Voices From the FBI's Past Hoping to Shape Its Future

Once again, retired FBI personnel are capturing media attention for their critical views of the FBI’s reputation among Americans. ?Not surprising, their opinions have captured the attention of House Republicans. Wittingly or not, these former FBI colleagues have played into the slimy hands of the rabid right who, now that they are in the majority, are about to unleash a number of “oversight” hearings of the FBI, DOJ, DHS, DOD and, separately, Hunter Biden’s laptop and the FBI’s investigation into the theft of his sister, Ashley Biden’s personal diary.

Thomas J. Baker, Kevin Brock, and Chris Swecker are among the most cited by right-wing politicians and right-leaning media outlets. While all claim a desire to restore the FBI’s reputation, their repeated public flogging of the FBI suggests self-promotion may be an alternative motivation. ?

Thomas J. Baker, who retired from the FBI in 1999, has been quite prolific in producing op-eds in the Wall Street Journal, and other outlets, cataloging all of the FBI flaws that have emerged since the Comey era. Chief among them, is what Baker describes as the FBI’s post-9/11 cultural change from an investigative body to an intelligence-driven organization. Baker’s theory blames that evolution on Robert Mueller because he was “humiliated” (Baker’s word) at a Camp David briefing he gave President George W. Bush and other high-level officials just days after the terrorist attack.

After Baker’s April 19, 2018 op-ed appeared in the WSJ, he became the darling of conservatives, particularly the right-leaning Steamboat Institute crowd, where he was invited to share his thoughts at its annual “Freedom Conference” in August, 2018. Baker colorfully recounted stories from his career while reinforcing his beliefs that the FBI’s “intelligence-driven” focus and cultural change was at the root of all its subsequent problems. And it was at that conference where Baker described how Mueller led the Bureau astray. ?

Baker explained to Steamboat’s audience the difference between FBI criminal investigators and intelligence officers. Criminal investigators deal in facts that can be supported with evidence, he explained, while intelligence officers deal in estimates or guesses and that they lie—a lot “to everyone.”

To illustrate his point, he told of an encounter with a CIA station chief while Baker was serving as a legal attaché. ?The station chief told Baker that “He had no problem lying to the ambassador.”

That may or may not be true, and I’m of the opinion that while intelligence officers, like FBI agents acting in an undercover role, may indeed lie to their adversaries or assets, it stretches the imagination to believe that a CIA station chief would admit such conduct—especially to an FBI agent.

After several of Baker’s op-ed appeared—each regurgitating previously digested bits of the same material—you’re given the hint that he is writing a book on all of this. But of course he is.

In another WSJ op-ed published September 14, 2022, “How Robert Mueller Shredded the FBI’s Credibility,” Baker illustrates, yet again, Mueller’s Camp David episode.

Here is a paragraph from that piece referring to the September 15, 2001, Camp David meeting: ?

“Mr. Bush, wearing a leather bomber jacket, sat at the head of a big square conference table in the rustic oak cabin. Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, was at the president’s right. Mr. Mueller, as he later acknowledged, was confident in the report. The FBI had done what it does best—investigate.

“Expecting praise or thanks, Mr. Mueller was taken aback when the president interrupted him. ‘Bob, I expect the FBI to determine who was responsible for the attacks and to help bring them to justice,’ he said. ‘What I want to know from you—today—is what the FBI is doing to prevent the next attack.’ That same morning Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet presented a proposed plan of action. At the conclusion of Mr. Tenet’s presentation, Mr. Bush exclaimed, ‘That’s great.’ He turned toward Mr. Mueller and said, ‘That’s what I want to hear.’ Mr. Mueller told me later that he felt humiliated.”

The italics in both passages are mine and they are emphasized because they are false.

Here is a video clip of that very Camp David meeting from C-SPAN. I encourage you to view it for it shreds Baker’s version of that meeting in four ways. First, President Bush is not wearing a leather bomber jacket. Nor is he seated at the head of a square table.

