WASHINGTON — In the days after President Trump fired James B. Comey as F.B.I. director, law enforcement officials became so concerned by the president’s behavior that they began investigating whether he had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests, according to former law enforcement officials and others familiar with the investigation.
The inquiry carried
explosive implications. Counterintelligence investigators had to
consider whether the president’s own actions constituted a possible
threat to national security. Agents also sought to determine whether Mr.
Trump was knowingly working for Russia or had unwittingly fallen under
Moscow’s influence.
The investigation the F.B.I. opened into Mr. Trump also had a criminal aspect, which has long been publicly known: whether his firing of Mr. Comey constituted obstruction of justice.
Agents
and senior F.B.I. officials had grown suspicious of Mr. Trump’s ties to
Russia during the 2016 campaign but held off on opening an
investigation into him, the people said, in part because they were
uncertain how to proceed with an inquiry of such sensitivity and
magnitude. But the president’s activities before and after Mr. Comey’s
firing in May 2017, particularly two instances
in which Mr. Trump tied the Comey dismissal to the Russia
investigation, helped prompt the counterintelligence aspect of the
inquiry, the people said.
The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller
III, took over the inquiry into Mr. Trump when he was appointed, days
after F.B.I. officials opened it. That inquiry is part of Mr. Mueller’s broader examination
of how Russian operatives interfered in the 2016 election and whether
any Trump associates conspired with them. It is unclear whether Mr.
Mueller is still pursuing the counterintelligence matter, and some
former law enforcement officials outside the investigation have
questioned whether agents overstepped in opening it.
The
criminal and counterintelligence elements were coupled together into
one investigation, former law enforcement officials said in interviews
in recent weeks, because if Mr. Trump had ousted the head of the F.B.I.
to impede or even end the Russia investigation, that was both a possible
crime and a national security concern. The F.B.I.’s counterintelligence
division handles national security matters.
“Not only would
it be an issue of obstructing an investigation, but the obstruction
itself would hurt our ability to figure out what the Russians had done,
and that is what would be the threat to national security,” Mr. Baker
said in his testimony, portions of which were read to The New York
Times. Mr. Baker did not explicitly acknowledge the existence of the
investigation of Mr. Trump to congressional investigators.
No
evidence has emerged publicly that Mr. Trump was secretly in contact
with or took direction from Russian government officials. An F.B.I.
spokeswoman and a spokesman for the special counsel’s office both
declined to comment.
Rudolph W.
Giuliani, a lawyer for the president, sought to play down the
significance of the investigation. “The fact that it goes back a year
and a half and nothing came of it that showed a breach of national
security means they found nothing,” Mr. Giuliani said on Friday, though
he acknowledged that he had no insight into the inquiry.
The
cloud of the Russia investigation has hung over Mr. Trump since even
before he took office, though he has long vigorously denied any illicit
connection to Moscow. The obstruction inquiry, revealed by The Washington Post
a few weeks after Mr. Mueller was appointed, represented a direct
threat that he was unable to simply brush off as an overzealous
examination of a handful of advisers. But few details have been made
public about the counterintelligence aspect of the investigation.
The
decision to investigate Mr. Trump himself was an aggressive move by
F.B.I. officials who were confronting the chaotic aftermath of the
firing of Mr. Comey and enduring the president’s verbal assaults on the
Russia investigation as a “witch hunt.”
A
vigorous debate has taken shape among some former law enforcement
officials outside the case over whether F.B.I. investigators overreacted
in opening the counterintelligence inquiry during a tumultuous period
at the Justice Department. Other former officials noted that those
critics were not privy to all of the evidence and argued that sitting on
it would have been an abdication of duty.
The F.B.I. conducts two types of inquiries,
criminal and counterintelligence investigations. Unlike criminal
investigations, which are typically aimed at solving a crime and can
result in arrests and convictions, counterintelligence inquiries are
generally fact-finding missions to understand what a foreign power is
doing and to stop any anti-American activity, like thefts of United
States government secrets or covert efforts to influence policy. In most
cases, the investigations are carried out quietly, sometimes for years.
Often, they result in no arrests.
Mr.
