James Comey Stands Firm

than when you came. People like Steve Case talking about his efforts to really expand the startup revolution in Middle America, to John Carey, the former Secretary of State to Toronto, Burke, who of course is the founder of the Me Too movement, and everyone in between. It's really such a fun event. And today we're bringing you one of those conversations because Katie, you have the opportunity to sit down with James Comey. And if you don't know who that is, you shouldn't

be listening to this podcast. That's not true. He's a former director of the FBI who has been embroiled in controversy now for about the past two years. Hillary Clinton believes that he cost her the election. Many of people agree with her on that, and President Trump, who fired Comy last spring, has said, well tweeted, of course, that Comy will go down as the worst all caps FBI director in history by far exclamation point. That may be the only thing that Trump and Hillary actually agree on

every same time. Other people like Senator John McCain have praised Komy for his integrity, and we know that during his tenures FBI Director, Comy was very respected by the rank and file agents who served under him. Well. Since being fired by President Trump without warning last May, he's been teaching at Howard University and has come out with

a best selling memoir called A Higher Loyalty. It tells the story of his life, how he became interested in law and law enforcement, and of course, what it was like working in the chaotic early days of the Trump administration. I was excited to talk to Mr Comey because just last month, the Justice Department issued a five page report highly critical of him and the FBI during the two

thousand sixteen presidential election. Of course, we should note that if we learned anything from his congressional testimony, Comey is a pretty disciplined guy. He knows how to say what he wants to say and nothing more. But of course that didn't stop me from trying. So here's my conversation with James Coomy. I feel like Sarah Palin when I say, can I call you Jim Can? I? You've known me since I was like six to all right, seriously, thank you very much for being here. We've got a lot

to cover, so let's get right to it. An interesting thing happened towards the end of your media blitz. The Justice Department's Inspector General of former colleague of yours name Michael Horowitz, issued a five page report about your actions as head of the FBI during the two thousand sixteen campaign. It was highly critical, as you know, let me read you some excerpts. Your press conference in July of two thousand sixteen was quote on an extraordinary and insubordinate thing

to do. Quote. We found none of Mr Comey's reasons to be a persuasive basis for deviating from well established department policies. You engage in your own quote subjective ad hoc decision making. The report also said you're October letter to Congress announcing a reopen Clinton investigation was a quote serious error in judgment. Take us back to the day you were reading this report. What was that like? It was painful. I had encouraged the report when I was director,

and even after I got fired. I wanted them to do it because I think accountability is incredibly important to the institution, especially and reading it was painful for a couple of reasons. First, it was a bit of a it's a trauma to go back through one of the most painful things I've ever been through as a leader. And then it's painful to read yourself being criticized, even though I expected to be criticized. It was painful. And

let's talk about these three big decisions you made. I know you've addressed them all during your numerous interviews, but the IG report really did breathe new life into the controversy. So July five, two thousand and sixteen, you held a press conference announcing you were not recommending charges be brought against Secretary Clinton, that quote, no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. But you also said that Clinton was

quote extremely careless in her handling of emails. My question is this, what were you doing making this announcement the first place. You were not the attorney general, you weren't even a prosecutor. Why was it appropriate for you, as the investigator to make that announcement. That's a great question.

I was doing something I never could have imagined, because normally the responsibility for announcing the closing of an investigation and offering transparency, which is done in cases of extraordinary public interest. For example in Ferguson, we did a public report there, but it's always the attorney general that announces, and the FBI director is typically standing next to the

attorney general. The reason I did it here was I thought it was between two options, offering transparency separately or offering it standing next to the attorney general, the one least likely to do lasting damage to the institutions? Was

this bad option? Not this bad option? And I'm not picking on Loretta Lynch by saying that, but there were a number of things that had happened that led me to believe, and reasonable people I knew at the time could see it differently, but led me to believe that it will be very difficult for her to credibly announce the completion of an investigation of one of the two candidates for president of the United States, the candidate from the party, the same party that she was in, and

President Obama. But there were other prosecutors who could have done that. Well, no, not the way it was set up Loretta had it was. I don't I assume folks know some of this background. There was a lot of controversy during the final week of the investigation where she had had a meeting with Bill Clinton on an airplane, and it was all kinds of storm about whether that

was fatally compromised her. All this kind of business. And I had no doubt that Loretta was a person of principle, but I worried a whole lot about the public perception that the investigation was not done credibly. And so she announced, without talking to me or Sally Yates, that she was not going to step out of the investigation, but she would accept my recommendation and that of the career prosecutors.