He is wearing what appears to be a fleece-lined casual jacket, made by Land’s End, and embroidered with “Presidential Retreat Camp David.” It is definitely not leather. Moreover, he is seated in the center of a long, rectangular table, not the head of a square one. Finally, to his right sits Vice President Dick Cheney, not Condoleezza Rice.

But of all these inconsistencies, when Baker wrote “Mr. Mueller told me later that he felt humiliated,” that really rang hollow. Read that sentence again and ask yourself, Why would Bob Mueller confess his humiliation to an agent who retired two years before that Camp David meeting? ?

Finally, there is another version of that Camp David meeting. It was published in The Washington Post on January 22, 2002, written by two impeccable reporters, Bob Woodward and Dan Baltz. It seems to me that if President Bush had directed any comments toward Mueller—as Baker described—they would most certainly have been reported in their story. There is no mention of any such exchange between Bush and Mueller.

Yet, Mr. Baker had the chutzpah to title his September, WSJ piece, “How Robert Mueller Shredded the FBI’s Credibility.” I’d suggest a follow-up titled, “How Thomas Baker Shredded His Credibility.”

?Another critical voice from the retired FBI wilderness is Kevin Brock. A former assistant director of intelligence, Brock has written many articles describing the FBI’s downward spiral under current and previous directors. Brock retired in 2007.

Perhaps it’s best to evaluate Brock’s views using his own words.

On December 3, 2020, Brock testified before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security. Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI).?A video of that hearing is here. ??

Here is an excerpt from Brock’s statement:

“I worked closely with the Department of Justice (DOJ) to align new FBI policy changes with the Attorney General Guidelines (AGG.) As a result, I had a deep knowledge and understanding of the AGG throughout my career and, while certain changes may have occurred to the AGG since my retirement, I retain a solid understanding of the AGG’s core protections of Americans from inappropriate overreach by the FBI. [Italics and bold, mine]

?“As a former FBI executive and now private citizen, I have authored several op-ed articles critical of the actions of fired FBI Director James Comey, fired FBI Deputy Director, Andrew McCabe, and fired FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok and their initiation and handling of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation and the harm their actions did to U.S citizens aligned with the Trump campaign.

?“In addition, I have been similarly critical of the stunningly inappropriate actions of former Director Comey that objectively impacted the Hillary Clinton campaign leading up to the presidential election in 2016.

?“In short, I have been speaking up, at some personal risk, not for political reasons but rather out of my concern that the integrity of the FBI and the trust that the American people have traditionally placed in the FBI have been imperiled by the faulty and reckless actions of those former FBI leaders. I do not speak on behalf of the FBI nor any current or former FBI employee, only myself. I have, however, received abundant and overwhelmingly positive feedback from current and former FBI personnel concerned for the future of the FBI.

“Let me be as clear as possible: these disgraced former FBI executives never should have opened the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. They did not, despite the DOJ Inspector General’s subsequent comments to the contrary, have adequate predication (articulable reasons) for starting an intrusive investigation into U.S. citizens. Their own documentation demonstrates this.

“The Crossfire Hurricane investigation was not an abuse by the FBI, it was an abuse of the FBI by a rogue band of reckless executives. Because of the duplicity of these disgraced former FBI leaders, many Americans have lost trust and faith in the FBI. Perhaps that is the greatest wreckage of this entire debacle. Our democracy depends heavily on objective, dispassionate and unbiased enforcement of our laws by the FBI. That trust has been eroded.

“These shameless former FBI executives continue to collect significant sums of money from book royalties, media appearances, movie rights, teaching gigs, and Go Fund Me scams. Americans would like to see accountability, but hope wanes. The efforts of this committee to shed light is welcome and commendable. Perhaps it will at least help prevent something like Crossfire Hurricane from ever happening again to any American or future presidential nominee.”

Clearly, Brock is not enamored with James Comey, Andy McCabe, nor Peter Strzok but all three have been vindicated of any alleged wrongdoing or improper behavior associated with the Crossfire Hurricane or Midyear Exam investigations. Evan all the embarrassing texts between Strzok and Page, while igniting the hair of FBI and congressional moralists notwithstanding, did not support any of the allegations hurled against them of conducting a politically motivated cabal.

