot of focus on others.
Jim Comey was very proud of the fact that, in his first year-plus in the bureau, he was able to get out to all 56 field offices to meet folks and to talk to them about what their hopes and aspirations were, to discuss the future direction of the FBI.That was important to him, you know.One of my favorite stories, and it happened once when I was in SAC in Seattle, but it also happened in other field offices, [was] where he would call an employee—it could be an analyst or a support employee or an agent—and introduce himself over the telephone.People wouldn’t believe that the director was calling them directly, and they’d hang up on him, you know, and he’d have to call back, or he’d have to call the SAC and say, “Hey, listen, I'm trying to get a hold of so-and-so,” and fixed that problem.But, you know, people were really touched by his willingness to reach out and listen to what they had to say.
I had a supervisor in Seattle who had a concern about leadership and how we were teaching it in the FBI as a former Marine, and he came to me, and he asked me: “What do you think?Should I send them a message?"And I said, “Sure, why not?"So my supervisor crafted his message, and it was well-crafted; it made some great points.And he sent it to him, and Jim responded.He also made the point that, “Next time try to do it in a much shorter context."But the fact of the matter is that he was receptive to the ideas of others, and he would incorporate those that he thought would make the bureau a better, more effective and efficient organization.
It was a personal touch that really had an impact on folks, in addition to his integrity, in addition to his sense of honor, in addition to his willingness to live up to the oath that we all swore.
He’s famous for lots of—you know, the mob prosecutions, the amazing moment with John Ashcroft in the hospital bed; I suppose even the Clinton—you talk about a hard choice.How much did those stories matter when he joined the bureau, to you and others?
Well, they were important, but then we saw him act that way up close and personally.When I was the special agent in charge in Seattle, that was when an incident came, arose, that was actually about seven years old.But it came out that, as a result of a Freedom of Information Act activity, that an agent in Seattle had represented himself in an investigation as an AP reporter.It was a counterterrorism investigation.It was a bomb threat.There was this mad dash to try to figure out who was making the threats.And this agent—and it had been seven years prior—had made an approach to the subject representing himself as an AP reporter.
When that came out, there was a lot of outrage, especially from the media, that the FBI would dare do such a thing.I looked into it at Jim’s request.We found out that it had led to a successful conclusion in that investigation, and that there should be no further actions against the agent, because he was doing the right thing in terms of that investigation.End of story, aside from the fact that it was seven years old.
Well, he went the extra step and wrote an op-ed piece, I think it was to The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal; I'm not sure—it was one of the big newspapers back east—where he defended not only the agent and that effort, but the intent.That was hugely important to everybody in my field office, because there was a feeling, at that point in time, that we were getting falsely accused, or dragged through the mud.
People can have their opinions about that.I also understand that aspect of it.My people understood that aspect of it, that there are challenges sometimes when you represent an institution like the media, it can be—there can be challenges with that.And, you know, maybe we need to think about that a little bit more the next time we do it.But the fact that he would stand up for us, that meant a huge amount to the folks in Seattle, and not just to that agent, but to all of us.
When he walks into the office at the beginning of the Trump administration, and he looks at the case that’s been opened, but secretly—I mean, when he was walking across the floor there and shaking Trump’s hand, he knows in his mind lots of secrets about Trump and about the people around him, and lots of questions about, did they collude?You know, all of those questions are alive in his mind.
Right.
If you're Comey, and you sit at your desk … in the early going, how do you build the case?Tell me how to.How did the team around him, how were they building the case, from what you can tell, from outside?
Read the tweets.I only say that somewhat jokingly, but that’s part of it.There is a lot that goes into something like this.
What did you say?Read the tweets?
Read the tweets.The president himself provides a lot of information that could be of evidentiary value in this investigation.His speeches, whether they're during the campaign, or they are since he has become president, there's information there that can be evidentiary.And you have to look at it from several perspectives.One is the potential conspiracy, or what the media likes to refer to as collusion.There's also the potential for obstruction of justice, and there's also the potential money trails or financial aspects of this investigation, and then others that we have not heard about.
But that’s exactly why this is such a complex investigation, because there are a lot of moving parts.There are different kinds of sources that you're going to be relying on, whether they're human sources or they're technical sources.There's going to be the wealth of data that’s coming out of the White House; I think it’s 1 million-plus documents thus far.There is going to be all of the interviews that are being conducted on a regular and ongoing basis with people that are close to the president, with people that are close to the people who are close to the president.
