A Review of Various Actions by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice in Advance of the 2016 Election

Oversight and Review Division 18-04 June 2018

CHAPTER TWELVE:

TEXT MESSAGES, INSTANT MESSAGES, USE OF PERSONAL

EMAIL, AND ALLEGED IMPROPER DISCLOSURES OF

NON-PUBLIC INFORMATION

This Chapter discusses text messages from FBI-issued mobile devices and instant messages exchanged on FBI systems that raised concerns of potential bias.

We describe key text messages and instant messages we identified during our review, as well as explanations for these messages that the involved employees offered during their OIG interviews. We also identified instances where FBI employees, including Comey and Strzok, used personal email accounts to conduct official government business. Lastly, we discuss allegations that Department and FBI employees improperly disclosed non-public information.

1. Text Messages and Instant Messages

During the course of our review, we requested and received text messages from FBI-issued mobile devices and instant messages exchanged on the FBINet and SCINet Lync applications for FBI personnel involved in the Midyear investigation.192

We also requested text messages for Department personnel involved in the Midyear investigation, but were informed that the Department does not retain text messages for more than 5 to 7 days.193 The OIG previously expressed concerns in a 2015 report about the text message retention practices of the Department’s four law enforcement components, and we recommend that ODAG consider taking steps to improve the retention and monitoring of text messages Department-wide.194

After receiving FBI text messages and instant messages responsive to

keywords we provided to the FBI, we identified messages for certain FBI personnel

192 FBINet is the FBI’s computer system for information classified at the Secret level, while its

SCINet system handles Top Secret and compartmented information.

193 After reviewing a draft of this report, the Midyear prosecutors told the OIG that they did

not use text messages, and that the only text messages they received were from the Midyear agents about logistical arrangements.

194 In March 2015, the OIG issued a report pertaining to the handling of sexual harassment

allegations by the Department’s four law enforcement components, the FBI, the Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and the U.S.

Marshal’s Service (USMS). In that report, we noted that all four components had weaknesses

detecting sexually explicit text messages and images, and that two components did not archive text

messages sent and received by its employees. We therefore recommended that all four law

enforcement components, in coordination with ODAG, should (1) acquire and implement technology

and establish procedures to effectively preserve text messages and images for a reasonable period of

time, and should make that information available to misconduct investigators and for discovery

purposes; and (2) take concrete steps to acquire and implement technology to proactively monitor

text message and image data for potential misconduct. See U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Office

of the Inspector General (OIG), The Handling of Sexual Harassment and Misconduct Allegations by the

Department’s Law Enforcement Components, Evaluation and Inspections Division Report 15-04 (March

2016), https://go.usa.gov/xQGz4 (accessed May 9, 2018).

395

that raised concerns about potential bias. We then obtained all text messages and instant messages for those FBI personnel for the entire period of the Midyear investigation through July 1, 2017, to capture post-election discussions. We identified communications from five different FBI employees that we discuss in this

section.195

First, we identified text messages exchanged between DAD Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, Special Counsel to former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, on their FBIissued cell phones. These text messages included political opinions about candidates and issues involved in the 2016 presidential election, including statements of hostility toward then candidate Trump and statements of support for candidate Clinton. Several of their text messages also appeared to mix political opinions with discussions about the Midyear and Russia investigations, raising a question as to whether Strzok’s and Page’s political opinions may have affected investigative decisions.

In addition to being involved in the Midyear and Russia

investigations, both Page and Strzok were also briefly assigned to the investigation conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller III.

Next, we identified instant messages exchanged on FBINet involving Agent 1 and Agent 5. As noted previously, Agent 1 was assigned to the Midyear investigative team and was one of the four case agents. Agent 5 was assigned to the Midyear filter team. We discussed in Chapter Five a number of Agent 1’s instant messages that expressed opinions that were critical of the conduct and quality of the Midyear investigation. In addition to those messages, we identified two instant message exchanges involving Agent 1 that appeared to combine a discussion of politics with a discussion of the Midyear investigation. We also identified instant messages between Agent 1 and Agent 5 that expressed supportfor candidate Clinton and hostility toward first candidate and then President Trump.

Finally, we identified instant messages sent on FBINet by FBI Attorney 2.

FBI Attorney 2 was assigned to the Midyear investigation, the Russia investigation,

and the Special Counsel investigation. We found instant messages in which FBI

Attorney 2 discussed political issues, including three instant message exchanges

that raised concerns of potential bias.

