F.B.I. Opened Inquiry Into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia

11-14 minutes

BREAKING

Following President Trump’s firing of James B. Comey as F.B.I. director, the bureau grew increasingly concerned about whether the president’s actions constituted anti-American activity.CreditSarah Silbiger/The New York Times

Image

Following President Trump’s firing of James B. Comey as F.B.I. director, the bureau grew increasingly concerned about whether the president’s actions constituted anti-American activity.CreditCreditSarah Silbiger/The New York Times

WASHINGTON — In the days after President Trump fired James B. Comey as F.B.I. director, law enforcement officials became so concerned by the president’s behavior that they began investigating whether he had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests, according to former law enforcement officials and others familiar with the investigation.

The inquiry carried explosive implications. Counterintelligence investigators had to consider whether the president’s own actions constituted a possible threat to national security. Agents also sought to determine whether Mr. Trump was knowingly working for Russia or had unwittingly fallen under Moscow’s influence.

The investigation the F.B.I. opened into Mr. Trump also had a criminal aspect, which has long been publicly known: whether his firing of Mr. Comey constituted obstruction of justice.

Agents and senior F.B.I. officials had grown suspicious of Mr. Trump’s ties to Russia during the 2016 campaign but held off on opening an investigation into him, the people said, in part because they were uncertain how to proceed with an inquiry of such sensitivity and magnitude. But the president’s activities before and after Mr. Comey’s firing in May 2017, particularly two instances in which Mr. Trump tied the Comey dismissal to the Russia investigation, helped prompt the counterintelligence aspect of the inquiry, the people said.

The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, took over the inquiry into Mr. Trump when he was appointed, days after F.B.I. officials opened it. That inquiry is part of Mr. Mueller’s broader examination of how Russian operatives interfered in the 2016 election and whether any Trump associates conspired with them. It is unclear whether Mr. Mueller is still pursuing the counterintelligence matter, and some former law enforcement officials outside the investigation have questioned whether agents overstepped in opening it.

The criminal and counterintelligence elements were coupled together into one investigation, former law enforcement officials said in interviews in recent weeks, because if Mr. Trump had ousted the head of the F.B.I. to impede or even end the Russia investigation, that was both a possible crime and a national security concern. The F.B.I.’s counterintelligence division handles national security matters.

If the president had fired Mr. Comey to stop the Russia investigation, the action would have been a national security issue because it naturally would have hurt the bureau’s effort to learn how Moscow interfered in the 2016 election and whether any Americans were involved, according to James A. Baker, who served as F.B.I. general counsel until late 2017. He privately testified in October before House investigators who were examining the F.B.I.’s handling of the full Russia inquiry.

The F.B.I. investigated whether the firing of Mr. Comey was a national security threat.CreditErik S Lesser/EPA, via Shutterstock

Image

The F.B.I. investigated whether the firing of Mr. Comey was a national security threat.CreditErik S Lesser/EPA, via Shutterstock

“Not only would it be an issue of obstructing an investigation, but the obstruction itself would hurt our ability to figure out what the Russians had done, and that is what would be the threat to national security,” Mr. Baker said in his testimony, portions of which were read to The New York Times. Mr. Baker did not explicitly acknowledge the existence of the investigation of Mr. Trump to congressional investigators.

No evidence has emerged publicly that Mr. Trump was secretly in contact with or took direction from Russian government officials. An F.B.I. spokeswoman and a spokesman for the special counsel’s office both declined to comment.

Rudolph W. Giuliani, a lawyer for the president, sought to play down the significance of the investigation. “The fact that it goes back a year and a half and nothing came of it that showed a breach of national security means they found nothing,” Mr. Giuliani said on Friday, though he acknowledged that he had no insight into the inquiry.

The cloud of the Russia investigation has hung over Mr. Trump since even before he took office, though he has long vigorously denied any illicit connection to Moscow. The obstruction inquiry, revealed by The Washington Post a few weeks after Mr. Mueller was appointed, represented a direct threat that he was unable to simply brush off as an overzealous examination of a handful of advisers. But few details have been made public about the counterintelligence aspect of the investigation.

The decision to investigate Mr. Trump himself was an aggressive move by F.B.I. officials who were confronting the chaotic aftermath of the firing of Mr. Comey and enduring the president’s verbal assaults on the Russia investigation as a “witch hunt.”

A vigorous debate has taken shape among some former law enforcement officials outside the case over whether F.B.I. investigators overreacted in opening the counterintelligence inquiry during a tumultuous period at the Justice Department. Other former officials noted that those critics were not privy to all of the evidence and argued that sitting on it would have been an abdication of duty.

