The Cost, page 7
THE FACTS: He’s repeating a false claim that there was a conspiracy afoot to take him out if he won the 2016 presidential race, based on a text message between two FBI employees.
Trump has repeatedly depicted the two as referring to a plot—or insurance policy—to oust him from office if he beat Democrat Hillary Clinton. It’s apparent from the text that it wasn’t that.
Agent Peter Strzok and lawyer Lisa Page, both now gone from the bureau, said the text messages reflected a debate about how aggressively the FBI should investigate Trump and his campaign when expectations at the time were that he would lose anyway.
Strzok texted about something Page had said to the FBI’s deputy director, to the effect that “there’s no way he gets elected.” But Strzok argued that the FBI should not assume Clinton would win: “I’m afraid we can’t take that risk.” He likened the situation to “an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.” He has said he was not discussing a post-election plot to drive Trump from office.79
But if Strzok was not willing to accept the risk of the outcome of a free election, and instead favored “an insurance policy” in a discussion among FBI officials investigating Trump and his associates, doesn’t that sound exactly the way Trump described it?
Strzok was fired first by special counsel Robert Mueller and later by the FBI for his texts displaying animus against Trump. Given Strzok’s extreme bias, some could argue that it taints all his work on the Russia investigation. Certainly it calls into question the motivations behind this unprecedented intervention in U.S. politics by a law enforcement agency using the surveillance tools designed for use against foreign enemies.
This brings us back to the official start of the collusion investigation in July of 2016. The many abuses that followed are now a matter of public record. But at its beginning, was the investigation justified? Was it appropriately predicated?
Let’s now consider the formal moment of creation of the Crossfire Hurricane case on July 31, 2016. A copy of the FBI electronic communication that started it all was obtained in the spring of 2020 via a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the government watchdog group Judicial Watch.80
Kevin Brock, former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI and principal deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center, wrote upon the document’s release:
First, the document is oddly constructed. In a normal, legitimate FBI Electronic Communication, or EC, there would be a “To” and a “From” line. The Crossfire Hurricane EC has only a “From” line; it is from a part of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division whose contact is listed as Peter Strzok. The EC was drafted also by Peter Strzok. And, finally, it was approved by Peter Strzok. Essentially, it is a document created by Peter Strzok, approved by Peter Strzok, and sent from Peter Strzok to Peter Strzok.
On that basis alone, the document is an absurdity, violative of all FBI protocols and, therefore, invalid on its face. An agent cannot approve his or her own case; that would make a mockery of the oversight designed to protect Americans.81
Peter Strzok of all people seems to agree. “I can assure you…,” said Strzok at a House judiciary committee hearing in 2018, “at no time in any of those texts, did those personal beliefs ever enter into the realm of any action I took.” Then he said:
“Furthermore, this isn’t just me sitting here telling you. You don’t have to take my word for it. At every step, every investigative decision, there are multiple layers of people above me—the assistant director, executive assistant director, deputy director, and director of the FBI—and multiple layers of people below me—section chiefs, supervisors, unit chiefs, case agents and analysts—all of whom were involved in all of these decisions. They would not tolerate any improper behavior in me any more than I would tolerate it in them. That is who we are as the FBI.”82
What happened to all those layers when Strzok created the Trump investigation? Perhaps if Strzok had included agents on the ground in the discussion, they might have told him he had no case. Brock notes other significant problems with Strzok’s infamous document:
The Crossfire Hurricane case was opened as a Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) investigation. A FARA investigation involves a criminal violation of law—in this case, a negligent or intentional failure to register with the U.S. government after being engaged by a foreign country to perform services on its behalf—that is punishable by fines and imprisonment. It is rarely investigated.
In a normal EC opening a FARA case, we should expect to see a list of reasons why the FBI believes individuals associated with a U.S. presidential campaign had been engaged by the Russian government to represent and advocate that government’s goals.
This, however, was no normal EC. Try as we might to spot them, those reasons are not found anywhere in the document.83
Strzok’s electronic communication doesn’t get any more compelling once it gets into the report from the Australian diplomat Downer, which is the heart of the document. Brock notes:
Downer claims Papadopoulos “suggested” to him that the Trump team had received “some kind of suggestion” of assistance from Russia regarding information damaging to Hillary Clinton and President Obama. In other words, a suggestion of a suggestion.
Strzok apparently took this nebulous reporting by Downer and then leapt to the dubious conclusion that Papadopoulos and unnamed others were engaged by the Russians to act as foreign agents on Russia’s behalf. This, despite Downer also offering two exculpatory statements in the same email: 1) It was “unclear” how the Trump campaign might have reacted to the Russian claims and 2) the Russians likely were going to do what they were going to do with the information whether anyone in the Trump campaign cooperated with them or not.