Trump had caught the attention of F.B.I. counterintelligence agents
when he called on Russia during a campaign news conference in July 2016 to hack into the emails of his opponent, Hillary Clinton. Mr. Trump had refused to criticize Russia on the campaign trail, praising President Vladimir V. Putin. And investigators had watched with alarm as the Republican Party softened its convention platform on the Ukraine crisis in a way that seemed to benefit Russia.
Other factors fueled the F.B.I.’s concerns, according to the people
familiar with the inquiry. Christopher Steele, a former British spy who
worked as an F.B.I. informant, had compiled memos in mid-2016
containing unsubstantiated claims that Russian officials tried to
obtain influence over Mr. Trump by preparing to blackmail and bribe him.
In the months before the 2016 election, the F.B.I. was also already investigating
four of Mr. Trump’s associates over their ties to Russia. The
constellation of events disquieted F.B.I. officials who were
simultaneously watching as Russia’s campaign unfolded to undermine the
presidential election by exploiting existing divisions among Americans.
“In
the Russian Federation and in President Putin himself, you have an
individual whose aim is to disrupt the Western alliance and whose aim is
to make Western democracy more fractious in order to weaken our
ability, America’s ability and the West’s ability to spread our
democratic ideals,” Lisa Page, a former bureau lawyer, told House
investigators in private testimony reviewed by The Times.
“That’s the goal, to make us less of a moral authority to spread democratic values,” she added. Parts of her testimony were first reported by The Epoch Times.
And when a newly inaugurated Mr. Trump sought a loyalty pledge from Mr. Comey and later asked that he end an investigation
into the president’s national security adviser, the requests set off
discussions among F.B.I. officials about opening an inquiry into whether
Mr. Trump had tried to obstruct that case.
But
law enforcement officials put off the decision to open the
investigation until they had learned more, according to people familiar
with their thinking. As for a counterintelligence inquiry, they
concluded that they would need strong evidence to take the sensitive
step of investigating the president, and they were also concerned that
the existence of such an inquiry could be leaked to the news media,
undermining the entire investigation into Russia’s meddling in the
election.
After Mr. Comey was fired on May 9, 2017, two more of Mr. Trump’s actions prompted them to quickly abandon those reservations.
The first was a letter Mr. Trump wanted to send to Mr. Comey about his
firing, but never did, in which he mentioned the Russia investigation. In the letter, Mr. Trump thanked Mr. Comey for previously telling him he was not a subject of the F.B.I.’s Russia investigation.
Even after the
deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, wrote a more restrained
draft of the letter and told Mr. Trump that he did not have to mention
the Russia investigation — Mr. Comey’s poor handling of the Clinton
email investigation would suffice as a fireable offense, he explained —
Mr. Trump directed Mr. Rosenstein to mention the Russia investigation
anyway.
He disregarded the
president’s order, irritating Mr. Trump. The president ultimately added a
reference to the Russia investigation to the note he had delivered, thanking Mr. Comey for telling him three times that he was not under investigation.
The second event that troubled investigators was an NBC News interview two days after Mr. Comey’s firing in which Mr. Trump appeared to say he had dismissed Mr. Comey because of the Russia inquiry.
“I
was going to fire Comey knowing there was no good time to do it,” he
said. “And in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself — I
said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up
story. It’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that
they should’ve won.”
Mr. Trump’s
aides have said that a fuller examination of his comments demonstrates
that he did not fire Mr. Comey to end the Russia inquiry. “I might even
lengthen out the investigation, but I have to do the right thing for the
American people,” Mr. Trump added. “He’s the wrong man for that
position.”
As F.B.I. officials
debated whether to open the investigation, some of them pushed to move
quickly before Mr. Trump appointed a director who might slow down or
even end their investigation into Russia’s interference. Many involved
in the case viewed Russia as the chief threat to American democratic
values.
“With respect to Western
ideals and who it is and what it is we stand for as Americans, Russia
poses the most dangerous threat to that way of life,” Ms. Page told
investigators for a joint House Judiciary and Oversight Committee
investigation into Moscow’s election interference.
F.B.I. officials
viewed their decision to move quickly as validated when a comment the
president made to visiting Russian officials in the Oval Office shortly
after he fired Mr. Comey was revealed days later.
“I
just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr.
Trump said, according to a document summarizing the meeting. “I faced
great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”
No comments:
Post a Comment