So I don't know what option I had then, besides choosing either to give her the traditional thing, the norm, or do something I'd never imagined before, which has announced the recommendation. She said she would accept the career prosecutors right right, So why not let them, and you know they would not being able to announce anything. Well, you told the Justice Department about the press conference after the meet had been notified, and you didn't tell them what

you were going to say. A friend of mine who's a very respected former federal prosecutor, says, the only reason not to fully inform the Internity General was that you knew you were doing something wrong and you didn't want to be stopped. I'm curious to hear your reaction to that. Only the second part of that's accurate. When I first read the words in subordination and the Inspector Generals report, actually had an emotional reaction like are you kidding me?

She announced she would accept my recommendation. But I actually think it's fair criticism because I was intentionally not telling her what I was going to say, and a superior in a normal circumstance would expect that, So I think that was fair. I wasn't wasn't not telling her because I thought I was doing something wrong. I thought, and honestly I still think, between the two bad options, it was the one that was best suited to protect the institutions.

But I was doing it because I didn't want to give her the opportunity to stop me, because if she had issued an order don't do it, I would have followed that order. And so the second part of what your friend said is fair. The first part is not. You said you wanted to be transparent to make sure the FBI kept its credibility. But almost any time someone is investigated, you come up with damaging information about or you can come up with damaging information about that person.

It's highly unusual for prosecutors, much less investigators, to share that information if they're declining to prosecute. I'm not a lawyer, but I understand that's why they call it prosecutorial discretion, not law enforcement discretion. So why did you do it? I think that's right. As I said, the norm is the Department of Justice, with the FBI standing next to them, announces the closure of an investigation. It's not true that it never happens that transparency is offered when the investigation

of prosecutions decline. It's done when the public interest requires it. And and I don't think there's a serious argument that the public interests didn't require some transparency here. I did

it because I stared at the two options. If I do the normal thing stand next to the Attorney General, A corrosive doubt will creep in about whether this was a political hit job to can an investigation of one of the two candidates for president of the United States, and that will be fed by the fact the President Obama has already twice said there's no they're there. The Attorney General has met with Bill Clinton again. I don't think she's anything and proper, but reasonable people forget partisan

wing nuts. Reasonable people could have a doubt about what's going on with the Attorney General right before she announces the closure of this investigation, meeting privately with Secretary Clinton's husband. And so my thinking was, Okay, there's two options. This one is much worse for the institutions of justice. I can spend some of my personal credibility because I wasn't viewed as a partisan and the FBI s and by

doing that protect the institution. I knew this is gonna be terrible for me personally, because I knew reasonable people could see it differently and say the things that they've said. But I thought, as between the two, the FBI offering transparency separately, is the is the result best calculated to maintain the faith and comp and to the American people and end the investigation in a credible way, which we did.

I thought, But why if your intentions were so noble as you believe your actions were, have you been so roundly criticized by just about everyone. Yeah? Yeah, And it's funny you say that. I don't. Actually, Sometimes people say when everybody's mad at you, it means you're right. No, it doesn't. It could be you're completely wrong. I don't

know for sure. I think people that have taken the time to put themselves in my shoes, and I'm sure we're gonna talk about October, which is a much more difficult decision, and stare at the options I stared at. I would say, as the Inspector General did. I disagree with the results, but I understand why he did what he did and if people take the time to do that. The most important thing about the Inspector General's report, I believe for the Institution is we made the decisions in

a political way. We were trying to and honestly, I've stared at this a thousand times. I would still do the same thing because doing the normal thing norms produced predictable results in the normal situation. This is a five year flood. The Obama Justice Department, of which I'm a part, is investigating the Democratic Canadate for President of the United States is about to decline a criminal case on the eve of the conventions. How do you do that and

maintain the faith and confidence of the American people? So is that really your job? Is that your job to decide how to maintain the faith and confidence of the American people? Is that within your purview? Absolutely? When you are the leader of one of the institutions of justice, you must care about that deeply, because the entire institution rests upon the faith and confidence of the American people.

When the FBI rises in a courtroom or in Congress, in a cookout, they must be seen as independent in American life and must be trusted as people who care only about the facts. And so, despite the way you were raised, I'm sure you're raised the same way my mother said, you can't care what other people think. When you're director of the FBI. You have to because you run a public institution. So transparency is incredibly important. I believe the American people were due transparency here, fair and

open description of why there was no criminal case. Here, you called Hillary Clinton's behavior extremely careless, placing a value judgment on her. Can you give me another example of an FBI agent or prosecutor coming forward to publicly maligned someone they decided not to prosecute. Lowest learner I r S executive the f the Department of Justice described her as a poor manager, but not engaged in criminal wrongdoing.

