Pete Strzok

“But what about Hillary Clinton's emails,” a thousand voices have shouted since the Trump Mar-a-Lago indictment came down. It's not just politicians; it's commentators in serious magazines who seem to think that Trump's conduct is no different from that of the former secretary of state.Lawfare Senior Editor Roger Parloff writing in Lawfare on June 26 found 703 different ways in which Trump's Mar-a-Lago conduct bears no resemblance to Clinton’s emails, and he joined Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes to talk about them. With him was Pete Strzok, a former FBI special agent who ran the Hillary Clinton email investigation. He was there to talk about the investigation, how it differed from the Trump Mar-a-Lago investigation, and whether Roger is correct that the two could not be more different.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Friday afternoon, the federal court in Florida, acting at the Justice Department’s request, unsealed the search warrant for Mar-a-Lago that the FBI had executed earlier in the week. There was a lot of interesting information in it: How many bathrooms are there at Mar-a-Lago? How many TS/SCI documents did the FBI seize from the resort? Which European head of state had various documents about him lying around at Mar-a-Lago? For an emergency version of the Lawfare Podcast, Benjamin Wittes sat down to talk it all through with Pete Strzok, a former FBI counterintelligence agent who has executed his share of warrants; Lawfare senior editor Quinta Jurecic; and Alex Wellerstein, historian of nuclear weapons and secrets.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Rosa Brooks, a democracy expert involved in recent simulations, joins Pete Strzok, a former FBI agent who discusses authoritarianism's impact, alongside Kori Schake, an analyst focused on political shifts, and commentator Ed Luce. They delve into intriguing simulations predicting chaos under authoritarian rule and strategies to safeguard democracy. The conversation explores the vital role of voters, the challenges of civil unrest governance, and the perils of complacency in uncertain times, urging listeners to remain vigilant and proactive in defending democratic values.

There’s been a great deal of debate recently about how to understand the apparently slow pace of the Justice Department’s investigation into Jan. 6, particularly into Donald Trump’s personal role in the insurrection. On Lawfare, editor-in-chief Benjamin Wittes made the case that everyone should just chill out and let the department do its work, while executive editor Natalie Orpett and senior editor Quinta Jurecic argued that it’s reasonable to push harder for the department to understand its particular responsibilities in upholding the rule of law in this unique political moment.After that debate, Ben, Natalie, and Quinta put their heads together with former FBI official Pete Strzok—who’s expressed his own skepticism about whether the Justice Department is investigating aggressively enough—to map out some benchmarks for what to look for in the Jan. 6 investigation going forward. They wrote that up as a Lawfare piece—and then they sat down to talk about it on the podcast.How will we know if the Justice Department investigation is proceeding aggressively? What signs should worry people hoping for legal accountability for the insurrection? Natalie, Pete, Ben, and Quinta discussed.Note: This podcast was recorded before the New York Times published some new reporting on July 28 about the role of lead prosecutor Thomas Windom. Throughout the show, you’ll hear reference to a major report by the Washington Post published on July 26 stating that prosecutors have asked witnesses testifying before the grand jury about Trump’s individual actions before and on Jan. 6.  Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Pete Strzok is a former counter-intelligence official at the FBI. He is the author most recently of an article in Lawfare entitled, “The Sussmann Indictment, Human Source Handling, and the FBI’s Declining FISA Numbers.” It's an article that makes an interesting connection between a sentence in the indictment of Democratic lawyer Michael Sussmann and some data on FISA applications released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. They may seem unconnected, but Strzok argues that there may be a deep connection between the two, and he sat down with Benjamin Wittes to discuss it. They talked about the anomaly of the Sussmann indictment; about how it was the tip of a very large iceberg of investigations of officials, agents and analysts who worked on the Crossfire Hurricane investigation; and about the shocking decrease in the number of FISA orders issued over the length of the Trump presidency. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.