All of that generates information.And then you have to sift through it and follow those lines that take you to your end goals, which are to prove or disprove the allegations.And you know, it’s one as much as the other.If there isn't anything there, there isn't anything there.On the other hand, if there is, then you’ve got to keep exploring it.You’ve got to keep looking for … the facts that will support the allegation to prove it, or like I said, or to disprove it.
That is one of the reasons why it takes as long as it does.The other part of it is that there are many avenues to be exploring here.I mean, look at the Michael Cohen aspect of this investigation.It’s being run out of the Southern District of New York, but it’s a direct referral from the special counsel’s investigation.Will it lead back to the Russia interference investigation?There's always that possibility.It’s the personal lawyer for the president of the United States.Or will it lead in other directions?And that remains to be seen.
So you knew [former National Security Adviser] Mike Flynn.
Mm-hmm.
Tell me about Mike Flynn.
… He really was a terrific military intelligence officer.The things that he and [Gen.] Stan McChrystal did to modernize, revolutionize the way that JSOC [Joint Special Operations Command] fought the fight in the war zones was amazing.The way that they were able to bring the interagency together to cooperate and provide information of value to support the warfare was terrific.I don’t know what happened after that.I know that he had some personal beefs with the Obama administration.His time at DIA didn’t end as well as he wanted it to.Part of that was a result of his efforts to try to modernize that agency, to take it in a different direction.Bureaucracies hate change, so they fight it, kicking and screaming.
He was also very wedded to the fight against terrorism.As a military intelligence officer, … terrific focus.I think that he lost that focus when he went into politics.I don’t know why a three-star general of any sort is leading “Lock her up” chants.Whether you're a fan of Hillary Clinton or not, it just kind of seems beneath that high office.And the other part of that is that he pled guilty to lying in a federal investigation.
… So here is this guy that you’ve just described.He works for Trump.Trump wins.He’s going to be the national security adviser.Jim Comey knows this guy.He knows from intercepts this guy talked to the Ambassador [Sergey] Kislyak.… And when the administration gets up and starts rolling, Comey sends a couple of agents over to the White House—pretty rare occurrence—to interview your friend Mike Flynn.Tell me how that probably went.
Well, it would have been a difficult interview, because Mike was well-liked inside the FBI, especially by national security professionals, because of his accomplishments during the war on terror, but also because he was a big-time collaborator when it came to the interagency process, sharing information, being a team player.At the same time, people witnessed what happened during the campaign.And while they're still scratching their head, now they get this lead to go and talk to him about this situation.So yeah, it’s going to be a difficult interview.
At the same time, that’s what we do.You know, even if it’s somebody that you like, somebody that you hold in high regard, if there is an allegation like this, you still have to pursue it.It’s about upholding the rule of law.That comes first.Law is no respecter of persons, and we accept that.Kind of a similar situation when the investigation occurred with [former CIA Director Gen.] David Petraeus, where you have a great American hero who has made a mistake, and a big one, so you have to go through that process.In that situation, he compounded it by lying about what he knew, what he didn’t know.Same thing with Mike Flynn.
And that’s a hard thing when you're sitting there, because when we go into these discussions or these interviews—and they're interviews, not interrogations—we go into these interviews, we know a lot of the answers to a lot of the questions we’re going to ask.And when somebody is untruthful, it doesn’t matter if it’s a bank robber or it’s a war hero, the fact of the matter is, it’s still—we know, and it’s hard to accept that people would be dishonest in that way.But the rule of law is the rule of law, and we’re going to prosecute it.I think that’s always been a strength of the FBI, and in this instance, it definitely was.
Let me ask you this.How in the world does Mike Flynn not know that, when you're talking to Ambassador Kislyak, you're being recorded?
Well, especially a professional intelligence officer like he was.It is one of the great questions for our times, and hopefully the answer will someday manifest itself.I know Mike.We’re not the best of friends, but I know him well enough to wonder why.You know, was it hubris?I mean, I was shocked when he was leading “Lock her up” chants.You can get caught up in the moment; I understand that.He wasn’t a big fan of Hillary Clinton’s; I understand that.But there's also a certain decorum.There's also a certain professionalism that we expect from individuals at that level.
