-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5
/
The Threat - Andrew McCabe.txt
1790 lines (878 loc) · 506 KB
/
The Threat - Andrew McCabe.txt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
The Threat
Andrew McCabe
Prologue: FD-302
Application. Interview. Background check. The Bureau cherishes its procedures and lives by them. The pathway into the Federal Bureau of Investigation starts the same way for everyone. The official write-up on my own application interview, conducted in Philadelphia more than two decades ago, can be found somewhere in the personnel files at the J. Edgar Hoover FBI Building, the Bureau’s headquarters. It’s on a form known as an FD-302. Every interview conducted by an FBI agent is reported or summarized on a 302. This form is the most basic building block of an investigation. The FD-302 on me sits among write-ups on tens of thousands of other applicants over the years. I don’t have access to it—I’m no longer with the Bureau, a story for later—but my FD-302 would look something like this:
FBI EMPLOYMENT APPLICATION INTERVIEW, ANDREW G. MCCABE
On September 14, 1995, ANDREW G. McCABE, dob 03/18/1968, address 208 Haddon Avenue, Haddonfield, NJ, was interviewed in the FBI Philadelphia field office regarding his application for a Special Agent position. After being advised of the identity of the interviewing agent and the purpose of the interview, and after providing the interviewing agent with a completed copy of his FD-140, McCABE provided the following information:
McCABE was born in Flushing, New York. His parents, GEORGE J. McCABE and ELLEN E. McCABE, were also born in New York. In 1978 the family moved to Jacksonville, Florida, where McCABE completed high school at the Bolles School. The Bolles School registrar confirmed the dates of McCABE’s attendance and graduation. McCABE’s parents confirm that he is a person of high integrity. They are not aware of any significant legal or disciplinary problems in his past. They believe he is financially responsible and has not engaged in any conduct that would make him vulnerable to influence or extortion. They were surprised by McCABE’s decision to become an FBI agent and do not understand why he would leave his law practice. McCABE’s additional family members include one brother, PATRICK ANDREW McCABE, dob 05/25/1965, of Irvine, California. PATRICK McCABE is currently employed by Mazda Motor of America. PATRICK McCABE did not respond to repeated contacts and will be interviewed in person by FBI Los Angeles, Santa Ana RA. McCABE does not have any additional family.
McCABE is married to BARBRA JILL McCABE, dob 05/26/1968, same address. BARBRA McCABE is employed as a physician at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. She confirms the two met at Duke University in 1987 and were wed in Monterey, California, on 03/04/95. BARBRA McCABE’s family includes DAVID McFARLAND (father), SUSAN McFARLAND (mother), both of Laguna Beach, California, and KIM MARQUARDT (sister) of Salt Lake City, Utah. Criminal records, NCIC, Triple I, and FBI Indices checks were negative on all these McFARLAND family members. BARBRA McCABE confirmed her knowledge and support of McCABE’s interest in joining the FBI. BARBRA McCABE further indicated her willingness to relocate to any FBI duty station, as determined by the FBI, at the McCABES’ cost.
McCABE completed college at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, where he graduated with an A.B. in political science in May 1990. As a freshman, he was placed on social probation after being caught in possession of alcohol as a minor. In his junior year, McCABE was arrested by the North Carolina Alcoholic Beverage Control for purchasing alcohol as a minor while possessing false identification. The charges were dropped and later expunged after McCABE performed 40 hours of community service. Duke University confirmed the details of McCABE’s enrollment, disciplinary record, and graduation. No professors with independent recollections of McCABE were identified.
In 1993, McCABE received his J.D. from Washington University School of Law, in St. Louis, Missouri. Several professors at Washington University described McCABE as an average student but also noted that he displayed a strong interest in criminal law. Two indicated they expected he would seek employment as a prosecutor following graduation. Washington University School of Law confirmed the details of McCABE’s attendance and graduation. McCABE passed the New Jersey and Pennsylvania bars in the fall of 1993.
From November 1993 through April 1995 McCABE was employed as an associate attorney in the law firm of Greenberg, Shmerelson, Weinroth and Miller in Camden, New Jersey. He engaged in civil litigation, criminal defense, real estate transactions, and financial matters. McCABE’s former supervisor, JAMES GREENBERG, ESQ., described McCABE as hardworking, intelligent, and careful. GREENBERG further stated that McCABE showed a willingness to take on new, hard assignments that pushed him beyond the scope of his experience. GREENBERG did not know McCABE to have ever abused alcohol, prescription drugs, or illegal narcotics.
McCABE is currently employed as an associate attorney at the law firm of Epstein, Becker and Green in Newark, New Jersey. McCABE concentrates on defending corporations in labor and employment litigation. McCABE’s current supervisor, ROBERT H. BERNSTEIN, ESQ., described McCABE as diligent, resourceful, and easygoing. BERNSTEIN had no knowledge of McCABE’s financial situation and could provide no information about McCABE’s friends and associates. BERNSTEIN doubted that McCABE would join the FBI due to the lucrative future he had at the law firm. McCABE requested that BERNSTEIN not/NOT be further contacted as a part of this inquiry.
McCABE provided the names and addresses of five additional employers over the preceding ten years. Each was contacted and interviewed. Each confirmed the details of McCABE’s employment but provided negative results to all other inquiries. McCABE further provided adequate explanations for all periods of unemployment, most of which occurred while he was in school.
McCABE provided the locations of each of his residences over the preceding ten years. Each location was confirmed through physical investigation and interviews of landlords and three neighbors at each location. None of those contacted could provide any specific information about McCABE beyond the details of his habitation. None were aware of behavior or actions by McCABE or others at the residences during the time in question that would cast doubt on McCABE’s fitness for a position of trust with the government.
McCABE provided the names, addresses, contact numbers, and occupations for three references and three social acquaintances. Each was interviewed in person. All those interviewed described McCABE as honest, diligent, hardworking, and intelligent. Each described McCABE as patriotic and a supporter of the United States. None had ever seen or heard McCABE advocate for the overthrow of the United States, or support any group or organization opposed to the government of the United States. None of the contacts reported ever seeing McCABE abuse alcohol, prescription drugs, or illegal narcotics. None could provide any insight into McCABE’s financial status. Each person recommended McCABE for a position of trust with the government.
McCABE provided his passport number and indicated prior foreign travel to France, Italy, Greece, and the Bahamas. This travel was confirmed through US Customs Service records. McCABE denied having any contact with foreign intelligence officers, representatives of foreign governments, or suspicious contacts during any of the reported travel. McCABE further indicated that his father, GEORGE McCABE, has had extensive travel to Japan due to his prior employment with Mazda Motor of America.
McCABE provided his selective service registration number, which was confirmed by the US Department of Defense. McCABE has no prior military service.
McCABE volunteered that he had “experimented” with marijuana in the past, but not in the past three years and not on more than 15 occasions total. McCABE denied ever using or experimenting with any other illegal narcotics. Other than the previously noted alcohol possession arrest and subsequent dismissal, criminal records, NCIC, Interstate Identification Index, and FBI Indices checks all returned negative results.
McCABE denied ever having been a member of any group or organization that advocates for the overthrow of the United States government. McCABE denied being a member of any communist, fascist, or totalitarian organizations or groups. McCABE is not engaged in any activity that would have the effect of denying any individual their constitutional rights. He is not now and has never been engaged in any activity or behavior that could be used to influence, extort, or blackmail him.
Inquiries to TRW, EXPERIAN, and EQUIFAX revealed McCABE to be of sound financial status. His significant monthly expenditures include his rent, the lease on his vehicle (1993 Mazda Protege, NJ tag XYY-12344), and student loan debt. McCABE is not currently delinquent on any debt and has not declared bankruptcy. He has no significant credit card debt and he appears to live within his means.
McCABE acknowledged that he could be assigned by the FBI to work in Washington, DC, or in any other FBI duty station, and that he may be reassigned at any time at his own cost. McCABE indicated he fully understood that all FBI employees are assigned according to the needs of the FBI.
Following the interview, McCABE submitted to a full scope polygraph examination. Preliminary results showed no indicators of deception.
Height 5′11″
Weight: 160
Hair: Brown
Eyes: Brown
Scars/Marks/Tattoos: None
Chapter One
Up for Grabs: A Conversation with the President -- and What It Meant
-- Tuesday, May 9, 2017 --
Whenever James Comey, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, was gone from the office for an extended period, my position as deputy director effectively cast me in the role of acting director. On this Tuesday morning in May, Jim was in the middle of a trip that would take him to field offices in Jacksonville and Los Angeles. I hustled through a challenging day, right up to the last block on the schedule, what we called the wrap meeting—a 5 P.M. gathering of the heads of each division. About twenty minutes later, my secretary pulled me out of that meeting and informed me that Attorney General Jeff Sessions wanted to talk to me. Immediately I thought there must be a problem—the attorney general did not call routinely. I asked, What line is he on? The secretary answered, He’s not on the phone, he wants to see you in person. That meant it wasn’t just a problem—something was really wrong.
I grabbed my coat, threw my notebook in a lock bag—a black bag with a key lock on the zipper for transporting classified documents—and left with my security detail, a longtime FBI agent. The walk from my office to the attorney general’s took less than ten minutes: down the elevator, through the courtyard, left onto Tenth Street, and across Pennsylvania Avenue. At the corner, I noticed a couple of news trucks, which was odd. There had been a press conference about a big criminal case earlier that day, but the news trucks should have been gone.
The attorney general’s office is a complex of several rooms, with a bedroom and shower upstairs. The attorney general even has his own dining room, across a hallway from the inner office, which, like most places in the Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building, is elegantly appointed. The building itself—classical exterior, art deco interior—stands in contrast to the brutalist architecture of the FBI building, and the contrast captures something of the reality. The J. Edgar Hoover Building represents the instrumental aspects of justice, the Robert F. Kennedy building represents the ideal.
A secretary walked me to the door of the attorney general’s private office and we waited for another ten minutes or so, making small talk—awkward, pleasant—about Alabama. She, like Sessions, came from there. I walked into an oddly formal scene. Sessions was standing up, in front of his desk. He wore his suit coat. Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, and his chief of staff, James Crowell, stood there, too, both also wearing suit coats. The three of them looked at me with expressions of wariness or expectancy—it was hard to tell. For an instant it felt even like suspicion. Whatever was on their minds, their demeanor elevated my concern: What the hell was going on?
Lock bag in hand, I said, Good afternoon, and Sessions said, Thanks for coming over. I don’t know if you’ve heard, but we’ve had to fire the director of the FBI.
Time stopped for a moment. I should not have been shocked, but I was. One moment you are in an environment that you understand and know how to navigate. Then the lights turn off and turn back on in half a second, and you’re standing in a completely different place. What do you do now?
You go back to what you know. What I know, from years of experience interviewing people, is that in situations of massive reorientation, you never show concern or make hasty judgments. You accept the facts that have been disclosed. You keep your feelings about those facts to yourself. In the moment, you act like a professional.
I answered the attorney general: No, I had not heard that.
He said, So we’re going to need you to be the acting director for some period of time.
Yes, sir, I said, I’ll do that.
He said that an interim director might be appointed during the administration’s search for a new director, but for now they wanted me to run the FBI. He said, The FBI is a wonderful institution, and we’re going to need you to continue to run it effectively and make sure the mission is accomplished.
I said I would do exactly that. I would await his guidance, and I would do whatever it took to ensure that we continued moving forward. I would assist the new director, interim or permanent, in any way necessary to help that person get off to a good start. I remember using words that come from the FBI’s mission statement: I said we would carry on and protect the American people and uphold the Constitution.
He said, Thank you, and then asked, Do you have any questions?
Yes, I had questions. Starting with, Why did this happen? I also needed time to think. I answered, I do have questions, but I’m not prepared to ask them now. And the meeting was done, it seemed. A very short conversation.
As I was about to leave, I started reviewing all the things I would have to do. The first was to communicate with people in the Bureau. I said, I should probably send out some sort of an announcement to our workforce. Sessions and Rosenstein looked at each other, as if they hadn’t thought of that. Rosenstein said, We don’t want you to put out anything until we hear what the White House has to say. That was fine, I said, but I would need to say something internally. Rosenstein said, Don’t do anything until you hear from us, and do not say anything about this to anyone, not even to your wife, until we get back to you.
The news of Comey’s firing was on TV by the time I got back to the Hoover building, at about 6 P.M. So much for confidentiality. Listening to the news was how Comey found out about his dismissal—not in a phone call from the attorney general but from a CNN report that aired while he was speaking with FBI agents in Los Angeles. Everything about the decision to fire Comey had come across as improvised and slapdash. I walked back into the deputy director’s conference room. The people at the meeting I had left were still sitting there. Obviously they knew what had happened. They looked at me. The expression on their faces said, What do we do now?
I told them exactly what I had heard. I knew that people would be anxious, scared, or upset during this period, and I sought to confront those emotions with candor. If I kept people in the loop about what was happening, it would limit the amount of time they spent wondering and worrying about what was happening. At least on the margins.
The director’s secretary brought me an envelope for Jim Comey that had been delivered from the White House earlier that day. It had not been opened, and I opened it. Inside the envelope was Rod Rosenstein’s three-page memo that purported to explain the cause for Comey’s termination—his alleged mishandling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails. The memo came with a letter of transmittal from the attorney general to the president, and the president’s letter to the director, firing him. I remember holding the letter from the president in my hand and reading that conspicuous line in the middle—“While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the Bureau.” I wondered, Why would you put that in there? The answer would become clear as the weeks unfolded. The firing of Jim Comey gave new urgency to the FBI’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 elections—that interference was a fact, not a supposition—and into possible collusion by the Russians with the Trump campaign. Comey’s firing would lead directly to the appointment of a special counsel, Robert Mueller, to oversee that investigation.
In the conference room I told the team that we needed to figure out what to do in the next hour. After figuring that out, we would need to figure out what to do in the following hour. And then we would figure out the following twelve hours, and then the following twenty-four hours. That was my automatic response to the situation. It was a response that grew out of the cumulative experience of handling crises through my years in the Bureau: all the times I had overseen a course of action in situations with high stakes, where people’s emotions and responses were highly charged and volatile. So I handled this as I had handled all those other crises. I jumped in with my team to build a plan. We had to start by identifying the most important things to do.
The first task was communication. We set a mandatory SVTC that night—a secure video teleconference. This one would connect all of the Bureau’s SACs—the special agents in charge of our fifty-six field offices—so I could tell them this: There are a lot of things going through your heads right now. The absolute most important thing is that you keep your folks focused on their jobs and not on the firing of the director. Every one of you needs to get physically in front of every one of your employees first thing tomorrow morning and stress to them that we all need to stay the course. As we were sketching all this out, I got the message that the president wanted to see me at six thirty—in less than half an hour.
-- Whose Side Are You On? --
I had been to the White House for meetings hundreds of times, and during my two decades of service to the FBI had met two presidents, Barack Obama and George W. Bush, in the course of official business. I had not yet met Donald J. Trump. Before I went over, and while I was in my office, Jim Comey called me from his cell phone. His voice was easy and unhurried as always, with a faintly Fawlty Towers inflection on the final vowel of his Hello! Classic Comey: Never let them see you sweat. The first thing I said to him was, What did you do now? He laughed. He said, I have no idea, but I must’ve really hosed something up.
The situation felt so crazy that the only correct response was to say, This is crazy. We’re spinning here, I told him, trying to figure this out. He answered with equanimity, as if nothing unusual had happened. He said, You’ll be fine, you will get through this. With an almost biblical intonation, he added, Have no worries.
Immediately upon becoming acting director, I was given a twenty-four-hour security detail—I was no longer allowed to drive anywhere by myself and could only ride around in the back of a fully armored black Suburban. At the White House, I bailed out of the Suburban at the little portico on the side of the West Wing, a door I’d passed through many times for meetings in the Situation Room. But I had never been inside the Oval Office.
A uniformed Secret Service officer made a phone call, and before long President Trump’s longtime bodyguard, Keith Schiller, came down to meet me. Schiller, a big guy from the Bronx, has a résumé that’s pretty well written in his buzz cut—Navy, New York Police Department, Trump Organization security director. Earlier that day, Schiller had been the one who had hand-delivered Comey’s termination letter to the Hoover building. He introduced himself and walked me to the door of the Oval Office, then handed me his business card. Hey, he said, if you ever need anything, give me a call. I thanked him, puzzled—what did he think I might need from him?—and took his card. I stood there for a second, and then they let me in.
The president was behind the massive Resolute desk, built from the timbers of a nineteenth-century British vessel that American sailors had rescued from the Arctic ice and returned to Britain. He stood up and came around to the side. We shook hands. The White House counsel, Don McGahn, was there, and the chief of staff at the time, Reince Priebus, and Vice President Mike Pence. None of them said a word. No one was sitting comfortably in couches or armchairs. A row of little wooden chairs was lined up in front of the president’s desk, and the three men were seated in the chairs like schoolboys who’d been called to the principal’s office. One chair was empty, and I took it.
The president was sitting on the front edge of his desk chair, leaning forward, with his arms in front of him on the desk. He is tall, and very large, and when he spoke he started to make blunt gestures with his hands—kinetic, coming at you. He started off by telling me, We fired the director, and we want you to be the acting director now. We had to fire him—and people are very happy about it. I think people are very happy that we finally got rid of him. I think there’s a lot of people in the FBI who are glad he’s gone. We had to do it because of all that—you know, the Clinton thing last summer and all his statements and everything, he really mishandled that. He had to go, because of those decisions he made, and for a lot of other reasons.
The president was referring to the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state, and whether any of her thousands of emails had contained classified material. In July 2016, Comey had announced that criminal charges were not warranted and that no reasonable prosecutor would have pressed charges, but he had also chided Clinton for being “extremely careless.” Then, in late October, he had sent a letter to Congress saying that new emails had turned up and would have to be examined—only to conclude a week later, once again, that criminal charges were not warranted. That was a few days before the election, and the controversy in all likelihood contributed to Hillary Clinton’s loss. In his termination letter to Comey, which I had just seen, the president had pointed to Rosenstein’s three-page memo and (as Sessions put it in his own letter) “the reasons expressed by the Deputy”—specifically, the director’s handling of the email investigation—to explain the dismissal. I had been involved in that investigation and in Comey’s decisions. Was the president’s rationale just a pretext? I didn’t quite know what to say.
The president asked if I knew that Comey had told him three times that he himself was not under investigation. I said I was aware of that—meaning, I was aware that Director Comey had told the president he was not under investigation. I could not remember exactly how many times the director had said that to the president. And at the forefront of my mind was the president’s termination letter to Director Comey, which I had just read—I kept thinking about that oddly prominent mention of this concern the president was now raising, again, about whether he was being investigated.
A question was in the air: had I disagreed with Comey’s decisions on the Clinton case—mainly, Comey’s conclusion that Hillary Clinton should not be charged with a crime.
I said, No, sir, I didn’t. Jim and I worked together very closely, and I was a part of those decisions.
The president claimed there had been a rebellion inside the FBI and asked me if it was true that people disliked Director Comey. I replied that some people were frustrated with the outcome of the Clinton investigation last summer, but the general feeling in the FBI about this director seemed positive. He looked at me, with a tilt of the head, an expression of dismay or disagreement, or both. I had not given the answers he expected or wanted. The subtext of everything that he was saying to me, clearly, came down to this: Whose side are you on?
Later I often thought about how much stronger my responses to the president could have been. But I was making my best efforts in the moment to say things that were accurate and reflective of my thoughts without flatly contradicting him. I felt it would be unhelpful in this traumatic moment to tell the president that I expected a fair proportion of our workforce to have feelings that verged on hysteria the next day, when all thirty-seven thousand of them came to work and had no idea what was going on because the director had been fired. In any case, my candor would have been irrelevant in this conversation, because we were not having a conversation. He was not really asking me questions. He was probing me, to find out whether I was on board with him or not. This was my loyalty test.
I knew that loyalty tests were important to him. Jim Comey had been pressed the same way in the same office by the same man on more than one occasion, as Comey himself had told me. And the loyalty that was demanded was personal loyalty, not loyalty to an office or a set of ideals.
The president asked me to tell him a little bit about my background in the FBI, and I gave him a brief overview of my assignments. He took this as a segue back to monologue: about searching for a new director, talking to great people, it was going to be great, they were going to get somebody great, the FBI was going to be great again, and now here I was, and wasn’t it great? He said he was interested in Joe Lieberman—a great guy. They were also talking to other FBI people, he said. He loved law enforcement and the FBI. He thought police people loved him …
I found myself looking at the desk—baroque and bulky, intricately carved. Sitting there, I wanted to touch it, wanted to feel the nooks and crannies, the bas-reliefs, the little portraits. There’s a hinged door in the front, which Franklin Roosevelt had installed to close off the opening in the desk that is left for a person’s knees—so people in front couldn’t see his leg braces. I remember having to tell myself: Pay attention. Stay in the moment. Don’t be looking at the furniture.
The president’s thoughts were frenetic. It’s a disconcerting experience to attempt a conversation with him because he talks the whole time. He asks questions but then immediately starts to say something else. Almost everything he says he subsequently rephrases two or three times, as if he’s stuck in some holding pattern waiting for an impulse to arrive that kicks off the next thing he wants to say. It all adds up to a bizarre encounter.
Toward the end, he said to me, So now you are acting director, and we have great hopes for you, you are going to do a good job. We may bring in somebody else to serve as interim director until the permanent director is confirmed. But we don’t know. But we’re going to look. We’re going to get somebody great—it might even be you. It’s going to be terrific. We’re going to turn that place around.
The embedded assumption of all these superlatives piled up in the future tense seemed to be: The Bureau was a mess. If he believed that to be true—and it was not—then I bore a good part of the responsibility. Why, then, was he flattering me? He spent most of this meeting spewing stock phrases he often uses—You’re great, you’re terrific—all of which rang hollow. I knew that he had been aware of me since 2016, when he referred to me in terms that were not flattering at all. My wife, Jill, had run unsuccessfully for a seat in the Virginia state senate back in 2015, and she had received money, as other candidates did, from the state Democratic Party and from a political action committee run by the Democratic governor at the time, Terry McAuliffe, a friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s. Because the following year I was involved in the FBI’s email investigation, the president during the campaign decided to allege that I had been bribed to look the other way. He tweeted a headline from The Wall Street Journal that insinuated as much—CLINTON ALLY AIDED CAMPAIGN OF FBI OFFICIAL’S WIFE—and on the campaign stump expanded the insinuation into a conspiracy theory, in which Clinton directed McAuliffe to make campaign donations to Jill as a quid pro quo. So I was disregarding all of his You’re great, You’re terrific verbiage, letting it flow past, like the blather it was.
Then he said, Your only problem is that one mistake you made. That thing with your wife. That one mistake.
I understood that he was referring to the fact that my wife ran for office.
He said, Yes, that was the only problem with you. You know, I was very hard on you during my campaign. That money, from the Clinton friend—I was very hard, I said a lot of tough things about your wife in the campaign.
I know, I told him. We heard what you said. My wife is a wonderful, dedicated, brilliant physician, and she decided to enter public life because she felt deeply about trying to help her community. I completely supported that decision at the time, and I support it today.
He looked slightly uncomfortable. His tone shifted. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, he said. She’s great. Everybody I know says she’s great. You were right to support her in that. Everybody tells me she’s a terrific person.
Good luck to you, he said at last. He got up and slapped me on the back, and I assured him I would continue to lead the FBI in the best way possible. Before I left, Mike Pence stepped forward and shook my hand, and he said something nice. Mike Pence always says something nice. Whatever else might be said about the vice president, I will say this: Every time I have met him, he has conducted himself as a gentleman. And manners count for a lot.
-- The Threat --
I started my life in the FBI in New York in 1996, chasing Russian mobsters as a member of the Organized Crime Task Force. As soon as I became part of my first squad—from the first day—I thought, I’m never leaving this. I never lost that feeling. In a twenty-one-year career, I had just about every job an agent could have, and I always held on to a belief that this organization is unique. Its capabilities are incomparable. Today’s FBI is the combined strength, knowledge, experience, and dedication of tens of thousands of people in five hundred offices across the country and around the world. They serve in war zones and other hostile environments with partners from the Defense Department and the Department of Justice. They are men and women of every race, religion, national origin, and sexual orientation. They are agents, analysts, scientists, forensic accountants, medics, auto mechanics, bomb technicians, linguists, locksmiths, hackers, ballistics experts, security specialists, administrative specialists, and secretaries. Some of them fly, some of them go underwater, and some of them know how to drive very, very fast. More than a few of them could be making a lot of money in Silicon Valley. The range, quality, and difficulty of the jobs they do would be hard to overstate. They perform feats of immense exactitude, such as recovering wreckage of a downed airliner from the sea off Long Island and reconstructing the plane in a hangar. They keep company with Americans who are coping with incalculable losses, as when, after a mass shooting, the FBI brings trained comfort dogs to sit quietly with family members of the victims. As deputy director, I had the ability to put agents on any doorstep in America in about two hours.
In the course of my career, the Bureau has undergone one of the more significant shifts of emphasis in its 110-year history. The mandate to investigate remains bedrock. But after the attacks of September 11, 2001, the FBI’s number-one priority became preventing acts of terrorism in the United States or against Americans anywhere. The FBI’s fundamental mission has never changed: to protect the American people and uphold the Constitution. That is its mission statement—those very words. To see the full force of the FBI deployed, as I did on 9/11, as I did after the Benghazi attack, as I did after the Boston Marathon bombing, and as I did in countless ways from the perch of deputy director, is to be astonished by this institution’s mastery. It’s not all hearts and flowers. We don’t always get everything right. Many types of thought and action converge to serve the FBI’s main purpose: investigation.
FBI investigations are predictable and orderly. FBI investigations are also fraught with surprise and wrought by improvisation. Special agents do a lot of listening and a lot of open-ended exploration. They also do a lot of strictly organized documentation, assessment, briefing, and negotiation. Investigations gather facts. Then investigators use legal techniques to discern patterns in these facts—stories about human behavior. Stories of the things that people do, how and why they choose to do those things, and the consequences of their actions. When these stories suggest that people may have broken laws, agents work with prosecutors to build cases. Cases go to court. Judges make decisions. People are found guilty or innocent, they are punished or they go free, and the rest of us go about our lives in peace.