The F.B.I. conducts two types of inquiries, criminal and counterintelligence investigations. Unlike criminal investigations, which are typically aimed at solving a crime and can result in arrests and convictions, counterintelligence inquiries are generally fact-finding missions to understand what a foreign power is doing and to stop any anti-American activity, like thefts of United States government secrets or covert efforts to influence policy. In most cases, the investigations are carried out quietly, sometimes for years. Often, they result in no arrests.

Mr. Trump had caught the attention of F.B.I. counterintelligence agents when he called on Russia during a campaign news conference in July 2016 to hack into the emails of his opponent, Hillary Clinton. Mr. Trump had refused to criticize Russia on the campaign trail, praising President Vladimir V. Putin. And investigators had watched with alarm as the Republican Party softened its convention platform on the Ukraine crisis in a way that seemed to benefit Russia.

Other factors fueled the F.B.I.’s concerns, according to the people familiar with the inquiry. Christopher Steele, a former British spy who worked as an F.B.I. informant, had compiled memos in mid-2016 containing unsubstantiated claims that Russian officials tried to obtain influence over Mr. Trump by preparing to blackmail and bribe him.

In the months before the 2016 election, the F.B.I. was also already investigating four of Mr. Trump’s associates over their ties to Russia. The constellation of events disquieted F.B.I. officials who were simultaneously watching as Russia’s campaign unfolded to undermine the presidential election by exploiting existing divisions among Americans.

“In the Russian Federation and in President Putin himself, you have an individual whose aim is to disrupt the Western alliance and whose aim is to make Western democracy more fractious in order to weaken our ability, America’s ability and the West’s ability to spread our democratic ideals,” Lisa Page, a former bureau lawyer, told House investigators in private testimony reviewed by The Times.

“That’s the goal, to make us less of a moral authority to spread democratic values,” she added. Parts of her testimony were first reported by The Epoch Times.

And when a newly inaugurated Mr. Trump sought a loyalty pledge from Mr. Comey and later asked that he end an investigation into the president’s national security adviser, the requests set off discussions among F.B.I. officials about opening an inquiry into whether Mr. Trump had tried to obstruct that case.

But law enforcement officials put off the decision to open the investigation until they had learned more, according to people familiar with their thinking. As for a counterintelligence inquiry, they concluded that they would need strong evidence to take the sensitive step of investigating the president, and they were also concerned that the existence of such an inquiry could be leaked to the news media, undermining the entire investigation into Russia’s meddling in the election.

After Mr. Comey was fired on May 9, 2017, two more of Mr. Trump’s actions prompted them to quickly abandon those reservations.

The first was a letter Mr. Trump wanted to send to Mr. Comey about his firing, but never did, in which he mentioned the Russia investigation. In the letter, Mr. Trump thanked Mr. Comey for previously telling him he was not a subject of the F.B.I.’s Russia investigation.

Even after the deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, wrote a more restrained draft of the letter and told Mr. Trump that he did not have to mention the Russia investigation — Mr. Comey’s poor handling of the Clinton email investigation would suffice as a fireable offense, he explained — Mr. Trump directed Mr. Rosenstein to mention the Russia investigation anyway.

He disregarded the president’s order, irritating Mr. Trump. The president ultimately added a reference to the Russia investigation to the note he had delivered, thanking Mr. Comey for telling him three times that he was not under investigation.

The second event that troubled investigators was an NBC News interview two days after Mr. Comey’s firing in which Mr. Trump appeared to say he had dismissed Mr. Comey because of the Russia inquiry.

“I was going to fire Comey knowing there was no good time to do it,” he said. “And in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself — I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.”

Mr. Trump’s aides have said that a fuller examination of his comments demonstrates that he did not fire Mr. Comey to end the Russia inquiry. “I might even lengthen out the investigation, but I have to do the right thing for the American people,” Mr. Trump added. “He’s the wrong man for that position.”

As F.B.I. officials debated whether to open the investigation, some of them pushed to move quickly before Mr. Trump appointed a director who might slow down or even end their investigation into Russia’s interference. Many involved in the case viewed Russia as the chief threat to American democratic values.

“With respect to Western ideals and who it is and what it is we stand for as Americans, Russia poses the most dangerous threat to that way of life,” Ms. Page told investigators for a joint House Judiciary and Oversight Committee investigation into Moscow’s election interference.