Sally Yates, the acting attorney general, goes up and talks to Don McGahn, the White House counsel; says, “You’ve got a problem."It takes two weeks before anybody does anything with that information.What does that tell you?
Some of it can be attributed, honestly, to the bureaucracy of the situation.But a lot of folks in the bureau also know that bad news doesn’t get better with age.So yeah, it raises the antenna: Why the delays?It can't just be about the bureaucracy.It can't just be about the fact that this is a new administration that’s just trying to get organized.I mean, this is pretty significant stuff.In 25 years in the FBI, and maybe 10 of those at a high level, I can't remember ever going to the White House, or somebody that I know going to the White House, to provide this kind of information about somebody in the inner circle.It’s just never happened before.
Did we have concerns in the past about certain individuals in—you know, and maybe even running investigations against those individuals?Yes, but never at that level, and never with this kind of information, the specificity that we had.So why it went two weeks, or however long it did, very difficult to understand that as well.
What should they have done?
In that instance, at the very least, had a sit-down with the president and discussed the fact that one of his high-ranking officials, somebody who’s close to him, is in this situation, and then acted decisively. …Public trust depends on decisive action, and there wasn’t [any] in that instance.
The very night that Sally Yates, that day, the 27th of January, that night, it’s dinner for two with Jim Comey, and he asks for loyalty from Comey.… What do you make of that?
Jim characterizes that or equates it to his experiences with the mafia in New York.And yeah, I can't think of a better allegory in terms of this necessity for personal loyalty.And you see it time and again in his public actions, in terms of who’s in the inner circle, how he reacts to those he perceives as disloyal.Jim got fired, but there's a lot of other people that have been thrown under the train as well. …
So if you're Comey, and you're sitting in that room at dinner that night, what are you worried about?
Frankly, about being asked to kiss the ring, absolutely, positively, because I'm the only one in the room; because of the previous encounters; because of the phone calls; because of the situation or what he’s saying publicly about the Russia investigation, about individuals that are involved or tied up in the Russia investigation.I'm concerned that he’s going to put me on the spot.The challenge there is that this isn't Donald Trump, head of the Trump Organization anymore.This isn't a head of a foreign government.This is the president.It’s not even the department—the attorney general of the Department of Justice.It is the president of the United States.
And there's a certain, well, veneration for that office among career civil servants, among political appointees who have sworn the oath, so you expect there to be a different kind of behavior, a more professional behavior coming from that office.To have to go into that meeting sweating bullets because he’s going to ask me something that’s going to put me on the spot—if it was an operation or a policy-related issue, I get it, but if it’s something about protecting his hide, again, demonstrating loyalty to him personally, very uncomfortable, in addition to being inappropriate and unjust.
Not very long after that, Sally Yates gets fired in what almost feels like a demonstration project: This is what happens if you're not loyal to me.Not lost on the people at the Justice Department or the FBI, I trust?
Well, I think that there was concerns about that.This has been kind of the trend in this presidency, expecting that at some point, he’ll get it.At some point, he’ll start acting more conventional.And “conventional” is not a bad word.There's a reason why we expect our presidents to behave in a certain way, because everything they say has an effect.It could have an effect on the markets.It can have an effect on the overall economy.It can have an effect on relationships with different countries.It can also have an impact on the morale and welfare of the organizations in the executive branch, that they're doing their best to uphold the rule of law.
And so yeah, it was seen as a cautionary tale.But at the same time, there's also a justification.Sally Yates was a political appointee.Jim Comey is a political appointee.But he also has a 10-year term that was set aside by Congress for a specific reason, and that was to try to keep the director of the FBI out of the political wars that we saw, out of that friction point that occurs between the different branches of government, or by a president that may exceed his authorities.And that didn’t seem to matter in this instance.
So they fire Sally, and they fire Flynn.The president is not happy about it, and in a meeting in the Oval Office he asks the other people in the room to leave the room, including the attorney general, Jeff Sessions.He shoos him out, and he asks Comey to stay behind.Remember what he said?