The process of law enforcement helps to hold society together. The place of FBI investigations in this process is fundamental. Along with state and local law enforcement, we do the investigations that the rest of the system uses as the basis for the bigger decisions. The role of agents is to say, Here are the facts, here is what we found. Not, This guy’s good and that guy’s bad, but rather: This guy’s dead, that guy had a gun, here’s a list of phone calls that guy made, and here’s a money transfer from this one to that one the day before the death. That’s the agent’s role. That’s the job that I have loved.
In the scheme of things, it’s easy to solve a crime involving one live guy and one dead guy—or at least, it’s usually easier than much else the FBI has done in recent years. During my time as an agent, the FBI applied this country’s legal investigative techniques to fight new forms of organized crime, terrorism, and online criminal activity, including cyber threats to national security. It has also been called upon to investigate matters that are unprecedented and pose existential dangers to our life as a democratic nation—most significantly, Russian interference in our elections. This interference is ongoing, and it is not conjecture. The evidence is incontrovertible: hacks of voting systems and databases; the release of private communications into public view in order to favor a particular candidate; widespread manipulation of social media in order to poison public debate. All of the country’s intelligence agencies are in agreement about this. The occupant of the Oval Office resists this assessment, calling it a “hoax.” Whether that man or his campaign solicited or cooperated with Russia’s activities remains the focus of intense scrutiny by the FBI and a special counsel.
This book will tell how some of these investigations have worked, in a way that is faithful to both aspects of investigation I mentioned above: exploratory and procedural, open-ended and exacting, driven by individual curiosity and executed to the institution’s strict legal standards. I will tell the human story of how it looked and felt and smelled to do the work I did, alongside the men and women I have been honored to work with. I will also highlight a few specific elements of how we work as an institution that, in my view, more citizens should be aware of: the FBI’s investigative techniques; the way it gathers and presents intelligence; and the set of ironclad authorities on which FBI investigations are based.
It is a point of urgency for Americans to understand what the FBI really does, and why it matters, so that the citizens of this country can join together for the common good, to protect our common interests and our common concerns against very real and rising threats by those in foreign governments, and in our own, who intend to unravel the rule of law in the United States.
Let me state the proposition openly: The work of the FBI is being undermined by the current president. He and his partisan supporters have become corrosive to the organization. In public remarks and on social media, he has continued to beat the drum about the “lies and corruption going on at the highest levels of the FBI!” On Twitter alone, Trump has identified the FBI with the “Deep State,” the pejorative term he uses to refer to professional public servants who conduct the nation’s business without regard to politics; he has called Jim Comey “a terrible and corrupt leader”; he has called the investigation of Russian interference in the elections and possible ties with his campaign “perhaps the most tainted and corrupt case EVER!”; and he has referred to two of the investigators on the Russia case, themselves, as “a fraud against our Nation,” “hating frauds,” and “incompetent and corrupt.” His insults have emboldened legions of goons to push further. Even mainstream news outlets have been unable to refrain from trafficking in destructive clickbait, juxtaposing the terms “FBI” and “corruption” in headlines over stories ostensibly covering “both sides” of the brawl that now passes for argument. TRUMP SUPPORTERS SAY MCCABE FIRING EXPOSES FBI CORRUPTION—that’s not Breitbart, it’s USA Today.
I knew this administration would be different from the last one. What I did not expect was the suspicion that so many members of this administration would train on those involved in intelligence gathering. The president has compared the intelligence community to Nazi Germany. He has asserted the essential equivalence of the U.S. government and the regime in Russia, proclaiming that “we have a lot of killers.… You think our country is so innocent?” He has stated in a press conference before the world, walking it back only under duress, and even then without conviction, that he values the word of the Russian president more highly than the collective opinion of his own intelligence services. When the president of the United States attacks the intelligence community and demeans the people who have been charged with keeping the country safe—and when he embraces conspiracy theories that politicize the FBI’s most critical work—it has a direct impact on our ability to collect, analyze, and present intelligence that is essential to the security of the United States.
The FBI must perform a balancing act. To keep the American people safe, the FBI must be independent of the White House. At the same time, it must maintain a close functional relationship with the White House. Since the start of the Trump administration, that relationship has been in profound jeopardy. The president has stepped over bright ethical and moral lines wherever he has encountered them. His unpredictable, often draconian behavior is dangerous—a threat to both the Bureau and the nation.
Chapter Two
Answering the Call: Training Days, and the First Big Case
-- The Road to Quantico --
That first meeting with President Trump, in the spring of 2017, was my first time inside the Oval Office, but it wasn’t my first time at the Oval Office door. In 1992, while I was in law school, I spent the summer working as an unpaid intern at the Department of Justice. One evening, a small group was given a White House tour. When we passed by the Oval Office, I remember, there was a velvet rope across the frame of the open door, as if in an old house that had been turned into a museum—which, considered from a certain angle, the White House was. We peeked in. The main thing my memory retained from that moment was the flash of the gold drapes.
That Justice Department internship turned out to be a turning point in my life. I was not a kid who watched The F.B.I.—the TV show starring Efrem Zimbalist Jr. as agent Lewis Erskine. The call to be an agent did not come to me early in a clear and direct way. It was indirect and slow to emerge. I did things that did not connect, and then by a process of elimination, which distilled into conviction, ended up gravitating to the Bureau.
I had grown up in the suburbs, and my dad was a corporate executive. Like a lot of kids on my block, I imagine, I looked forward to a life that was a grown-up version of the one I was already living. In college, at Duke, I took the required courses and the ones I thought I should take, eventually making my way to art history and political science. I was drawn to stories of real people—people in pursuit of love, advantage, power, salvation. In law school, at Washington University in St. Louis, I was again drawn to stories of human drama, now in the context of crime and punishment. My summer internship at the Department of Justice, in the criminal-fraud section, involved a lot of scut work—research, modest writing assignments. But I also got to read the case files and, most important, a type of document called a 302.
Those three digits are almost a magic number for me: 302. After FBI agents go out and interview subjects in an investigation, they come back and, within five days—while memory is fresh—they have to write up the results of the interview on a form called the FD-302. I caught the 302 bug reading interview reports from a public corruption case involving a pugnacious U.S. senator, his brother, and some questionable interactions they had with a defense contractor. It was a complicated business that would go on for a long time, and now it seems like ancient history. But when I read the 302s from that case, I thought, This is it. This is the marrow of law enforcement. This is the record of a conversation: people whose job it is to enforce the law actually sitting down and talking with people suspected of breaking the law, or with witnesses to a crime, or with victims of a crime, or with those who simply might have some relevant information.
Coming out of that summer, I knew what I wanted to do. I wanted to be part of the conversations that I’d been reading about. I wanted to go out and find evidence and talk with people about the times they had crossed those invisible lines of law that structure our society, or with people who had information about others who had crossed those lines. But when I came out of law school, the Bureau wasn’t hiring. I became a small-town lawyer in New Jersey, waiting for a chance. On April 19, 1995, the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City took the lives of 168 people. The tragedy weighed heavily on me and reinforced my determination to continue seeking entry into the FBI.
Becoming an agent would mean that I’d make a lot less money than I could have made if I had taken a different path, but my wife, Jill—we had just gotten married—supported my ambitions and never counted the cost. When I told her I wanted to join the FBI, she said I should do it, because she saw how much I wanted to do it. I worked from then on with a sense that something was calling me to service, even as it gradually dawned on me that this job would entail risk and the sacrifice of much more than money.
-- On the Box --
In 1996, the Bureau’s doors reopened. At the time, the path to becoming a special agent started with a single page. To begin the process, you filled out a simple application and submitted it to your local field office. Anyone who failed to meet certain basic qualifications—such as having a college degree or being a U.S. citizen—was weeded out. If you made that first cut, your local field office began coordinating your background investigation and Phase One testing.
Phase One was a series of standardized exercises meant to evaluate your intelligence and computational skills. It also included a personality evaluation. If you made it through Phase One, you would be recontacted by your field office and asked to submit an FD-140—an official Application for Employment in the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Every FBI employee, by virtue of being an employee in good standing, holds a top secret (or “TS”) clearance. A TS clearance requires passing a stringent background investigation and polygraph examination. The FD-140 was the beginning, and the foundation, of the FBI’s background investigation. At ten pages long, the FD-140 required you to give the FBI information about every aspect of your life. Not just your name and address, but every name you had ever used and every place you had lived in the previous ten years. It asked not just where you currently worked but every place you had ever worked. In between those periods of work, the FBI wanted to know when and why you were unemployed. It wanted the name and address of every school you attended and the grades and degrees you received at each. If you were ever disciplined at school, the FBI wanted to know when and why, and what punishment you received.
The FD-140 required you to give the FBI the names and addresses of all your family members and your spouse’s family members. If any of them had lived or worked overseas, the Bureau needed that information as well. The FBI asked you to provide three references, defined as “responsible adults of reputable standing” who had known you well for at least five years. In addition, they requested contact information for three “social acquaintances,” who could be your own age, and were presumably less reputable than your references, but who also had to have known you for five years.
The application required that you list every foreign country you had ever visited and any contact you might have had while there with representatives of foreign governments. The FBI wanted the details of your military service and whether you were licensed to practice law. They asked about any run-ins you might have had with the authorities, and whether you owed money to any person or business.
The FD-140 gave the Bureau a view into some aspects of your lifestyle. The FBI wanted to know if you had smoked marijuana during the previous three years or more than fifteen times total in your life, and whether you had used any other illegal drugs more than five times in the past decade. It sought to determine whether you were a communist, a fascist, or a subversive. Additionally, it wanted to know if you had ever supported the use of force to deny anyone his or her constitutional rights or had ever advocated the overthrow of the U.S. government. Before signing the application, the FBI let you know, and required you to acknowledge, that if hired you were expected to serve a minimum of three years and to move anywhere the Bureau ordered you to move at your own expense.
With this information, the background investigation was officially under way. Your field office set about sending messages to other field offices to investigate and confirm every fact you presented on the FD-140. For instance, I was living in southern New Jersey when I applied to the FBI, so my application was processed by the Philadelphia field office. It included the facts that I had worked in Cherry Hill, New Jersey; Newark, New Jersey; and Washington, D.C. Philadelphia sent requests for follow-up investigation (referred to internally as “setting leads”) to themselves—for Cherry Hill—and to the Newark field office and the Washington field office. Their leads required agents and background investigators in those offices to contact and interview my former supervisors and confirm every aspect of my work history. This same tedious, labor-intensive effort would be directed at every fact on my FD-140, no matter where the work took place.
After vetting the information in the FD-140, you would be called into a field office for a polygraph examination. The exam would begin benignly—with the polygraph turned off—as an FBI agent reviewed the information on your FD-140. She would ask you questions and give you a chance to clarify inconsistencies or explain things that might have come out during the background investigation. The agent would try to eliminate any ambiguity or confusion in advance of the questions that would follow.
With questions prepared and issues clarified, the agent would set up the polygraph machine and, in FBI speak, “put you on the box.” It goes like this: You are sitting in a chair with wide, flat armrests. The agent tells you to place your arms flat on the rests. Forcefully, she admonishes you not to move. At all. She places a blood-pressure cuff on your upper arm and inflates it uncomfortably. She wraps a sensor around your chest. She attaches an additional sensor to a finger. Each of these sensors is attached by wire to a box on the desk next to you. The box has multiple needles on top and a roll of graph paper that stretches beneath the needles.
When the exam begins, the agent asks you to provide yes or no answers only—the time for explanation and discussion is over. She starts by asking easy questions that call for obvious answers, such as, Are we in Philadelphia? or, Is your name Andrew McCabe? You answer Yes or No, and you don’t move. Between the questions, you can hear the dull scratch of a needle dragging across paper. You wonder what it is saying about you.
Then she asks the real questions, which are derived from the information on your FD-140. The questions about drug use eliminate the largest number of candidates. People frequently minimize their history with drugs or lie about it altogether. Getting caught lying on the polygraph means you can’t pass the background investigation. Your dream of working for the FBI is over.
I passed the polygraph, which meant I was officially “out of background” and still moving forward. There were still hurdles left—medical testing, Phase Two testing—but I was a giant step closer to the FBI Academy at Quantico.
I rehearsed how I would quit my job—how I’d tell my boss—working out the phrasing to eliminate any room for objection. I have spent a lot of time thinking about this, I’d say, and I’ve decided to leave this law practice and to join the FBI. That’s what I did say, and my boss tried to talk me out of it. As had my parents. Not Jill. I took a 50 percent pay cut. To save money, we had to leave our apartment, in Haddonfield, New Jersey, and Jill moved in with a roommate. We had to be apart for the sixteen weeks of my special-agent training. I’d be in Quantico, Virginia, where the FBI Academy is located, and Jill would be almost two hundred miles away, doing her residency at Children’s Hospital, in Philadelphia. I started getting up early in the morning and running, so I’d be ready for the physical fitness tests. I rigged a pull-up bar, and I’d do a couple of pull-ups on the way out and a couple more on the way back.
-- Hogan’s Alley --
Arriving at Quantico was like driving off a cliff. I had no idea what to expect. I was certainly excited, but I was stepping into a different world from the one I had known.
It was a hot Sunday night when I drove from Philadelphia to Quantico. After getting out of the car and stretching my legs, I walked in the main entrance and immediately passed through the Hall of Heroes, surrounded by the faces and names and stories of those agents who had made the ultimate sacrifice. Then I went to my dorm. Two to a bedroom, four to a bathroom—just like college, even though most of us were almost ten years older than college students. The man I shared a room with was a former Army captain from Rhode Island.
At that time, a new class of forty started at Quantico every other week. My class, NA9618—“NA” stands for “new agents”—was the year’s eighteenth class. All forty of us got sworn in as special agents that night. We swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. From that moment on, we were special agents in training.
The next day we picked up our uniforms—hiking shoes, tan Royal Robbins cargo pants, and a dark blue FBI Academy polo shirt. We wore the uniform everywhere. No gym clothes were allowed on campus except at the gym. No jeans were allowed anywhere at the academy, ever.
Then the classes started, covering the law and techniques of investigation: how to conduct an interview; how to write up a 302; how to handle all the different kinds of documents an agent has to handle; how to dust for fingerprints. The difference between the valedictorian and the person who came in second in our class was a wrong answer on a single fingerprint ID question on a single test. Our forensics teacher was one of the agents who had searched the cabin of Theodore Kaczynski, the “Unabomber.”
The classes weren’t all brain work. Agents get a full-on physical education. Taking people into custody, defensive maneuvers, hand-to-hand combat. Everybody does some boxing. Everybody learns to clear a room. Everybody learns how to plan an arrest and how to make an arrest. An agent learns how to do all these things in many kinds of environments where you can imagine an arrest being made. A restaurant, a bar, a bank, a trailer park, a motel, a school. Those environments are packed into the most famous part of the campus at Quantico—Hogan’s Alley, a fake town, a full-sized replica community made up of all the kinds of places I just mentioned, and more, populated and run by character actors who live nearby. Every special agent in training learns the ropes in these false environments—figures out how to react and adapt in different situations.
The third big piece of training is firearms. Some in our class had never fired a gun before. Some had been marksmen in the military. No matter what their past experience, agents in training all start at the same level, learning the basic nomenclature, how to break a weapon down, and what every part and piece is called and how they work together. On the firing range, they learn sight alignment and trigger control. All forty of us shot thousands of rounds. By the end of sixteen weeks, we could all shoot very well.
The schedule at Quantico changed constantly. We moved rapidly from one thing to another. We were acquiring a sense of discipline, a paramilitary sense of order. I recognized the flaws of this system. Prioritizing obedience to process could create a type of groupthink that stifles creativity, independence, and critical thinking. But the Bureau is bureaucratic. It is a law-enforcement agency. It is paramilitary in nature. It also depends for its success on keeping records. It is run according to a clear and distinct chain of command. So there is a set of very basic concepts that lead to an understanding of where you stand in this big organization. You start learning those concepts at Quantico, when you’re told on the first night that punctuality is not optional. If you’re not early, you’re late. If class starts at eight, you’re there at seven fifty. Anyone who isn’t early is noticed and marked as being out of step with the program. Quickly it becomes the case that no one is ever late under any circumstances. If you have only twenty minutes between your physical education class and your law class, and you have to shower, get dressed, and cross the campus to get there—you figure it out. You make it work. Those words could almost be an agent’s motto: Make it work.
I embraced every bit of this culture, even the most arbitrary aspects of the discipline. Who I am fit with what this was. I wanted to look the way they wanted me to look. Loved wearing the same style of polo shirt every day for weeks on end. Loved the fact that everybody around me wore the same polo shirt, too. That polo shirt was a symbol of dedication. It announced your priorities. The more detailed the requirements of the academy experience, the more I responded to it. I wasn’t just acclimating to a place, I was joining a life. I felt like every quirky, inconvenient thing about this experience was necessary and important, and, in a way, even cool.
The biggest shift entailed in learning to see the world like an agent is the shift toward altruism. It’s a huge change of mind-set to go from being Joe Private Citizen, where your worries are mainly about yourself—your own safety and happiness and health—to putting all that aside and saying, I’m going to worry about everybody else first. Mortal stakes help this shift along. In one class, the instructor talked about lethal force—the times when you put yourself in harm’s way to eliminate a threat to other people. There was never a doubt in my mind that this was the best thing a person could do. It’s not that I ever wished to be in that situation, but I did feel on some level a desire to live on the visceral edge.
That desire inflects a thousand little shifts in perspective and technique, altering the way you see the world and make your way through it. You start to think of your whole life, almost every minute of every day, in terms of readiness. One example: In the car, when you unbuckle your seat belt, you slip the back of your hand inside the belt across your chest, you slide your hand down along the inside of that strap, and then you release the belt and push away with the back of your hand. You have to do it this way, because if you unbuckle it the way normal people do—reaching across your chest, overhand, and clicking the buckle with your thumb—then your arm is inside the triangle of the belt. And if you have to jump out of that car in a lethal situation, that could be the thing that costs you a tenth of a second and gets somebody killed.
Part of our firearms training was running shoot/don’t-shoot scenarios in a video-training module, to gain practice in making split-second decisions. You knock on a guy’s front door, maybe he answers and then runs back into the house: What do you do? Do you go in by yourself? Do you call your partner? You hit these decision points, and depending on how you react, the video plays differently. This is not exclusive to Quantico—police agencies all over the world use some version of it now. It’s called Firearms Training Simulation—FATS, for short. In training we would all sit there in a line, dressed in our gear, and it was nerve-racking—I could hear screaming and gunfire in the video booth where the person ahead of me was training. For all I knew, the trainee had just lost his virtual life. And I was next.
In the twenty-two years since I graduated from Quantico, FATS technology has improved. It’s all digital now, and the fake guns palpably recoil, which realistically messes with your ability to recapture your sight picture—the way you frame a shot with your gunsight. It tells you when your shot is lethal. But the best part of the whole session, as it’s run today, is the conversation after it’s all over, between the trainee and a lawyer. The lawyer asks, Why did you shoot at this point? And the trainee says, I thought I was going to die. The lawyer says, What did you see that led you to believe that your life or the lives of others were in danger? The trainee better have a good answer. Hard conversations like these teach agents to articulate every decision they make. A decision that you can’t articulate is probably a wrong decision.
-- ‘I’m Being Racketeered’ --
After months of learning in a fake city populated by fake characters, FBI Academy training culminates with the trumpet-blaring pomp of graduation, as if we’re all becoming knights of the Round Table. Then we get plunked down in field offices all over the country. When you go to Quantico, one thing you give up is any control over where you’re going to live after you leave. Here I am. Send me where you need me. That’s the deal. You get your chance to say where you’d like to go, but the three monkeys throwing darts at the map to make your assignments do not, typically, read your preferences. You get what you get, and it’s all to satisfy “the needs of the Bureau”—the infamous tagline that explains all manner of offense, real or perceived.
I got New York City—lower Manhattan. It was a rude awakening, going from one end of the spectrum to the other. Quantico was regimented. The New York field office was a free-for-all. Where were the people handing me my new uniforms and cooking my meals?
No one would tell me what to do. There were no supplies anywhere. They gave me a car, but no place to park it. The only parking place I could find was ten blocks away, and then I got to the office in a sweat because I was late—and realized that nobody cared. I came out of Quantico’s perfectly structured world, flush with idealism, and into a world where the bosses say, Don’t give me any of that Quantico bullshit, kid.
Struggle and deprivation can be gifts. In the New York field office—the biggest of the Bureau’s field offices, with about eleven hundred agents and as many staff—you’re limited only by your imagination and energy. If you’re willing to work your tail off, even a new agent can take down the top guy in a crime family. I would spend the first ten years of my career focused on cases that grew out of two interlocking narratives: the evolution of organized crime in Russia and the export of Russian organized crime to the United States. These narratives traced a complex and inexorable process that would, despite the best efforts of the FBI as a whole, become only more dangerous. Russian organized crime today has deep ties to the Russian government. It saturates the internet. As most people are aware, the combination of crime, computers, and the Kremlin has in recent years taken aim at electoral politics—at American democracy itself.
My first big case started with a phone call. I picked up the receiver—these were the days of landlines—and heard an old guy’s voice say, I think I’m being racketeered. It was February 1998. I had come to work early, because I was eager. It took a while for me to figure out that real work started late in the day. So when the switchboard for the main New York field office number put a call through to our squad, I was the only agent around to answer it. The old man on the phone spoke with a thick Russian accent. His voice was shaky and fearful. To protect his identity, I’ll call him Felix. Felix ran a furniture store in Brooklyn. When I went to talk to him, he told me that a Russian thug was forcing him to pay one hundred dollars a week in “protection money”—this at a time when Felix’s business couldn’t have been pulling in much more than a thousand dollars a week. Felix needed genuine protection: protection of the law, provided by the Bureau. I would be the case agent.
After Felix told his story, I went back to the office and wrote up a 302. I realized, now, that I was part of the conversation I’d been longing to join ever since my summer internship at Justice. With this case, my squad would take the playbook the Bureau had used to crack La Cosa Nostra, the Mafia’s five families, and turn it against the Russian mobsters whose activities had moved Felix to call. Before the end of that year, my squad became one of the first to use the RICO statute against a Russian-organized-crime group when we indicted the Gufield-Kutsenko Brigade, a gang that extorted not only furniture stores but also restaurants and jewelry stores; sold fake Medicaid cards and green cards; kidnapped businessmen; and burned down buildings. They played rough.
Right when I was going after these guys, one of my New York colleagues was translating a fatwa issued in Arabic by a radical jihadist who was then all but unknown: Osama bin Laden. At the time, neither the Russian Mafia nor radical Islam had been getting much attention because the country was distracted by politics: the unfolding Bill Clinton–Monica Lewinsky scandal, which ultimately led to impeachment proceedings and, along the way, jacked up tensions between President Bill Clinton and FBI Director Louis Freeh. That episode was just the latest in a series of struggles, such as those involving the Khobar Towers and “Filegate,” between the director and the president that had all but alienated the FBI from the White House. It is striking that this moment in the late 1990s, when radical Islamic extremism and Russian organized crime were emerging with new clarity, was also one when the poisonous personalization of politics deflected attention from those very threats. In the present moment, as I write, both of these phenomena—foreign terrorism and foreign organized crime—represent two of the greatest threats we face.
The Bureau had a long tradition of ignoring organized crime. Old-school law enforcement was all about statistics, or “stats”—that is, measuring the numbers of arrests, indictments, and convictions. Those numbers proved the Bureau’s worth, at least in the eyes of presidents and of Congress, and justified our funding. Mob investigations, which are complicated and lengthy, tend to produce a low yield of favorable stats. Under J. Edgar Hoover, who ran the Bureau for almost fifty years, starting in 1924, the FBI paid scant attention to the problem.
After Hoover’s death, in 1972, the FBI put some manpower on La Cosa Nostra. For these investigations, the Bureau mastered new ways of doing business. It learned to reckon with complicated international criminal structures, to collect and process evidence in other countries, and to overcome language barriers in order to navigate foreign courtrooms. By the end of the 1980s, the Bureau had built competence in all these areas, and the mob’s reign in New York was coming to an end. Louis Freeh helped make that happen, first as an FBI agent and later as a federal prosecutor. When Freeh became the FBI’s director in 1993, he brought this experience to the Bureau.
Freeh had a personal authenticity that immediately won the respect of agents. Everyone referred to him as Louie, whether you knew him or not. He had been one of us. He became the kind of prosecutor we all wanted to work with. Time as a federal judge gave him an imprimatur of knowledge and authority. I traveled with Freeh on several overseas trips—to Budapest, Hungary; Almaty and Astana, Kazakhstan; Moscow and St. Petersburg, Russia—as part of his security detail.
Though naturally quiet, Freeh was a superb diplomat. In Russia, he drank vodka shots with officials of the MVD, the interior ministry. In Central Asia, he ate the eyeball from a barbecued goat. No matter where he was, he liked to get up early and go for a run. This meant that his advance team had to plan the running routes and run them ourselves at the exact time Freeh would, so that we could gauge lighting conditions, access routes, traffic, and crowds. Freeh held a strong seven-and-a-half-minute-mile pace. He always invited the cops or agents from the local service to join him. At every location, some local cop would want to race the FBI director to show what he was made of. Somehow, the local stallion always won. On the last night of each trip, Freeh would invite the entire team up to his room for drinks.
Under Freeh’s leadership, the Bureau developed a more international perspective. Freeh opened many legal-attaché offices—called legats—overseas, including one in Moscow. He built relationships with law enforcement in Russia and in Armenia, Ukraine, Lithuania, and throughout the Caucasus. These relationships fed Freeh’s awareness of organized-crime networks in Eurasia and how they operated in the U.S., mainly in the Russian-immigrant communities of New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, and Miami.
This work got little support from the Clinton administration. In the heady first years after Soviet communism fell, President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore wanted to see democracy and free-market capitalism take root in Russia. Who didn’t? But they wanted so badly to see this that they failed to understand how firmly organized crime had taken hold in all of the former Soviet republics. You have to wonder what might have happened if the U.S. government had taken Russian organized crime more seriously during those years—but beyond a certain point, it’s also pointless to wonder. Nobody can see everything.
In 1996, the New York field office had the largest organized-crime operation in the country. There were several Italian-organized-crime squads. There were Asian-organized-crime squads. And there was a new one, just started in 1994, for organized crime in Eurasia, including Russia. As shorthand, we used the terms “Russian organized crime” and “Eurasian organized crime” interchangeably.