When they closed the investigation of the so called targeting of the Tea Party Jose Padilla, who was a so called dirty bomber in two thousand and four, I was at the Justice Department. We did a public announcement of why he had been detained and not prosecuted, and described in great detail his conduct. It is part of the norm to do that when the public interests requires it. Now I've struggled with this. I wasn't trying to attack Hillary Clinton. I was trying to be transparent with the

American people and describe the conduct. I don't think I could have credibly describe the closure of an investigation in which the former Secretary of State discussed top secret information eight times in emails and secret information fifty sometimes in emails without offering some evaluation. Now I screwed it up because extremely careless was a stupid term to use. I should have said really sloppy, not being facetious, because I was trying to explain to the American people. Look, there's

ordinary sloppiness you leave a documented the Starbucks. There's criminal misconduct where you know you're doing something you shouldn't do. David Petras is an example of that, and that's prosecuted. You don't get prosecuted for this, you know, you get prosecutor for this. Hillary Clinton was not this. It was something much more seriousness. It was really sloppy, but it didn't rise to the level of something that would be prosecuted, and so I needed to describe that why we thought

the conduct fell short of this threshold for prosecution. But frankly, if I described it as Starbucks documents stuff, the result would have no credibility. Let's talk about the second big decision you made, one that has made many Hillary Clinton

supporters angry to this day. On October two thousand, sixteen, eleven days before the election, you sent a letter to Congress that leaked to the public I believe nine minutes later that said the FBI found new emails that could be pertinent to the Clinton investigation, and you were reviewing them. According to the IG report, these eight emails were actually found more than a month earlier, and the FBI failed to act. You were told about these emails either in

late September or early October, and you didn't act. Why the delay? I don't know why the delay. The investor, the investigators in New York, we are investigating Anthony Weener. I'm gonna assume you all know who all that is and everything. Um. They had seized his laptop in a criminal investigation and of him for improper sexual contact with a young woman. And it was apparent to the investigators there that there looked to be hundreds of thousands of

Hillary Clinton's emails on there. And that's late September. Sometime in early October. Somebody mentioned it to me in passing, and I don't remember it because I wouldn't index on it. Why would there be a connection between Anthony Weiner's computer and Hillary Clinton's email case. I don't know what the FBI did. Until I read the Inspector General's report in

that month, I know what happened with me. I walked in on October to the investigative team sitting there telling me exactly what they had found and asking me for a decision. Had they told me the same thing a month earlier, I'm confident I would have done the same thing a month earlier. And I wish that's one piece of time I wish I could go back and fix.

You said that, once you were aware of these emails and the fact that they needed to be reviewed, you had two choices, in your words, speak which was bad, or conceal which was catastrophic. So you chose bad. But the IG report says this miss mischaracterizes your two choices, which were actually follow policy and practice or depart from policy and practice, and that you chose to make your own rules. Yeah, this is where I disagree with them.

And I really like these people and know them. I think just framing it as follow the norms or depart from the norms, it's just another way of saying you have a decision to make right. Norms, as I said, produced reliably good results in normal circumstances. But isn't it important to adhere to norms and abnormal circumstances, particularly in fact the I G went on to write Jim to protect the institutions from allegations of abuse, political interference, and

biased enforcement of the law. The Department and the FBI have developed policies and practices to guide their decisions, and the vast majority of cases they are followed as a matter of routine, but they are most important to follow when the states are the highest and when the pressures to divert from them, often based on well founded concerns and highly fraught scenarios, are the greatest. And I think as a as a statement of the importance of norms,

that's reasonable. They can't mean it, though, right. They can't mean that in every circumstance you do what you would always normally do. And this is where I disagree with with their framing of it. That's you can't think about it that way. As a lawyer and a leader, you should always say, so, what's the norm? I love the norms? I should try to adhere to the norms, which is why to me, they're framing of follow the norm or depart from the norm just tells yourself you have to

ask a question. And so the next question is, okay, if I follow the norm, what happens to the institution? I love? What's the damage that flows if I depart from the norm, what happens to the institution. So let me just finish, Katie, And so you have to still ask the question. I believe, and I don't mean this to be facetious. If I had concealed from the American people that what I and Laretta Lynch had said under oath, repeated in the summer that we're done with Hillary Clinton,

American people, you can take that to the bank. You can vote knowing this is over. And Hillary Clinton were elected president, and it came out that the FBI had hidden the restarting of that investigation. And I don't mean this to be facetious. There would be an inspector General report about me and how I had destroyed the institution by departing from another norm, which is candor with a tribunal. When you make a statement under oath to a tribunal and you know it's not true, another norm in the

FBI and the Department Justice, you corrected. So I honestly think this was a nightmare. But if I had chosen to conceal that, I actually think there be an Inspector General report ripping me for being a slavish adherent to following what we always do in all circumstances. But a lot of this was timing. Eleven days before the election. You said you put out the letter because you had a duty to correct the record, because you told Congress and the public the investigation was closed, and you now

knew evidence had emerged. But wouldn't any prosecutor or investor, stigator or his or her sault wait to see if the new evidence was significant enough before charging out and announcing it, knowing that it was such a political grenade you were throwing. That's a reasonable question. But here's the problem. You're sitting there as the director of the FBI and the Attorney General. By the way, I offered her the opportunity to weigh on in this decision, and she passed.