F.B.I. officials viewed their decision to move quickly as validated when a comment the president made to visiting Russian officials in the Oval Office shortly after he fired Mr. Comey was revealed days later.

“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said, according to a document summarizing the meeting. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4175825&forum_id=2#37576359)

Why do we need 5,000 words?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4175825&forum_id=2#37576361)

"Mr. Trump had caught the attention of F.B.I. counterintelligence agents when he called on Russia during a campaign news conference in July 2016 to hack into the emails of his opponent, Hillary Clinton. "

He specifically stated that IF Russia already had her emails, they should release them

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4175825&forum_id=2#37576398)

"Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing"

That quote?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4175825&forum_id=2#37576949)

He added

" Let's see if that happens. That will be next"

interesting. It's even more damning with more context.

He also announced today he prefers China to Americas democratically elected leaders.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4175825&forum_id=2#37576981)

xoxo

hth

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4175825&forum_id=2#37576988)

Your read seems to be a little strained.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4175825&forum_id=2#37577000)

Was it known in July prior to gowdy's announcement that bleachbit had been used?

Were emails ever discovered anywhere besides her server?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4175825&forum_id=2#37577019)

Here is Hillary and her "wipe it with a cloth" moment in August 2015

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2015/08/18/hillary-presser-did-i-wipe-server-like-with-a-cloth-or-something-n2040633

And no, those deleted emails were never discovered.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4175825&forum_id=2#37577031)

Trump: "I hope you're able to find them....that's next."

Clearly he was asking them to do oppo research on his political opponent. It's right there. Plain English.

You're wrong btw. Emails were later found in October. You understand emails by nature are not just on one server right?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4175825&forum_id=2#37577050)

Again

Emails were later found so the idea its impossible trump could have been asking that russia find emails because they were all deleted doesnt work.

And his plain English words "next" clearly refer to finding in the future.

And finally emails by their nature can be found elsewhere then the server on which they are hosted. We all know this to be true as it actually IRL happened close to the campaign.

Basic facts.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4175825&forum_id=2#37577094)

This is the NYT statement:

"Mr. Trump had caught the attention of F.B.I. counterintelligence agents when he called on Russia during a campaign news conference in July 2016 to hack into the emails of his opponent, Hillary Clinton. "

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4175825&forum_id=2#37577099)

But regardless we know for sure he was asking that russia try to find emails in the future. Maybe that refers to hacking (my theory) or maybe it refers to russia politely asking Hillary for them because there is no way he could have asked russia to hack her emails because a year earlier clinton mocked a reporters question by asking whether her server was wiped by a clothe (your theory).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4175825&forum_id=2#37577109)

Not talking about Hillary's joke. We knew they wiped it. From the link, which linked to this story:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton/fbi-optimistic-it-can-recover-some-data-clinton-server-n411976

Clinton's campaign has previously acknowledged that there was an attempt to wipe the server before it was turned over last week to the FBI.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4175825&forum_id=2#37577122)

Even though we know some were found later?

And even thought Trump used clearly future tense in both instances, he was referring to past actions? Odd.......

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4175825&forum_id=2#37577904)

With that line of argument you've already fucking conceded the statement is a falsehood

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4175825&forum_id=2#37578220)

Who is the liar?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4175825&forum_id=2#37576921)

But if the FBI *ever* deployed counterintelligence against a sitting president, the only correct action would be to dismantle the whole agency and forever salt the ashes where it once stood.

5:51 PM - 11 Jan 2019

This guy is liberal btw.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4175825&forum_id=2#37576453)

what does this mean?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4175825&forum_id=2#37576462)

But the article's content is far more limited: FBI sought to see if the president's action to fire comey constituted criminal obstruction of justice

It's a distinction that matters. If the president commits crimes, it's appropriate for law enforcement to investigate it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4175825&forum_id=2#37576469)

This investigation will be one of the biggest stories in American history when all is said and done.

Either the President is a traitor or the national security apparatus of the government acted as if he might be because they didn't like his policy choices.

Neither is good.

And I tend to think if they had an evidence Trump is a traitor, we probably should have heard about it by now.

It's not exactly the kind of think you sit on for over a year while the guy is still President.

We will see, or at least we better.

If there's no smoking gun or actionable information (impeachment) from Mueller, we absolutely have to see the information that led to the opening of the investigation, classifications be damned.

If it turns out the FBI opened a counter intelligence investigation on the President because he fired the FBI Director and the GOP platform on Ukraine and they don't come up with the goods, a lot of FBI officials need to go to jail and we need an entirely new FBI.