My first assignment had been Italian. The Colombo family. The first thing you do, on any assignment, is your homework. You read the binders. I started plowing through the whole history of investigations of the Colombo crime family, and before long I found a surprise: the names of a couple of people I knew. One had been to my wedding and given me a wedding gift. This seemed like a problem. I asked my supervisor. My supervisor said, Stop reading the binders. I was given another assignment.
This turned out to be the best possible bad luck. I got moved to squad C24, Eurasian organized crime. At the time, Russian mobsters were seen as the junior varsity when compared to the Italians. Both kinds of gangsters were interested in the same targets of opportunity—drugs, human trafficking, money laundering, and financial fraud—but if the Italians got involved, the Russians would go running.
The criminals’ hierarchy also applied to cops who chased them. New York City loves its Mafia. It’s part of the culture there. So those of us who worked Russian organized crime were like redheaded stepchildren. The Cosa Nostra squads had twenty-five years of intelligence collection to draw on. They knew who was in what family, who was affiliated, who was at war, who had cooperated, and they had a deep bench of grand old men. We had nothing like that.
Second fiddle suited me fine. And like a lot of underdog teams, our squad had the best coach. In style, Raymond Kerr was a G-man’s G-man: rock-square jaw, purse-lipped smile, steel-gray hair, pants creased, shirt tucked. He must have had a suit coat or blazer around somewhere, but you never saw it. He wore gold-rimmed glasses for reading. Every two years, Kerr would trade in his immaculate Bureau car—his Bu-ride, a Ford Crown Victoria, the legendary Crown Vic preferred by old-school cops and taxi drivers everywhere—and get an even more pristine new model. I can still hear the soft whoosh of the SWAT-issued Gore-Tex raincoat, sleeves sliding on side panels, as Ray walked into the office. But what I remember most is his voice.
Kerr was the ultimate agent’s supervisor. He was completely focused on cases and operations, and on throwing bad guys in jail. He would sit in his office for hours and talk to us about the people we were chasing, the informants we were using, and the prosecutors who were building cases with us. He was our strategist, our sage, our cheerleader, and our conscience. He pushed us to meet aggressive goals and helped manage our expectations when things didn’t quite measure up. After a colossal mistake on a case where my partner and I arrested the wrong person, Kerr told us that if we made the best decision we could with the information we had at the time, we had nothing to worry about. Then he made sure we had our professional liability insurance paid up. Even though we were federal government employees and theoretically protected by the Justice Department, you never knew when you’d need a backup policy. Kerr taught us to be prepared, always do our best to get things right, and not take it out on ourselves if things didn’t go our way. The only sin was to do nothing at all.
When Kerr was angry, you knew it. He wasn’t a screamer. Instead, he got quiet. The rock-square jaw got rockier. And before he told you what he really thought, Ray would toss a quick glance to each side, over his shoulders, as if there might be somebody standing behind him listening. It was the kind of thing you would expect an informant to do, in a dark alley, in a 1940s movie. There never was anyone listening in—it was just a tell, his way of emphasizing that the next thing he said was for you and no one else. After the side-to-side look, he’d look you straight in the eye, point his finger at your chest, and say, That guy’s not just a moron. He’s a fucking moron.
Kerr had been in charge of the first Asian-organized-crime squad, so he knew how to build from the ground up. He found people with real knowledge about Russia, like Michael McCall, to add to the team. A fluent Russian speaker who came over from counterintelligence, McCall brought an understanding of how organized crime worked in the former Soviet Union and an awareness of how it was being exported to the U.S.
The central idea of Russian organized crime is vory v zakone. The phrase means “thieves-in-law” and refers to the top tier of the underworld. Russian organized crime grew out of the Soviet prison system and reproduced the hierarchies of the gulags. The only law the vory observe is the “thieves’ law,” a strict code that says they will never work, never hold a legitimate job, never do what the authorities tell them to do.
To be a made man in the Italian Mafia means being accepted into a family, in a bona fide induction ceremony—we’ve all seen the movies. The path to becoming a made man in Russia is different. The vor must have been to prison, done hard time, and declared himself a thief for life. People who live like that will, as a consequence, keep going back to prison. The more times the vor goes in and out of prison, the higher his status, which is written on his skin. Icons are as important in Russian crime as in Russian religion, and one way to spot the vor is by his tattoos. The tattoos are an intricate symbolic language, inscribed with ballpoint pen ink and sewing needles, dark and rough and hittery-skittery. Crosses on the knuckles indicate the number of times a man has served time in prison. Stars on the shoulders signify authority. The real leaders who emerge from that process are the vory v zakone.
One of the first vory of stature to come to the U.S. was Vyacheslav Ivankov. From the prisons of Siberia he made his way to Brooklynski—Brighton Beach, the home base of Russian organized crime in the U.S. Spinning cycles of extortion that touched the worlds of nightlife, sports, entertainment, and investment banking, Ivankov became the first target of Kerr’s squad. In late 1995, they got him. In news footage of his perp walk—with Mike McCall at one elbow and his partner, Lester McNulty, at the other—Ivankov actually spits at the camera. The month Ivankov went on trial, the New York Daily News alleged that he put out a murder contract on both agents. All the way to sentencing, in 1997, he refused to admit any guilt for anything. “I am not in a church,” he told the judge. “I have no need to make a confession.”
-- The Wire --
After C24 caught its first big fish, the waters were calm for a while. I and a few other new agents joined the squad—Ray’s Day Care, we called it. Fresh out of Quantico, full of piss and vinegar, we knew nothing. We were all eyes, all ears. A lot of the Russian gangsters were unrefined, but their behavior had its logic. One man arrested in New York for murder confessed that, back in Russia, he had carved up a few bodies with a blowtorch. A blowtorch is better than a saw, he explained, because it is so much cleaner. Dismember and cauterize, in one easy step.
At first, our investigative strategy was, basically, to walk around asking people, Are there any vory v zakone here? This strategy did not get us very far. Kerr taught us to take a different approach. We started asking, Who’s hurting people? Who’s ripping people off? And especially, Who’s showing off? There’s a big overlap between gangsters and people who look like gangsters—a big overlap between true vory and people who go to wiseguy nightclubs and flash a lot of money. We would get to know the bartenders at Russian mob clubs. A bartender at, say, Rasputin in Brighton Beach, might tell us, These five guys come in here every night, spending loads of money. There’s girls all over the table. We’d ask the bartender to describe those five guys in detail.
Eventually, the victim of a crime would describe a criminal who sounded like one of the five guys at Rasputin. Now we were getting somewhere. We would poke around to see what connections might exist between this person and that person, build up a trove of what’s called association evidence.
It’s great to have a tape recording of a thug threatening a victim. But that’s rare. It’s also great when you execute a search warrant and find a shoebox full of happy-snap pictures in their house. That shoebox is a gold mine of association evidence. Oh, really? You don’t know the guy? That’s funny, because here’s a picture of you and him at the beach. That can be valuable not just in building the case against your subject, but also in building your knowledge of the organized-crime networks in the area. Look, here’s that guy Leo is investigating. I didn’t know Leo’s guy knew my guy. Then I go talk to Leo, and it turns out that both of our guys went to St. Barts for Easter break.
Where is all this going? As an agent, you don’t know at first. You probably won’t know for a long while. And the starting point can seem innocuous, like that call from Felix, the furniture-store owner.
Kerr said I had to go out and interview the guy. Felix lived in a predominantly Russian part of Brooklyn, but his store was in Flatbush, a very different neighborhood. Imagine a five-foot-eleven-inch whippet, so excited: That was me. I told a salty old New York detective who had been assigned to the squad where I was going, and he said, Whoa, whoa, you can’t go out to that neighborhood by yourself. One white guy in that neighborhood in the middle of the day: victim. Two white guys together in the middle of the day: cops. Then he asked, What are you driving? Light blue Chevy Caprice, I said—classic bubble cruiser. You’re good, he said. You’re fine, you’re gonna be fine.
Kerr said, Who are you going to take with you? I rattled off the names of the most senior people on the squad. Kerr said, Let me see … He looked out his door and saw Greg Sheehy. He said, Take Sheehy.
Sheehy? Sheehy was more junior even than me. Didn’t even know the almost-nothing that I knew. But again, best possible bad luck. Sheehy proved to be a great agent and an even better friend. From that day forward we were partners. So we drove out to Flatbush. Met with Felix in his store. Raw space, wallboard, almost like a warehouse storefront, stacked to the ceiling with bargain furniture, priced to move. The clientele appeared to be all working people from the neighborhood, without a lot of money to spare. Felix told us a story.
The story was about a guy named Dimitri Gufield, who had been Felix’s partner in a different furniture store years earlier. Then Dimitri moved back to Russia for a year. When Dimitri returned, he reintroduced himself to Felix. Dimitri was a gangster now, and he expected Felix to start paying him protection money. Felix was deeply offended by this. Offended to be treated as a stooge by someone he thought was a peer, an equal. We’re the same, we’re furniture guys! Who are you to think you’re some tough gangster?
Dimitri lived in a nice colonial house out on Long Island. Had a nice family—wife, kids—and they lived what seemed to be a respectable middle-class life. But Dimitri’s dream, the thing he wanted most in life, was to be a big-time gangster. He gathered a little crew around himself, and every young punk in this crew had to go out and identify businesses to extort for protection money. Dimitri’s own focus was on furniture stores, because that was what he knew.
Krysha is the Russian word for roof. The word can be used literally or figuratively. Krysha refers to the exterior top surface of something, such as a building or a car. Or krysha can refer to a person who provides the same kind of protection as a roof. “I’ll be your krysha”—I’ll be your roof—means that I will stop things from falling on you. Since the early 1990s, most businesses in Russia have had to operate with the protection of a krysha. Even if provided by the police or other government officials, the krysha is ultimately tied to organized crime. There is no effective distinction, in Russia, between organized crime and government, so kryshas have proliferated to where they block out the sky. Everyone lives under protection. The transformation has been systemic. It cannot be attributed exclusively to the actions of any one individual. But under the presidency of Vladimir Putin, the cohabitation of crime and government became the norm. Crime is the central and most stable force in Russian society.
Dimitri pitched guys like Felix, and Felix agreed to pay right off the bat. Felix was irate, he felt humiliated, but he was susceptible because he had a family, too. Then Dimitri wanted more. He went back to Felix and said, The other owners, they look up to you. I need you to bring them together. We’ll have a meeting. Call in half a dozen of them. I’ll be there. You’ll tell them you’ve decided to start paying me, and you’ll tell them they should follow your lead and pay me also. That’s when Felix called the FBI. He didn’t want to go through with this meeting. He hoped we could protect him from the protection racket.
A phone call and a story like Felix’s are uncommon. An agent does not often get tipped off to an extortion demand as it’s happening. So Sheehy and I were keyed up. We went back to Kerr’s office, wondering what we should do, and Kerr asked if Felix would wear a wire. I said, I think so—this guy seems all in.
Felix was all in. In our first meeting with him, he said, I shouldn’t have to pay, because this is America. Nobody has to pay for protection here. He looked at us, two fledgling FBI agents, and he said, about the thug who was trying to rule that neighborhood by fear and force, I don’t need him—I have you. Felix was a tax-paying, green card–holding, law-abiding citizen, and his calculus was just that simple. Hearing what he said, I experienced again what I had first felt at Quantico: a shift in the most basic sense of who I was and of my purpose in the world.
Two days later, we went back to Felix’s store, and in his little office he took off his shirt so I could put the wire on him. The recording device was a metal box about the size of a pack of cigarettes, with wire leads connected to microphones coming out of it. Putting the microphone up high on the chest catches the sound best, but on a hairy guy—and Felix was hairy as a bear—you can get a lot of scratching sounds. The device itself has to be hidden somewhere that won’t be found on a typical pat-down, so we tucked it into a pocket designed to hang in the groin area from an elastic waistband.
Felix’s street nickname, which was accurate, if not imaginative, was Big Felix. He was so large that the Velcro ends of the elastic waistband were never going to meet. He leaned over a table and I stood behind him, trying to pull the thing together—like a lady’s maid tightening the strings on a whalebone corset. Then Felix had an inspiration: We could make the waistband stick with packing tape. We wrapped it around and around him and then sent him in. I remember wondering what it was going to feel like when the tape was peeled off.
The meeting was at another furniture store. Dimitri Gufield and his number two, Alexander Kutsenko, along with a man named Mani Chulpayev, who turned out to be in many ways the brains of the gang, rolled up in tricked-out Benzes and BMWs and swaggered onto the sidewalk wearing three-quarter-length black leather jackets. Nothing subtle about this scene. Sheehy and I were staked out up the block in a car. We took a lot of pictures.
Later, when the meeting was over, Dimitri went out on the sidewalk and talked to his guys in front of Felix, and talked to Felix alone a little more. Felix was chain-smoking, gray faced, perspiring heavily. We met up with him later and went to his store. By now he was drenched, looked like he was having a heart attack, fumbling with his keys, couldn’t unlock his own front door. We got the wire off. Then Felix described what had happened. One of the older people in the meeting, Pavel, who was in his late seventies, allegedly owed Dimitri money on a separate debt, so Dimitri made Pavel sit in the middle of the group. Dimitri berated him and slapped him around as he told the rest of the furniture-store owners about the payments he wanted them to make. When a woman told Dimitri, No, she wasn’t going to pay, Dimitri started beating Pavel, as if to show, This is what’s at stake. By the end of the meeting, everyone there—except for the woman and her business partner—agreed to pay. Back outside, Dimitri told his guys, I want the woman beaten, I want her put into the hospital so she stays there for at least two weeks. That’s what Felix heard him say at the end, when he was melting in sweat. We took off the wire and listened. It was all there.
On our instructions, Felix called another meeting with Gufield, Kutsenko, and Chulpayev, and he asked them not to beat the woman. He said he would pay for her. We paid Felix, Felix paid them, and from then on it was a steady cash flow. We spent the next few months collecting as much information about the gang as we could. The first step in the collection stage of an investigation is to figure out who all the targets are. Once you know who they are, you figure out where they live, whether they’re married, what they drive, what their phone numbers are. Who else do they hang around with? What else are they doing? Who else are they extorting? Are they running drugs? Sheehy and I followed the members of the gang, doing surveillance, nights and weekends. We found a guy on the Upper East Side who hooked them up with stolen cars. We found a connection to a gun supplier in South Carolina who sold them semiautomatic weapons, including a MAC-10.
We went to a federal prosecutor, Judith Lieb, who put the whole case together under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act—the RICO statute. Passed by Congress in 1970, RICO is the law that made it possible for the U.S. government to prosecute the Mafia—and the law that deters organized crime from infiltrating legitimate businesses. RICO allows the leaders of a racket to be tried for the crimes they ordered others to commit, or assisted others in committing, but did not carry out with their own hands. It is one of the most important laws enacted in the past half century, and it has global reach.
Every RICO charge has to go to the Department of Justice for approval because so much is at stake in the language. No one wants to bring a RICO case that gets challenged and risk an appeal that pulls the teeth out of the statute. The path to use this statute against Italian crime families is well trodden. But we found no preexisting language for a RICO case against a Russian-organized-crime group. Individuals had been arrested and indicted for the various predicate offenses that could have gone into a RICO case, offenses such as drug trafficking, extortion, and kidnapping. Apparently, the Bureau had never alleged an overall RICO conspiracy involving a Russian-organized-crime enterprise.
We put it together, Lieb charged it, and we arrested six guys right off the top—the two leaders of the crew, three guys who were “furniture,” or muscle, and the key figure in the case, Mani Chulpayev. Mani was not in New York the day we made the arrests. He was in Los Angeles. He and his partners, it turned out, were also involved in human trafficking. They would bring women from Russia and Uzbekistan to the U.S., seize their passports, and make them work as prostitutes to earn money toward getting the passports back. Mani was in Los Angeles delivering one of these women to a pair of Russian dentists who wanted their own live-in prostitute. The L.A. field office put Mani on a flight back to New York, and Ray Kerr gave us a master class in how to flip somebody.
Mani was Uzbek. He had immigrated to the U.S. as a child. His father supported the family by running food carts in downtown Manhattan. By the time of his arrest, he was five feet six of puffy hubris. In the interview room, Greg and I were not getting off jump street with him. Then Kerr walked in and sat down in his perfect dress slacks, perfect dress shirt, gold-rimmed glasses, tie perfectly knotted.
Ray started talking to Mani. He said, You don’t have to say anything, Mani. Don’t say a word. Just sit here, just listen. Listen to us. I’m gonna tell you a little bit of how this process works, what kind of system you are in now, what’s going to happen after tonight, what’s going to happen tomorrow morning, what’s going to happen to you, what you’re facing, when you’ll be able to speak to your lawyer and your family. I’m just going to talk to you a little bit—just stop me and ask me questions if you’d like—but you don’t have to say anything. Don’t feel any pressure. We’re not going to ask you any questions right now.
I could see Mani thinking, Ahhh, this is all right—I can handle this.
Kerr laid out the situation for him. Here’s how it works. You’ve been charged by complaint. This is what that means. You’re going to get to see the judge. It’s an initial appearance. Ray walked him through the process and then started slowly asking a couple of questions. And Mani, being a spectacularly arrogant person and wanting to tell of his greatness, began to talk.
But Ray interrupted, rum voiced, the perfect host: Okay, before you go any further, let me just say you should probably—you know, we’ll stay here as long as you want—we’ll stay here all night with you if you like. We’ll get you some food, we’ll get you something to drink. We’d love to hear what you have to say. I’m sure you have a side of this, and we’d like to hear what that is. Before you do that, you should know that you do have the right not to speak to us.
Mani said, Yeah, yeah, yeah, I got that. Don’t worry about it. And he signed the consent to be interviewed without an attorney present, and proceeded to tell stories that we had never heard before. He told us about the time the crew kidnapped a guy, took him to somebody’s basement, tied him to a water heater, beat him with a tire iron, and stubbed out lit cigarettes in his ears. Told us about collection kidnappings they had been doing that we had no idea about. Guns they had bought. Stolen cars. The human trafficking.
As he spoke we could start to see how the various income streams converged. The guy on the Upper East Side who was the connection to stolen cars also had a person in the New York State Health Department who could create fraudulent Medicaid accounts. For a few hundred dollars, you could get a Medicaid card and have total access to health care. There was no operating cost for the scam. It was pure profit. We asked, Do you know who you did this for? Mani said, Yeah, I know who I did it for. It’s all in my notebooks. He had kept a handwritten ledger of who brought in how much money for which job; who owed money; who had been paid. It was like the Rosetta stone of the gang’s activity. We got the notebook and charged the gang. He laid it all out to us that night.
-- Olympic Dreams --
When our squad shut down the Gufield-Kutsenko Brigade and another gang with a similar MO—rackets revolving around violence—it had a chilling effect. Wiseguy nightlife started powering down. White-collar insurance fraud started picking up. One gang set up medical mills all around the city, hustling for people who had been in car accidents. Patients came in to the mills and got pushed through a dozen doctor’s appointments in an hour. The mill would bill for every bogus treatment, while insurance companies got taken for a ride. To prove the case—which resulted in fourteen arrests and the closing of several clinics—we staged a car accident on paper and wired up three NYPD detectives who went undercover as patients.
By the following year, Russian organized crime was moving further away from violence and toward the bigger prize of high finance, a realm that was more abstract but in some ways even more threatening to the country. By the end of 1999, the FBI had helped shut down a seven-billion-dollar Russian money-laundering scheme that had been operated through the Bank of New York. (The bank ended up paying thirty-eight million dollars in fines because it “did not adequately monitor or report suspect accounts.”) That case, in retrospect, looks like a moment when Russian organized crime staked an early claim on the American frontier. The money laundered had come from a mixture of legal and illegal activities. The laundering itself was done by people who worked as legitimate professionals. The more that criminal money became entangled in legitimate business, and the more involved that formerly legitimate professionals became with organized crime, the more difficult it would eventually become for law enforcement to remove the criminal elements from the U.S. economy. Like the melding of organized crime and government in Russia—where each depends on the other for reinforcement and resources—the Bank of New York money-laundering case offered a glimpse of what the world can look like when the boundary between legitimate and criminal business is blurred. The Bank of New York case also signaled how much money Russians could bring to the table.
During the next few years, it became clear that Russian oligarchs—the men who, during Russia’s transition from communism to kleptocracy, made billions by acquiring state-owned companies for a song—were supporting some of the vory outside Russia, but not yet in America. We realized that Russian criminals had so much money that if the money came here, whole institutions could be undermined. So while most of our squad continued chasing thugs around Brooklyn or figuring out the latest financial fraud schemes, Kerr made sure one guy kept watch over the big fish beyond our shores.
That kind of work could be even harder to justify than more typical organized-crime investigations, because it might never lead to indictments and stats. Kerr protected our squad’s ability to do it anyway. He could see that something sinister was taking shape out there. It had spread from Moscow to Tel Aviv, and now we were seeing it in London. Globalization is not just for Google. Kerr’s support for big-fish background work exemplifies one of the most important things I learned from him: If you see something that needs to be done, your whole job is to make your best effort to do it.
The fingerprints of the vory were turning up in America with growing frequency. We chased leads on Russian gangsters sent to New York to “organize” the rackets in the city. We followed leads about young Russian players in the National Hockey League who were being extorted by gangsters back in the homeland. One of the kingpins we were tracking, Alimzhan Tokhtakhounov, concocted a scheme to guarantee a gold medal for Russian pairs figure skaters in the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. The fix worked. The Russians were awarded the medal, but after the ensuing scandal about the judging, the members of the second-place team were awarded duplicate gold medals, too.
Vadim Thomas, one of the best investigators on our squad, pitched the figure-skating case to the Southern District of New York—known as the Sovereign District of New York, because the U.S. attorney’s office there has a lot of power and does not shy from using it creatively. Tokhtakhounov was indicted and arrested by Italian police on charges of conspiracy to rig the competition. For months the FBI worked with the Italians and with Interpol to get him extradited. Before long, word came to the squad that a Russian oligarch had pledged two hundred million dollars to get Tokhtakhounov out of jail. Next thing we knew, his release was ordered by the Italian Supreme Court. He was gone, in the wind, back to Russia, where he has been living openly. (And from there, he allegedly continued to run criminal enterprises in the United States. In 2013, Tokhtakhounov was indicted for money laundering in connection with an illegal gambling ring that operated out of Trump Tower. Several months after this indictment, Tokhtakhounov was a VIP guest at Donald Trump’s Miss Universe contest in Moscow.) We’ve never had a chance to get him again. In the scheme of things, the evident corruption behind a figure-skating medal may seem trivial. But for me and for a lot of guys on our squad, this was a critical turn of events.
One of our worst fears was that the top tier of the vory v zakone would use money to undermine Western institutions in which many millions of Americans have reflexive faith. That fear had now been realized, and we asked ourselves what institutions might be next, and we asked whether any American public official might be susceptible to a two-hundred-million-dollar bribe, and we asked whether democracy itself might become a target.
How We Work: Enterprise Theory
-- Muddy Wingtips --
Most FBI investigations are conducted by the Bureau’s criminal, counterterrorism, or counterintelligence divisions. Whether they are investigating organized crime, international terrorism, or Russian involvement in the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, all of these divisions use a technique of investigation called the enterprise theory.
Enterprise theory allows investigators to structure their understanding of crimes that once seemed too vast to understand. Enterprise theory is to investigation as grammar is to language. Without grammar, language would be a sprawling mush of verbiage. Without the enterprise theory, FBI investigators would find it practically impossible to wrap their minds around criminal activities of sprawling scope—criminal activities for which many people share responsibility.
In recent decades, enterprise theory was notably advanced by agents such as Bruce Mouw and Philip Scala, who brought down John Gotti and the Gambinos in the early 1990s. Enterprise theory was an answer to a problem that had been more than a century in the making: the problem of organized criminal activity in the United States. As far back as Reconstruction, racist groups built on hierarchical structures, such as the Ku Klux Klan, conspired to commit criminal violence against African American communities in the rural South. During the same period and with a similar discipline, Tammany Hall in New York City built a system of public corruption involving government officials. Among the immigrant throngs that passed through Ellis Island were mobsters, and La Cosa Nostra learned to do business in Queens as it had done in Palermo. All these criminal subcultures thrived. They showed that criminals working together were much more effective than criminals working alone.
Compared with these adversaries, local police and prosecutors investigating individual criminal acts in isolation were outgunned and outmatched. Organized criminal groups—with multiple members organized in hierarchies, supported by transportation and communications infrastructure—had no trouble staying one step ahead of the law. While these criminal enterprises grew and evolved over a century, American law enforcement—including the FBI, from its inception in 1908—questioned the very existence of organized crime.
That changed on November 14, 1957, when Joseph Barbara hosted a meeting at his country home in Apalachin, New York. High-ranking members from more than fifty organized-crime groups around the U.S. converged on Apalachin, about a three-hour drive northwest of Manhattan, not far from the Pennsylvania border. When townsfolk saw a bunch of luxury cars driving around with out-of-state license plates, they called the police. The police conducted surveillance on Barbara’s fifty-acre estate. The gangsters quickly got wise to the cops and scattered on foot into the woods around the house. The result: lots of muddy wingtips, and irrefutable evidence of a national organized-crime syndicate.
“The Apalachin Meeting” is celebrated in FBI mythology as the event that dragged this institution out of its long period of denial of organized crime. J. Edgar Hoover, who had spent years trying to keep FBI agents out of organized-crime investigations, could no longer keep his eyes closed. During the decade that followed, politicians such as Senator John McClellan and Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy attacked the problem in very public ways. Hearings of what was then the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations drew citizens’ attention to the effects of racketeering—a series of events that culminated, in 1970, with the passage of the Organized Crime Control Act, which included the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations provision.
-- The RICO Revolution --
RICO created important new prosecutorial options. For the first time, the leaders of an organization could be held responsible for the crimes they had ordered others to commit. Each member of a group who participated in a pattern of racketeering activity could bear the full weight of responsibility for all the acts conducted by the organization. A conviction under RICO could carry stiff civil and criminal penalties, including up to twenty years in prison.
Now the FBI had a challenge: to develop a new model of investigation that would enable agents to take full advantage of the authority offered by the RICO statute. Criminal investigations are typically structured around proving the elements of a single criminal offense. RICO opened the door to prosecuting an entire organization. The enterprise theory was the structure by which agents learned to investigate whole organizations. Enterprise theory taught agents to identify new elements of a crime, to satisfy the new requirements of the statute, and to gather new forms of evidence. Through the lens of enterprise theory, agents could begin to see an organization as a whole, to understand the role and significance of each member, and to develop an understanding of the breadth of the group’s activity.