?The Inspector General determined as much in every investigation he and his team conducted.

The Department of Justice, after going to great and highly unusual lengths to prosecute Andrew McCabe, ultimately dropped its case. Special Counsel John Durham, appointed by Bill Barr to prove his “I think spying did occur” comment, came up empty. And the best result of all, McCabe won all his back pay and benefits. (Total disclosure, I contributed to McCabe’s GoFundMe defense, and I bought each book authored by Comey, McCabe and Strzok.)

In a November 1, 2022, piece published in The Hill, Brock calls for a new “Church Committee” to dig into the FBI’s abuses and to restore the public’s confidence in the Bureau. He also opposes any efforts to break apart the FBI, “A prominent over-rotation proposal fronted by some in the media and on Capitol Hill is the complete dissolution of the FBI and distribution of its mission to other federal law enforcement agencies. This is a feel-good sound bite, but it will never happen.”

?So how does Brock propose the FBI restore public trust? He suggests the following three reforms:

?“First, any high-profile investigation involving political campaigns, candidates and political figures should be subject to objective General Counsel review to ensure adequate predication required by the Attorney General Guidelines is clearly present in order to avoid another Crossfire Hurricane debacle. Contrary to Inspector General assertions, the Crossfire Hurricane case file articulated no basis for legitimate initiation required by the guidelines.”?

Buried in this first “reform” is Brock’s misinterpretation of events leading to the opening of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, as well as his dismissal of the DOJ Inspector General’s findings.

?Instead, Brock suggests a review by an “objective General Counsel.” What is an “objective” General Counsel? Is that the FBI’s GC? If so, how is that a reform that restores trust when Brock and others have consistently attacked the FBI’s previous GC reviews as deficient or biased? Or would Brock outsource this review?

Second, he suggests, “FBI agents and analysts should be required to sign employment contracts agreeing to avoid politically charged or revealing statements on internal communications and social media platforms under penalty of discipline, to include dismissal. The public should have faith that the FBI is apolitical.”

?Once again, language is everything. It is difficult to imagine an FBI investigation of a politician that does not contain some material that might be considered “politically charged or revealing.” Within the routine duties performed by intelligence analysts and reports officers, stitching bits of disparate intelligence into an analytical narrative may very well include text that could be interpreted as politically charged or revealing. But that’s part of intelligence analysis, isn’t it, to draw conclusions or interpretations with high confidence?

But the final suggestion from Brock is the most bizarre: “Third, arrest and search plans involving politically sensitive suspects should undergo prior review by an independent entity within the FBI to ensure that the level of tactical response fits the violation and relative risk presented by the subject. Safety is important but so is a response strategy that doesn’t foster perceptions of heavy-handedness, if not extrajudicial punishment or ‘message sending.’”?

In short, Brock’s three reforms for restoring the public’s trust in the FBI all involve internal FBI tweaks of existing policies and procedures. Good luck with that.

Lastly, there is my former squad mate, Chris Swecker. Chris was a top-notch investigator and a well-respected agent wherever he served. He retired in 2006 as AD of the Criminal Investigative Division.

Swecker published an opinion piece on Fox News on December 14, 2019. In that piece, Swecker disputes the IG’s finding that the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign was not politically motivated. Swecker wrote, “But even if there was no anti-Trump bias by FBI officials under Comey, that’s a low bar to set. Committing significant abuses directed towards four U.S. citizens and a presidential campaign – as Horowitz concluded the FBI did under Comey – is nothing to celebrate, just because the inspector general concluded it was carried out without a ‘political motive.’” ?

?Excuse me, Chris, but that is precisely something to celebrate when everyone from former President Trump to his GOP enablers and many right-leaning media all painted Comey, et al, and the FBI as pursuing an investigation that was nothing but a political cabal.