What's laid out in that NY Times piece is *incredibly* thin to turn the FBI loose on a sitting President. There better be more...a lot more.

Obama told Mevedev he'd have more "flexibility" after the 2012 election. He mocked Romney for saying Russia was our primary strategic threat and he went soft on Russia after the Ukraine invasion.

Did the FBI think Obama was a counter-intelligence threat to the US?

If there's nothing there on Trump, this is going to come down to Comey setting it in motion because he felt he fucked up the Clinton case, isn't it?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4175825&forum_id=2#37576720)

Papadappulous, Page, et a

So counterintelligence on the Trump campaign started before fired Comey

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4175825&forum_id=2#37576732)

I don't see how you could frame it any differently.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4175825&forum_id=2#37576731)

Even liberal natsec lawyers are saying deep state coup.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4175825&forum_id=2#37576724)

in other words these people all watch too much fucking msnbc. nuke dc.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4175825&forum_id=2#37576740)

https://twitter.com/_drew_mccoy_/status/1083920955976626179?s=21

The idea the FBI should feel free to open an investigation criminal, counter-intel, hybrid, whatever you call it because as an institution its leadership thinks the constitutionally elected President's policy choices may constitute a national security threat is scary as hell.

There were many reasons I opposed Trump. The way he views alliances as through a financial lens, his glib dismissal of NATO Article V, and yes, his soft and naive approach to Russia were prime among them. But they were aired during the campaign and he won.

So many of the people who see Trump as a threat to cherished norms are awful willing to throw plenty of norms overboard to get him.

That's as dangerous, if not more so, than Trump has proven to be (as of right....now).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4175825&forum_id=2#37576762)

They are literally going to use this shit for his entire term

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4175825&forum_id=2#37577163)

Related to this?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4175825&forum_id=2#37576919)

Now when the fucking FBI thinks maybe Trump is Putin's buttboy you are like OH DISSS DEEEP STATE WAT DISS

JFC at you morons. Really ask yourself what you would say if Obama had done all this bullshit.

Go eat shit you faggot birdshits

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4175825&forum_id=2#37577729)

The latter is a counterintelligence investigation: you investigate a person (Trump) and every aspect of their lives to try to find a crime.

That a counterintelligence investigation was launched against trump based on the unverified Steele dossier is so horrendous and such an abuse of power that only an American hating turdskin like you could still be defending it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4175825&forum_id=2#37578704)

they had STREAMS of other fuking info abt trump being a fuking traitor include signals intel im sure, they fuking monitor all russian suspected agents in the US and in europe

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4175825&forum_id=2#37587520)

LOL at this mouth breathing conspiracy theorist. It must be tough being wrong all the time.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4175825&forum_id=2#37580603)

If obama had done all this ljl at GOP not going BATSHIT fucking insane

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4175825&forum_id=2#37587523)

"they've already indicted 33 fucking ppl, incuding his NSA advisor, campaign advisor and personal lawyer."

- Yeah, they indicted two dozen random russians, got people to plead guilty to 18 USC 1001, and nailed Manafort for cheating on his taxes in 2005. Nobody has been convicted--or even charged--with conspiring with the Kremlin to steal the 2016 election.

"We only know maybe 25% of what they have found."

- This is a great example showing how shitlibs subconsciously realize that all of these bullshit investigations haven't turned up jack shit on Trump. They fall back on "hurr durr, maybe Mueller has something up his sleeve that we don't even know about."

"We already know his fucking son colluded during the trump tower meeting."

- No we don't. If meeting with a lawyer who promised (but failed to deliver) oppo research on HRC is bad, then why are you guys okay with the Clinton campaign using a cutout (Steele) to purchase disinformation on Trump from literal Kremlin agents?

"We know his son in law wanted to set up a back channel."

- First, there's no evidence any such "back channel" ever came to fruition. Second, "back channels" are common in diplomacy. Again, if this is all you've got, it betrays the weakness of your conspiracy theory.

"We know one of his top advisors, roger stone, talked to assange."

- No, we don't know that. And even if he did, Stone was not on the campaign.

"We know Cohen likely went to Europe to meet with Russians"

- No we don't. This is another conspiracy theory that the HRC campaign bought from Kremlin agents.

Nice try, pumo.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4175825&forum_id=2#37589161)

And I love watching XO's mouth-breathing Russia Conspiracy Theorists desperately trying to believe that this means they finally have the bad racist orange man.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4175825&forum_id=2#37580589)