About asking him to drop or to see his way to—essentially to drop the investigation against Michael Flynn.And again, when we look at the office of the presidency, when we look at the president of the United States, there is no such thing as a suggestion or a hope or an aspiration.When he talks like that, that’s an order.Yes, sir.I mean, that’s how we take it.That’s how, in effect, we have been conditioned to respond to that office.At the same time, we expect the office to—or the person who occupies that office, the president himself, to act in a responsible way.
… So does he put on his investigator cap and think, “I need to record this or take a record of it when I'm done”?Or does he make the decision, right then and there, that, “I'm going to stop this nonsense in its tracks”?That’s a really tough decision for anybody that’s in, especially in this case, an unprecedented situation like that, to say yea or nay.After the fact, you're going to relive it 100 times in your mind.“What should I have done?"The good news is that he went to his car, and he started writing his notes.I think he had a sense then that this was not going to go well.I don’t know if he thought he might get fired, and it was probably not in his thought process.But I think he was thinking, at that time, that, you know, the President is at least walking himself down this trail to an investigation, where he could become a subject to the investigation.And I need to be able to document what has happened as a result.
There's an old adage in the organization that if it happened and you didn’t write it down, it didn’t happen, so I think that that’s why he made sure that it was recorded.
By May, one year ago, the clock is running on him.The president of the United States, with information from—or a memo from [U.S. Deputy Attorney General] Rod Rosenstein, says, “It’s time to go."He sends [his bodyguard] Keith Schiller over to the FBI building with a letter.Schiller can't get in the door, and Comey isn't there anyway.
Right.
Where is he?And how does he hear?
A good friend of mine who was actually the assistant director in charge of the Los Angeles field office—so interesting story there.But he was in Los Angeles, and he was having a meeting with employees in the office.As is often the case in an FBI field office, in the areas where you can put a large number of people so that you can talk to them, there's going to be TV screens all around, because we keep track of what's going on in the media, because sometimes you find out about a crime or an incident, an activity, from the hovering helicopter or from the intrepid reporter.No problem with that, you know.So it’s an important source of information for us.
And he starts seeing that flashed on all the different screens.Usually, there's at least four TVs in a room, because you’ve got to have the four major channels, cable channels—five—however many.But yeah, he sees it first as a screen shot that he resigned, and then, ultimately, that he was fired.And of course the sound is not on because he’s having a conversation with the folks in the office, so then it’s a matter of trying to figure out what in fact is going on.There was no heads-up; there was no telephone call.
… He finds out in the worst possible way.And I can tell you, from talking to my friends who are still serving, that it was a major sucker punch in the gut.He was widely regarded throughout the organization.There were a few people that were not fans, so to speak, but even they were upset by how it all came to be, in terms of how he learned that he had been dismissed or fired.There was major frustration with the president that he would conduct himself that way.
Rod Rosenstein, who wrote the memo basically saying Comey did something unacceptable with the Hillary Clinton stuff, we’re not here to litigate that.But he then—and a lot of people beat him up—and then Trump goes on Lester Holt and NBC and says, “I did it for—I didn’t like the way he was handling the Russia investigation."
I think that the way that Rod Rosenstein tried to repent for that, or at least to resolve that situation, was to establish a special counsel.I think the seeds of the special counsel actually were sown during either the Kislyak engagement and [Russian Foreign Minister Sergey] Lavrov engagement in the Oval Office or during the interview with Lester Holt, because he definitely got thrown under the bus on that one, meaning Rosenstein did, and realized that, hey, this is a bigger situation than perhaps I realized.
I don’t know why he wrote the memo.Maybe he was trying to solidify his position in the office.I've seen this even under other administrations.When the president says something, it’s kind of like that old quote, where—even Jim has cited it before—where the pope or the king wishes that somebody would go away, and the next thing you know, their head is rolling down the street, because the king made it so or wished it so.
I think that people do get caught up in that kind of mentality when they're dealing with that office.I've seen it firsthand, that there's just a veneration for it, a respect for it.In this instance, when a president misuses that power, people don’t know how to react.How they respond—are there courses of actions that they may offer up as part of that response?All that gets turned on its head.I think that Rosenstein found himself in that situation, where he thought he was doing the right thing, and then it turned out to blow up in his face, and that’s why we have a special counsel now.
One of the other reasons is Comey decides, when Trump says something about, “I hope we have the tape; he knows I have some tapes,” or whatever he says, and Comey thinks, “Oh, my God, I hope he does have the tapes."