I said, here's what we and that's the truth. Here's what we face. The investigative team is telling me, not only are the hundreds of thousands of Hillary Clinton's emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop for reasons we can't possibly explain, but we may have found the missing emails. Remember this what I described. The reason there was no prosecution here is there was no evidence that she knew she was

doing something wrong. If there was going to be that evidence, it would come at the beginning of her tenures secretary of State. We never found any emails from her first three months of secretary because those are on a BlackBerry device. That morning, October, the investigative team says to me, not only are there hundreds of thousands of her Clinton Domain emails, there are tens of thousands of her BlackBerry emails on

Anthony Leener's laptop. So they said to me, so the result may change, so you may decide to wait, maybe wait and see. They're also telling me, we can't possibly finish before the election. So what do I do? Do I wait and see if we can get a peek? Do I wait till after the election. That's what they're saying. They couldn't finish before the election because they did well. That the reason they were saying it made complete sense

to me. You couldn't bring in recruits from Quantico like you would if you're looking for a bullet in a hay field, because people who knew the context had to actually read these emails to see if they contain classified information or if they contain clues to her intent. They said, we can't possibly do that in the eleven days left, and we can't use de duplicating software that's commonly available law firms use because the emails are all and have

to be on our classified networks. We have no capability on the classified networks. And then what they did over that frantic week was our software engineers built de duplicating software for the classified networks and cut it down to six thousand or so they had to read individually, and so a team of about half a dozen read them night after night after night, and finished on the Sunday before the election, and they found lots of new stuff.

But they said to me on Sunday morning before the election, our view of her culpability has not changed. And I think you have done that though before making that writing that letter. But how would I do that though? I mean, the team is telling me credibly we can't possibly finish before the election, and so what would be my reason to wait? Now? There's been a lot of speculation out there, like, well,

was he counting on a leak? No? In fact, I thought there was some prospect that it would leak once we enlarged the circle, and we had a big team in New York knowing about the search warrant. But I thought that in a way would be the worst of all worlds for the FBI, because that would be speaking and concealing. So you were afraid of a leak, of course. And and Loretta Lynch when she was consoling me on October thirty one after I wrote the letter, said would

they feel better for a leaked on November four? And what I understood her to be saying is this was gonna come out anyway. But my view was, I can't make a decision about something of this cup, this incredibly importance by assuming it's going to leak. I have to own the decision on behalf of the institution and offer the Attorney General the opportunity to help me make it. So she consoled you, Yeah, what did she say? She hugged me, And I'm an awkward hugger to begin with,

but we've seen that in the Oval office sector. Now I have to correct that there was no hug and no kiss, and there was no kiss, but she she hugged me, and then she said, you asked me. I've known Laurette a long time and really like her, and I think she really likes me. She hugged me and said, how are you doing. I said, it's a complete nightmare. It's the worst thing I've ever been involved in. And she said and I said, explain, I said, what choice do I have? And she said would they feel better

if at leaked on November the fourth? And what I understood it to be saying was basically, don't be so hard on yourself this. Your decision was actually not as important as you think it was because it was going to come out anyway. Maybe, but you can't make decisions that way when you're leading an institution. The IG report says, the other reason you wrote the letter to Congress was your belief that Clinton would win and this would taint her presidency. Looking back on this, do you ever think

what was I thinking? Political prognostication should have absolutely nothing to do with my decision making. I should not even be contemplating the political future. I didn't. I didn't. I intentionally pushed that to the side. One of my best advisors we talked about I made this decision, actually made it with a group of about ten or twelve people. One of the best people in that group was a

very talented lawyer who asked me a searing question. She said, should you consider that what you're about to do may help elect Donald Trump president? And I said, thank you for asking that question. It's a great question, not for a moment, because down that path lies to death of the FBI as an independent force in the United States of America. If I ever start considering whose political fortunes will be helped in what way by a decision, we're

just another partisan player. I can you never worried this would taint her presidency if you did not come forward with this information, or if it came out later. We visualize that, talked about it, and then pushed it aside. Now what I've done in the book, which they tell me is a mistake for a Washington book, I've tried to be introspective and asked myself that could it have affected me that the whole world assumed she was going

to be elected president? And the honest answer is, of course, I was making that decision in an environment where everyone thought she was gonna win. But I don't remember consciously thinking about it, and honestly, it wouldn't change the decision. I can't conceal that if Hillary Clinton's up twenty points in the polls, and I can't conceal it if Donald Trump's up twenty points in the polls, because either way

it would be catastrophic for the institution. Now makes the decision easier because the damage, if you think about it, if the damage to Hillary Clinton would be far, far worse if she was a president elected, imagine the result changes. She's a president elected with an investigation underway, the FBI hid from the American people, and the FBI conclude she's criminally culpable after the election. Oh my lord, but that

is not why I made the decision. Well, many people think thanks to your actions, we don't even have to contemplate that. No, I get that. I get that, and I hope and pray that's not true. And I don't this. I don't mean this to sound also dismissive. It doesn't change how I think about the result, as painful as it is, even in hindsight, I think I made the right choice, and I know the Inspector General just a Greece.

