MAY 15, 2017

I wondered where James Clapper fit into the equation as my crew and I made our way into the Renaissance Washington Hotel in Dupont Circle. Clapper had recently announced that he was resigning from his post as director of national intelligence and was stepping down on January 20, 2017. Even on his way out, critics never let him forget his statements to the Senate Intelligence Committee in March 2013. When asked whether US intelligence agencies were covertly collecting data on millions of Americans, he replied, “No, sir, not wittingly,” and “There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps collect, but not wittingly.”1 Three months later, former NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked documents that revealed Clapper wasn't telling the truth.

There were two camps on Clapper's testimony. His critics, some of whom were on Capitol Hill, believed he was overtly lying, and thus was indirectly responsible for allowing illegal activities to continue in violation of citizens’ Fourth Amendment rights. They haven't forgiven him. Others in the intelligence community believed Clapper was using language to skirt lines and keep from perjuring himself while trying to safeguard information critical to national security. Clapper had served his country for half a century, capping his career in government between 2010 and 2017 as director of national intelligence.

In early 2017, he had been briefing President Trump, and just prior to the inauguration he had briefed President Obama on the Russia investigation. That's why we wanted to speak with him soon after he left office, while his recollections of the Russia investigation were still fresh in his mind. We sat down for this interview in the days after FBI director James Comey was fired.

I made my way up the elevator to the suite where we would be interviewing Clapper. My producer Andy Triay and I had gone over a list of key points he wanted me to hit upon. These included such things as the manner in which Comey was fired, what former national security advisor Michael Flynn's motivations may have been when he misled the vice president about his interactions with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, the extent of Russian involvement in the election, and whether Clapper had seen evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and/or the Trump White House and Russia. Andy and I were usually pretty much on the same page when it came to what questions to ask, but I always appreciated his input. At that point, the politics of the country was seemingly becoming a macabre soap opera, and trying to keep track of who lied about what and who was in cahoots with whom was becoming tougher. In that kind of environment, I appreciated Andy's input even more.

Clapper and one of his aides arrived. I introduced myself to him, and within a few minutes the interview began. I was anxious to get his take on the Russia investigation given that he had seen the underlying intelligence from the FBI, CIA, and NSA that helped launch the investigation.2

Pegues: Let's talk about Michael Flynn. What happened with him? I know that people who work with him say that something changed. You know, he was obviously out on the campaign trail and an ardent supporter of President Trump. Did something change with him?

Clapper: First of all, I think you have to recognize Mike's very distinguished service in the army. Thirty years—months and months and months of deployments in the war zone both in Iraq and Afghanistan….

I've known Mike a long time. I was a co-officiant at his promotion ceremony at the Women's Memorial in 2011 when he was promoted to lieutenant general. He worked with me at the Office of [the] Director [of] National Intelligence for about eleven months, I think. He did fine. I supported him strongly to be the director of [the] DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency] position that I held in the early ’90s. But for reasons I won't go into here, it just didn't work out. He stayed for another six months or so, so he could finish three years’ service as a lieutenant general, which is the minimum standard for qualifying for retirement in that grade. I lost touch with him after that. My impression is he changed.

Pegues: What do you think changed him? Was it that he was fired?

Clapper: I don't know. That could be. I'm speculating. I really don't know whether he just became angry about it. I don't know.

Pegues: Based on what you know about the public information that's out there now, that the [acting attorney general] Sally Yates ran over to the White House to warn White House officials that Flynn was compromised and yet the White House waited eighteen days [to fire Flynn], would you have waited eighteen days?

Clapper: Again, I'm not going to second-guess what they do. The suggestion was that the White House wanted to ensure due process for Mike Flynn. I can't comment on what their internal dialogue or processes were because my knowledge of White House operations stopped on the twentieth of January.

Pegues: But would you have felt comfortable [with] someone in your office who was alleged to have been compromised by the Russians? Would you have felt comfortable…sharing secrets with them?

Clapper: Compromise or not, I would be concerned about the nature of any engagement with an employee of mine if I were aware of engagement with Russians. I'd be concerned about that.

By the end of 2016, Flynn had been indicted and then cut a deal to cooperate with the Russia investigation special counsel Robert Mueller.3 Flynn was a key figure in unraveling whether there was coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russians. He could also help investigators determine if the president was trying to cover something up by keeping him on in the White House despite warnings from the acting attorney general. That day in May, Clapper really wanted to discuss the Russian intrusions.

Clapper: That to me is the big message here. The Russians have a long history of messing with elections, both theirs and other people's…. There's a history in our election system [of Russian interference] going back to the ’60s. But this is the most aggressive, direct assertiveness that we've ever seen. If there's ever been a clarion call for vigilance and action to thwart these Russian activities, boy, this is it.

Pegues: Do you think this country has been wounded by what happened over the last two years?

Clapper: I do. I think this is an assault on our institutions. And certainly the most hallowed of those, or among the most hallowed, is our election process. The intelligence community didn't reach a judgment on the extent, whether or to what extent, [that] what they did influenced the outcome of the election.

We can't say that. But just [look at] the fact that they interfered and the variety of techniques they used. Not just hacking, but social media and fake news and the standard, classical propaganda, however sophisticated, from the RT network. This campaign they put together is quite aggressive and multifaceted.

Just five days before my interview with Clapper, President Trump welcomed two top Russian officials in the Oval Office. Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov along with then Russian ambassador to the United States Sergey Kislyak walked into the White House and Oval Office as if they were taking a victory lap. They smiled and joked while shaking hands with President Trump. We know that only because of the photographs that were released by Russia's state news agency. The White House only allowed a Russian photographer in the meeting. Which is highly unusual. But that wasn't the only thing that caught the national media's attention. During the meeting, which happened a day after the firing of FBI director James Comey, Trump told the Russian officials that firing Comey had relieved “great pressure” on him. He also said, “I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job.”4 To cap things off, Trump also leaked highly classified intelligence about an ISIS bomb plot to the Russian officials.⁵ That must have been music to the ears of Kislyak, who is at the center of the Russia investigation because of his contacts with Trump campaign officials during the 2016 election. The Washington Post wrote that “sitting presidents do not usually host foreigners linked to major scandals in their own administration.”⁶

After the images of the meeting were made public by Russia's state news agency, I asked some sources at the FBI and in intelligence circles how they felt about the meeting in the Oval Office, and I remember one source saying that people in the office just laughed. Four months into the new administration, I think they were stunned by the degree to which the Russians must have been celebrating over how successful their influence campaign was at getting what they wanted—including a meeting in the Oval Office.

But Clapper was not amused.⁷

Pegues: After the photo op in the Oval Office with Kislyak, Lavrov laughing with the president, how do you think the Russians feel now?

Clapper: They have to be feeling pretty good about their situation and where they are with us.

Pegues: I talked to intelligence, former national, and current officials and law enforcement who looked at that photograph and some people laughed at it. Some people were disturbed by it. What was your reaction?

Clapper: I guess you can put me in the latter camp. I was bothered by it.