Well, it’s more than that.Jim has, whether it’s [in] the book or during his media blitz since then, he made it clear during his own testimony that if the president hadn’t defamed him, then he would have kept his peace, his counsel.But when the president defamed him, then it’s time to take the gloves off.
And I referred to it as “Jim’s leak."Jim doesn’t like to call it that, and I understand why.But it’s neither here nor there.It was information that he had that he passed onto The New York Times.And yeah, I think that was the straw that broke the camel’s back and led to the assignment, or the designation of the special counsel.
So he reaches into the dark mists of history, recent history, and pulls out a special counsel that’s almost guaranteed to cause a shudder in Donald Trump and inside the West Wing of the White House.Who does he pick, and why?
There's no mistake in terms of who he picks.I think that when he realized he had to go that route, there was only one person to turn to, and that was because Bob Mueller had such the reputation in officialdom that he does.This is a guy who has spent a long time in Washington, D.C., so in the halls of power, but who also has not been corrupted by it.I worked with him closely as well.He promoted me to special agent in charge of the Honolulu field office and then sent me over to the ODNI, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, so I had a lot of engagement with him.
For this kind of investigation, I can't think of anyone on the planet who’s better-suited for it.On the one hand, he’s a prosecutor’s prosecutor.He’s also an investigator’s investigator.This is a guy who has no problem with holding people accountable, being direct and driven to get the answer, who will work all hours of the day to make sure that he gets taken care of, and who’s not going to be distracted by all of the white noise that’s out there, whether it’s coming from the media or Congress or even the White House.He’s not deaf to it, he’s not immune to it, but he’s not going to let it affect how he conducts business, which is to follow the facts wherever they take him.
At the end of this thing, he’s going to make his reports.He’ll file his charges or not, and that will be that.The nation can count on the fact that he’s going to do it right, in accordance with the rule of law.That’s all that matters.
If you're in the West Wing, Bob Mueller’s on your trail, should you be worried?
He should be afraid.He should be very afraid, yes.The recent element or aspects of the Michael Cohen investigation are case in point.Again, he’s not running that, but it’s a result of investigation that he’s conducting that led to the referral to the Southern District in New York.Now we’re in the files of the president’s counselor, so where is that going to lead?I'm sure there's going to be these discussions and questions and debates and arguments before the court about privilege.That’s all understandable.
But I can think of one instance, in 25 years of service, where we were able to get into a lawyer’s office, only one.And I have friends that worked criminal a lot longer than I did.I did about 10 years, and then the rest of my time in the bureau was on the national security side.But even they, who work 20 or 25 years, handful of instances.So to get into a lawyer’s office, let alone the lawyer to the president, is a big, big deal.What are they going to find?
Why did they get in?How did they get in?
Well, that’s a great question.I think I had heard somewhere that it was, you know, publicly, that it was a 42-page warrant, which for a search warrant is pretty extensive.You’re talking about dotting a lot of i’s and crossing a lot of t’s, which means detail.Where are they getting that detail?And oh, by the way, the standard for a warrant is probable cause, meaning reason to believe that a crime has been committed, right?To get into a lawyer’s office, let alone the president’s lawyer’s office, you're going to have to have far more than probable cause. …
When Comey goes to Sessions, and he talks to him about not wanting to be left alone with the president, what is that about?Why is that important to Comey, and what is he telling Sessions?
Well, yes.That’s a great question, too.Part of the answer is in the context that he’s already had some experiences with the president.He’s uncomfortable with the direction that the president takes in his discussions about matters of law or investigation, so I think that when he’s talking to Sessions, he’s basically saying, “No more, ever again, because that puts me in a very difficult position."The reason why it’s difficult is because the thing above all that Jim Comey is concerned about, is maintaining the independence of the FBI.
I remember a conversation—it was in June or July or July or August of 2016 that I had with him and several others—where we were talking about the election and whoever won.The fact that there's all of this noise out there right now, whether it was the Clinton email investigation or the hints of the Russia investigation.Thinking, in terms of the discussion, no matter who wins, we’re going to have a challenge.We’re going to have a challenge because they're going to be mad at us.