But I say to people, please come with me to October and stare at those choices and tell me which is the one most consistent with the values of the institution. You leave, and I get that the I g season differently. I like them, I think they're wrong. Time to take a quick break. We'll return with more of my conversation with former FBI director James Comey live from the Aspen Ideas Festival right after this. Now back to my conversation

with James Comey. Let's talk about the impact this letter to Congress eleven days before the election had on the results. Nate Silver, the highly respected polling guru, wrote Hillary Clinton would probably be president if FBI Director James Comey had not sent a letter to Congress on October That must be a tremendously heavy burden for you. Do you feel responsible for the action of Donald Trump and the current state of the Union. I I hope these answers don't

sound contradictory. I don't, but I also it is a heavy burden. And I've said this and I think our current president misunderstood what I meant. It leaves me feeling mildly nauseous to think, and I should have said nauseated. I know, but it leaves me feeling my dad used to always correct means you make people nausea, which I may may anyway, But one of my daughters corrected me. But here's why I say that that I've devoted my whole life to institutions of justice that want nothing to

do with elections. The most powerful norm I've lived under is you take no action in the run up to an election that might have an impact on the election. I believe in that to my core. My problem was I couldn't find a door labeled no action on October. I could see two actions and they were both really bad. And so, look, I feel sick to my stomach about it, but I in an odd way, I don't feel responsible because I'm proud of the way we made the decisions.

We thought about the right things. One of the things the I g confirmed from me is I didn't miss anything in terms of norms. There aren't any rules about this. We thought about it well, we argued about it, we debated it. I offered the leadership of the Department of Justice the chance to take the decision from me, and the response was, we think it's a bad idea, but it's his call. And so I think we made the decision in the right way, thinking about the right things,

and honestly wouldn't change it. Going back and so there's peace in that, and I know it seems contradictory, there's peace in that. Just the same time, there's nausea about the fact that you had any involvement. If I could change time, you would never have heard of me. Right. I don't want to be famous. I don't. I didn't want to be involved at all. This was a living nightmare. But I'm very proud of the way the leadership team

around me made this decision. You say you don't want want to be famous, but you wrote in your book, I've long worried about my ego, and you've admitted you can be driven by ego. So you don't think any of this was driven by ego even a little bit. I don't think so, although how how well do any of us really know ourselves? That's true about me? I've I thought I was such hot stuff, as my mother used to say, especially when I was younger. I married an amazing person who has beaten that out of me

in a lot of ways. But look, I I do worry any leaders should worry about that. It's the reason I put a team around me of people who will speak the truth to me. And so I don't think this decision was made for ego reasons. And one of the reasons I say that is I could see the future. I knew how bad this is gonna be for me personally.

The best thing for me personally would have been to do the normal thing in July and let Lauretta Lynch in now this baby, and do the normal thing in October and say, well, we never comment and let the institution take the hit. One of the things that it annoys my amazing wife is she says, why are you stepping in front of the institutions and getting shot repeatedly?

Because that's my job. I knew how bad this was going to be for me, so I really I've asked myself that's a million times because I worry about myself. I really don't think these were driven by ego. Let's talk about the third decision. And I want to roll through this because there's so much I want to ask you about what's going on today. But this concerns the Russia investigation. We now know that by the time the election rolled around, that investigation had been going on for months.

It was never made public. You refuse to confirm or deny it, and you followed a FBI protocol. Can you explain what appears to be a blatant double standard. It's a reasonable question. Actually was an easy decision for us because think about the difference between the Clinton investigation and the Russia counter intelligence investigation. Clinton investigation began with a public referral in two thousand fifteen to the FBI. The

subject of the investigation was Hillary Clinton herself. I refused to confirm that even existed for three months after it came to us publicly, and then spoke not another word until we closed it with transparency. The Russia counter intelligence investigation is different. There's two things going on in the summer of two thousand sixteen about Russia. One is are trying to understand the massive Russian effort to mess with

our election. There. I thought we ought to offer the American people transparency, and I wrote an op ed that I offered to the Obama administration to tell the American people,