Like national-security investigations, enterprise investigations involve extensive intelligence collection. To prove the existence of a RICO enterprise, criminal investigators conduct surveillance, talk to witnesses, and target the group with human sources—the same techniques national-security investigators use to track a foreign adversary. While collecting this intelligence, enterprise investigators look for pieces of intelligence that can be used as evidence not only to prove the enterprise exists, but also to prove that members of the enterprise committed particular crimes.
The first major requirement of the RICO statute is to prove the existence of the enterprise that is the subject of investigation. The statute defines an enterprise as “any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity.” If the subject of an investigation is a legal entity, proving its existence is easy. Many criminal enterprises, however, are not legal entities with a known public presence. Organized-crime families, narcotics-trafficking cartels, and terrorist groups usually don’t have articles of incorporation or signs above their offices. They don’t have departments of human resources or offer 401(k) plans. To satisfy RICO, the enterprise theory directs agents to collect association evidence: proof that people are associated with each other in a way that could qualify them as a criminal enterprise. Before the enterprise theory, if agents executed a search warrant at Mobster Sal’s house, they were likely looking for evidence that Sal himself had committed a crime—things like stolen property or narcotics. The enterprise theory made it just as important for agents to find pictures of Mobster Sal hanging out with Mobster Vinny. Those pictures proved the two were “associates.” Their association, or a larger one of which they are a part, may qualify as an enterprise under RICO. Association evidence takes many forms—bank records showing money transfers between individuals, joint names on legal documents such as contracts and leases, communication between subjects. Generally, any physical remnants of historic, legal, social, or other associations could help the investigators prove the existence of an enterprise.
In the case of a well-known organization, like the Genovese crime family, the FBI has extensive historical intelligence that makes a convincing case that the family functions as a criminal enterprise. This intelligence consists of years of interviews of witnesses and victims; informant and cooperator information; electronic intercepts of communications; evidence seized in prior Genovese cases; and records of previous convictions. In the case of new or previously unknown organizations, enterprise proof can be harder to find. This was a challenge for my squad in 1998, when we worked to prove the existence of the Gufield-Kutsenko Brigade as an organized criminal enterprise. While preparing to use the RICO statute against a Russian-organized-crime crew, we lacked historical intelligence or boilerplate language for the indictment to rely on. We used witness testimony to identify the members of the group at meetings where crimes took place. We used cooperator testimony about roles and responsibilities of the members of the group. We used audio recordings of Gufield, the enterprise leader, directing others to commit crimes. All this evidence painted a clear picture of a structured, hierarchical, criminal enterprise.
The second major RICO requirement is to prove that each member of the enterprise participated in a “pattern of racketeering activity.” Investigators must prove that each subject participated in two or more of the crimes that are specifically defined in the statute. These include numerous federal crimes such as bribery, counterfeiting, and fraud, as well as offenses that are typically prosecuted by the states, such as robbery, drug trafficking, and murder. Following the enterprise theory, agents examine the full scope of criminal activity associated with the entire enterprise from the inception of the investigation. By collecting this intelligence all along, agents develop a rich picture of criminal activity and later sort out which member participated in which crime.
Establishing that rich picture can be done historically or proactively. In a historical RICO case, agents look for intelligence about past activity. Witness testimony can offer powerful evidence of past criminal behavior. Victims, informants, former criminals who cooperate to avoid incarceration, or even police officers and detectives who responded to crime scenes can serve as witnesses. With that intelligence in hand, agents look for artifacts that help to prove the crime was committed by members of the enterprise. Bank records, police reports, telephone records, documents, emails, or recorded communications are all effective proof of past crimes. Historical enterprise cases are some of the hardest to make, and their agents are some of the most capable investigators in the FBI. Each piece of evidence is like a piece of a puzzle that, when complete, forms a picture from the past. The case against Baldassare “Baldo” Amato, a soldier in the Bonanno family, is one example of a historical RICO case. In 2006, to convict Amato of racketeering and two murders, FBI agents used cooperator testimony, documents, police records, and forensic evidence. At sentencing, U.S. District Court judge Nicholas G. Garaufis called Amato a “Mafia assassin” who “used murder as a business tactic.” Amato was sentenced to life in prison.
Proactive enterprise cases are focused on collecting evidence of an enterprise while criminals are still committing crimes. This means collecting intelligence and evidence in real time, from within the enterprise itself. One way to do this is through electronic surveillance. Electronic surveillance, or “technical collection,” enables the investigators to collect the content of communications between members of the group. This requires specific authorization from a federal court and can involve some of the most sensitive investigative tools available. The result is usually worth the effort. Recorded communications reveal the activities of an enterprise, the leadership structure that makes the gang work, and even the personalities of its members. My squad mates and I once overheard a Russian crew talking insistently about making sure “the boots were in the car.” We couldn’t understand why they were so focused on footwear. It was only after a slow-minded soldier told the boss that he had made sure there was one boot for each person that we realized they were not talking about boots—they were talking about guns. Unfortunately, criminal organizations, terrorist groups, and foreign spies now routinely utilize encrypted communication platforms that put the content of their conversations beyond the reach of law-enforcement and intelligence-agency surveillance.
Proactive cases can also be built on intelligence and evidence collected by someone who is a member of the group or has unique access to the enterprise—someone like Felix, the furniture-store owner. People with this kind of access are typically confidential informants (CIs), cooperating witnesses (CWs), or undercover employees (UCs). In the FBI, a confidential informant is someone who regularly provides information to the FBI but whose role as a source can never be revealed. Exposing the informant’s relationship with the FBI could place the source and his or her family in great danger. Protecting the identity of a confidential informant is one of an agent’s most sacred responsibilities. Some confidential informants provide information about the activity of an enterprise and its members for many years. One drawback of relying on a confidential informant is that the sensitivity of maintaining confidentiality means the source’s information cannot be used as evidence in court. It is purely intelligence.
A cooperating witness is someone who maintains informant-like access to an enterprise, but who also understands that he or she may one day be exposed as a government cooperator. Cooperating witnesses offer all the insights and intelligence of informants, but they are also available to take the stand and testify at trial. They are highly valuable for this dual role, and their testimony is often essential to convicting the leadership of a criminal enterprise. In some ways, this strength is also a weakness. Providing testimony usually signals the end of their career. Once they are publicly revealed as government cooperators, or “burned,” it becomes far too dangerous to have them continue to associate with their former criminal associates. Agents often have to relocate cooperating witnesses and their families to ensure they are not harmed.
The most sensitive and dangerous of all these efforts to penetrate a criminal enterprise comes when investigators attempt to insert one of their own into the group. Undercover employees can provide extraordinary insights into the working of an enterprise, and they can also steer conversations in order to obtain recorded statements on particular events. They are even able to alter the activities of a group to prevent acts of violence. During a trial, undercover employees provide powerful testimony. They offer both the access of an enterprise member and the credibility of a law-enforcement officer. Undercover employees are uniquely skilled and highly trained and require intense effort to support as they essentially live inside the criminal world. Their assignments are dangerous, incredibly stressful, and often crucial to the enterprise investigation.
-- Protecting Informants --
Near the end of May 2018, the president falsely accused the FBI of having put a “spy” in his campaign and called for an investigation. The president’s allies began demanding that the so-called spy’s identity be Near the end of May 2018, the president falsely accused the FBI of having put a “spy” in his campaign and called for an investigation. The president’s allies began demanding that the so-called spy’s identity be unmasked. The FBI had, of course, not put anyone inside the campaign. A confidential informant with preexisting tangential ties to people associated with Trump’s political operation had provided information relating to specific national-security risks, in this case involving possible Russian influence in the conduct of a presidential campaign. Reading the news of President Trump’s demand to know details about the confidential informant, I wanted the leadership at Justice and the FBI to say, We will not provide any information. We are going to protect the people who work with us, period. In the end, the deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, sought to defuse the situation by referring the matter to the inspector general and giving confidential briefings to key members of Congress. To prepare for such an important briefing, it would be customary both to review the raw intelligence of 302s from interviews with the confidential informant and to work with an analyst who processed that raw intelligence into a more finished briefing product. When the information was properly prepared and presented, after various people had taken the time to understand it, even some FBI critics on Capitol Hill realized—and publicly stated—that there was no issue here.
Not giving up your people: This is important. It is crucially important not only to the FBI but to the country’s safety and security. The ability to identify and develop relationships with human sources is oxygen to the FBI. The Bureau cannot live without that. It is the first step toward the activation of any of our other, more sophisticated investigative authorities. You do not get to search warrants, you don’t get to subpoenas, you don’t get to listen in on a subject’s communications through a FISA or Title III court order, without people telling you what they know. And if you can’t credibly tell them that you will protect and conceal their identity if they are willing to go out on a limb, if they are willing to risk their own and their families’ lives and welfare—if they can’t trust that you will protect them—then they will not cooperate with you.
Discretion allows the FBI to generate human sources. Human sources build the credibility of this institution. No other U.S. agency has a pool of human sources bigger than that of the FBI. That is the true strength of this organization: the ability of its agents to go out into any part of this country, sit down with people, and get information from them in a lawful, constitutionally protected way. A person who is willing to have an ongoing relationship of this kind with an agent is called an informant, or a source. Without those people, we’re sunk—as a law-enforcement agency and as a law-abiding society.
So—hypothetically—if the FBI finds out that someone who is definitely associated with a domestic political campaign has made a comment to a high-ranking government official from another country about possibly colluding with a foreign adversary in the course of that campaign, the FBI is obligated to look into that. The foreign counterintelligence implications of this information are obvious. The Bureau would be guilty of dereliction of duty if it did not open an investigation and look into the matter.
And the Bureau’s goal would be not only to find out who is responsible for working with the enemy, but also to protect the campaign from the foreign influence that might be seeping into what they are trying to do. No campaign in the U.S. would want that. And it could be illegal—the Federal Election Campaign Act strictly regulates the participation by foreign nationals in U.S. elections and specifically prohibits the provision of money or anything of value. The FBI would open an investigation to protect the people who are involved in that political activity from malicious foreign influence. We assume the campaign is operating under good faith. We assume innocence until proof of guilt. That is why, in this hypothetical situation, a case would be opened.
What would happen once that case was opened? Would agents go busting out and interviewing people willy-nilly? Would they publicly line up everybody in that campaign and ask, Did you talk to anyone from this foreign country? No, they wouldn’t want to do that. If they did, they would communicate to all the world the FBI’s investigative interest in this subject matter—which would have an indelibly deleterious effect on both the investigation and the campaign. The question of when to move from one stage of an investigation to another—when to move from collecting evidence to briefing any of the subjects involved—is a delicate one, involving consideration of many factors. Absent imminent threats to life and limb or the destruction of evidence, once a case is opened, agents conduct the investigation quietly and covertly.
What would agents do first? It could be a good idea to start out by talking with people who have a history with other people in the campaign. So agents might go to those people and say, What do you know about this person? And have you heard anything about that? And if, in talking to those people, agents came across someone who had exposure to and knowledge about this person or that issue, or was in a position to find out, agents might say to the person, See if they know anything about this or that, and let us know what they say.
That is the answer to a president who is worried about a nonexistent spy in his campaign and who demands that an informant be identified.
Chapter Three
The Shift: Solving Crime -- and preventing terrorist attacks
-- Ground Zero --
It was a bad Monday. I’d just come back to New York from a trip to Fort Lauderdale with one of the detectives on my task force. We ran an operation there that triggered turf issues for the field office, and the local FBI supervisor screamed at me like I’d never been screamed at before: You are banned from the state of Florida! So on this Monday, I expected my boss to chew up what was left of me. I stayed at the office late, coming up on midnight, to offer my hide. The boss just made me wait, and then he left.
So I got home late—I was living in Westchester County—and I canceled plans to meet my workout buddy at the gym by the World Trade Center, where we usually met on Tuesdays. I slept in. When I was getting out of the shower, I heard Katie Couric on the TV in the bedroom say a report had just come in: A small plane had flown into the side of one of the towers at the World Trade Center. The phone rang. It was Jill, saying, Did you see what happened to the World Trade Center? You’d better get into work. I was confused. I said, I’m not a fireman. What do you want me to do about a fire at the World Trade Center? Then the newscast cut in with an update.
I floored it in the black Chevy Tahoe, tinted windows up, speeding into Manhattan. Bureau radio on, I listened to the chatter, tracking calls to rally—first at an intersection right next to the towers, then in Chinatown. The bridges were closed. When I got near the Triborough Bridge, the on-ramp was a parking lot. I drove on the shoulder, lights and sirens on, trying to maneuver around the cars, and there were orange construction barrels in the way. When the other drivers saw the lights and sirens, a bunch of them jumped out of their cars and started lifting the barrels out of the way so I could get through. When I made it up onto the bridge and drove across, my car was the only car on the bridge. It was like that scene in Vanilla Sky. Southbound on the FDR, again I was practically the only car on the road. By then the first tower had fallen. I took the right-hand exit at the Brooklyn Bridge, and I saw a crowd of people walking the other way on the FDR, away from downtown. They were all white, covered in dust. Not excited, not talking. Calm, dazed, a crowd of ghosts walking along.
I made it to 26 Federal Plaza, dropped the car, and immediately the SWAT team rallied, right there: Get your gear on, get in the vehicles, get together. We’re going to stage the vehicles, we’re going to be ready, because no doubt we’re going to get called. The SWAT team would be the ones who would arrest the people who were involved in this. Any second now—I was sure of it—we would get the order to go out to some location in Brooklyn or the Bronx or wherever, and get this guy or that guy. They moved our team over to the West Side Highway, by the heliport. The weather was absolutely gorgeous, blue sky, not a cloud, and we stood there and we waited.
And we waited, and we waited. Nothing happened. And eventually we started to realize that probably nothing was going to happen that day. There was no one to go get, because no one knew yet who had done this.
By that night, it was decided that the field office could not work from the old Federal Building. The air quality was too bad. The building had sucked in all the fumes and dust from Ground Zero. So the field office moved uptown, to the FBI garage, a huge brick building on the corner of the West Side Highway and Twenty-sixth Street. Oil-stained cement floor, debris everywhere, cars everywhere. This was the graveyard for old Bureau cars—name your style of anonymous dark sedan, they were all there, along with cars that had been seized. Ferraris and Bentleys, rusting and rotting away, going nowhere.
All that stuff got hauled out, and we put in tables, phone lines, computers. This was the command center. This was where the terrorism case squads worked their investigations. All the intelligence on the attacks was pouring in here. All decisions about deployments and investigations were made here. The SWAT team provided a perimeter of security around the building, twenty-four hours a day. Every street agent who wasn’t on a terrorism squad or with the SWAT team was shagging leads for the case. The lead pool ran out of the USS Intrepid, the old aircraft carrier docked a few blocks up the river, and it ran around the clock. This was the rhythm: show up at the Intrepid at 7 A.M., grab a stack of leads, go work them, come back at 7 P.M., give your paperwork back, go home and sleep, repeat.
On and on it went, one week working days, the next week working nights. It rained, the air was freezing, and we stood there. Somebody had to stand guard, so we did it. But we wanted to do more. We wanted to find the people responsible for this—even though, very quickly after the attack, we in fact knew who they were: terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda and directed by Osama bin Laden. We also knew that the nineteen hijackers, the ones most responsible, had all died in the attack when the airplanes they had hijacked crashed into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania.
Most of us on the SWAT team were criminal guys. Agents who do criminal work have traditionally seen themselves as the only true agents, the ones who do the real work. Everybody else could mess around sending cables back and forth, swapping “intelligence.” Criminal agents did the big stuff. We arrested people. Of course, the agents who worked on terrorism thought they were the real thing. Each side had its own myths to deploy against the other. Being of the criminal camp, I was champing at the bit to get moving. Instead, I found myself saying, Can I see your ID, ma’am? to every twenty-five-year-old on the way into work at Martha Stewart’s headquarters, upstairs in our building.
-- 'I Am Sikh' --
September 11 was the day that made everything look different from how it had looked before. This is true even in a literal way. After standing watch the night of 9/11, three of us drove downtown. By that point, everything south of Twenty-sixth Street was like a world under martial law. No private vehicles. Restaurants serving food only to first responders. I remember coming down Broadway with city hall on the left, the park in front tapering to a point. It looked like a winter morning after an eight-inch snowfall. Every surface was white. It looked peaceful. And it was quiet—the dust, like snow, muffled every sound. There were no people walking around, and there was no traffic.
We dropped the car at 26 Federal Plaza and then walked over to see Ground Zero up close. I remember reminding myself, That’s not snow. That’s just the buildings, and everything and everyone that was in them, a physical manifestation of violence and hatred. But also of all the people and lives and families and businesses and enterprises and hopes and plans and everything that intersected at those two tall towers, turned into dust.
The dust and debris would be hauled to Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island, and agents and police officers would go out there every day to sort through it. They would put on their Tyvek suits and take garden rakes in their hands and rake the dust and debris, looking for human remains, day after day. Living persisted, in all the forms living takes. My friend Michael Breslin worked at the morgue, documenting the bodies and body parts being brought in.
At another level, the wheels of national government were grinding forward. First, federal immigration services stopped all regular processes of deportation—no illegal aliens would be sent out of the country until the FBI cleared them of any connection to the 9/11 attacks. Second, at the same time, immigration enforcement became much more aggressive, particularly as it concerned Middle Easterners, than it had been on September 10. Attorney General John Ashcroft was blunt: “If you overstay your visa—even by one day—we will arrest you.” And third, hundreds of agents, not only in the New York area but all over the country, were processing leads generated out of the 9/11 case files, which were known as PENTTBOM and TRADEBOM.
To show what happened when those three lines intersected, consider one scenario that might have unfolded if you’d become the subject of a lead after 9/11. Let’s say you were from the Middle East, and your neighbor had called the FBI and said, The person who lives next door comes and goes at odd hours, and he hangs out with other guys with Middle Eastern names, and I think I saw him wearing a turban once. The FBI got thousands of such calls. Every call became a lead. We would get the address, and two agents would go out that same day. Once the agents arrived at your doorstep, even if you weren’t there, if any of your neighbors passed by, the agents would have struck up conversations with them. If one of those neighbors, too, happened to have come from a Middle Eastern country, the agents would have asked if he was a citizen or to see his green card. If that man wasn’t a citizen and didn’t have a green card, he would no longer have been your neighbor. He would have been detained.
All of a sudden, the U.S. was enforcing immigration laws in a way that it had not done for decades. Many, many people were picked up and thrown into deportation proceedings, which would not occur until they were cleared of any connections to terrorism. A massive logjam formed.
In addition to all the people who were getting picked up in the New York area, others were picked up around the country, and some of them caught the interest of the terrorism squads, so they asked for those detainees to be sent to New York. The Immigration and Naturalization Service, as it was then known, quickly blew through all of its detention space. The INS started signing contracts to house detainees in county jails in New Jersey. The Passaic County Jail, the Orange County Jail—facilities with some hard-core inmates—started to fill up with immigration detainees who had not even been accused of a crime. These detainees were virtually all Middle Eastern. They were virtually all dark skinned. They were not treated with courtesy.
As the numbers grew, it finally dawned on someone that we had to start vetting these detainees so that we could figure out whether to let them go or start deporting them. So the special agent in charge asked Ray Kerr to come up with a plan. Ray grabbed a few of us and explained the job. We were eager to do anything. None of us knew anything about terrorism. We didn’t know what a vetting investigation for someone with connections to terrorism should even include. The process we set up was not efficient. Some of those first groups of detainees were in custody for a long time—six months or more—before we were finally able to build the system and then get them through it.
The program generated a lot of lawsuits and prompted my first interaction with the inspector general’s office at the Department of Justice. Sometime after we had concluded the detainee clearances, the inspectors came to New York to investigate how we had handled our assignment. Ray Kerr and I sat for that interview together. They asked a lot of questions about why we had detained so many people, how we created the clearance process, and why it had taken so long. The only candid response was to point to the context: This was New York in the traumatic aftershock of 9/11. The attorney general had asked the FBI to render an opinion on every immigration detainee’s possible connections to terrorism. We created a process to do that. We had never done it before. It was far from perfect.
Our group ended up processing about 550 detainees. The best thing about this job was that it got done. The detentions were incredibly hard on people. Most of the detainees had blue-collar jobs, and most of them were guilty of nothing other than violating immigration laws that typically had not been enforced. One day another agent came back from the Passaic County Jail. A man he had been interviewing had broken down in tears. Said that after 9/11 people called him horrible names and gossiped about bad things he was supposed to have done, things that he did not do. Called him a terrorist. Then he looked at the agent and said, I am Sikh. I’m not even Muslim.
-- Not Mr. Casual --
I am continually struck by the strangeness of living in a world where many people cannot connect with 9/11 in a visceral way. It is still so much with me. Five years after the attacks, I started working on counterterrorism full-time. Having spent most of the period since 9/11 looking closely at terrorist groups and religious extremism, these things weigh differently in my perspective than in most people’s. Some people see counterterrorism as essentially a political issue, even a fearmongering technique. It is sometimes both of those things. It is also very real. People who work in counterterrorism are correct in making this point: The fact that 9/11 happened once does mean that something like it could happen again. And the fact that we should have seen it coming the first time—we could have seen it, and we didn’t—instills everyone involved in counterterrorism with a vigilance that manifests as dread and fear. Not a fear of bad things happening, but fear of missing something. A relentless second-guessing. People who take this threat seriously are more on edge than people who don’t.
The FBI after 9/11 is a different entity from what it was before. There were agents who were working drugs on 9/10, and from the next day forward, for the rest of their careers, worked terrorism. I went back to my organized-crime squad, where we all expected that any day someone would walk in and say, Okay, C-24 is now Eurasian Terrorism. That didn’t happen, but terrorism changed the way we thought even about crime. The old tribal structure of the Bureau—criminal versus counterterrorism, knuckle-draggers versus pinheads—was blown away. Now we were all in it together.
In the summer of 2006 I moved out of organized crime and into counterterrorism. My first case was the London airliner plot. A bunch of young terrorists had learned how to make bombs out of easily available household products. The airliner plot is the reason why, today, when you get on an airplane, all your liquids, aerosols, gels, creams, and pastes have to fit inside a quart-sized plastic bag. The key word for understanding this case—its plain facts and its larger significance—is “components.”
The terrorists had devised a way to break down the components of explosive devices so that they could elude detection at airports by airport security and then reassemble the devices once an airliner was aloft. My unit and I gathered intelligence from the British investigation and tried to determine if any Americans were involved. Coordinating the various services—the FBI and CIA; British intelligence; and others—required learning how to share information seamlessly. This case also brought me face-to-face for the first time with the man who succeeded Louis Freeh as FBI director, Robert Mueller.
Over the next twelve years I would be fortunate to have a great deal of interaction with Mueller. He is not—and I think he would admit this, probably while feigning slight resistance for comic effect—Mr. Casual. He is not a charming communicator, the way Jim Comey can be. Mueller was a Marine lieutenant commanding a platoon in Vietnam. He achieves change through force of will. It was not a relaxing experience for me to be told, You’re going to brief the director twice a day on this case, every day at 7 A.M. and 5 P.M. Mueller was also a prosecutor. He cross-examines you every time you’re in front of him. Ball-busting is his way of expressing affection. If he said, Where does a person even find a tie like that? I knew things were fine: He never went out of his way to insult anyone he didn’t actually like. He had strict habits and boundaries. Dress: blue suit, white shirt, red tie. His idea of relaxed attire was losing the jacket and wearing a V-neck sweater over the shirt and tie. Later, when I traveled with him, Mueller’s most senior assistant said, The first rule is, Don’t be late—if you’re late, you will be left behind. Another rule was, Don’t talk to him during the flight. He’s reading and studying. If he has questions, he will get up from his seat and come back to speak with you. No matter where we were, no matter what was happening, when the day was done, he always went straight to his hotel room. Never stayed up late in the bar with the rest of us or invited people up to his room, the way Louis Freeh had when I traveled with him.
When I moved over to counterterrorism, it marked a permanent change in how I lived my life. Working in counterterrorism means approaching every holiday with an overwhelming sense of dread. Christmas is the Christmas Threat. New Year’s Eve is Times Square. There is not a single joyous holiday occasion that doesn’t have an undercurrent of Are we positioned correctly? Did we give the field the correct guidance? What do we know about the one hundred suspects we think are the closest to doing something violent? Work in counterterrorism means you’re always at an elevated state of alert, and all personal plans, no matter how important, are subject to change. On the way to my dad’s sixty-fifth birthday party, I got a call about a break in the airliner plot. I flew back to D.C. and went straight to the office. I regret having missed family celebrations like that and other parts of normal everyday life—but the choice was clear.
-- Operation Overt --
Thursday, August 10, 2006. At Heathrow, lights are off. Doors are locked. At every other airport where flights to Heathrow were scheduled to leave from—JFK, Reagan, de Gaulle, Dublin, Schiphol, Frankfurt, and more—departure terminals are mobbed. Security lines are thousands of people long. The lines don’t move. Today, nobody gets through. Traffic outside is backed up. People are bailing out of cars a mile away, trudging toward the terminal, and dragging suitcases behind them, streaming like crowds of refugees along the shoulders of highways.
On this day I woke at 4 A.M. and drove to work alone, on the toll road, listening to the radio. News reports described the bedlam at the airports. Three words drifted through my mind—We did this. I was connected to this chaos. My office was the place where, when we gave the word—because of something we had learned—the global transportation system went haywire. I could see the sprawling interconnectedness of what I would be doing at my desk today. I would be dealing with the consequences of an ongoing investigation into a plot to take down commercial airliners with ingeniously devised homemade bombs. Unexpectedly, an arrest had just been made, meaning that the terrorists would soon know we were onto them and maybe would launch their attack. So an alert had gone out to airline-security personnel worldwide—with results I was listening to on the radio.
The job of working counterterrorism is to prevent acts of terror. To protect people from an ambush out of nowhere. Stop them from getting hurt or killed. Foil plans of attack meant to pitch the world into a black hole of anxiety and fear. All of which can prompt, at times, a feeling of propulsion and even exhilaration, something that people in counterterrorism rarely discuss but would have to acknowledge. The intense, even addictive, feeling of priority. The sense of necessity built into the job. Necessity not just to your government but to other governments and to everyone you are responsible for protecting. Those feelings are validating—validating of the call that, in the first place, draws practically every agent to the Bureau, every officer to law enforcement.