?Toward the end of his commentary Swecker seemed hopeful, “Fortunately, Attorney General Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham are conducting a broader and more far-reaching investigation. They are our best chance to get to the bottom of this outrageous conduct documented by Horowitz, hold people accountable and make sure this never happens again. They may even turn up new incidents of FBI misconduct.”

?Even with all the expectations for Durham, aside from prosecuting former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith and securing a plea, he came up dry. And the Clinesmith mischief was uncovered by the DOJ IG—the same one Swecker had in mind when he wrote, “With all due respect to [DOJ IG] Horowitz, it is a cop-out to blame low-level employees in the FBI for the serious problems his report uncovered.”

Clinesmith violated the law--not Comey--and he was prosecuted for it. How is that a cop-out?

On August 9, 2022, the day after the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago, Swecker was on Fox News with his take of that activity. In short, he believes that it was a mistake for the FBI to conduct a search for a “di minimis” violation.

Well, a lot has come to light since Swecker did that interview and it underscores more than anything else, how little he knew of the facts behind that search and the lengths to which the DOJ and FBI went to retrieve those TS/SCI classified documents, as well as the extraordinary latitude afforded Trump to produce them voluntarily.

So, the question that emerges from Mar-a-Lago is, Do we treat a former president any differently than an ordinary citizen under the same circumstances? I think not, for to do so is to mock the promise of justice—that all citizens are equal under the law—as enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment. ?

Thomas Baker, Kevin Brock and Chris Swecker all served the FBI and our country honorably. And the FBI of their era was just as political, just as troublesome, just as essential as at any time in its history. And Congress, over the years, has been equal parts critic and cheerleader but this Congress, at this time, is unlike any other in its thirst to attack the Executive Branch, especially in the GOP-majority House.

Already we have seen Baker’s and Swecker’s and Brock’s opinions exploited by some media outlets and the Republicans.

On January 3, 2023, John Solomon wrote a story in Just the News headlined, “Retired FBI boss says agency has lost independence, been co-opted by liberal DOJ ideologues.” The FBI boss referred to is Chris Swecker. Kevin Brock was also mentioned in this piece.

In a preview of the House GOP’s targets for hearings, their Judiciary Committee members released a 1,050-page report on November 2, 2022, titled, “FBI Whistleblowers: What Their Disclosures Indicate About The Politicization of The FBI And Justice Department.” And featured in the first few pages are excerpts from Baker’s September 14, 2022, WSJ op-ed which I cited earlier.

?Jim Jordan, (R-OH) is the new chair of the very new—and weirdly titled—"Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government.” If you want a peek at how the next two years will play out in the House, click here for a preview—in Jordan’s own words.

As for Comey’s role in all of this, he has been vilified for recommending against criminal charges in the Hillary Clinton email snafu and doing so publicly. Some point to that moment as the genesis for claims of “FBI politicization” that have only grown louder in recent months.

Comey usurped the role of the Attorney General, some say. He’s a showboat, others say. And many former FBI officials have publicly denigrated him, believing that his actions in 2016 and since then caused the dark clouds that have formed over the FBI.

I hold a much different view. I believe that Comey’s actions—especially documenting his private meetings with former President Trump—were incredible demonstrations of his desire to keep the FBI independent.

?The optics of AG Lynch meeting with former President Bill Clinton, while his wife was under investigation was already a red-meat moment for Republicans and no matter what course Comey took, it was sure to become an issue of FBI independence. At least by taking the initiative of disclosing all of the work the FBI did—in consultation with career DOJ prosecutors—the FBI’s position was clear and the recommendation was just.

Yet, an unsavory outcome was preordained. No one anticipated that better than my friend and former WFO colleague (and Comey’s deputy director) Mark Giuliano when he assessed the end game for Comey, “You know you are totally screwed, right?” Nostradamus could not have made a better prediction.

It’s difficult enough to do the job as an FBI employee in good times. In recent times, it’s been incredibly more difficult, made so by an unrelenting stream of alleged FBI misdeeds spewing forth from the former president, his close advisers, hard right Republicans, right-leaning media and, sadly, some of our retired FBI colleagues.