here's what's going on. That's one thing with Russia. The separate and very different was we got information in late July that Americans may be connected to that effort, and so we opened a counterintelligence investigation, not focused on Donald Trump, but focused on people in the Trump orbit on whom we had kind of wisps of information, and so we actually never talked about disclosing that it because what would

we say, We just opened this investigation on Americans. We don't know there's anything to it at all, and it doesn't involve the candidate himself, And so it honestly never came up. We wrestled a whole lot about what to say about this, but I can't imagine anyone in our

shoes disclosing the beginning of a counterintelligence investigation. But on October thirty one, two thousand sixteen, that was nine days before the election, the New York Times published a story saying that the FBI had found quote no conclusive or direct link between Mr Trump and the Russian government. FBI sources also said that Russian hacking was aimed simply at disrupting the presidential election and not helping Donald Trump. You said in an interview with The New Yorker with David

Remnick that was false. Did you know the story was wrong at the time, and if so, why not correct the record? Well, when the stories that are wrong about classified investigations, classified subjects, we never correct them unless we're in a position where the matter, you know, the matter is public in some way. So that story was wrong in the second respect. In that what we concluded about Russia was they were trying to damage our democracy most

of all, that was their overwhelming desire. Second heard Hillary Clinton. Third help elect Donald Trump. So in that respect it was wrong. The first part was not wrong, but yeah, there was no serious discussion about correcting that. There was agony. President Obama had a hard decision to make. Do I tell the American people the Russians are coming for our election? That was a very hard decision that was his to make,

but couldn't a reasonable voter. In October of two thousand and sixteen conclude, based on information coming from Jim Comey's FBI that Hillary Clinton was a candidate overwhelmed by scandal who had acted extremely carelessly and Donald Trump did nothing wrong, did nothing wrong in what sense, did nothing wrong in terms of there was no collusion. There was suspicion that he was involved with the Russians, and you know that

that was kind of a case closed. Is at least that article that led people to that I think conclusion right now. The thing about the Times is a detail, but it matters. They weren't reporting official disclosures by the FBI of the Department Justice, which is an important thing. They were reporting whatever they were getting from their sources, whatever they were doing. They were giving voters an impression. Right. But it's not the government's responsible to correct erroneous reports

based on sources. It just isn't. But to come to the most important question, Donald Trump was not the subject of a counter intelligence investigation. In October of two thousand and sixteen. We were still trying to figure out was anybody in that orbit working with the Russians And still didn't know the answer at that point, and I don't

I actually don't know what the answer is. Today we had enough to open an investigation, but by that point I had no basis to believe there was evidence of a connection between people, and a solid connection people in the Russian effort. What do you think now? I don't know. I don't know what Bob Mueller will find, and I worry that people from all points of the political spectrum project onto him hopes for a result. My only hope

is for the truth. If he's left to do his job, he may find there's not significant evidence of a connection he may find. I don't know what he'll find. An obstruction of justice, I honestly don't know. It's just he'll find the facts if he's allowed to finish. Let's let's talk about President Trump's temperament um. You have said, I think he has an emptiness inside of him and a hunger for affirmation in him I've never seen in an adult,

which sounds like a textbook definition of a narcissist. After his comments following the White Supremacy rally in Charlottesville, you said you believed he is morally unfit to be president. Has your opinion of President Trump changed for better or

for worse in the last say year. It's gotten worse because I see more of the behavior that I think, whether you're Republican or Democrat or independent, you should care deeply about the erosion of the central norm of the United States of America, the truth, and an attack on

the rule of law that I've never imagined before. And so it's those, those attacks on our norms and our values have only gotten more serious, and and everybody should care about them, no matter where you are in the policy spectrum, because all we are in this country is a collection of values and we lose those. Really, you're going to trade that for some position on taxes or immigration or anything else. You should never trade what is

essentially America. Is there anything specifically you're particularly concerned about out when you look at his actions and his rhetoric, Well, those two. I think the central touchstone of American public life is the truth. We always measure our leaders by their tether to the truth. George W. Bush spoke falsely when he said their weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Barack Obama spoke falsely when he said, if you like

your doctor, you can keep your doctor. And then both of those people spent the rest of their tenure and probably the rest of their lives explaining the tether to the touchstone. I didn't know that I meant this. I

understood this because the touchstone is something they see. There's so much line going on right now, there's a risk this is gonna melt like a sand castle at the beach and we will become numb to the fact that it is the center of the United States of America and stop judging our leader by the touchstone to this that is deeply concerning and closely connected the rule of law. I wake up probably once a week, and the President of the United States has tweeted that I should be

in jail. And I honestly laugh because I know there's no there's nothing to that. It's just him saying stuff. And then I stop and actually criticize myself and say, what are you doing. You're becoming numb to something that is profoundly threatening to the central norm of rule of law in this country. And I say to my I used to be a Republican. I say to my former Republican colleagues, Imagine Barack Obama wakes up in the morning and announces that so and so should be in jail.