I parked my car at Liberty Crossing 1. LX-1 is an intelligence facility on a little piece of land in McLean, Virginia. Onion layers of normality and strangeness make up the culture of this place, and it shows in the design. On the outside, LX-1 looks like a typical four-story office complex, modern and nondescript, its footprint in the shape of an X. On the inside, it contains elements of the FBI and the NCTC, the National Counterterrorism Center—since 2004, the country’s main nerve center for counterterrorism intelligence collection and analysis. The NCTC includes representatives of all the U.S. intelligence agencies that work terrorism. Hallways are lined with massive, solid-oak doors. The work spaces behind those doors, known as vaults, don’t look much different from the cubicles you’d find in any office. Because of all the classified material handled here, the whole building is a sensitive compartmented information facility, or SCIF, pronounced “skiff.”
Face pale, eyes frozen in a thousand-yard stare: That was my ID picture, taken on my first day on the job there, in May 2006. What had I gotten myself into? I had left a tight community in New York, where I was a leader. I had jumped into a field I barely knew, with a unit of agents who were strangers, in a section known as the meat grinder: International Terrorism Operations Section I—ITOS-1. Another job, another acronym. (“ITOS” is pronounced “AYE-toss.”)
Setting up ITOS-1 was one of the Bureau’s first steps toward becoming an intelligence-gathering and terrorism-prevention organization. Before the Twin Towers fell, there had been just two counterterrorism units at FBI headquarters—the Osama bin Laden Unit and the Radical Fundamentalist Unit. Those units would grow and the number of units multiply. By the time I got to headquarters, the FBI had two counterterrorism sections, encompassing more than ten units. My section, ITOS-1, covering all cases involving Sunni extremists, had six units corresponding to geographic territories. Four units—called the CONUS units (“CONUS” rhymes with “bonus”)—covered the continental United States. A fifth, the Arabian Peninsula Unit, also covered Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Asia. The sixth, the Extraterritorial Investigations Unit—the ETIU—covered the rest of the world: Europe, Canada, Africa, South America, Eastern Europe, and Russia. I was the ETIU unit chief.
Counterterrorism is a tough job. The work is grueling, devouring nights and weekends. You operate with zero margin for error. Worse, merely by identifying someone as a threat, you and the FBI take responsibility for that threat. If a terror subject comes on my radar, and I investigate and find nothing, but five years later the suspect launches a deadly attack, it’s on me. Why wasn’t that guy stopped five years ago?
Despite those burdens, and also because of them, morale in counterterrorism units is high. I loved working there. After all their years of service, most agents look back on one division or squad or field office as having been their home in the FBI. For me, ITOS-1 was home. The section had tremendous camaraderie because everyone was toughing it out together. A huge sense of mutual respect and self-respect emerged from the job’s relentless pace.
Regularity and accountability were the principles that drove our work. Meetings happened every day, rain or shine. And every day our section chief, Michael Heimbach, who ran ITOS-1, held us accountable. Mike Heimbach was the FBI’s answer to George Hamilton, the actor: chestnut tan, slicing smile, extremely expressive eyebrows. Heimbach’s management style involved a lot of laying down of dares. A standard Heimbach line was, It’s time to step up. In the daily morning briefing, we all got our heads screwed on straight so we could march forward in the right direction. In the wrap that afternoon, we shared progress reports, answered questions from Heimbach, and spoke freely about longer-range issues. Working under such orderly management was new for me. As a supervisor in New York, I had struggled to schedule formal meetings with my squad even once a month. But I took the ITOS-1 model of orderly management into every job I had later.
Living with a daily expectation of progress reports ingrained the importance of follow-through. Heimbach would never dance around a central question. He always came right at it, always carried himself with confidence that answers would be given. Dissembling, obviously, was not acceptable in these conversations. Neither was self-delusion or trimming. Dishonesty and obfuscation are strategies that people engage in when they think the questions they’ve been asked will eventually just go away. ITOS-1 was a culture where everyone knew that legitimate questions always had to be answered. Where everyone knew that legitimate questions never go away.
-- ‘When Are We Going to Fix This?’ --
That summer we had started getting information from British intelligence about a group of young men in London. The men had come to the attention of British security services through the investigation of the London transport system attack the prior year. On July 7, 2005, four suicide bombers in London had killed fifty-two people and injured nearly eight hundred more on the Underground and a double-decker bus. A few weeks later, a man named Abdulla Ahmed Ali came to the attention of MI5, the British security service whose focus is on domestic matters. (MI6 is the service that operates overseas. The division is roughly that between the FBI and the CIA.) A tip suggested that Ali might be connected to those bombings. The Brits put him under surveillance and kept collecting intelligence on Ali for a year. Then Ali went to Pakistan.
Surveillance there found that Ali was spending time with an extremist named Rashid Rauf. Rauf had fled Britain in 2002, under suspicion for his uncle’s death by stabbing in Birmingham. Now he was an operational planner for al-Qaeda in Pakistan. In cooperation with an al-Qaeda senior commander, Rauf taught Ali how to build liquid explosive devices using common chemicals—peroxide, hexamine, citric acid—that could be detonated with AA batteries.
Ali went back to England, paid cash to buy a little apartment, and started experimenting. He and his friends bought plastic bottles of a sports drink called Lucozade—a British version of Gatorade—and they worked on turning each one into a handheld bomb. They would drill a small hole through the plastic nub in the bottom of the bottle. They would let the liquid drain out from that hole. They would use a hypodermic needle to inject the empty bottle with explosive ingredients. Then they would seal the hole with epoxy. Properly assembled, each device was powerful enough to blow through the cabin wall of a commercial passenger jet.
This whole operation was being watched. By now, British investigators had cameras and microphones in the apartment where the experiments took place. Around the country, some twenty other subjects were being tracked. The conversations were sobering. After one young father took a child to play in a park on a weekend, he was overheard struggling openly with the knowledge that when he became a suicide bomber, he would never see his child again. He and his associates were forming a plan to take bombs on flights from London, we believed, to the United States, and then to kill themselves and everyone else on those flights.
The members of this terrorist cell also had connections to people in the U.S. Those connections were the FBI’s big concern. Monitoring the American side of threats was traditionally the Bureau’s role. To do that, we needed the best and freshest intelligence about the situation. Did we know exactly what the CIA knew? Were they giving us what we needed so that we could do the work we needed to do? It’s not enough for the Brits to say, Our bad guy here in London talked to three people in New York last week. The FBI has no way of knowing what that means until we get the names. We need to open cases in order to figure out if they’re just family members of some bad guy and know nothing, or if they are passive collaborators, or if they are actively doing bad stuff on their own.
The name of this case was Operation Overt. The Brits named it. I have no idea why they called it that. Counterterrorism case names were frequently obscure or awful. Kinetic Panda, Bubble Puppy, Milk Can. Mueller would always ask, Where did that name come from? The person briefing him would usually answer, We have a machine that gives us the names. It’s random. It comes from the machine.
I hate it, he would say. Or—since the FBI does not in fact have a naming machine—he would say, I don’t believe you.
Operation Overt fell under my aegis. As a result, I became the FBI’s conduit for information flowing from several directions, formal and informal. The British provided daily written reports to the FBI legat in London, who passed them on to me. Colleagues in Pakistan did the same for our legats in Islamabad. If the legats had drinks or dinner with their local partners, they’d give me the skinny afterward. I had extensive conversations with the legat in London. At some point in the process, I started riding over to Langley every day with Art Cummings, the deputy assistant director for counterterrorism, to sit in on the secure video teleconferences with foreign counterparts at the Agency’s Counterterrorism Center. My unit and I had to suck back all this information, figure out if there was a U.S. angle, and open cases—which involved surveillance on those targets from field offices and more information ricocheting back to headquarters. We had about 150 agents checking bank accounts, credit cards, communications, travel. We opened 150 or so cases. We had court-authorized electronic surveillance on the communications of a small number of subjects, which generated more information on the individuals we deemed of greatest concern.
We pulled at threads to see if something might unravel. Send me the honey, read one line of one transcript of an intercept. I’m going to the wedding in Massachusetts, read another line of another transcript. We were inclined to interpret such things in the widest possible ways. In counterterrorism, “wedding,” for instance, has historically been used as a substitute word for an attack. But sometimes a wedding is only a wedding. And it’s as common to ship honey back and forth in Yemen as it is to FedEx a contract in the U.S. But how can you be certain whether honey is more than honey?
Piecing all this information and insinuation into a coherent picture would have been challenging in an atmosphere of mutual confidence, honesty, and trust. International interagency relations during that time could not have been described in those terms. British and American intelligence did not have high confidence in each other. No one was sure what was happening in Pakistan. Everyone connected with this investigation spent a lot of time wondering what they weren’t being told.
There was also a lot of distrust between the CIA and the Bureau in those days. The FBI was always wondering, Are they telling us everything? The CIA was always wary: Don’t tell them everything because they’ll screw it up. The two agencies got along better than they had prior to 9/11, but things were far from perfect. You can’t repair relations with the flip of a switch. We cherished our mutual suspicions. With Overt, the FBI quickly saw that we should be working our end of this thing, and quickly moved to make the CIA cut us in and be more transparent.
One part of my job was to distill all this into a briefing for the director, twice a day, every day. Whether I briefed Mueller face-to-face or by secure videoconference, I always brought a fresh link chart. Pictures, name tags, colored string, pushpins: On TV and in movies, obsessive investigators build elaborate link charts to show connections among persons of interest. These portrayals are not far from the truth. We build charts because charts help us solve problems. Put somebody’s picture on the chart, and you find yourself thinking about that person. Leave the person off, and you might not. Mueller had a lot of quirks about the link charts. He detested diagonal lines. Some colors he liked. Some he didn’t. The most important rule was not to use too many colors and not to use bright colors. This wasn’t an eccentricity—it was wisdom gained from experience. Sharply contrasting colors could become distracting and could also make you think that colors that were different had nothing to do with one another. Mueller did not want to be distracted, and he also wanted to be able to see the problem whole. He wanted to know everything that we knew but did not want clutter. Sometimes he would take out the chart and suddenly you would see his face fall, as if to say the kind of thing that he would rarely say: Who made this piece of crap?
The chart was always changing—names appearing and disappearing—and in each meeting I had to talk through every single element that had changed since last time. Mueller would kick back in his chair, sitting up very straight. Put his hand to his mouth. Circle his chin—really, polish it—with his knuckles. You could see him thinking, making connections, preparing questions. He might interrupt with a curveball—What happened with that guy who was going to the wedding in Massachusetts next week?—recollecting some little piece of information that I’d given him in the days before. I had to be ready for anything.
If he leaned forward, it was a very bad sign. Mueller leans forward only when frustrated. He gestures, taps his finger on the table. He points—he is a pointer. Also a hand tosser. He tosses his hands and sighs. If he leaned forward, looking at the chart, and then smacked the side of his hand against his head—then it was all over. Time to grab that stick and aim the plane back to the sky, because you are about to crash. When the hand hits the head, Mueller is not with you. Does not put faith in what you’re saying. Or is just not following. You have not communicated a good position effectively.
The most memorable thing about briefing Robert Mueller, though, was the questions. Always the questions, welling up from his prosecutorial soul. Cross-examination is one of Mueller’s most basic forms of human interaction, and it’s the vehicle for one of his most basic traits: curiosity. He loved to get down into the details and fire off questions one after another in a firm, clear, resonant, courtroom voice.
Sometimes in briefings he would eviscerate people who did not know what they were talking about, hadn’t followed up on things that he’d asked them to follow up on, or were bringing him the same problem they had brought months earlier but made no progress on. Evisceration was an occupational hazard for analysts, especially, because analysts like to chew on both sides of a question. Could be this, could be that. They are inclined to provide indirect answers to direct questions in exchanges along these lines:
Mueller: Is this guy a danger?
Analyst: He seems to have extremist beliefs, but I haven’t seen him do anything illegal. I don’t have access to everything the Agency has.
Mueller: Why not? We talked about this three weeks ago when we spoke about that other case. Have we made progress? Last time we talked, I told you to get with the CIA and fix this. Make sure that we’re getting what they’re getting. Why are we stumbling across the same problem again? When are we going to fix this? Really. Tell me when this problem will be fixed.
I learned early on that if I didn’t know something, it was infinitely better to say, I don’t know the answer to that, sir, but I will get it for you—because that would end the matter. He wouldn’t rub your nose in it. But if you promised to get the answer, you had to follow through and get the answer. You would never just make the promise as a way of making him back off. You would figure it out, put it in an email, send it to his chief of staff. And that could be as good as knowing the answer initially, because you were showing that you were thorough, you followed through, you were resolving his question—which was the most important thing. Because everyone knew, in Mueller’s FBI, that legitimate questions do not go away.
By the time I got through the morning cycle of briefings and got back to my office, it seemed like I had five minutes before I had to meet Art and go to the CIA. By the time we got back from there, it was noon: time to start deciding what to say in the afternoon meeting with the director. Sometimes it seemed the briefing cycle was more important than the information—were we working the briefing or working the threat? The truth is, they’re inextricably related, and you have to work both. Tension was high. I would constantly analyze every gesture Mueller made, every word he said. I watched him as closely as I watched the intelligence.
-- Rocks in Our Pockets --
Then a man got arrested in southern Punjab, bringing a giant swath of the global air-traffic system to a halt. While the Brits had been monitoring the network of collaborators in Britain, other intelligence services had been pursuing a vigorous ground operation to locate Rauf in Pakistan. When the Pakistanis nabbed him in the city of Bahawalpur, on or around August 9, it took the Brits by surprise. It took the FBI by surprise, too. Also airport security, everywhere.
For no one was this a completely happy surprise. Arresting Rauf was like taking a card out of the bottom of a house of cards. At that point, the whole investigation came down. When Rauf was taken into custody, all the suspects in the UK had to be taken into custody, because once they got word of his arrest, they could have rushed their plot forward or taken it underground.
The timing of a takedown like this needs to be carefully choreographed. You don’t want to do it suddenly. You have to be up on your surveillance to see how all the contacts respond. You have to coordinate arrests and searches—more than twenty arrests, in this case, and more than fifty searches. You have to agree on what Brits call “forms of words”—the precise wording of legal documents and of media releases, so those statements are all positioned and ready to go. Airport security has to be briefed, so they can revise their standards rationally, not in a panic.
All these processes of preparation had begun, but we were nowhere near ready. Absurd warnings got dropped on TSA and its many variants around the world: Look out for Gatorade or Lucozade bottles that might have had their bottoms drilled out. Immediately, nobody could take a carry-on bag onto an airplane. Nobody could take a liquid on any flight anywhere.
The follow-on consequences of Rauf’s arrest were at the top of the news as I drove into work that morning. In the coming hours, there would be a lot of shouting inside the FBI and inside British intelligence: How the hell did this happen? I understood all too well what had happened. There’s always a tension between the desire to keep collecting intelligence and the need to disrupt a plot before anyone gets hurt. Case by case, experts will often disagree over where the sweet spot is. Sometimes people will jump the gun. The jumpers see themselves as prudent. There should be no sudden jumps. I was as unnerved by the sudden move as anybody. On the highway to LX-1 in the early-morning dark, though, my momentary reaction to this turn of events was something more like wonder.
Overt was a lesson in that basic tension within counterterrorism. Is it time to take this down, or do we need to let it go a little further? We never had those conversations about Operation Overt in the way we should have, because Rauf’s arrest brought the whole thing to an end so suddenly. That disruption was a radical departure from how we worked counterterrorism in the Bush administration.
One of my first bosses in counterterrorism used to tell a story. A boy walks down the beach. Sees a pretty rock lying on the sand. Squats down, picks it up. This rock is perfect for his rock collection, the boy thinks—and he puts it in his pocket—and then off to the side another rock, glinting in the sunlight, catches the boy’s eye. He goes and picks up that one, too. Then another rock, and another, and the boy goes on like that until he is so weighted down with perfect rocks to take home that he can’t carry them all. He plops down in the sand, paralyzed by treasure.
The FBI counterterrorism division, my boss said, was like that boy. Any shiny thing we saw, we picked it up. In those years—the years of collection—we wanted to know everything that we could possibly know about what our subjects were doing and about the networks that they might be functioning within, so that we could find out more about the threat in general.
We collected to the verge of overload because, as an organization, the FBI didn’t know what we didn’t know about terrorism. We did not know much about whether there were al-Qaeda operatives in this country, or what they might look like if they were here. We were trying to establish a net of collection that would show us the dangerous people and show us how those people were connected to dangerous people overseas. We opened cases, opened more cases, and then kept opening cases. We had pockets full of rocks.
That approach came with high costs. It cost human resources. We had to keep renewing FISA warrants, had to maintain and monitor electronic surveillance, had to keep translating what came off the surveillance, had to keep analyzing all the data. We weren’t even sure how to identify the point of diminishing returns. In the dance of collection and disruption, the art is sensing a delicate balance: the time when you’ve collected enough to understand the immediate threat—the subject you’re following or investigating—and also to understand the broader potential impact of that person and the person’s involvements. When you feel you’ve hit that point, you’ve got to be able to disrupt.
But in the Bush years, we erred heavily on the side of collection. The pressure, in every case, was to collect. Do you have FISA up, do you have enough FISA up, are you collecting enough, who are you going to go up on next? The pressure was never to make an arrest next week. To make an arrest, you had to prove something almost impossible to prove: that you’ve squeezed the lemon dry, that there is no more juice in this investigation.
Collection and disruption roughly correlate with two parallel investigative approaches: muscling and targeting. Muscling drove the FBI’s post-9/11 drill of running every lead. If we got thirty thousand leads in a month, so what? In those days, when agents got a counterterrorism lead, we would muscle it, hammer it, throw people and eyes and effort at every line of every spreadsheet, never sleep or stop or take days off, because we were t-crossing, i-dotting, shoe-leather-destroying beasts.
Consider, for example, the threat of the so-called California Brothers. This was a potential threat that bedeviled us the whole time I was in ITOS. It grew out of a report that suggested an al-Qaeda member had referred once to “the brothers in California.”
The California Brothers became a source of unending worry, hysteria, and frustration. I can’t even remember where the idea of this threat began. But I can guarantee that if you walked up behind any ITOS agent from that era, even today, and whispered the words “California Brothers,” that agent would jump back, punch you, maybe shoot you, while dropping dead from a heart attack.
Once or twice a year, another agency might send a cable, continuing a series of what we came to call the Scary Cables, in which some analyst would observe that a shift in the wind had been recorded in Tajikistan at the precise moment when sixteen chickens in Alabama had simultaneously laid green speckled eggs, and then go on to suggest that the intersection of these events, in all likelihood, pointed to California—raising the ongoing concern that the California Brothers had yet to be identified.
The implication of the Scary Cables was always, What have you done about the Brothers, FBI? This would provoke such massive hysterical reactions among the ITOS leadership, me included, that we would do things like re-review every single case in every field office in California. Or go out and check for every male between the ages of X and Y who traveled to California from country Z. These were massive data-gathering exercises that consumed huge amounts of investigative and analytical resources and turned up nothing.
We were, yes, looking for a needle in a haystack. But our general attitude was: The FBI’s not afraid of haystacks. We’re that good, we’re that strong, that is who we are—we do hard stuff better than anybody. If FBI agents have to take each stalk of hay off that stack, inspect it individually, and replace it precisely where it was before, we will goddamn do that, and for your convenience also provide you with a spreadsheet by four o’clock this afternoon that tallies all stalks of hay that were inspected in the last twelve hours. And this will be no sweat. And it will be preferable by far to taking the risk of failing to sweep up that one crucial bit of hay that we should have gotten.
That, in a nutshell, was the FBI’s muscling approach to counterterrorism in 2006: If you tell me there’s a terrorist in California, I will go to California and look at every human being in the state.
Muscling was driven by fear—the fear of missing something. Our biggest fear after 9/11 was that more people in the U.S. were connected to al-Qaeda or similar groups. That fear proved legitimate. Operation Overt helped make it clear that al-Qaeda was in fact metastasizing. Its members did want to strike us again. They did want to hit aviation. And they were quickly discovering the internet’s power as a tool for terrorist recruitment and planning.
Just before I moved to headquarters, and just before Overt went into high gear, the FBI arrested two U.S. citizens who had been radicalized by online contact with jihadist recruiters abroad. Ehsanul Islam Sadequee and Syed Haris Ahmed lived in Georgia—in Roswell and Atlanta. Through web forums, they had been in contact with a Brit named Younis Tsouli, an early author of online propaganda for al-Qaeda in Iraq. (Online, Tsouli actually called himself “Irhabi007”—Arabic for “Terrorist 007.”) Sadequee and Ahmed traveled to Washington, D.C., and made some videos, casing targets for terrorist attacks—the Capitol, the World Bank headquarters, a fuel-tank farm along I-95—and sent these videos to Tsouli and to another contact in Britain. They traveled to Canada to meet with the ringleader of the Toronto 18—a group that was planning to attack a range of targets from power grids to the Canadian Parliament building. Ahmed traveled to Pakistan and Sadequee traveled to Bangladesh, where they discussed plans that didn’t get much traction—for instance, plans for the creation of an “Al-Qaeda in Northern Europe,” to be based in Sweden.
These two were idiots, but they had no-kidding connections to al-Qaeda, and they were doing jihadist work. How important or threatening was that work? Unclear. They were not building bombs in their basements, with a view to blowing stuff up tomorrow. But for more than a year, they made consistent efforts to participate in preliminary planning and casing for al-Qaeda attacks here in the U.S. and abroad.
Theirs was one of the first cases with a real operational connection to the internet. The internet pervades human existence so thoroughly now that it can be hard to remember how recently life was mainly analog. When was the point of no return? Maybe around 2006. In July of that year, a microblogging platform called Twitter debuted for the public. In September, Facebook launched a new feature called “News Feed” and opened membership to all comers, where before you had to be part of a college or school network to join. In 2006, YouTube was barely a year old. The first iPhones didn’t go on sale until 2007.
Terrorists were enthusiastic early adopters of every new technology. In 2006, when al-Qaeda launched a digital-media initiative, it pushed out more messages in one year than the group had released in the previous three years combined. The internet made it much, much easier for al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and susceptible Westerners to connect and share information with one another. New social media platforms in particular gave everyone, from hardened terrorists to innocent teenagers, tools to make spectacles of themselves, for good and for ill. In Operation Overt, when we saw that half a dozen of the conspirators had made “martyrdom videos”—a suicide bomber’s version of a suicide note—we knew it was a harbinger of things to come. The melodrama of terrorism, always cranked to 10 on the crazy meter, was about to ratchet up even higher as technological capabilities kept growing.
DVDs were already big. As of Christmas 2006, DVD players outnumbered VHS players in American households for the first time. A lot of stores were doing good business with a run-of-the-mill job: transferring old videotapes onto new DVDs. Around this time, a video-store clerk in New Jersey was doing a transfer and could not believe what he was seeing on the screen. The tape showed ten young men shooting automatic weapons. They were yelling, “Allahu Akbar!” and talking about jihad. The clerk saw something, the clerk said something.
We put the young men under surveillance. They were Muslim. Half of them were in the country illegally. They liked to get together and watch Osama bin Laden videos, or videos of American soldiers being attacked—when they saw a Marine being blown up, they thought it was funny. They were planning to attack a military base and had their eyes on Fort Dix. We shut that down.
In June 2007, we wrapped up a sixteen-month-long sting operation on Russell Defreitas, a U.S. resident from Guyana connected to an extremist Muslim group in the Caribbean. Defreitas planned to blow up fuel lines and fuel tanks at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York. He made some very incriminating statements, which allowed us to intervene before he could do anything. “Anytime you hit Kennedy, it is the most hurtful thing to the United States,” Defreitas was heard to say in a recorded conversation. “They love John F. Kennedy like he’s the man.… If you hit that, the whole country will be in mourning. It’s like you can kill the man twice.”
Disruption of plots such as these sparked two kinds of conversation. The first happened in courtrooms—the formal legal proceedings to prosecute people for breaking laws. The second happened everywhere else—the informal public conversation about law enforcement and terror.
Disruption always kicks off a three-day news cycle that opens the Bureau up to criticism. On day one, everyone is shocked at the plot that has been uncovered, riveted by the danger, and relieved to hear of the arrest. By day three, the tone has turned 180 degrees. Now the story is, These guys couldn’t have pulled off a serious attack. They failed out of kindergarten and their ex-wives say they have mental disabilities. The theme of the conversation becomes, The FBI is taking advantage of goofballs who probably couldn’t have blown up a balloon.
The operative word there is “probably.” The FBI does not have the luxury of assessing whether people are fully capable of doing what they suggest they might do. If you are inclined to film yourself firing an AK-47 while hollering about jihad, and if you are taking affirmative actions in line with those sentiments, then you have cast the die and have set yourself up for investigation. It would not be a reasonable response to those situations if the FBI were to say, Well, this guy, he’s kind of dumb, so we’ll just leave him be—we only build cases on people who got good grades in high school. That would not be a wise or just process. But it’s the strange way some people suggest we should operate.
-- From Muscling to Targeting --
Some of the disruptions I’ve described were partly enabled by more targeted investigative techniques. Many targeting techniques are based on access to and organization of data. In truth, targeting isn’t that much easier than muscling, but its ambitions usually fall a little bit shy of muscling’s ideal of omniscience.
A targeted approach to finding the California Brothers might have looked like this: First, we go to all the terrorists we know in California, around California, in states not even close to California, and then maybe in foreign countries that have flights to California. Then we look at all those people and see if, in their networks, we can make a connection to California. That will give us a pretty good lead. Targeting is the Bureau’s preferred mode of counterterrorism investigation today.
To get from muscling to targeting, the Bureau had to develop a certain level of confidence in its own ability and experience, and a certain tolerance of risk. Our overblown response to the California Brothers is a perfect illustration of how little risk we were capable of handling during the Bush years. By “we,” I mean not just the FBI but Americans as a whole. What do Americans do as soon as any tragedy strikes? We immediately go back with a microscope and try to figure out which individual to hold responsible. To some degree it’s an understandable reaction. But taken to an extreme, it expresses and perpetuates damaging and unrealistic expectations about how intelligence and law-enforcement services are able to function in society.
A turning point in the Bureau’s shift from muscling to targeting was Bryant Neal Vinas. He was a Latino kid from Long Island who shattered some of our preconceived notions about al-Qaeda. Prior to Vinas, we thought it wasn’t possible to get sources in al-Qaeda, wasn’t possible to send cooperators into the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan (FATA) to start really developing relationships. There was a notion that al-Qaeda was so expert in sniffing out spies in their ranks that all roads to the FATA were lined with the severed heads of failed infiltrators. It was too dangerous a proposition to operate the kinds of sources—cooperators or undercover—that we would do with organized-crime or terror groups in the U.S.