Jim’s counsel was, as long as we keep our focus on our independence, we’re doing what the American people ask of us or expect of us.And that was important, because we knew we were going into uncharted waters.We knew that there was no way to avoid this; that we are dealing with the major-party candidates for president of the United States.It doesn’t get any higher than that, in terms of political office, or individuals in this country.Either way, it was going to be a challenge for us.It was going to be a “damned if you do/damned if you don’t” scenario.
And his focus was: “Fine.That’s why we exist.That’s what the American people expect of us, to be that independent investigator."And it was that independence, or that insistence on independence that cost him in the end with Donald Trump, because one, he wouldn’t kiss the ring; two, he wouldn’t drop the investigation; and three, his loyalty was to the Constitution of the United States and the American people, and not to the man.
Mueller … comes into his office, and he sits there.The case is already, in so many ways, sprawling and underway.What does Bob Mueller do from the beginning, the Bob Mueller you know?What does he do?
So he’s up late that first night.[He] and his assistant Aaron Zebley are going through the files, starting to read everything that’s available to read.He really does do those kinds of things.He’s not a micromanager, but he likes to know the answer before he asks the question.And then he’s going to start assembling his team.So at the same time that he’s getting familiar with the information that’s out there, the firsthand information that’s out there, reading the files, talking to the investigators that have been on the case, talking to the prosecutors that have been working with the investigators, he’s going to start building his team.
Again, he’s been in Washington for a long time.He understands the power structures here.He gets how it works.He led the FBI for 12 years, so he knows how the game is played.And that’s not going to guide his actions, but he’s going to conduct his business, recognizing that there's going to be a lot of criticisms, recognizing that it’s going to come from the president of the United States himself.He’s going to build an insulated network as well, where everybody that’s brought in to work that case can be sworn to secrecy.They're going to sign nondisclosure agreements.They're going to be told that they're going to get polygraphed, and in fact probably did get polygraphed, because they're going to have access to pretty sensitive information, and not just FBI information.
They're going to be sworn to secrecy and told upon penalty of some painful activity, whatever that might be, that there will be no leaks.The fact of the matter is, he’s going to be that draconian about it to protect the integrity of the investigation, because he knows there's going to be assaults from many sides, maybe all sides of the political spectrum, and he wants to protect against the political and popular opinion that could damage the case.
It’s a classic case in point; it’s [FBI agents] Pete Strzok and Lisa Page.You know, in the grand scheme of things, if they had conducted that discussion or those discussions on their personal telephones, we would not be having this discussion.They would not be nationally known names in this investigation.They were not biased; they were expressing opinions, and they were actually expressing opinions about a lot of different kinds of politicians.
… But the fact of the matter is, they did it on government phones, their government-issued phones, so it becomes a part of the case.Bob Mueller is looking at this from a perspective of protecting the integrity of the investigation.Their discussions may not have a bearing on the facts, but they are going to have impact in the court of public opinion.… And as soon as Bob Mueller found out about Pete Strzok, he removed him from that position, and it was an important position.Pete was leading the FBI part of the investigation, and it cost him dearly as a result.
So the prosecutors he has, presumably he’s got economic guys, guys that can follow the money; he’s got all kinds of evidence guys.Give me just a list of the territories of the kind of people that he’s hired and brought in.
It’s another great question, because he’s banking principally on his experiences as FBI director.But also he’s taking into consideration prior special counsels or independent counsels or these kinds of activities and incorporating all of the lessons learned.So yeah, it’s got to be multi-jurisdictional; it’s got to be multidisciplinary.It’s not just a counterintelligence investigation. …
When the Don Jr. story breaks that there's been—it breaks, rolls out over a few days, it’s been a meeting. …When you're Mueller, you know, [Trump’s son-in-law and adviser Jared] Kushner is there; [then-campaign chair Paul] Manafort's there.You've already gotten Manafort; you’ve already swept him up.What do you do with that information?How do you go at that?
Well, it’s another piece of the puzzle.All those people that are associated with the meeting, especially on the American side, they become hot topics for interviews—people that are associated with them, aides, confidants.The notes that they may have taken, their telephones and/or smartphones, they take notes on them.Did they send emails subsequent to those meetings?Did they make phone calls subsequent to those meetings?Who did they make those phone calls or send those emails to?There's that spider-web effect, where you're looking at everyone that's associated with them, in addition to them, to try to determine what exactly was discussed.