In this section, we describe key text messages and instant messages we

identified during our review, as well as explanations for these messages that the

employees offered during their OIG interviews.

1. Text Messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok

Peter Strzok is an experienced counterintelligence agent who was promoted

to Deputy Assistant Director (DAD) of the Espionage Section in September 2016.

195 We identified other text messages and instant messages in which FBI employees involved

in the Midyear investigation discussed political issues and candidates. This Chapter does not include a

discussion of every political text message or instant message that we identified. Instead, we discuss

only those messages that we found raised the most significant questions of potential bias or improper

motivation based on their content, timing, or the individuals involved.

396

As described in the previous chapters, Strzok was assigned to the Midyear

investigation in August 2015 and was responsible for supervising the investigation

on a daily basis. Page was named counsel to then Deputy Director Andrew McCabe

in February 2016, and served as his liaison to the Midyear investigative team from

February 2016 forward.

In addition to their roles in the Midyear investigation, both Page and Strzok

were involved in the FBI investigation into the Russian government’s efforts to

interfere in the 2016 presidential election.196 Strzok was assigned to lead the

Russia investigation in late July 2016.197 Page also worked on the Russia

investigation, and told us that she served the same liaison function as she did in

the Midyear investigation. Both Page and Strzok accepted invitations to work on

the Special Counsel staff in 2017. Page told the OIG that she accepted a 45-day

temporary duty assignment but returned to work in the Deputy Director’s office at

the FBI on or around July 15, 2017. Strzok was removed from the Special

Counsel’s investigation on approximately July 28, 2017, and returned to the FBI in

another position, after the OIG informed the DAG and Special Counsel of the text

messages discussed in this report on July 27, 2017.

As noted above, after finding responsive text messages between Page and

Strzok that appeared to intermingle political comments with discussions of the

Midyear investigation, the OIG obtained from the FBI all text messages between

Strzok and Page from their FBI-issued phones for the entire period of the Clinton

email server investigation as well as the period of the Russia investigation during

which Strzok and Page worked on it. The OIG received more than 40,000 unique

text messages between Strzok and Page in response to these requests.198 The FBI

did not provide any text messages for the period from December 15, 2016, to May

17, 2017, because of issues with the data collection and preservation software used

on the FBI’s Samsung S5 mobile devices. However, OIG forensic agents obtained

the phones used by Strzok and Page, and recovered a large number of the text

196 On March 20, 2017, then Director Comey testified before Congress that the FBI began an

investigation in late July 2016 into “the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016

presidential election,” including “investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated

with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination

between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.”

197 Supervision of the Russia investigation was briefly transitioned from Strzok to another

Counterintelligence Division DAD in early 2017. However, AD Priestap told us that FBI leadership

decided to keep Strzok involved in the Russia investigation and he was therefore reassigned back to it.

198 The FBI produced 73,900 text messages between Strzok and Page from the period June

30, 2015, to December 1, 2016; 1,368 text messages from the period December 1 to December 14,

2016; and 2,054 text messages from the period May 18 to July 1, 2017. However, these included

significant numbers of duplicates. We estimate that the number of unique text messages exchanged

between Strzok and Page exceeded 40,000. The FBI pulled the majority of these text messages from

Page’s archives, as Strzok’s text messages were not consistently preserved due to compatibility

problems between the FBI’s text message preservation software and the Samsung S5 cell phones

used by the FBI. Issues related to the preservation of text messages affected a large number of FBI

employees, and OIG forensic agents determined that the failure to preserve Strzok’s text messages

resulted from this compatibility issue, not from the actions of any FBI employee, including Strzok.

Text message preservation resumed in May 2017, after Page received a Samsung S7 phone.

397

messages from this “gap” period. For the gap period, the OIG recovered 9,311 text

messages from Strzok’s phone and 10,760 text messages from Page’s phone, some

of which were duplicates or text messages exchanged with other people. Although

the number and frequency of text messages is generally consistent with previous

time periods, we cannot definitively say that our forensic recovery captured every

text message exchanged between Page and Strzok during the gap period.199

The text messages between Page and Strzok covered a wide range of topics.

For example, we identified a large number of routine work-related communications.

Many of the text messages were of a personal nature, including discussions about

their families, medical issues, and daily events, and reflected that Strzok and Page

were communicating on their FBI-issued phones as part of an extramarital affair.

We found that this relationship was relevant to the frequency and candid nature of

the text messages and their use of FBI-issued phones to communicate. Some of

these text messages expressed political opinions about candidates and issues

involved in the 2016 presidential election, including statements of hostility toward

candidate Trump and statements of support for candidate Clinton.