Vinas had converted to Islam, hopped on a plane, flown to Pakistan, and joined up with al-Qaeda. He took part in an attack on an American base, then went to Peshawar to find himself a wife. The Pakistanis arrested him and turned him over to us. He was charged with material support of terrorism—our meat-and-potatoes charge for people who become affiliated with terrorist groups—and he decided to cooperate. He let loose with all kinds of eye-opening intelligence about the process of affiliating with al-Qaeda, meetings with high-level al-Qaeda leadership, how he got there, and other Westerners he met along the way. From that we were able to take a closer look at people whom Vinas met and the people they knew. It was a giant leap in the evolution of the targeting process, much more efficient and less legally dubious than some of the earlier ideas that hypothetically might have made it onto the counterterrorism-division whiteboard—looking at every twenty-year-old who traveled to Pakistan last year, for instance.
After learning the story given to us by Vinas, a lot of people in the Bureau thought, Oh, my God, is it that easy? If a kid from Long Island could do it, why couldn’t we? We proceeded cautiously. It’s not like all of a sudden the floodgates opened and we sent every Joey Bagadonuts from Staten Island over to Waziristan. But Vinas did change how we thought about our options. His experience told us that al-Qaeda would talk to foreigners, as long as those foreigners were not on the radar of intelligence services as people who might be associated with terrorism. They wanted people who had “clean” passports—passports that would allow travel back to Western Europe or the U.S. without visas. For al-Qaeda or ISIS, that’s the prime asset for a Western operative. To recruit a person with a clean passport, indoctrinate them, turn them around, and send them back—that’s their goal, and that’s our nightmare.
For the Bureau, Vinas was also a turning point in terms of confidence building. Not only did he provide more information, he helped us see the situation of recruitment from a different angle. That let us become much more aggressive in identifying people in the U.S. with potential capability to work for us on the ground. After Vinas, we developed sources that became extremely valuable to the U.S. intelligence community. He also turned us on to a number of specific people whom we began to look at with more of a targeting mentality. We saw how those people connected to one another, where they came from, where they were going.
There was never a watershed moment in the shift from muscling to targeting. The FBI never decided, Tomorrow we’re going to do everything differently. The Bureau evolved over time. We learned by doing. Where we succeeded, we pursued.
We are still shadowed by expectations that we should be muscling machines. Today, when we open an investigation on U.S.-based extremists, we are thinking from day one about disruption. From the first minute of collection, we are looking for things that could be used as evidence in some kind of criminal prosecution. Constantly thinking, What do we have on this guy? Is he a felon who happens to be in possession of a firearm? Did he lie to Customs and Border Protection last time he entered on his flight from Pakistan? When he’s not in the mosque, is he selling coke on the corner?
We’re constantly building into the case a disruption strategy. We do that for two reasons. In case he’s a serious threat, or in case he’s no threat. In the first scenario, we consider disruption because flash to bang, the time between inspiration and action, tends to be quicker now. A suspect can be receiving instructions from Syria on his smartphone while he’s shopping at the grocery store—so we may need to take him into custody immediately at any time. In the event that he’s not a serious threat, if no plot and no immediate risk develops, there will come a time when we realize that we have collected enough. There will come a time when we see that the guy doesn’t seem to have any true connections—sure, he’s following propaganda, he’s following Twitter feeds, but in reality he’s not talking to anybody overseas. He has a small number of friends here, but none of them seem to be interested in his supposed desire to blow up a bank or a restaurant. So we will just take the case down—make an arrest if appropriate, or simply close the investigation. Because we don’t want to carry it around for another five years.
Which is what we did with the 150-odd cases connected to Operation Overt. The FBI was just like the boy on the beach. We carried the load of Overt cases around for what seemed like forever. Most of those cases went nowhere: The people had no nexus to terrorism and were not engaged in any activity that was terrorist related. But some were indeed engaged in suspicious activities, and some were arrested for terrorism-related offenses.
When the stakes are high—when people feel desperate, and when they want to act with an abundance of caution—there’s a real temptation to muscle it. But in the years to come, as I continued working counterterrorism and played my part in the shift to targeting, I would often consider our collaborations on Overt. The CIA, to its credit, will muscle nothing. We learned a lot about targeting from our interactions with the Agency, just developing our relationship with them and reaping the benefits of their targeting activity. Working with the Brits, who have a more realistic risk tolerance, also helped a lot. They know their population includes extremists. They accept that fact. They calmly try to focus on the people who appear to be most likely to act on those beliefs. Start with known bad guys, known bad organizations, and work out from there. Don’t just look for every brother in California.
As for Rashid Rauf, whose capture took so many by surprise, he was not in confinement for long. The next year, Rauf managed to escape after an extradition hearing when he asked to stop at a mosque for afternoon prayers. Some while later he found himself in the wrong place at the wrong time and ended up dead. Which can happen when you’re a high-profile terrorist in a dangerous part of the world.
Chapter Four
Interrogation: Asking the Right Questions, and Asking the Right Way
-- A Cooler Full of Flour --
In the late summer of 2009, Mike Heimbach gave me a call. He said, I need you to go to Denver to help them work on a CT case. The case was called High Rise. It involved a potential plot to attack mass transportation in a major city. I asked, When do you need me to go? He answered, Tomorrow.
High Rise was heating up. Because the Denver field office had not had much experience with counterterrorism, the case was causing some struggle. A situation like the one unfolding in Colorado creates a lot of special needs, just in terms of information flow. The director requires regular updates, and a thick stream of intelligence has to be nimbly routed among various departments at headquarters and throughout the intel community. Asking a field office to manage all that in the middle of a crisis is onerous. If they don’t execute flawlessly, they’re liable to get buried. Today, with the benefit of lots of counterterror crisis experience, headquarters collaborates well with the field. A decade ago, when the FBI began experimenting with sending HQ agents to the field as liaisons, agents in field offices sometimes felt they were being bigfooted by a babysitter. That was the reception I faced in Denver.
The subject of High Rise was Najibullah Zazi, a twenty-four-year-old Afghani raised in Pakistan and then in Flushing, Queens. After high school, Zazi ran a coffee cart in lower Manhattan, near Ground Zero. Along with two of his high school friends, Adis Medunjanin and Zarein Ahmedzay, Zazi became radicalized. Following his father’s lead, Zazi sided with Taliban sympathizers at his local mosque. He and his friends watched hundreds of lectures by jihadist imams. They watched internet videos of American soldiers being ambushed. Zazi also fell into debt and went bankrupt.
In 2008, he and his friends traveled to Pakistan. They connected with highly placed al-Qaeda terrorists, who provided weapons training and taught them to build bombs. They went through what amounted to Terrorism 101—complete with graduation—and came back to the U.S. Together, they hatched a plan to detonate homemade explosives on the New York City subway. They planned to do this on September 11, 2009—the eighth anniversary of 9/11. Intelligence indicated they were directed by influential al-Qaeda operatives, possibly including Rashid Rauf, a key figure in the London airliner plot.
Back in the U.S., Zazi and his parents moved to Colorado, where Zazi conducted experiments in bomb building. He was following directions he’d been given in Pakistan. He would go to beauty-supply stores and buy chemicals like hydrogen peroxide in bulk. (When an employee at one of the beauty-supply stores made a comment about the volume of his purchases, Zazi said, “I have a lot of girlfriends.”) He rented hotel rooms where he practiced cooking the peroxide down to potent concentrations. On Memorial Day weekend 2009, the FBI got a tip that Zazi’s communications to his trainer back in Pakistan had been intercepted. That’s what set us to looking at him.
By the time I got involved, Zazi had completed his experiments. He had taken the bomb-making materials he’d constructed, put them in his rental car, and started driving to New York. Along the way, he got pulled over for speeding—upward of a hundred miles per hour—but the materials were not found. On the weekend of the 9/11 anniversary, he was in New York. He and his associates were tipped off to FBI and New York Police Department surveillance by Ahmad Wais Afzali, a Queens imam who knew them and who was also serving as a source on this case for the NYPD’s Intelligence Division. (The imam’s double-agent work later caught up with him—he was charged with making a false statement in a terrorism investigation and, as part of a plea deal, he left the U.S. for Saudi Arabia.)
Spooked by the surveillance, Zazi hopped a flight back to Colorado. Unbeknownst to him, more than a few of his fellow passengers were undercover FBI agents. By the time I arrived, Zazi was still in Colorado, and he knew that we knew something and were investigating him vigorously.
Any major case like this is chaotic. The whole field office works on it. Everybody operates around the clock. In the FBI, the agent who opens a case or is the first assigned to a case owns that case, period. The case agent is king. Every case agent has a partner, a co–case agent, who lends a hand. But essentially the case agent is responsible for every aspect of the investigation for that case, from surveillance to warrants to evidence analysis to interviews. In a typical case, such as a onetime bank robbery, handling the details is straightforward. A massive national-security case that involves multiple field offices, multiple search warrants, mountains of evidence, and thousands of pages of handwritten notes needing to be transcribed can turn anyone into a one-armed paper hanger. It’s more than any one human being can handle.
You have to run those cases in a different way: Assign discrete elements of the investigation to discrete teams and create a structure of oversight for each slice of the pie. One agent, for instance, will be in charge of phones. Whatever phones we come across, whatever phones we seize, whatever phones we’re interested in, we lob them over to you, the phone person in charge of the phone bucket. The phone person should be able to say at any given moment how many phones we have, whose phones we have, what kinds of phones those are, which ones we’re able to get into, which ones are encrypted and we can’t get into, what we’re doing to pursue access to those phones, and where the process stands on each of those phones. If we seized the main suspect’s T-Mobile phone, has the warrant been served on T-Mobile? If so, did we get the results back? If so, have the results been uploaded into the system and analyzed? Even that list of questions, for multiple phones from multiple suspects, pretty quickly becomes overwhelming for any individual. So the person in charge of the phone bucket generally oversees a team of people working various aspects of the enterprise. It’s a grueling job.
Physical searches aren’t a whole lot simpler. And you never know when a demanding, complicated operation is going to suddenly get much more complicated. I got to Denver just before the field office executed search warrants at Zazi’s apartment and at the home of his aunt and uncle. Executing such warrants involves seizing such a massive amount of potential evidence that no one person can fully keep track of what the organization has. In this case, one of the main things we were looking for was bomb-making material. During the search of one of Zazi’s residences, agents opened the door to a bedroom closet and found a five-gallon Igloo cooler filled with white powder. Who keeps five gallons of white powder in a cooler on the floor of a bedroom closet? The team immediately thought it might have found enough of the peroxide-based explosive TATP to take down the entire building. So on an already full day, Denver had to cordon off the area, lock down the apartment complex, evacuate the building, and bring in bomb-recovery personnel. It turned out that the bucket the agents had left in place contained … five gallons of flour.
Every crisis has moments like this. A big pack of investigators can be like a bunch of very young kids playing soccer: Everybody chases the ball. In any game where everybody chases the ball, you can be sure that almost everybody is ignoring important stuff that needs doing. So in every crisis, you have to keep a kind of balance about the situation, and an inward distance, despite the fact that your mind is blowing up at all the crazy things that are happening. Effective response to chaos involves keeping meticulous order.
In the midst of all this, Zazi called the FBI field office, out of the blue, and said, I want to talk. We did not ask Zazi to be interviewed. He just volunteered and was coming in. The case agent got a heads-up about the development. He came to me and said, Zazi’s coming in. What do you think I should ask him?
Inside, my response was like smothering a silent scream as I considered how, in this situation and cases like it, the Bureau should have had a whole team of people involved: those who knew everything about Zazi’s life, family, and associates; those who were plugged into all of the information we’d collected from the investigation in New York; and those who could distill from this mass of information the requirements—that is, the questions and topics—that we wanted Zazi to discuss. I also wondered, for this important interview, whether the case agent was the right person to do it. If the case agent is new to the job, maybe not. If the case agent’s career has been mostly focused on national security, maybe not. It has been my impression that agents who mainly work counterterrorism have conducted fewer interviews than agents who do criminal work. Zazi’s was one of the more mature and better-organized domestic terrorist plots we’d encountered since 9/11. Improvising did not feel like the right way to do this. That said, I had faith in this case agent.
All right, I said. Forget about everything else. We sat down. We gamed out a little strategy for this interview. Because Zazi had called and offered to come in, the first approach would be to let him talk. About anything he wanted to talk about. From there, questions about his life, his family, and his beliefs would be productive, nonconfrontational ways to build rapport and fill in any blanks we had in terms of background information. Each question he felt comfortable answering would subtly establish a pattern: The case agent would ask a question and Zazi would answer it. Slowly the case agent would weave in facts that we knew to be true. Zazi would either admit them, incriminating himself, or he would lie about them.
Zazi came in with his attorney. The initial interview went on for many hours. We broke for dinner. Ordered pizza. The case agent did the interview. I sat in on some of it. I also observed it from another room. The interview took place across three days. In the in-between times, the case agent and I would talk.
Interviews raise all kinds of questions about technique. What should you show someone during an interview, if you want to confront them? You ask the suspect if he’s done something, he denies it, and you have a document, like a transcript of an intercept, in which he admits having done it. Do you want to place that document in front of him or not? That can be a very powerful thing to do in an interview. But it can also compromise the case, because the suspect then knows what surveillance you have. In a national-security case, the question of disclosure is even more complicated, because the document you want to use—or the information contained in that document—could be classified. If it is, you can’t use that document or that information before having conversations with headquarters and with lawyers, and perhaps going through a process of declassification, which is also complicated. The way that you proceed, laying bricks of an argument in the right order and direction to build a proper legal justification, determines whether the results of that interview will be effective and useful or not. Zazi made categorical denials in his interviews that we were later able to punch through, and he made statements that were absolutely devastating to him.
The Denver field office did a great job on High Rise. They stepped up, as Mike Heimbach would have said. The case agent’s interview with Zazi pulled enough information that, combined with other evidence, he could write a solid complaint. Zazi was charged, presented for arraignment, and taken into custody before I left. Ultimately he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction, conspiracy to commit murder in a foreign country, and providing material support to a terrorist organization. After his conviction, while incarcerated at the Metropolitan Detention Center, in Brooklyn, Zazi cooperated with the government. He testified about his terrorist experiences. Someday, when the government decides it is time, he will be sentenced for his crimes. Meanwhile, his associates were also brought to justice. Zarein Ahmedzay pleaded guilty and is cooperating. Adis Medunjanin was convicted at trial of multiple terrorist offenses and was sentenced to life in prison. For me, those two weeks in Colorado opened a wide window onto a set of problems that, at the time, I had no idea I would work on practically every waking moment for the next two years.
-- ‘You Know What I Like to Do?’ --
Those next two years started at the Denver airport. My phone rang as I was about to board my flight home. The call was from Art Cummings’s office. Cummings and the director wanted to see me right away, that afternoon, after I landed in D.C.
I first met Art Cummings during Operation Overt. Art had been serving as the special agent in charge for counterterrorism at the Washington field office. We had heard that the director had pulled him out of there and thrown him back to counterterrorism at headquarters to keep an eye on us. I remember feeling as if this were Mueller’s way of saying he didn’t entirely trust what we were doing.
The notion that Cummings would be a force to hold us back was quickly dispelled. He was a former Navy SEAL. He spoke Mandarin fluently. He had started in the Bureau as a field agent in L.A. doing crack cases in Compton in the 1980s. The first thing that hit me about Cummings was his eyes. They are blue, but it’s not the color that counts. It’s the way the eyes move, the way they lock on to you, the way they look through you as you talk. Without saying anything at all, Cummings seemed to be saying, Oh yeah? You think so? That’s what you got? If you gave him a good idea, he responded with a better one. If you gave him a great idea, he wanted more of them.
The entire time he worked with us at LX-1, Art lived on a friend’s boat, which was docked in a marina in Annapolis. His family lived in Richmond, where his sons were in school; and rather than moving them all to D.C., he decided to sleep on this boat. It was no luxury craft. It had a bench that served as a seat during the day and as Art’s bed at night. It did not have heating or air-conditioning, or a galley or bathroom. Art bathed and dressed every morning in the public restroom of the marina. At night, on his way home, he bought a tuna sandwich and ate on the boat. His austere existence added to Art’s mystique.
As soon as he joined the team at LX-1, Art set his sights on the CIA. He was convinced that the agency, for whatever reason, was not sharing with us all the knowledge about Overt that it was getting from the Brits. Were there any U.S.-based plotters? Were any associates of UK suspects living in the country? He demanded a seat at the agency’s secure video teleconferences with the Brits. I accompanied him as his plus-one. After the TV went dark, Art would sometimes accuse the senior CIA officer in the room of holding back. He would demand to know why we hadn’t heard some of this stuff until now. It was a level of confrontation I had never seen before.
Upon arriving in Washington after receiving my summons at the Denver airport, I made my way to Art’s office and asked him what was up. He said, It’s that hig thing. Hig thing? I didn’t know what he was talking about. Hig! he repeated—and then it clicked. HIG must be an acronym, since half the words out of an agent’s mouth are acronyms. He went on: HIG—the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group. A new interagency effort. We’re going to revamp the way we do interrogations and interviews of terrorism suspects.
Then we were off to the director’s office—which meant, in the first instance, presenting ourselves to Wanda Siford, Mueller’s secretary, assistant, and Praetorian Guard. She had spent much of her adult life serving directors in the FBI. Wanda was the FBI, or at least some hard-shelled part of it. Competence personified—dressed and coiffed with enormous dignity and professionalism—she sat behind a high desk in the inner reception area of the director’s suite. I knew Wanda as an older woman, at the end of a long and esteemed career. She embraced her role as the director’s protector and commanded the respect, and fear, of the highest ranks of the organization.
Wanda looked at us, picked up the phone, and called Mueller. She hung up and swept her hand to the left, signaling that we were to proceed. We passed through the conference room and entered the director’s office. The space had been built for J. Edgar Hoover, though he died before he could move into it. The office is not opulent and does not occupy a corner. It looks across Pennsylvania Avenue to the Justice Department. Congress has set a limit on the amount of money that presidential appointees are allowed to spend on office furniture, and the limit is low—five thousand dollars per appointee during the duration of an appointment. For an FBI director, that’s ten years, the period fixed in order to keep the appointment as much above politics as possible. FBI directors never do much decorating. But the office has a sense of grandeur nonetheless. These walls have seen seven FBI directors work with eight presidents and fourteen attorneys general. They have witnessed moments of triumph, such as the capture of Ramzi Yousef, one of the perpetrators of the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, and moments of anger and disgust, as when the Bureau reckoned with the treason of agent Robert Hanssen. Since the Hoover building’s dedication in 1975, thirty-nine FBI agents have died in the line of duty, and from this office the first calls went out to spouses and families.
Mueller sat behind his desk. He started by asking me questions about the Zazi case. Then he turned to the matter at hand. He asked, What’s your plan next?
I said I was looking forward to continuing what I was doing. He said, Uh-huh, okay. And then he said, Well, there is this other thing that’s come up. President Obama has asked the FBI to take responsibility for building and running a new group, to be called the HIG. He explained the basics. It was an effort to professionalize how the government conducted interrogations of high-value terrorist suspects detained overseas. He described it as an effort to get away from the abuses that had occurred at Abu Ghraib and in other controversial CIA programs. He said, The new president wants to do things differently. There’s been a study about this, and a recommendation that came about as a result, and we’ve been asked to take charge. And we’re going to do it. And you’re going to do it. You’re going to build it.
I had not been aware of this study. I didn’t know what the recommendations were. This was not something I had much experience with.
Mueller said, Don’t worry about that. You can read all that. CIA and the Department of Defense will be your partners, but they’re not going to like it. There are things they don’t want to do that they are going to have to do. You will be the director. Your job is to make this work. That is the whole of your job description. If you start knocking heads with the Agency and with DOD, and you can’t get them to agree, then get them to agree. And when you absolutely can’t get them to agree, I don’t want you to fight with them. Come to me, and I will fight those fights for you. Because your job is to build it and make it work.
After all this, Mueller asked, Is there anything else you would like to tell me? I thought I saw an opening and tried to take it. I said, Sir, I’ll do whatever you want me to do. But if you’re asking my preference, what I would like to do is work counterterrorism. Mueller looked at me, cocked his head slightly to one side, and said, You know what I like to do?
No, sir, I said.
I like to try homicide cases. And look what I’m doing.
-- Developing Rapport --
In Accra, Ghana, at 6 A.M. on Christmas Eve 2009, the young man checked out of the Tops Hotel and went to the airport, where he did not speak to another soul. He flew to Lagos and on to Amsterdam, and then boarded Northwest Airlines Flight 253 to Detroit. En route, he watched the video map, waiting for the plane to cross into U.S. airspace, because his teacher had instructed him, “Wait until you are in the U.S., then bring the plane down.” When the airplane was over the U.S., the young man went into the restroom. He brushed his teeth. He put on perfume. He prayed. He returned to his seat and covered his lap and legs with a pillow and blanket. He reached inside his clothing and depressed the plunger to activate the bomb inside his pants. The bomb in his pants made a hissing sound and then a loud pop, as if a bottle had been uncorked—and apparently that was all. The young man thought his bomb had failed. He started thinking that he would have to wear the failed bomb in his pants as he passed through immigration before throwing it away in the men’s room. Then his skin began to burn. He tried to take off his pants and underwear. The bomb and his clothes and his skin were on fire now. There was dark smoke rising from his body. There were flames. Seeing the fire, he thought maybe he had not failed. Maybe the bomb would explode, bring down the plane, and kill all the passengers, and his martyrdom mission would be complete.
I had seen a lot. I had never seen 302s like these: reports on the case of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab—the so-called Underwear Bomber, who was being held in Michigan after his failed attempt, on Christmas Day 2009, to blow up that Northwest Airlines flight. Here was an al-Qaeda terrorist who—after a long, carefully planned process of patiently executed interviews—was divulging every detail of his radicalization and the planning of his attack. Every detail, right down to the architecture of the compound in Yemen where he trained. I read every page, every sentence, the Detroit field office pushed into the system. Read with rooting interest, though I’d already heard a lot of it. The case of the Underwear Bomber was the first deployment of elements of what would become the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group that Mueller had assigned me to run.
At the HIG, I was in some ways more removed than I had been from the action—I never went to Detroit, never left my vault at LX-1. I was also more in charge of what was happening. I influenced the response to this case in ways known only to a small inner circle, while at the same time managing how our work would eventually be seen by the world beyond that group. Running the HIG, I crossed over to the dark side. Crossed into the realm of law enforcement where politics exerts decisive influence on outcomes in ways no honest person would deny.
I mean politics in two senses—one functional and necessary, the other toxic and obstructionist. Politics in the first sense—small-“p” politics—means the navigation of human relationships. Politics in that sense is the DNA of law enforcement. Law enforcement manages the shape of society with respect to legal parameters of acceptable behavior—parameters set by the Constitution and defined by statutes. The second kind of politics—party politics—means the execution of partisan strategy for purely political advantage. That kind of politics should have no place in American law enforcement. The only circumstance that might effectively force law enforcement to be partisan, in the two-party American political system, would be if one party unambiguously ceased to respect the laws and the Constitution.
At the HIG, I saw the first kind of politics operate in law enforcement at the highest levels. I began to know, and to some degree exercise, the inherently strange and fine-grained phenomenon of power. I also saw the second kind of politics encroach upon law enforcement—saw partisanship intensify to the point where it seemed almost to threaten the constitutional and legal system.
The HIG was born in a whirlwind, and at the center of the whirlwind stood a prison, Camp X-Ray, at the U.S. military detention facility at Guantánamo Bay. Campaigning for president in 2008, Barack Obama had promised to close Guantánamo. His Republican opponents wanted Guantánamo kept open. This was a disagreement about many things, but centrally it was a disagreement about the best way to get intelligence from suspected terrorists.
Obama believed the War on Terror had led the U.S. in the wrong direction. Like many Democrats (and many others), he believed the use of “enhanced” interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding, amounted to outright torture and had compromised our values as a nation. He also believed that forms of interrogation that fell short of “enhanced” were ultimately more effective. Many Republicans, but by no means all, saw the War on Terror from a different angle. They believed all terrorist suspects, including U.S. citizens, should be treated as enemy combatants—with no rights or constitutional protections. They believed the military and the intelligence agencies should use whatever interrogation methods they thought would get results. The ends justified the means.
Three days after Obama’s inauguration, he signed Executive Order 13491—“Ensuring Lawful Interrogations”—which established a task force to evaluate the federal government’s interrogation and detainee-transfer policies. The next document he signed, Executive Order 13492, ordered the closure of the detention facilities at Guantánamo Bay. The first policy documents of the new administration, these orders became choice targets for Obama’s political opponents. Most congressional Republicans would not have cared if the executive orders had been blank, or filled with Holy Scripture. As Obama’s first forays into counterterrorism policy, these orders were bound to be condemned for political advantage.
In August 2009, the presidential task force recommended two interrogation reforms. The first was to create an interagency group to conduct interrogations of high-value terrorist suspects—the CIA would be involved, and the Department of Defense; the FBI would run the group, and it would report to the National Security Council at the White House. The second was to ban the use of enhanced interrogation techniques by any U.S. government entity. From now on, only techniques from the U.S. Army Field Manual and those used by federal law enforcement, which had been compiled to be in conformity with the Geneva Conventions, would be allowed. The president accepted both of these recommendations and asked Director Mueller to create the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group.
At the beginning, the only things I knew about the group were that it was supposed to exist; that it would be a three-way effort by the FBI, CIA, and Defense Department; and that whatever was not in the Army Field Manual would be off-limits. I read the Field Manual. I read the manual’s breakdown of interrogation phases and its definitions and taxonomies of each: the five main ways to approach a subject; the five main kinds of questions to ask; the many subcategories of both; and the permutations of ways to combine them. The terms, when listed one after another—Fear-Up, Fear-Down, Pride and Ego, Futility, We Know All, File and Dossier, Establish Your Identity, Repetition, Rapid Fire, Silent, Change of Scene—triggered a scatter of associations: goofy, clinical, ominous. But “Developing Rapport,” the foundation of all approaches and modes of questioning in the Field Manual, was already second nature to me, from all the interviews I’d done over the years.