Strzok then concludes the EC by moving the goalposts. He writes that Crossfire Hurricane is being opened to determine if unspecified “individual(s)” associated with the Trump campaign are “witting of and/or coordinating activities”—also unspecified—“with the Government of Russia.” He doesn’t even mention Papadopoulos.
Ultimately, there was no attempt by Strzok to articulate any factors that address the elements of FARA. He couldn’t, because there are none. Instead, there was a weak attempt to allege some kind of cooperation with Russians by unknown individuals affiliated with the Trump campaign, again, with no supporting facts listed.84
For someone not accustomed to reading such documents, what is perhaps most striking in Peter Strzok’s electronic communication is the acknowledgment that no one knows if the information that someone claims the Russians might be willing to release includes “material acquired publicly” or “through other means.”85
The FBI can launch full investigations of Americans participating in election campaigns based on a mere suggestion that a foreign government might release information that is already public? If the bar is set this low, the FBI could investigate American citizens for participating in politics during every election cycle.
This would be fundamentally incompatible with the rule of law on which our liberty and prosperity depend. Deploying intelligence and law enforcement assets against the political opposition is a hallmark of dictatorships, not free and open societies. To prevent a new normal of politicized and corrupt policing, the Justice Department must hold the collusion investigators to account.
The FBI standards applied to Trump associates were clearly not applied to Trump’s opponents. In 2016, many of the same FBI officials, and most notably Director James Comey, were also involved in the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information while serving as secretary of state.
Several Clinton associates were given immunity from prosecution even though they did not help the FBI make a criminal case against anyone. In the spring of 2016, Comey began drafting a statement closing the case and exonerating Hillary Clinton while FBI agents were still conducting the investigation—and before they had even interviewed more than a dozen key witnesses, including Clinton herself.
There have been no reports of the FBI doctoring emails or hiding exculpatory evidence or misleading federal judges or promoting fact-free rumors in an effort to snare Team Clinton. To the contrary, the FBI downplayed the investigation, referring to it only as a “matter” at the request of Obama administration attorney general Loretta Lynch. Three days before Hillary Clinton’s interview, Lynch met Bill Clinton on the tarmac at an Arizona airport and both would later claim to the Justice Department’s inspector general that they had discussed golf and grandkids but not the Hillary Clinton investigation. According to the inspector general, Lynch’s staff recognized the problem even if she didn’t: “The Deputy Chief of Staff said that they quickly realized that the meeting was problematic, because Clinton was not just the former president but was also the husband of someone who was under investigation. The Deputy Chief of Staff said that she felt ‘shocked,’ and that they all ‘just felt completely… blindsided.’ ”86
Given the friendly treatment of Hillary Clinton, perhaps no one ended up being shocked that Clinton was never prosecuted by the Justice Department. Senator Chuck Grassley would later find that, during the drafting of Comey’s July 2016 statement announcing no charges against Clinton, the description of her conduct as “grossly negligent,” which carries a criminal penalty, was changed to read “extremely careless,” which does not.87
Looking back now, current attorney general Barr says, “I do believe there were two standards of justice during that period of time toward the end of the Obama administration. And all I can do about it is apply one standard of justice, the right standard of justice and make sure we apply it to everybody equally. And that’s what I’m trying to do.”88
Did President Obama direct the investigation against Trump? Maria recently put the question to senior Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, who responded, “That’s not how it works. That’s not how our investigations work. We leave that to the intelligence community to bring forward information and the dossier I would imagine would be one piece of a much bigger puzzle.”89
“Well, you’ll notice she didn’t answer your question,” Sen. Ron Johnson (R.-Wis.) told Maria after watching an excerpt of the Jarrett interview. “She just talked about in general what the process should be. That’s not the process they followed. It is very clear that there was corruption at the highest levels of certainly the FBI. We have evidence of it.”90
As voters assess President Trump’s record in office, they should consider the cost that this double standard imposed on his presidency—and could impose on the country if left unreformed.
As for the target of the FBI’s abuse, Trump tells us, “President Obama spied on my campaign.… If this were the other way around, every single person involved would be in jail for fifty years and it would have started two years ago.” When asked who masterminded the collusion investigation, Trump mentions FBI director Comey and former CIA director John Brennan, but returns his focus to one particular government official: “Obama knew everything. He knew everything.”91
TIMELINE:THE COUP THAT FAILED
The full story of the Obama administration’s collusion investigation has still not been told, and in the months and years ahead we may learn much more. For the health of our republic, we believe it’s essential for Americans to learn who exactly ordered or encouraged the use of federal surveillance tools against the party out of power—and promoted the use of such tools even in the absence of evidence. Abuses by the FBI and perhaps other government agencies are now themselves the subject of federal investigation. As we write, it’s impossible to say exactly where such investigations will lead, and the possible strands extend well beyond the material covered in chapter two. Given the number of possible leads, readers may find it helpful to retain the following chronology of events and possible players in this drama, which includes issues that could not be fully explored at this writing but may loom larger as more information is disclosed. Everyone mentioned below and involved in this story deserves the presumption of innocence. Americans also deserve a full accounting of how powers normally reserved for targeting terrorists and foreign adversaries were turned against U.S. citizens participating in politics.