Your head would explode. And why would it explode? Because that norm, the rule of law in this country, Lady, justice with a blindfold is all we are as a country. So I'm deeply concerned about all of us becoming numb to what's happening to us. And why are are your Republican colleagues with whom you have these conversations, are they outraged? Well,

most Republicans don't talk to me anymore. Um, so I've succeeded in pissing off everyone except Patrice, who still loves me um the the I think what they're doing is making a trade. They've convinced themselves that the Supreme Court, or a tax cut or something is worth it. And I keep saying to them, And because they don't talk to me personally, I say it in the media. I asked them to take the grandchildren test. What are you going to tell your grandchildren? You were here and you

traded what for this? You traded that. So my small contribution, and what I hope is a very brief period where I'm a celebrity, is to raise all of our eyes above the things we normally fight about and stare at the values in this country, because without them, I mean, we're a country that shouldn't exist. Right. We're not united by religion, by ethnicity, by anything except our commitment to a set of ideas. We hold these truths to be

self evident. Truth is our fourth word in our foundational documents. We've always been imperfect, but we are organized around a set of values. They're not worth trading for anything. And in the long run, your grandchildren are going to look up at you and say, what did you do? And I hope to God all of us realize that In the end, that's the most important question for us to answer, and I get the power of the moment. Right. People are passionate about this, passionate about that. Holy cow, please

take the long view. I called my book a Higher Loyalty because I hope all of us are loyal first and foremost to those things, and then we can get back to these other things. I hope in the next presidential election, people will vote their values, and I don't care who they vote for, so long as they vote those values. First of all, we have to restore the presidency as the representative. The embodiment imperfect because it's always people, but are representative of those values. Then we get back

to all the important disagreements. Does Donald Trump have a single does he have a single attribute other than his energy that you admire or is there anything he's done at all in the last year and a half that you appreciate or support. Energy is one, so I'll that'll be the given. I think he is extraordinarily perceptive and very good of public mood, certain and communication. I think what he's done with his ability to step through filters

and communicate directly is genius. I think a lot of it is really bad the way it's done, but it's it's really extraordinary and will change the way public figures think and talk about communication in the future. So I think that's extraordinary. I don't because I focus so much on his erosion, his attack on our central norms and values. I really can't think of much positive to say beyond that.

Let's talk about Justice Kennedy, who announced he's retiring. What do you believe will be the biggest consequences of a new more conservative Supreme Court. I don't know for sure, because it will depend upon their adherence to the principle of starry decisives, which is a really important norm in the court system. That is, you respect that which has been decided unless there's a significant change in facts or

an intervening change in the law. I would imagine on close calls there will be more of a so called conservative much easier, much easier to assemble a conservative majority to win a five four case on important issues. Well, well, I know that legal analysts and writer Jeff tub And predicted Roe v. Wade would be overturned and within eighteen months abortion would be illegal in twenty states. I don't that.

I don't know that because of the Again, it's a really important part of the entire judicial system, especially the Supreme Court, this notion that precedent must be respected absence something fundamental, especially fundamental change in facts. So I actually don't know that it's possible, but my view is I would probably you'd have to take a deeply unprincipled stand with respect to tradition and precedent, and I can't imagine a new justice supporting that, at least that early in

their tenure. Let's talk about your future. I know in the acknowledgements, you thanked a lot of people and you said thank you for the joy and the journey, which isn't over yet. So let's talk about what's ahead for you. On June six, you tweet it's so good to see new growth in Iowa and across the country, with a picture of yourself in an Iowa field. Yeah, that just means people don't realize I'm married to an Iowa girl

and I visit there all the time. And that was actually my subtle way of maybe temporarily, maybe forever, ending my presence on Twitter because it began with Patrice took

a picture of me. I'm so tall standing in a corn field and then people like he's running No never, but but she took a picture of me as we went for a walk through a new field, and then we tweeted it out kind of as a book end on my Twitter Twitter alias thing is very confounding to people talk about that my Twitter areless is Reinhold Neiber, who's a theologian and philosopher who had a tremendous influence on me as a young person, still does because it's

really the message I hope to share with young people. Neiber said, the world sucks, so what right? So what don't you dare withdraw just because it sucks? Get in there, step into the public square, and achieve justice. My great worry today is the young people gonna look at and say, God, it's so ikey. I don't want to be involved in that, and they can't. We need them to step forward. And