Flashback to Quantico. A classroom. The teacher was John Hess. Hess was old—he had been around, it seemed, since J. Edgar Hoover was a kid. He had served for much of his career as an agent in Montpelier, Vermont—not an al-Qaeda hotbed. The course I took with him was called Interview and Interrogation.
In class, somebody asked, What’s the difference between an interview and an interrogation? Hess answered, When you are convinced of someone’s guilt to a moral certainty, it’s an interrogation. I remember thinking, How am I going to know when that happens? And that was his point, I think. Moral certainty is rare.
When I became an agent, I learned that the FBI does very little interrogation. It does a lot of interviews. Here is another difference between interviews and interrogation: Interviews take place in a longer-term context. Interviews help agents build relationships. Relationships nurture informants. The job is to create in someone’s mind a sense that you are worthy of trust. That you are competent. A professional. Doing the right thing. The challenge is demonstrating that your interests are in alignment—even if your ultimate goals are not the same. The agent who believes that he can take hardened criminals, show them the light of patriotism, and teach them the right way to live is the agent you will find in the back booth at O’Malley’s nodding for another shot at 4:58 P.M.
In most interviews, all an agent has to do is demonstrate that talking to and working with the Bureau is a good idea—to convince a person that talking about bad things they’ve done is in their best interest, which often comes in the form of a reduced sentence. Some interviews become confrontational or hostile. That’s necessary every once in a while—but not all that often if you’ve properly sized up what’s important to someone in an initial conversation.
Compared to the work of the Bureau, pure intelligence efforts by the CIA and the Defense Department relied more heavily on interrogation. To start the HIG, I learned a lot about how both agencies approached the job: their goals, their strengths and weaknesses. Their approach was intelligence driven. They did well on some of those things that—for instance, in the Zazi case—I had observed the Bureau doing poorly. Analysts were central to the process. Before intelligence case officers interrogated a detained terrorist, they conferred with analysts—experts in the subject matter. The analyst with the best knowledge of the terrorist group and the terrorist activity provided requirements. In the intelligence world, a “requirement” is a need for information, prompting a question to be asked. So this was the great strength of their approach: There was nothing vague or open-ended about it. Every question was shaped by intelligence and driven to expand intelligence. The weakness of their approach was its inflexibility. Interrogations proceeded down a checklist: What do you know of Osama bin Laden? Where is Osama bin Laden located? Who did you speak to last week about Osama bin Laden? If the person didn’t answer, he didn’t answer. That’s what the cable would report.
Defense interrogations involved slightly more in the way of rapport building than CIA interrogations did, but only as defined and allowed by the Army Field Manual. Military interrogators cannot, for instance, give a person any food or drink unless the Field Manual approach explicitly allows offers of food and drink. And in order to employ that approach, senior ranks must approve the interrogator’s written plan in advance. The interrogation plan names the approaches to be used and explains precisely the ways in which they will be used.
An FBI interview flies by the seat of its pants. This is its greatest strength and biggest weakness. We don’t do homework like the Agency. We don’t have the meticulous organizational skills of Defense. But FBI interrogators know how to read the subject. They know how to respond to the subject’s reactions to questions. They know how to borrow from and weave together various approaches. This guy looks hungry: I think I can warm him up a little bit if I give him a cup of coffee and let him smoke a cigarette.
Three agencies, three approaches. A case study of an age-old conflict: flexibility versus organization. Everybody needs some of both. I hoped the HIG could come up with a synthesis that would improve on all three approaches.
-- A Sweeping Portrait --
Setting up the HIG, I got a crash course in establishing a government program. The president had signed executive orders, but the presidential pen is not a magic wand. I had to figure out how to get a staff. How to find office space. How to make the space secure for working with classified material. DOD sent me an experienced interrogator to work with. I hopped the Metro to Rosslyn and together we made some scratch marks on a yellow legal pad. Riveting stuff, which I will spare you.
On we limped, to Christmas. Family. Presents. Breakfast. Down to the basement for some exercise. Turned a TV on. Breaking news: Northwest Airlines Flight 253—“… the Underwear Bomber was taken into custody…”
My first thought was, I am so glad to be out of counterterrorism. If I were in counterterrorism right now, I’d be on the way into the office, barking at the phone: Who is this guy, where is he from, who does he know, is there another on the way, what do we need to get out in front of here? But not today—I’m running the HIG, and I don’t even have interrogators on board yet.
Cue the phone call—it was Art Cummings, asking, You got your team out there? I said, What team? Art said, Bullshit. This is the biggest thing that’s happened in ages, and the HIG should be a part of this.
Fortunately, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was not ready to talk right away. On arrest, he went straight into surgery to treat serious burns of his groin, genitals, and legs. When he came out, he invoked his right to counsel. This gave me time to figure out what to do.
A few things happened. As soon as Abdulmutallab was taken into custody, the Detroit field office identified his family in Nigeria. His father was a prominent banker. He had many brothers and sisters. Detroit sent an agent to Nigeria to connect with them. The agent was there to explain to the family how the U.S. justice system worked and how it would be to Abdulmutallab’s benefit for him to cooperate and talk—how cooperation could affect his sentence, where he served his time, and the conditions under which he served his time. He was dead-to-rights guilty of trying to destroy an airplane. But there were still ways cooperation could have a positive impact on his outcome. The agent was also there to listen. If we wanted Abdulmutallab to open up and share intelligence, we needed to know how to talk to him. We needed to know how he came to find himself on a Northwest Airlines flight with a bomb in his underwear. The agent convinced Abdulmutallab’s mother and uncle to come back to Detroit, to meet with Abdulmutallab in jail, and to try to help us convince him to cooperate.
At the end of January, I sent a couple of people to Detroit. Not to take over the investigation, but to help the Detroit agents with their interviews the way I had helped Denver with Zazi. One of the people I sent was Joe Yungwirth, a former Special Forces officer and a former member of the FBI fly team—agents who deploy overseas when we need to put additional eyes and ears on the ground. If something big pops up for our legat in Abuja, for example, we’ll send a fly team guy out there to help. They are prepared to dig in and stay for a while—months at a time. Joe had a lot of experience with fast, deep learning. I also sent a few subject-matter experts up there, and a reports officer to help them get the paperwork out quickly. All of these people went on to play key roles in the HIG.
It was a very low-key, low-visibility deployment. They helped design, and eventually became, the infrastructure for the conversation that the intelligence community wanted to have with Abdulmutallab. It turned out to be a very challenging interview.
Abdulmutallab was, and probably is to this day, a reticent, closed-off, quiet man. He is very pious, with a black-and-white view of the world. Everything beyond the parameters of his religious beliefs is alien and condemned. Despite the severity of his burns, he never requested or accepted a single pain pill. He wore regular clothes, stayed in his cell, ate like everybody else, and would not outwardly acknowledge what had to be great physical suffering. He spoke to no one else in the facility. He kept completely to himself.
At the heart of every good interrogation or interview is a relationship, one in which the interviewee begins to trust the interviewer and decides that talking is in his or her best interest. Here we had a young man who was isolated, injured, and profoundly devout. The Detroit agents, with assistance from our team, rightly concluded that Abdulmutallab’s family were in the best position to convince him that he could trust the FBI. The agents initiated the ultimate interrogation of Abdulmutallab by getting the family to convince him to talk to us.
When he did start talking, he told us the story of how he became connected with Anwar al-Awlaki. From my first days in counterterrorism, I had been conscious of, and actively tracking, Awlaki. Born in America to Yemeni parents, Awlaki grew up to be a charismatic jihadi preacher and al-Qaeda recruiter. After 9/11, he fled from the U.S. to Yemen. By the time I came to counterterrorism, Awlaki was on his way to becoming the most effective popularizer of militant Islam in the English-speaking world. Budding terrorists hoarded Awlaki’s lectures on CDs. Awlaki was connected to my very first case at ITOS-1, just before Operation Overt. When the original, core al-Qaeda began to weaken, Awlaki became a leader of that group’s first and most dangerous offshoot, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). His lectures influenced Najibullah Zazi. And he was a mentor to Nidal Malik Hasan, who killed thirteen and injured thirty-two more in a mass shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, one month before Abdulmutallab boarded the plane to Detroit.
Abdulmutallab told us about traveling to Yemen’s Shabwah Province, where he was a guest in Awlaki’s house. He described how Awlaki introduced him to the foremost terrorist bomb maker in the world, a man named Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri, who went on to create devices such as the printer-cartridge bomb years later. It was Asiri who taught Abdulmutallab how to handle, wear, and deploy the underwear bomb. Abdulmutallab provided granular information on terrorist operations, amounting to a sweeping portrait of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula’s inner workings—a portrait that helped to guide U.S. intelligence operations for some time to come.
At breaks, and after interrogation sessions, Joe would call to tell me what had happened. At the same time, interrogators were disseminating the results to reports officers—not just handing off their notes but carefully walking them through them, so that no one would get hung up on illegible handwriting or unfamiliar terms. Within the intelligence community, we disseminated this information as broadly as we could, to show other agencies the potential of an expert-assisted interrogation. The FBI has a reputation for not sharing information in a timely fashion. I wanted to change that reputation. Every gesture like this—every mechanical refinement of workflow—would help convince another person or two in the intelligence community that this collaboration was a good idea.
And to persuade the field offices that this was not a land grab, I made sure Joe worked closely with the local case agent, the Detroit agent who had gone to Nigeria. Because the goal was not just to suck the intelligence out of Abdulmutallab and leave him there. The goal was to create an ongoing relationship with the suspect. Keeping the local case agent involved through the whole process ensured that someone in Detroit would be able to keep the conversation going.
-- Soft on Terrorism? --
Is terrorism a crime or an act of war? Should terrorists be tried in the justice system or handled by the military? Because Abdulmutallab was a direct agent of AQAP, and because he exercised his right to remain silent for some time after being given his Miranda warning, this case—and involvement in this case by some of us who later made up the HIG—immediately became an easy way for both Republicans and Democrats to express their views on the U.S. government’s appropriate response to terrorism.
For Democrats, the HIG became a symbol of a better way forward, after the notorious episodes of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, Bagram Air Base, and elsewhere. They saw the HIG as a smarter, more efficient, more effective way of interrogating terrorist suspects. For Republicans, the HIG was a sign of how far the country had fallen and proof that the U.S. had gone soft on terrorism. What were we doing sending FBI people in front of terrorists and reading them their rights? Terrorists don’t have rights. They deserve whatever they get.
When I went to the Hill to brief members of Congress and testify before committees, that was the conversation I became a part of. A conversation with no middle ground. I went to the Hill to brief or testify about the HIG more than fifteen times during my first year on the job. These were my initial experiences testifying before Congress, and the first few times I went, members of Congress wanted to hear about Abdulmutallab.
Republicans would ask, Isn’t it true you didn’t even get in front of him for weeks before he lawyered up, and he didn’t want to talk to you? And you lost all that time, and you didn’t get much of anything out of him? I would answer, Yes, true, he wasn’t questioned the night he was arrested, but we did convince him to cooperate, and we collected significant intelligence. They did not want to hear that. They were not willing to acknowledge what we learned. They could only see the case as an example of a single effect of Obama’s new policy, an effect they viewed like this: Now a terrorist could get arrested and be treated like a criminal defendant—be allowed to tell the federal government, Screw you, I don’t want to talk.
Democratic congressman Adam Schiff, a former U.S. attorney from California—and now the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence—was one of the few members of Congress who asked to have a real conversation with me, one on one, about interrogation. He said, I’m really interested in this concept of the HIG, tell me about it. He wanted to know what works, what doesn’t, how he could help. Was he doing that because he had been told to support the president’s agenda? Or was he legitimately interested in finding a mode of interrogation that was guided by the Constitution and the rule of law? I got the sense that he was legitimately interested in national security. I was looking for friends. I took them where I found them.
The pitch of rhetoric around the interrogation of terrorist suspects—and about the HIG—rose higher through 2010 and into 2011, as the House flipped and the Tea Party moved Republicans even further to the right. I was constantly appearing on the Hill and elsewhere around town, arguing that a constitutionally consistent approach to interrogation works. Sometimes you’ll get a guy who decides not to talk, and in this country we have to respect that. Most suspects who decide not to talk on the day they’re arrested do talk eventually. And rapport building—the relationship-building process of getting to know suspects, breaking down their defenses positively, building trust—gets you higher-quality, better intelligence than scaring the hell out of them or beating them into telling you anything you want to hear to make the beating stop. That’s my position. Always has been and always will be. I’m not throwing a rock at anybody who’s done interrogations differently. But my experience has been that law-enforcement interview techniques produce great volumes of valuable intelligence.
More than half of Congress disagreed, because law-enforcement techniques were not in their political playbook. Mike Rogers, a Republican from Michigan, became chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in January of 2011. He said one of his first priorities as chair was to get rid of the HIG. Rogers was hard to deal with in part because he had once been an FBI agent. He spent about five years in the Chicago field office, where he worked on organized crime—enough time to give him some dog-with-bone opinions.
What I learned, in my appearances on the Hill, was that the goal of every trip up there was survival. There was no convincing anyone of anything. Everyone walks into the room with predrafted talking points and questions. Success is coming out with a sound bite that will advance an agenda. A congressional hearing is not fact-finding. It’s theater. As the witness, you have one goal: Get out alive.
-- ‘Fine! Done!’ --
When I wasn’t battling my way through the Capitol building, I was in LX-1 building teams. Teams were organized by target. The HIG charter designated two kinds of targets for our deployments, predesignated and pop-up.
Predesignated targets were the highest of the high-value people. If Osama bin Laden or Anwar al-Awlaki ended up in detention, the HIG would deploy predesignated teams on those people. To create that list of targets, we sent out a survey to the agencies and had knowledgeable people rate each terrorist on a few different scales, such as operational value or intelligence value. We then submitted the list of the top twenty-four to the National Security Council for approval.
Pop-up targets were more common. Anyone anywhere in the intelligence community could nominate a target for a pop-up HIG deployment. Abdulmutallab was a pop-up. Nobody knew who he was before he got on that plane, but then he became the most important person for anyone to talk to. Any person captured who knew a lot about Awlaki, Asiri, or al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula would be a prime pop-up candidate.
Each team had interrogators, analysts, and reports officers. The FBI and the Defense Department provided a lot of these resources. The CIA always provided the fewest. The CIA is the smallest of the intelligence services and is very careful, to the point of reticence, about assigning people and spending money.
We were constantly poring over intelligence traffic to pick up information about high-value targets who had been detained. The Agency held back on this kind of information, too. One notable early failure for the HIG was missing the chance to interrogate a high-level terrorist leader who had been captured and held by Pakistani forces in early 2010. The CIA was allowed to question him, but (as Newsweek reported at the time) the HIG was not. On the Hill, members of Congress grilled me about this lapse: If the HIG is so good, why did you miss this guy? To expose all the details of interagency tension would have been a mistake. Frustrated as I was with my reluctant CIA partners, calling them to account in front of Congress would only have made things worse.
Art Cummings and Director Mueller wanted frequent updates from me about relations with the Agency. I tried and tried to make it work, and finally had to tell them I couldn’t. Mueller said, Okay, I’m coming in. He set up a meeting at Langley with the CIA director, Leon Panetta, and a few of us went and joined them. The seventh-floor conference room was gorgeous: hardwood paneling, a forty-acre table, bottles of water and little mats in front of every chair. And in the middle of the table sat a bowl of fresh raspberries. I had never seen a fresh raspberry in a government office before. Had not known such things could exist in such places. We had no fresh raspberries in the Hoover building. I really wanted to eat one, but I did not eat one. I opened the bottle of water next to my place mat—heard the little whoosh, felt the rush of air on the edges of my fingers. It was fizzy water. These guys knew how to live.
The Agency team came in, including Panetta, whom I’d never met before. He whipped off his suit coat, threw it on a chair, looked sideways at Mueller, and said, Get the hell over here, you son of a bitch! The back-slapping, the questions: How’s that golf game? Do you still suck? How’s Ann? How’s Sylvia? Mueller took his own jacket off, put it on the back of his chair. We all sat down.
Then Mueller leaned back—easy, heavy lidded—and said, All right, what the hell are we gonna do with this thing? What are we gonna do? Panetta said, We’re gonna do it. What do you need? Mueller looked at me: What do you need? I said, Well, sir, I need three analysts and a logistics officer. Panetta said, Fine! Done! Next week.
They moved on to other topics. The whole meeting seemed unnecessary. And in that way it was a lesson. This is how government works. There’s no need to get histrionic and polarized and scream and yell. We all want the same thing. Sometimes we don’t all agree on how to get where we’re going, but if we just sit down and talk, we can figure it out.
A year later, in September, Anwar al-Awlaki was killed by a drone strike in Yemen. The following month, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab pleaded guilty to all eight charges on which he was indicted, including conspiracy to commit an act of terrorism transcending national boundaries, attempted murder within the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, and attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction. At some point, after all the cooperation he provided in all the interrogation sessions, he just shut down. He went back into his shell, and off to Colorado—to ADX Florence, the federal Supermax prison. Five years after that, in 2017, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request from The New York Times, the U.S. government released almost two hundred pages of the 302s of Abdulmutallab’s interrogation. The same ones I’d read in the FBI computer system back when they’d first been filed. The Times story about the documents, by Scott Shane, noted that Abdulmutallab, in his interrogation, had “tried to reconstruct the layout of a training camp, Mr. Awlaki’s house and many other Qaeda buildings. His descriptions were so precise that it is likely they have helped shape targeting decisions in the American drone campaign in Yemen.”
-- Déjà Vu --
Now, to bring the story forward: During the 2016 campaign, candidate Donald Trump was clear about his views on some traditional hot-button national-security issues, such as the use of torture (he was for it), the prosecution of foreign terrorists in regular criminal courts rather than by military tribunals (he was against it), and the future of the detention facility at Guantánamo (he wanted to keep it open and put more people in it).
For many of us in national-security positions, this was like being dragged back into a part of your past that you did not wish to revisit. We had been through these issues before, fought these battles many times, and over the years found what we believed were the best ways to do the job of keeping America safe. After eight years of finding ways to hold, interrogate, and prosecute terrorists that did not involve sending them to Cuba—eight years of doing these things successfully, with a track record that “enhanced” methods have not matched—we found ourselves having these conversations all over again. And needing to justify our success all over again. And arguing once again that torture, in addition to being wrong, was not necessary—and not even helpful—to the project of collecting the best, most reliable intelligence from subjects. And trying to persuade policy makers once again that confinement for life in maximum-security federal prisons—from which no one has ever escaped—without the possibility of parole was a pretty reliable way to keep terrorists from harming anyone. All the facts were on our side, but I got the distinct feeling that we might lose the arguments this time.
Attorney General Sessions had strong preconceived beliefs about all of these issues. Early in the new administration, George Toscas, the deputy attorney general in the National Security Division, expertly used the ongoing trial of a hard-core al-Qaeda fighter known as Spin Ghul as an example to show why trying a foreign terrorist here in the United States was sometimes the only reasonable course. Ghul was responsible for the deaths of two American servicemen in Afghanistan in 2003. After spending years in a Libyan prison, he was arrested for attacking a police officer on a boat while en route to Italy. The Italians couldn’t prosecute him for anything other than simple assault, and Ghul was likely to be released into the wilds of Western Europe—only a plane ride from the United States. The Italians would never give him to us if they knew he would be sent to Guantánamo—most Western nations did not approve of our use of that facility, or of the jerry-built and controversial legal regime that had grown up around it, and the European Union’s Court of Human Rights would not permit such a transfer. But they would give him to us for federal criminal prosecution. Ghul was tried and convicted in New York and will spend the rest of his days in prison. The attorney general was not impressed.
The issue came to a head a few months later with the case of a detainee in custody overseas—a detainee whose situation, suffice it to say, was parallel to the case of Spin Ghul. The attorney general flat-out refused to allow this detainee into the United States for trial. He seemed not to appreciate that the likely alternative was the detainee’s imminent release from custody.
And he did not just oppose bringing the detainee here—he was volcanically offended that we had even proposed it. This sent Sessions into a mode that I witnessed a number of times: He would grab the arms on his chair and prop himself up a bit higher in his seat. His face would redden. His voice would rise. Then he would stare, not at anyone in particular, but at the table, his eyes darting back and forth, as he berated us for treating terrorists like criminals. For giving constitutional rights to enemy combatants. He was not able to see the work as we saw it: as taking one more terrorist out of circulation.
At a Principals Committee meeting in early 2018, I remember Sessions erupting at Defense Secretary James Mattis over another aspect of the same issue. He tore into Mattis for the Defense Department’s role in detaining terrorists on foreign battlefields and then proposing that those detainees be tried in U.S. courts. Defense was creating problems that Justice had to solve, Sessions declared. Mattis politely answered that he would work on establishing a facility for detaining military combatants in the United States.
Nobody even bothered to point out to the attorney general that the so-called problems he believed Defense created for Justice were in fact an example of how the system was supposed to work: a prime example of two very different departments, with different powers and different techniques, collaborating on their shared mission. No one said this, I think, because everyone understood that such collaboration was no longer valued by the federal government’s most powerful decision makers. Not anymore. This was the new team. Things were going to be different.
How We Work: President’s Daily Brief
-- Finished Intelligence --
Information is the lifeblood of effective government. You can’t manage the administration of anything unless the people involved draw on the same knowledge and understanding, and the same sense of what needs to happen and in what order. Interrogations produced raw intelligence—reports eventually written up as 302s. Then these 302s were analyzed, interpreted, and discussed by the investigators in counterterrorism. Working with prosecutors, agents used information from those 302s—about the detainee’s associates, his habits, the places he visited—to build cases, using techniques described by the enterprise theory. Analysts also took the raw intelligence in select 302s from all the FBI’s operational divisions—primarily the criminal, counterterrorism, and counterintelligence divisions—and turned it into the finished intelligence of briefings. An “operational” division is one that is responsible for some piece of the FBI’s investigative work. “Finished” intelligence means that it has been contextualized, rewritten, and presented in a way that can be understood by informed readers whose government positions—in departments such as State, Treasury, Homeland Security, and Justice; and, most critically, in the White House—require them to make decisions about how the government should act on the briefing’s information.
Traditionally, the briefing structure that maintains the flow of information between Justice and the Bureau has been regular and reliable. (I am describing that structure as it was during my time in FBI leadership; I do not know the present structure of briefings.) Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday morning, the Bureau’s director and members of his senior team briefed the attorney general, the deputy attorney general, the National Security Division folks, and some other Department of Justice staff members. As I rose in the ranks at the FBI, I dealt with Justice officials of corresponding rank. In my first years at headquarters, I was occasionally called in to brief the attorney general. During the administration of President George W. Bush, I gave one briefing each to Alberto Gonzales and Michael Mukasey. One of them seemed very bored and the other one actually fell asleep. I didn’t take it personally. I started briefing the attorney general on a regular basis when Eric Holder held the job and I had become assistant director of counterterrorism at the FBI. Holder was President Obama’s first appointee to lead the Justice Department.
What mainly drove these thrice-weekly meetings was a presentation of intelligence called the President’s Daily Brief. If intelligence is information for decision makers, the President’s Daily Brief is the information that the intelligence community believes the ultimate decision maker must have. It covers a wide—literally, global—range of subject matter, from migration patterns to weapons sales to economic intelligence. The briefing is assembled in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and to the extent that the FBI is involved in preparation of the PDB, the work chiefly concerns terrorist threats and counterterrorism work—highly classified stuff. You need a whole suite of security clearances and read-ins to different compartmented programs to even read the document.
For a small number of people in offices that are not Oval—including about half a dozen each from the FBI and from Justice—it is also helpful to know what the president knows. In an elemental way, the President’s Daily Brief gets all the relevant people focused on the same targets at the same time, especially when crises are breaking. The PDB also organizes the fire-hose blast of information these people require so that they can do their jobs more broadly. For Bureau officials who read it, the PDB shows how our cases fit into the wider world of national-security threats and the government’s other priority issues and concerns.
-- A Rough, Rough Gig --
At the PDB meeting with the attorney general, everybody from the FBI would sit on one side of the table and everybody from Justice would sit on the other side, like in a strategic-arms-negotiating meeting or a summit with a foreign leader. The briefer, an FBI analyst exclusively assigned to the PDB, sat at the head. Every day, except Friday and Saturday, that person arrived at work in the early evening and worked through the night reviewing the book, looking hard at every piece of new intelligence and trying to anticipate all possible questions about every issue that anyone might ask. The main qualification for becoming the briefer: having brains to burn. The job is a one-year assignment. By the end of that year, the person in the job is smoked. It’s a rough, rough gig. But smoke gives flavor. Briefers know this country’s most sensitive intelligence as well as or better than anyone else. When people left that role, I always tried to steer them into jobs in counterterrorism or counterintelligence.
The briefer generally began the PDB meeting like this: In the book today, I’d like to draw your attention to … And then he or she orally presented the most important pieces of intelligence. That has been, for a long time, the baseline of the established process for the PDB meetings. Beyond that, every attorney general has adapted the process to his or her liking. Attorney General Holder asked many questions, and there was a lot of discussion back and forth.
When it came to FBI operations, I discerned no defining political or philosophical slant in Eric Holder. Never did I sit there and think he was speaking from a set of firm biases or preconceived opinions. He was focused on the work in the way you’d expect a good attorney to be. I also never thought of Holder as someone I needed to educate or for whom I needed to provide background information. He had been acting attorney general under George W. Bush, deputy attorney general under Bill Clinton, and U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia before any of that. Also, he was firmly in charge as attorney general when I started briefing him, which would not be the case years later when I briefed President Trump’s first attorney general, Jeff Sessions.
I only saw Holder get angry once in the many dozens of times I briefed him, and that was because we pushed. It was on a complicated, difficult issue. The FBI wanted to do something and Justice was holding the Bureau back. We pushed the disagreement all the way to paper: wrote him an actual letter to try to put him in a corner. At the FBI, even something as seemingly straightforward as a letter on stationery has an acronym—LHM, for “letterhead memorandum.” You know you’re in a bureaucratic war when “going to paper” is the equivalent of DEFCON 5—it means there’s now a record, something to judge future decisions and behavior against. And Holder did not appreciate that. Looking at the matter from his point of view, I can understand his reaction and might well have had the same one if I had been sitting in his chair. He read the memorandum right there at the table, then stood up and said, This is bullshit. He threw the paper down. Walked out. Slammed the door. With Mueller sitting right there. Even Mueller reacted to that one. It got a Hmmm out of him.