Again, this is a situation where, whether it's the president's tweets or his public disclosures, they also come into play as well.So he's sitting on the airplane, and he's working with his inside circle there to craft a response to all of this, because The New York Times either just did or is about to release all the emails showing the information; that it wasn't just about adoptions, but it was about dirt on Hillary Clinton. …
If the president’s up there, and he's deliberately crafting a lie to cover the purpose of the meeting, is that another step in the obstruction investigation?Is it also another step in terms of the conspiracy/collusion investigation?Does he know that the Russians are there to try to help him win the election?Did he actually ask for them to come and help him win the election?So you've got to sort through all of that. …
Toward the end of 2017, the president is getting frustrated with the investigation, and according to reports, the president’s lawyers were trying to keep them under control, and they're publicly saying this investigation is about to wrap up.They're telling the president this privately: “Just don't blow your top.This is all going to be wrapping up, we think by January."When you heard those statements, does that seem credible?
Not at all.Again, one of the more fascinating aspects of the public side, at least the Trump public side of this investigation, is the disregard for the process, the idea that he can just make believe it all could go away just because he says it should go away.That’s a real challenge for the investigation, because these are the president’s lawyers that are telling him that.
Now, I understand some of the public rationale.You're trying to keep him in the box; you're trying to make sure that he doesn't do something really stupid, whether it's a tweet or it’s a, you know, ill-timed statement, a public statement. …
Can I just ask one last thing?How prevalent a view, the ones that you’ve just given us, how prevalent a view is that in the FBI? .
I think it's pretty widespread.I spent a lot of my time in the West Coast offices, and there tends to be a less conservative view by a majority of the employees out there.But a word on that: I think that most people in the organization, and I worked with Pete Strzok; I worked with Jim Comey; I worked with Lisa Page; I worked with Bob Anderson; I worked with a lot of people—I didn't know, honestly didn't know what their bent was politically until after we retired, and we started talking and speaking out. …There are former FBI guys that have been very critical of Jim Comey, and whether it was the way he announced the ending of the Clinton email investigation or how he's conducted himself since he published the book, the things that he said in the book, the first thing I tell them is, please read the book.I think that the message in there is pretty clear and concise.
But yeah, we can all have an opinion on how he's conducted himself afterward.I think he's done so honorably.I think that he has made some mistakes that he's also corrected, or at least tried to correct.But we also live in a hyperpartisan environment, where every little thing he said is going to be deconstructed one way or the other.And that's frustrating, because all he's trying to do is tell the truth.All he's trying to do is uphold a standard.And the problem is, our society, our culture has become so twisted in the last couple of years that everything that was right is now wrong.Everything that is wrong is endorsed and it's celebrated, and that's had an effect on people inside the FBI.
… But in terms of a major crisis of confidence or of trust in leadership, that doesn't exist.[FBI Director] Chris Wray has had a bit of a challenge asserting leadership, but that's only because Jim Comey was so popular, was so well-regarded.The other part of it is that people are sick and tired of being punched, sucker-punched in the gut almost on a daily basis by the president of the United States.Again, it's not just an attack on Jim Comey or on the institution in general.It's an attack on every person that works in the organization, and that's how they feel about it.
In answer to that question as well, I think that there are a lot of people who voted for Trump, conservatives in the organization, who are disappointed.I personally have talked to several of them, not just with the tweets, but with his behavior in general.And not just toward the FBI, but just the way he conducts business, there's just frustration with that.
Latest Interviews
Latest Interviews
Policies
Teacher Center
Jon and Jo Ann Hagler on behalf of the Jon L. Hagler Foundation
Koo and Patricia Yuen
FRONTLINE is a registered trademark of WGBH Educational Foundation. Web Site Copyright ©1995-2025 WGBH Educational Foundation. PBS is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
Funding for FRONTLINE is provided through the support of PBS viewers and by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Additional funding is provided by the Abrams Foundation; Park Foundation; the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; and the FRONTLINE Journalism Fund with major support from Jon and Jo Ann Hagler on behalf of the Jon L. Hagler Foundation, and additional support from Koo and Patricia Yuen. FRONTLINE is a registered trademark of WGBH Educational Foundation. Web Site Copyright ©1995-2025 WGBH Educational Foundation. PBS is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