We identified three categories of text messages that raised concerns about

potential bias in FBI investigations. The first were text messages of a political

nature commenting on Trump and Clinton. We specifically highlight these text

messages because Strzok and Page played important roles in investigations

involving both Trump and Clinton, and the exchange of these text messages on an

FBI-issued device potentially created an appearance of bias. The second category

we identified were text messages that combined expressions of political sentiments

with a discussion of the Midyear investigation, potentially indicating or creating the

appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper

considerations. The third category raised similar questions with respect to the

Russia investigation. We also include a fourth category of text messages that have

received significant public attention. These messages are included to provide

context and further explanation as to their meaning, and do not necessarily

implicate potential bias in either the Midyear or Russia investigations. Examples of

these four categories of text messages are discussed below.200 We also include

199 The OIG is preparing a separate report on its text message recovery efforts and findings.

200 This Chapter includes the text messages we found most relevant to our review. However,

Page and Strzok sent other text messages about candidates and issues involved in the 2016

presidential election, unrelated to the Midyear or Russia investigations, and also sent numerous text

messages, both positive and negative, about other public and government officials from both political

parties. These included former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley (“And Martin O’Malley’s a douche,”

October 14, 2015), Congressman Paul Ryan (“And I hope Paul Ryan fails and crashes in a blaze of

glory,” November 1, 2015), Ohio Governor John Kasich (“Poor Kasich. He’s the only sensible man up

there,” “Exactly re Kasich. And he has ZERO appeal,” March 4, 2016), former Attorney General Eric

Holder (“Oh God, Holder! Turn [the television] off turn it off turn it off!!!!” “Yeah, I saw him yesterday

and booed at the tv,” July 27, 2016), and others. Page and Strzok told us that these additional text

messages were relevant because they reflected that Trump was not singled out by them for criticism or criticized for partisan reasons.

398

explanations provided by Page and Strzok during their OIG interviews about these

text messages.

1. Text Messages Commenting on Trump or Clinton

In this section, we highlight examples of text messages of a political nature

commenting on Trump and Clinton. We include explanations provided by Page and

Strzok about their use of FBI-issued phones in general and their use of FBI-issued

phones for political discussions. The sender of each text message is identified after

the date.

• August 16, 2015, Strzok: “[Bernie Sanders is] an idiot like Trump.

Figure they cancel each other out.”201

• February 12, 2016, Page: “I’m no prude, but I’m really appalled by

this. So you don’t have to go looking (in case you hadn’t heard),

Trump called him the p-word. The man has no dignity or class. He

simply cannot be president. With a Slur for Ted Cruz, Donald Trump

Further Splits Voters http://nyti.ms/1XoICkO.”

• February 12, 2016, Strzok: “Oh, [Trump’s] abysmal. I keep hoping

the charade will end and people will just dump him. The problem,

then, is Rubio will likely lose to Cruz. The Republican party is in utter

shambles. When was the last competitive ticket they offered?”

• March 3, 2016, Page: “God trump is a loathsome human.”
• March 3, 2016, Strzok: “Omg [Trump’s] an idiot.
• March 3, 2016, Page: “He’s awful.”
• March 3, 2016, Strzok: “God Hillary should win 100,000,000-0.”
• March 3, 2016, Page: “Also did you hear [Trump] make a comment

about the size of his d*ck earlier? This man cannot be president.”

• March 12, 2016: Page forwarded an article about a “far right”

candidate in Texas, stating, “[W]hat the f is wrong with people?”

Strzok replied, “That Texas article is depressing as hell. But answers

how we could end up with President trump.”

• March 16, 2016, Page: “I cannot believe Donald Trump is likely to be

an actual, serious candidate for president.”

• June 11, 2016, Strzok: “They fully deserve to go, and demonstrate

the absolute bigoted nonsense of Trump.”

• July 18, 2016, Page: “…Donald Trump is an enormous d*uche.”

201 All text messages produced to the OIG reflected Greenwich Mean Time. As a result, some

text messages sent late at night bore the wrong date. We have corrected times and, where

necessary, dates in this report to reflect the Eastern Time Zone. In addition, some text messages

used emojis and other formatting symbols, which we omitted unless they affected the meaning of the

text message. We also excluded other intervening text messages that did not contribute to

understanding the highlighted text messages.

399

• July 19, 2016, Page: “Trump barely spoke, but the first thing out of

his mouth was ‘we’re going to win soooo big.’ The whole thing is like

living in a bad dream.”