At the next briefing, Holder walked in, and the first thing he said was, Listen, I just wanted to say I got a little heated the last time we were in here, and I apologize for that. I should not have reacted that way. I was not happy about what I was reading. But I don’t want you to take that the wrong way. I respect the work you are doing and the work you are putting into this. We just need to work through it.
Holder made lots of decisions I disagreed with. Fine. The ball bounces. But I admired his generosity, his sense of responsibility, his magnanimity, and his intelligence. Others at Justice followed that example. His deputy attorney general, James Cole, was another official I disagreed with a lot. One day we got in each other’s faces. I made an argument, he shut me down, I kept arguing, he kept shutting me down. Eventually he said, Enough—meaning, Don’t say another word. And I shut up. And felt that second-guessing afterburn: Did I overstep my bounds? At the end of the meeting—papers shuffling, briefcases clasping, Florsheims clopping—Cole caught me for a second and said, You know, I did not agree with you today, but I respect the way you advocate for your position, and I thank you for that.
When Holder left and Loretta Lynch took over, the atmosphere around the table changed. There was less talking, more reading. I don’t know if Lynch hadn’t read the book before she came to the meeting, or if she didn’t like to listen to the briefer as much. Whatever the reason, there were a lot of us sitting there while the attorney general and deputy attorney general would read in silence.
Loretta Lynch is gracious and considerate. She comports herself in a way that is controlled at all times. She speaks in the measured tones of an NPR broadcast: positive but not peppy, concerned but not angry. I never went into a meeting with her afraid of what I was going to hear. Edges, though, are useful for a leader. It’s okay for a leader to have limits that others do not want to test. That can be motivating. Lynch seemed to loathe conflict. Oftentimes she and her people would have little to say in the President’s Daily Brief. We had a run of very intense counterterrorism events in 2016 and 2017 when Lynch was attorney general, and I don’t remember her asking many specific questions. Sometimes I wondered if she spent so much time reading and so little talking in those briefings because she wanted to avoid the possibility of any friction or dispute.
-- ‘Where’s He From?’ --
After Trump’s inauguration, when Jeff Sessions came in, we were ready to help orient him to this process. Or to adjust the process, to reshape it to suit his preferences—to make the briefings more effective for him. Sessions changed the venue for the Bureau’s meetings. He asked that instead of holding them in the Hoover building, we come over to the Justice Department’s operations center in the Robert F. Kennedy building, where his own office was.
Sessions had been a senator for twenty years. He had been attorney general of Alabama for two years and U.S. attorney for Alabama’s southern district from 1981 to 1993. In public statements he frequently indexed back to his experience as a prosecutor, even though the Justice Department in those days was very different from the department he inherited. The National Security Division was not even a twinkle in anyone’s eye when he was a U.S. attorney. (The National Security Division of the Justice Department was created by the USA Patriot Act, in 2005.) And Sessions had never received the PDB. He had never been a part of the intelligence community. As soon as he became attorney general, he began to encounter all kinds of information that he hadn’t seen before. To understand the documents he was receiving now, to see what those documents could show, he needed to be able to register at a glance the author, source, and subject. It’s not hard to learn to read those documents. But it is a skill. And it was all the more important to learn the shape of this information because the substance was largely unfamiliar to him, too.
In the first few briefings with Sessions, conversations necessarily covered a lot of basic material. Jim Comey was the FBI director, and he began at the beginning. Described the differences between the Sunni and Shia practices of Islam. Explained which terrorist groups lined up with which religious philosophies. During the PDB, Comey and Sessions would have religious discussions: wide ranging, even free flowing. As a double major in chemistry and religion, Comey was well positioned to engage the AG on the groups we tracked and the religions they followed. Sessions believed that Islam—inherently—advocated extremism. The director tried to explain that the reality was more complicated. Talking about religion was Comey’s way of trying to connect with Sessions on terrain familiar to them both.
Leading the Justice Department is one of the biggest responsibilities a person can have in this country. Getting up to speed on intelligence, and categorizing it properly in memory, is a basic part of the job. Sessions did not compartmentalize the new knowledge he acquired. He would say, I saw in the paper the other day … and then would repeat an item that we had briefed him on a few days earlier, intelligence from the PDB. Sessions was confusing classified intelligence with news clips. It was an early sign that this transition would be more challenging than we expected.
As time went on, I observed many things about Attorney General Sessions that gave me pause. I observed him to have trouble focusing, particularly when topics of conversation strayed from a small number of issues, none of which directly concerned national security. He seemed to lack basic knowledge about the jurisdictions of various arms of federal law enforcement. He also seemed to have little interest in the expertise and arguments that others brought to the meetings, or in some long-standing commitments by Justice and the Bureau. I observed his staff to be somewhat afraid of him—reluctant to voice opinions because they did not want to make him angry.
His major interest in any given topic tended to be the immigration angle, even when there was no immigration angle. Before disruptions of U.S.-based counterterrorism cases, we would brief him. Almost invariably, he asked the same question about the suspect: Where’s he from? The vast majority of the suspects are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents. If we would answer his question, Sir, he’s a U.S. citizen, he was born here, Sessions would respond, Where are his parents from? The subject’s parents had nothing to do with the points under discussion. We were trying to get him to understand the terrorist threat overall. Trying to explore the question, Why are Americans becoming so inspired by radical Islam and terrorist groups such as ISIS that they’re going out and planning acts of terrorism against other Americans right here in this country? That question cannot be exhaustively explored by reference solely to immigration policy.
In February 2017, less than a month after he was sworn in as attorney general, Sessions began sending requests for the FBI to analyze our counterterrorism cases through the immigration lens. This was the period when the Trump administration was revising the president’s first executive order on immigration, “Protecting the Nation from Terrorist Attacks by Foreign Nationals,” which had provoked many legal actions and had resulted in a hold on the action by a federal judge. Sessions wanted answers to questions like these: How many counterterrorism cases did we have against immigrants? How many people from outside the country had we arrested?
The FBI does not keep those statistics in that form. In the course of an investigation, we may uncover someone’s immigration history. That immigration history may or may not prove to be significant. We do not keep aggregate figures on how many Syrians were arrested this month. And there are so many ways of construing the how-many-immigrants question that we would not know how to answer it. Do you mean how many people arrested? How many people convicted of terrorism offenses? Do you mean people who came here from Syria as immigrants? If yes, at what age? What if they came at age five with their parents? Because those people are not Syrians, they’re Americans—they’ve become citizens by now and spent their whole conscious lives here, but yes, technically they did come here as Syrians, thirty years ago.
Any one of those numbers presented without context can be wildly misleading. But then what would be the point of gathering those numbers anyway? The attorney general’s questions about immigration and terrorism were troubling to us. We knew what thin ice they would put us on, in terms of accuracy. It’s very hard to provide a true count in answer to a question like that. It is also incredibly labor-intensive to come up with an answer, even one that is inadequate or even wrong. It would require taking analysts who are working substantive issues and telling them, instead, to start counting the angels on the head of a pin.
-- ‘How Much Longer?’ --
The briefers set a goal. They wanted to engage the attorney general’s attention. They took note of things that interested him, aside from immigration. He was very interested in narcotics trafficking—an important issue for the country, but not usually central to the kinds of national-security issues that are the focus of the President’s Daily Brief. Still, to try to get his attention, the briefers started putting updates about narcotics shipments from Colombia in the book.
Someone had told Sessions that even if we knew in advance about every drug shipment destined to leave Colombia by boat or ship, the U.S. wouldn’t allocate enough vessels to intercept them. This made Sessions apoplectic. Drugs were flooding into the U.S., he believed, simply because we weren’t making the necessary interdictions. Many times, when he was briefed on narcotics trafficking, he would burst out with questions: Why don’t we have more boats down there? Why don’t we put more boats in the water? Is that all we need—more boats? This is ridiculous! I’ll go talk to the White House chief of staff. I’ll get us more boats. Sometimes he went on like this for fifteen minutes. He seemed to think that the FBI had some kind of navy at its disposal, and that this navy was off doing other things. We had to tell him, We don’t have the boats in Colombia. We are not able to do that. That’s not us.
Trying to interest Sessions in matters that he was not predisposed to care about was a lost cause. One of those matters was the disappearance of Robert Levinson. A former agent for the Drug Enforcement Agency and the FBI, Levinson worked as a private investigator after he retired from government service. In 2007 he went to Kish Island, off the coast of Iran, where he disappeared. The circumstances have never been fully explained. Aside from some pictures of him that came to light in 2011—wearing an orange jumpsuit, as a prisoner would—there has been no sign of Levinson since then. Many people believe he is being held by the Iranian government.
When Levinson disappeared, the FBI started trying to find him and bring him home. This is an important issue to FBI agents. It was important to Attorneys General Holder and Lynch, and to Directors Mueller and Comey. I was present on several occasions when Director Mueller told Levinson’s wife, Christine, that the FBI would never stop looking for Bob. I was present when Jim Comey told her the same thing. In each of my many meetings with her, with her children, and with her sister, I conveyed the same message: The FBI is committed to this search.
Sessions did not seem to see the importance. He asked, How much longer are we going to do this? How much money are we going to spend on this? Sessions questioned not only the search for Levinson; he questioned why the federal government bothered to search for other Americans detained or taken hostage overseas. The implication was that some of these people had it coming: If you traveled to Iran and then found yourself locked up, it was your own damn fault.
I see a glimmer of brutal logic there, up to a point. In recent history, though, when Americans have gone missing overseas, the federal government’s response has been guided by a broader set of values than cold expediency. We do not abandon people. We work to find them and bring them home, even if they have been irresponsible and stupid. We do everything possible to bring them home. We are in this together.
Many of Sessions’s questions were awkward. He would ask a question that was implicitly critical of the Department of Justice and look at those of us from the FBI expectantly, as if we could or should answer the question with our Justice colleagues sitting right there in the room. We would simply say, That’s not our area of responsibility.
An example: He expressed frustration that many U.S. attorneys, in cases where the death penalty was an option, were not recommending or pursuing the death penalty. It’s nonsense, he would say. We have this law, and if we have the law then we’ve got to start using it. Sessions spent a lot of time yelling at us about the death penalty, despite the fact that the FBI plays no role of any kind in whether to seek the death penalty—that’s a job for Justice. All the people on Sessions’s side of the table would look at their laps. No one would chime in and try to answer his questions, calm things down, redirect the conversation. We were always hanging out on a limb.
Maybe they were so quiet over there because they, too, brought limited experience to the table. That was fine. It could have given us the opportunity to engage. But no one ever gave us an opening. I would look at the line of them and think, Pitch in here, be the translator, help me out. Show me how to get through to him or help him understand. To be fair, they may have had their own difficulties charting the byways of his mind. You never knew when you’d bump into some distorted perception. On one occasion Sessions launched into a diatribe about whom we were hiring at the FBI. Back in the old days, he said, you all only hired Irishmen. They were drunks, but they could be trusted. Not like all those new people with nose rings and tattoos—who knows what they’re doing?
The difficulty of dealing with Sessions personally was compounded, I believe, by the political nature of the Department of Justice. Political, meaning staffed with officials who are appointed and are therefore cautious—not political as in partisan. When a new attorney general comes in, survival instincts are triggered. People try to figure out where they stand. No one wants to say anything controversial.
Another reason they were so quiet may have been that they weren’t reading the briefing material. Most people who received the PDB still got a hard copy, but by this time the attorney general and the deputy attorney general were receiving theirs on secure tablet computers. One day one of the briefers came to me, concerned, and said, I don’t know what to do about this—we keep getting the tablets back, and they haven’t been opened. The tablets were sent out with a passcode that had to be entered to get access to the briefing information. The machines kept logs of when they had been opened. The logs were empty.
It is possible that the attorney general and the deputy attorney general had been reading the hard-copy version. It was my impression, however, that Sessions arrived at the briefings unfamiliar with the book. The lack of interest was confounding. More than that, it was demoralizing. The work of these briefings is important. The President’s Daily Brief is how the intelligence community joins in a communal understanding of what is most important to the national security of this country. To blow that off sends the wrong message.
We tried to interpret that choice as revealing no more than the intense degree of focus that Attorney General Sessions devoted to criminal matters, such as immigration and narcotics: very important things. But in time it became impossible to avoid the overwhelming evidence that the attorney general had little use for serious discussions of national security. And an attorney general can’t ignore that conversation. Engaging on counterterrorism is not optional.
-- The PDB, or Putin? --
These days, another person who derives little benefit from the PDB is the president. Like former attorney general Sessions, President Trump appears not to be paying attention, or not to care, or not to trust the intelligence community. Although it may be that both these men don’t understand the importance of this information or don’t understand how it is different from other information, it may also be that they do not appreciate the pains that are taken to acquire and process it.
Whatever the reason, this profound disengagement sends a very clear signal back when briefers go in and try to talk to the president about the topic they’ve been told to talk to him about, and the briefing goes off the rails—when the principal, as he’s called, slams you with questions about totally unrelated things and makes all kinds of bizarre statements and pronouncements, and you come back to the Bureau thinking, My God, where do I even begin? The Bureau gets feedback like, He wants more video. But you can’t tell every story in a video. Sometimes you need a written narrative. Sometimes you need empirical data and statistics. These interactions have a debilitating impact on our capacity to process and present the intelligence that’s essential for the most crucial decisions concerning national security. It affects the way our analysts think about what they need to produce and present.
In July 2017, the White House requested a briefing for the president on the Russian dachas—two Russian diplomatic facilities in the United States, one on the Maryland shore and the other in New York. Both of them were closed in December 2016 at the direction of the Obama administration, as part of the sanctions placed on Russia for Moscow’s sustained interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign. By the following July, the sanctions were about to expire, and the Trump administration had to decide whether to allow the Russians back into these properties or not. This was an important issue to the FBI, because we believed the Russians had used the dachas for intelligence purposes, not just as sites for diplomatic recreation.
On a briefing of such importance, it would be customary for the FBI director to attend, and at this time I was the acting director. There had been a lot of back-channel signs during the spring that the president and the administration saw me as a kind of enemy. Just a couple of days before the dacha briefing, an administration official told a member of my staff that I should not attend. For good measure, the official added that “they”—unnamed powers in the White House—had decided to get rid of me as soon as a new director was in place. That was the phrase that was reported to me about their plans: “get rid of.”
Based on these signals, and on my knowledge that senior staff from other agencies would be in the briefing, I decided that I would delegate the job. The briefers returned to the Hoover building when the meeting was over, and one of them came to my office to tell me how it went. This is standard practice. Briefings to any president are assiduously prepared, with oversight from the director as needed, and if the director is not present, the senior official in attendance comes back to the director to report. This is because, in normal circumstances, the president would provide direction—assign us a task, request more information, or ask questions that the director should be aware of.
But when this official came into my office, where a number of us had gathered, he was dumbfounded. I remember asking, How did it go? and watching him shake his head in response, then explain that the briefer on the dachas spoke for no more than a few minutes. For practically the whole rest of the meeting, the president talked nonstop. That day, North Korea was on the president’s mind. North Korea had recently conducted a test of an intercontinental ballistic missile, potentially capable of striking the U.S.—Kim Jong-un had called the test a Fourth of July “gift” to “the arrogant Americans.” But the president did not believe it had happened. The president thought it was a hoax. He thought that North Korea did not have the capability to launch such missiles. He said he knew this because Vladimir Putin had told him so.
The PDB briefer told the president that this point of view was not consistent with any of the intelligence that the United States possessed. The president said that he believed Putin.
Then the president talked about Venezuela. That’s the country we should be going to war with, he said. They have all that oil and they’re right on our back door. He continued on, rambling and spitballing about whatever came to mind.
As my colleague told this story, he was sitting at the conference table, his hands out in front of him, palms open to the sky. When the meeting was all over, he said, he got into the car with the analyst who had prepared to brief the president on the dachas. He said the analyst was distressed. Overwhelmed by the experience. Thought she had somehow screwed up, that it was in some way her fault that the president had failed to learn anything about a matter of critical importance. My colleague tried to reassure her: I’m sorry. I’m sorry you had to see that. That didn’t have anything to do with you. It’s not your fault.
Every time something like this happens, the concern becomes more real, the question becomes more urgent: What is going on here? The fields of law enforcement and intelligence, when stripped to their essentials, are both driven by human conversation. Law enforcement is a conversation about how to order and safeguard society. Intelligence is a conversation that aims to describe the true state of the world. The president of the United States has, traditionally, been an indispensable participant in these conversations. But when a president is incapable of listening, or at least unwilling to listen, to any voice but his own, how can the other participants in that conversation go on doing their jobs?
A lot has been said about the president’s demands for loyalty pledges—loyalty pledges to him personally, which were demanded from Jim Comey and from me. We did not make such pledges. One of the things that has been most startling is the starkness of the difference, just night and day, between how the former administration and the current administration expected to deal with the FBI. The current administration comes to everything—not just the FBI, but everything—with a mentality of, You’re with us or you’re against us. That’s incredibly corrosive to an organization responsible for protecting people’s liberty. The FBI has to be independent and guided only by the truth and the Constitution.
A functional relationship between the FBI and the White House is paradoxical, as Jim Comey told his senior leaders at the Bureau many times. Comey also tried to explain this to President Trump. He explained that some presidents tried to bring the attorney general and the FBI director close to the White House, believing this would protect them from the sort of problems that usually come from Justice. This tactic expresses an instinctive feeling: I need this guy protecting me, I need this person on my team and in my corner. What presidents should do is the opposite, Comey believed. A president needs the attorney general and the FBI director to be independent. He needs them to have the credibility that comes from that known independence. The FBI and Justice need to have the political independence to be honest brokers in all situations. Obama probably came closest to that ideal. The current administration is the furthest away—it’s like nothing we’ve ever seen before.
Chapter Five
Benghazi to Boston: Reliving the Horror, Again and Again
-- No Red Lines --
Try to hit the alligator closest to the boat. In 2011, when I returned to headquarters from the HIG, that was the counterterrorism division’s guiding strategy. And the water was teeming with alligators. As in the case of Zazi and the New York City subway plot, sometimes we got lucky. In May 2010, a Pakistani named Faisal Shahzad left a Nissan Pathfinder packed with propane, gasoline, fireworks, and timing triggers parked in Times Square. Vendors called the police when the car began smoking after a failed detonation. Three days later, Shahzad slipped past FBI surveillance teams outside his house and was pulled off a flight by Customs and Border Protection officers minutes before the airplane was to leave for Pakistan. In October of the same year, we were spared the loss of possibly two airliners when security officers found bombs packed in toner cartridges on aircraft at East Midlands Airport, in the United Kingdom, and Dubai International Airport, in the United Arab Emirates. Both packages were the creative and deadly work of AQAP bomb maker Ibrahim al-Asiri. In January 2011, observant workers discovered a backpack containing a radio-controlled pipe bomb on the route of the Martin Luther King Jr. Day parade in Spokane, Washington. Investigators determined that the perpetrator, a white supremacist named Kevin Harpham, had laced the bomb’s shrapnel with rat poison to aggravate the injuries.
In September 2016, a man named Ahmad Khan Rahimi gave us three near misses in a single day. One Saturday morning, a bomb made by Rahimi detonated in a garbage can just before the start of a fun run in Seaside Park, New Jersey. No one was injured. That night, a pressure-cooker bomb made by Rahimi detonated on a street in Chelsea, in Manhattan, injuring a number of people but producing no fatalities. A second pressure-cooker bomb made by Rahimi, also left on the street in Manhattan, miraculously failed to detonate despite being handled and moved by several passersby. The next day multiple bombs—all the work of Rahimi—were discovered at the train station in Elizabeth, New Jersey. Rahimi was taken into custody after a shootout with police in Linden, New Jersey.
Unfortunately, near misses were not our only experiences during those years. In Fort Hood, Texas, in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, in Overland Park, Kansas, in Chattanooga, Tennessee, in San Bernardino, California, in Orlando, Florida, terrorists killed or wounded many people. With each tragedy we improved our ability to respond and, we hoped, to prevent the next one. The inevitable next one. I had returned to CT during a milestone month of what I still nostalgically refer to as the “War on Terror.” On May 2, 2011, U.S. forces killed Osama bin Laden. Though still a danger, al-Qaeda was no longer the monolithic, overriding threat it had once been. Counterterrorism now required thinking about a larger variety of extremist groups, including state-sponsored groups. Did Lebanon’s Hezbollah, or the Quds Force of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, have a presence in the U.S.? How could they act against us here?
The case of Mansour J. Arbabsiar shifted our perspective on those questions. Before Arbabsiar, we thought there were still some things that state-sponsored terrorists would not do. The Arbabsiar case, which ended with his arrest in October 2011, showed us that nothing was beyond the realm of possibility. With financial support and direction from known members of the Quds Force, Arbabsiar—a used-car salesman in Corpus Christi, Texas—sought to hire Mexicans from the Los Zetas drug cartel to assassinate the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States at a restaurant in Washington. That was such a clownfish-crammed saltwater aquarium of a situation that I will gut it for you: The Iranian government ordered a hit on American soil. We had always thought that was a red line they would never cross. They crossed it.
Proliferating terrorist groups and techniques made coordination of U.S. intelligence work even more important. Cooperation among the relevant agencies—staffed by individuals whose defining characteristics include reticence and skepticism and, on our worst days, paranoia—did not come naturally. Adapting to meet new threats, agencies had to cross red lines of their own. People stopped concentrating so much on protecting their lanes and started thinking about how to share resources and information. The Arbabsiar case was a milestone in the relationship between the FBI and the intelligence community. Soon after we started developing the case, we brought our colleagues over and said, This is what we’ve got. We have a great source, great access. We’ll tell you everything. We want your help. They said, Yes, we want in.
The information architecture of threats, and of investigations, was changing fast. The Arab Spring had just passed, and new threat actors emerged. Some were purely local, such as the Libyan militias, and some were regional, such as the Nusra Front, a Syrian rebel group that splintered off al-Qaeda in Iraq. Terrorists were improving their public relations skills, packaging their messages for increasingly mainstream consumption. For al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Anwar al-Awlaki produced a glossy propaganda magazine called Inspire, with article headlines such as HOW TO MAKE A BOMB IN THE KITCHEN OF YOUR MOM.
The U.S. government’s Middle East foreign policy discussions focused on what role this country should play in the civil war in Libya. Many of us in counterterrorism were much more concerned about Syria. That country was going south, hard. The population had become so fractured, the country was a completely lawless place. After a war broke out between the old-timers in al-Qaeda in Iraq and the new, better-packaged generation in the Nusra Front, the younger generation relocated to Syria. Then that group split and gave birth to what eventually became ISIS. It was a volatile, violent situation, and few people in the U.S. government were paying attention.
In the counterterrorism division we were all very concerned. Maybe we should have done more to raise the alarm with Congress, but I don’t think we ever seriously considered that option. In those days, the FBI interacted with the Hill as little as possible. When Congress wanted a briefing, we went up, fulfilled our responsibility, and got back to work. Bob Mueller’s approach to the Hill was: only go when it is unavoidable. He, like all directors after Hoover, fiercely guarded the FBI’s non-partisan integrity. Mueller protected the FBI from congressional partisanship by following the standard rules for dealing with radiation: minimize your exposure time, don’t get too close to the fissile material, keep something in between you and the danger. Time, distance, and shielding.
On the night of September 11, 2012, in Benghazi, Libya, a mob attacked a U.S. diplomatic compound and a nearby CIA base. Four Americans were killed: J. Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya; Sean Smith, an employee of the State Department; and CIA security contractors Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty. The FBI immediately opened an investigation, as it does whenever any U.S. facility is attacked. The FBI counterterrorism division—which by this time I led, as assistant director—oversees those investigations, because initial suspicion for such attacks always falls on terrorist actors. But the FBI was denied diplomatic access to the Benghazi crime scene by the Libyan government, such as it was, and the risk of violence was in any case too great for us to go in immediately.
The FBI pursued this investigation according to procedural guidelines, within diplomatic limits. Still, the problems of access drew criticism right away. When I went to brief Congress, one member said, I saw a CNN reporter in Benghazi walking through the crime scene—if CNN can be over there already, why can’t the FBI? I answered, If you don’t own the environment, you can’t access the environment. Benghazi was not like a bank robbery in Kansas, where FBI agents could go charging in to dust for fingerprints and interview the tellers. This was a foreign country. To send in U.S. law enforcement after the host country had denied access could be considered an act of war. It would take a lot of time and effort before we could get the right conditions on the ground to be able to send people in to do anything.
Outside the FBI, the Bureau’s work was viewed through a partisan lens. During the week following the attack, Obama administration officials offered two different explanations for the violence. Susan Rice, most prominently, said it was part of a spontaneous demonstration against an anti-Muslim video that had been produced by an American. Others said that it appeared to be a planned terrorist attack. Some Republicans considered these ambiguous or inconsistent statements as indications of a cover-up. With a presidential election less than two months away, Republicans seized on the idea that Benghazi was an al-Qaeda attack as a way to discredit President Obama on the issue of national security. On the other side, Democrats were eager to suggest that, no, the attack had nothing to do with terrorism.
Everyone on both sides of the aisle wanted explanations as to why this attack had happened—Was it the movie? Was it a terrorist plot?—before the FBI had a clear sense of who had been involved. That picture would begin to emerge only through a grinding, tedious investigation that began in late September, when a small team of FBI investigators arrived in Tripoli. Our embassy there was spartan. Only the security was elaborate. The investigators were not allowed to leave the building except in caravans of fully armored vehicles manned by U.S. soldiers. Even a trip to a local police department to develop liaison contacts who could corral witnesses involved a massive military movement. We had immense numbers of questions and requests, and in any given week, if the Libyan police did even one of the twenty things we asked them for, that was a pretty good rate of return.
On the Hill, there was no understanding of realities on the ground. Congress found a hundred ways of asking the one question that hijacked their minds: Was this al-Qaeda or just the movie? My colleagues and I always provided the only clear and honest answer we could credibly provide, on the basis of the information we had: We do not know yet. It may have been both. We have unsubstantiated indicators that people with connections to al-Qaeda may have been involved, and we also know that the video provoked violent protests in Cairo and other places around the world.
The honest answer was not acceptable. It was dismissed as equivocating. The exchanges we had on the Hill when we went to give briefings did not concern the process of investigation. The only thing I saw members of Congress learning, during these early Benghazi briefings, was that the way to gain the upper hand in a confusing situation was to keep on repeating yourself, louder and louder, and never to listen, never to rest.