I see it already. At the end of my book, I described Donald Trump as a forest fire, and I chose that metaphor on purpose because he's doing tremendous damage to this country. But forest fires allow things to grow that could not grow before. And I see the growth already as I travel around I've had to travel a lot as part of the book tour, and I see young people engaged like I never imagined. I see record numbers of women running for off as, so many that

they're competing with each other. Could you ever imagine that five years ago? And so I'm essentially I'm optimistic. And I also just finished John Meecham's book, which told me it has sucked before and it will suck again, it will suck again. But but I walked out of Meecham's book with this, this graphical metaphor. America's line is always an upward slope, but if you stare at it's not

a solid line. It's a jagged line. Periods of progress, retrenchment, progress, retrenchment. Right, we think we forget the nine twenty four there were twenty se million Kupucks Klan members in this country. A third of the Congress was KKK members as a reaction to women getting the vote, huge numbers of immigrants, blacks getting marginal improvements. And then we saw it again in the nineteen fifties ninety fifty four. Joe McCarthy dominated our politics.

His fellow party members were afraid to speak out against him, and then he faded, this too shall pass. What's really important for all of us is know that it will pass. But cabin the danger can find the fire. So the recovery, the healing of those scars is faster. But we are going to heal. We're going to recover patrices. I will roots the side. Would you ever consider running for president? So? What are your immediate plans? To teach? Work for a law firm, to have your own talk show? I've done

Netflix and Chill. What are you going to be doing? I've already so I've already lined it up. I just spent this year teaching at Howard University, which was really really cool for me, and that the student of the university that once booed you. Remember when we went and spoken, he interrupted my first lecture chanting, comey is not our homie, which I thought was pretty awesome. And I'll tell you something. By the end of the year, the kids who chanted that,

we're coming to my lectures and talking. No, no, no, still still disagreeing with me. But it's hard to hate up close. And when you get up close with people and see them as human beings, it's much easier to have a conversation so I found the year at Howard really rewarding, was all about law enforcement and race at their request. And now starting in August, I'm teaching it my beloved alma mater, not U v A. William and Mary.

It's a great it's a great school, and so what so I'm gonna be teaching in the public policy program about leadership and ethical decisions and hard decisions. And that's really fun. And my book will be one of the books which I have given to the students who registered. I never want to be that professor. How many books have you sold, by the way, a ridiculous amount, more than a million, I don't know exactly, a lot more than a million, I think so so closing, because I

was told I could not go over. When all is said and done, what do you hope your legacy will be? This is an odd thing. I hope to be forgotten that in this sense. I hope that in Patricio also slieve that. Well, here's what I hope. I hope that someone will establish that what I did had absolutely no impact, that that there's a way to prove that. And then failing that, for my most important thing is I want to be a great husband, a great father and a

great grandfather, and a great neighbor and community member. That's the only thing that has value in my life. The rest of it. I hope that I'm known as a person we try to do the right thing, who thought well about things and made judgments with an eye on the right things, and and that's something that I'll be very proud of. Realistically, what do you think your legacy will be? I don't know. I guess it will depend on where you sit, and people have a passion. You

all know this. But the people think I was on Hilly Clinton's side, the Clinton people think I was on Trump side. I really hope that in the in the long sweep of things, it'll be clear we weren't on anybody's side. We were people in the middle of a five your flood trying to make good decisions. And whether you agree with the decisions or not, they were good decisions in the way they were made and the values

that guided them. And I actually think in the long run people will see that that's I know, this sounds crazy, that's actually not all that important to me. The other things I talked about are more important to me. But that's I think that's most likely that once the storm passes and we've resumed our inevitable progress in this country, there'll be a more dispassionate look at it. But I

don't know, maybe not. Jim Comey, thank you very much, Thank you, a big thank you to the Aspen Ideas Festival for inviting me to interview James Comey, with extra special thanks to my Frank Kitty Boone, the executive director of the Ideas Festival, and the enormously talented Zach st. Louis, who's been answering our every tech and production question. Thank you, Zach, and listeners will be bringing you another conversation from Aspen for our next episode. That will be an interview with

Steve Huffman, the CEO of the website Reddit. The first we're taking a week off. That means no new episode on July twelve. In the meantime, get outside and enjoy the sunshine people, but please, we're sunscreen and our conversation with Steve Huffman from Aspen, Colorado will drop on July nine. Of course, we'd like to say our usual thanks to our team at Stitcher. That's Gianna Palmer, our inimitable producer Nora Richie, our assistant producer, and Jared O'Connell, our engineer extraordinaire.

So many superlatives, Brian, thank you to the incredibly talented and efficient Beth Dems and the enormously creative Alison Bresnick over at Katie Current Media ATTY like that Mr Brian and I are the executive producers of the show. Mark Phillips wrote our theme music. And if you're a fan of this show, we'd love to have you leave us a rating on Apple Podcasts and or hit subscribe wherever you listen. It really helps more people find our podcast.

So that's all, folks. Will talk to you the week after next