• July 21, 2016, Strzok: “Trump is a disaster. I have no idea how

destabilizing his Presidency would be.”

• August 26, 2016, Strzok: “Just went to a southern Virginia Walmart. I

could SMELL the Trump support….”

• September 26, 2016, Page: Page sent an article to Strzok entitled,

“Why Donald Trump Should Not Be President,” stating, “Did you read

this? It’s scathing. And I’m scared.”

• October 19, 2016, Strzok: “I am riled up. Trump is a fucking idiot, is

unable to provide a coherent answer.”

• November 3, 2016, Page: “The nyt probability numbers are dropping

every day. I’m scared for our organization.”

• November 3, 2016, Strzok: “[Jill] Stein and moron [Gary] Johnson are

F’ing everything up, too.”

• November 7, 2016, Strzok: Referencing an article entitled “A victory

by Mr. Trump remains possible,” Strzok stated, “OMG THIS IS

F*CKING TERRIFYING.”

• November 13, 2016, Page: “I bought all the president’s men. Figure I

needed to brush up on watergate.”202

Both Strzok and Page agreed to multiple voluntary interviews with the OIG

regarding, among other things, their text messages. The OIG asked Strzok and

Page each to comment in general on the text messages. Strzok explained that the

text messages reflected his “personal opinion talking to a friend.” He stated that

ingrained in FBI culture was a “bright and inviolable line between what you think

personally and belief and the conduct of your official business,” and that the

political opinions he expressed in the text messages “never transited into the

official realm. In any way. Not in discussions, not in acts.” Strzok acknowledged

that “it was dumb to do that all on a government device,” but distinguished his

private exchanges with Page from a more public forum where expressing such

views might call into question the integrity of an FBI investigation. When

questioned about the possibility that exchanges on his government device could be

hacked, obtained by the media, or otherwise exposed to the public, he

acknowledged that “I can envision a number of scenarios” where it could impact an

investigation.

Strzok stated most people would have no idea of his partisan affiliation and

that “[i]t was a point of pride on Midyear that we absolutely conducted that

202 Among the text messages forensically recovered by the OIG in May 2018 was another

exchange about “All the President’s Men.” On March 14, 2017, Page texted, “Finally two pages away

from finishing atpm. Did you know the president resigns in the end?! J” Strzok replied, “What?!?!

God, that we should be so lucky.”

400

investigation and pursued the truth in a manner that was protected from bias or

influence and was simply apolitical.” He further stated, “I did not either in Midyear

or any other case act in a vacuum…. I had subordinates, I had peers, I had

supervisors,” and that none of these people would say that he had acted in a biased

manner in carrying out his official duties.

Page told us that these text messages reflected her personal opinions

regarding candidate Trump’s fitness to be president and her preference for Clinton,

but that she did not allow her political views to impact investigative steps on the

Midyear investigation. She stated, “Because I was on the Clinton investigation, I

actually felt extremely constrained from talking to anyone about politics at all….

And so, Pete being a good friend, it was in a way a, like a safe place to sort of have

a conversation about what was…the normal sort of news of the day because…we

both knew that we weren’t, it wasn’t impacting anything that we were doing.” She

pointed out that many of the text messages in question were sent after the Midyear

investigation was effectively concluded on July 5, 2016, at which point she said she

personally felt less constrained to express an opinion. Page stated that she was

“responsible for no single decision at all with respect to the case,” but that her role

was rather to communicate information between FBI executive leadership and the

investigative team. She also said she was not the sole source of information to

executive leadership.

When asked about using her FBI-issued phone for these exchanges, Page

told us, “[T]he predominant reason that we communicated on our work phones was

because we were trying to keep our affair a secret from our spouses.” Page also

said, “I guess I didn’t feel like I was doing anything wrong. I’m an American. We

have the First Amendment. I’m entitled to an opinion…. I saw it as, I still see it as

so separate from the investigative activity we were taking in the, in Midyear that I

didn’t, didn’t really think about it, to be honest with you.”

2. Text Messages Discussing Political Sentiments and the

Midyear Investigation

In this section, we highlight examples of text messages that appear to

combine expressions of political sentiments with discussion of the Midyear

investigation. We provide background and context where possible to assist in

understanding the text messages. We also include the explanations provided by

Page and Strzok about these text messages.