June 2015
Donald Trump announces campaign for president.
August 2015
General Michael Flynn (ret.), former head of Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency, meets Donald Trump.
September 24, 2015
Stefan Halper awarded contract valued at $244,960 to study Russia and China by Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment.
February 2016
London Centre of International Law Practice contacts George Papadopoulos on LinkedIn after he leaves Ben Carson presidential campaign. London Centre subsequently hires him.
March 2016
Papadopoulos accepts offer to join Trump campaign as a volunteer foreign policy adviser. Before he leaves London Centre, he is invited by Arvinder Sambei to Rome and there is introduced to Joseph Mifsud by former Italian prime minister Vincenzo Scotti.
April 26, 2016
Mifsud meets Papadopoulos in London. According to Papadopoulos, Mifsud tells him that Russia has potentially damaging Hillary Clinton emails. Special counsel Robert Mueller later reports that Mifsud denied saying any such thing in an FBI interview; Mueller alleges that Mifsud provided false answers under FBI questioning.
May 10, 2016
Papadopoulos meets with Australian diplomat Alexander Downer at a London wine bar. Two months later Downer reported to U.S. embassy in London that Papadopoulos reported hearing that Russians had potentially damaging information on Hillary Clinton. Papadopoulos doesn’t recall telling this to Downer.
June 2016
Former British spy Christopher Steele hired by Fusion GPS, an opposition research firm employed by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee via the Perkins Coie law firm to investigate Trump’s possible ties to Russia.
July 2016
Carter Page first meets Stefan Halper after receiving an invitation to an overseas seminar from Steven Schrage. Halper would continue contacts with Page in succeeding months.
July 31, 2016
FBI official Peter Strzok formally opens counterintelligence probe known as “Crossfire Hurricane” into the Trump campaign.
August 2016
FBI learns from another government agency—but never tells the FISA Court—that Carter Page served as an operational contact for U.S. intelligence.
August 8, 2016
Strzok and FBI attorney Lisa Page communicate via text message:
Page: [Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!
Peter Strzok: No. No, he’s not. We’ll stop it.
August 15, 2016
Strzok texts Page: “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office—that there’s no way he gets elected—but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”
August 16, 2016
FBI opens “Crossfire Razor” probe into General Flynn.
August 17, 2016
FBI provides “defensive briefing” used as “cover” to monitor and assess candidate Trump and General Flynn, according to handwritten notes of FBI agent Joe Pientka.
August 29, 2016
Stefan Halper emails Trump campaign cochairman Sam Clovis; they meet in the Crystal City neighborhood of Arlington, Virginia, a few days later.
September 2016
Papadopoulos invited by Stefan Halper to London. Halper introduces Papadopoulos to person known as Azra Turk. Halper records conversation in which Papadopoulos says colluding with Russia would be treason and neither he nor anyone on the Trump campaign would ever do such a thing. Government never discloses this evidence to the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC, or FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] Court).
September 19, 2016
Christopher Steele gives FBI report that will play “a central and essential role” in the FBI’s and Justice Department’s decision to seek a FISA warrant, according to a 2019 report by the Obama-appointed inspector general of the Justice Department. Inspector general also reports that in warrant application officials never told the court that Clinton and the Democrats paid for the dossier and never fully disclosed Steele’s Russian connections, among other omissions.
September 26, 2016
Stefan Halper awarded Office of Net Assessment contract valued at $411,575 to study China’s economy.
October 18, 2016
Top Department of Justice official Bruce Ohr, whose wife worked on the anti-Trump project for Fusion GPS, gives one of many briefings to FBI officials on Steele’s collusion allegations.
October 21, 2016
FBI secures the first FISA warrant application to surveil Carter Page.
November 2016
FBI dismisses Steele as a confidential source after he breaks protocol by disclosing his work and his relationship with the FBI while serving as an anonymous source for a magazine article. But FBI doesn’t stop promoting his claims as reliable with other agencies and the FISA Court.
November 8, 2016
Trump is elected president.
November 18, 2016
Trump names General Flynn his national security adviser.
December 15, 2016
Strzok texts Page: “Think our sisters have begun leaking like mad.”
December 23, 2016
Flynn phone call with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
December 29, 2016
Another Flynn call with Kislyak.
December 2, 2016
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper requests Flynn’s identity be unmasked.