February 24, 2016: In connection with a discussion about how many

people from the FBI and Department should be present during a potential interview

of former Secretary Clinton, Page stated in a February 24, 2016 text message to

Strzok, “One more thing: she might be our next president. The last thing you need

us going in there loaded for bear. You think she’s going to remember or care that it

was more doj than fbi?” Strzok replied, “Agreed….” Page sent similar text

messages to McCabe and another FBI employee around the same time, adding that

having a larger number in the room “is not operationally necessary” and that “[t]his

is as much about reputational protection as anything.” These text messages

occurred at almost the midpoint of the Midyear investigation, before Clinton’s

401

interview was formally scheduled. Ultimately, Clinton was interviewed on July 2,

2016, and there were three FBI and five Department officials in the room. Page did

not attend the interview.

Both Page and Strzok told the OIG that these messages did not reflect that

the FBI took into account the likelihood that former Secretary Clinton would be

president when conducting her interview. Page told us that her text message was

advocating that the FBI should “follow the practice we always, always follow” with

respect to who would attend Clinton’s interview, “and not do something that might

otherwise negatively impact [Clinton’s] thinking or her feeling about the FBI in

general.” She stated that having fewer people present in an interview is generally

better for building rapport and ensuring that the right people are asking the

questions, and that by “loaded for bear” she meant having a large number of

interviewers in the room, which might look “like we’re trying to intimidate” Clinton.

Strzok told us he did not interpret Page’s text message to suggest that the FBI

should treat Clinton differently “because she might be the next president,” and he

stated that he was certain he “made no decision based on anything [Clinton] might

be or become or have done.”

July 26, 2016: Strzok and Page exchanged a series of text messages on

July 26, 2016, while they appeared to be watching television coverage of the

Democratic National Convention. In the course of this exchange, Page texted,

“Yeah, it is pretty cool. [Clinton] just has to win now. I’m not going to lie, I got a

flash of nervousness yesterday about trump. The sandernistas have the potential

to make a very big mistake here….” Strzok responded, “I’m not worried about

them. I’m worried about the anarchist Assanges who will take fed information and

disclose it to disrupt. We’ve gotta get the memo and brief and case filing done.”

Strzok told us that “the memo” he was referring to was the closing

Letterhead Memorandum (LHM) summarizing the Clinton email server investigation.

Strzok said he was not certain what the “brief and case filing” referred to, but

speculated these could have related to a FOIA filing. When asked if his text

message meant that the LHM needed to be completed because he was worried

about Trump and wanted Clinton to win, Strzok said, “No, not at all.” He described

this exchange as a “discussion that is purely in that private, personal realm about

beliefs and opinions that are personal opinions intermixed [with discussion of work

tasks] because, as a work colleague, there are a lot of things going on, and they do

get intermixed.” Strzok stated that mixing work and personal communications in

the same text message exchange, on the same device, was “dumb” and

acknowledged that it could create a perception issue. He again emphasized that he

never took any investigative step designed to help or hurt Clinton or Trump.

Page told us that she was not sure what the “memo and brief and case filing”

referred to but that it might have been a related classified issue. She stated that

she did not read Strzok’s text message to connect the need to “get the memo and

brief and case filing done” with his political preferences. Rather, Page stated that

she thought that the use of “fed” in the text message may have been an erroneous

auto-correction of an unclassified acronym of a codename and that Strzok was

402

referring to concerns about leaks by actors like Assange (Wikileaks) “who will leak

classified information.”

3. Text Messages Discussing Political Sentiments and the

Russia Investigation

In this section, we highlight examples of text messages that appear to

combine expressions of political sentiments with discussion of the Russia

investigation. We provide background and context where possible to assist in

understanding the text messages. We also include the explanations provided by

Page and Strzok about these text messages.

July 31, 2016: In connection with formal opening of the FBI’s Russia

investigation, Strzok texted Page: “And damn this feels momentous. Because this

matters. The other one did, too, but that was to ensure we didn’t F something up.

This matters because this MATTERS. So super glad to be on this voyage with you.”

Strzok told us the “other one” referred to in the text message was the

Midyear investigation. He said his text message was comparing and contrasting the

Midyear investigation with the Russia investigation, and reflected his view that “if

there is criminal activity there [in Midyear], it is comparatively limited, versus

allegations [in the Russia investigation] which are of the most extraordinarily,

potentially grave conduct.” He said that his assessment of the significance of the

Russia investigation was not affected by his personal feelings toward Trump and

that it would be the same if another campaign were involved.

August 6, 2016: In an exchange on August 6, 2016, Page forwarded Strzok

a news article relating to Trump’s criticism of the Khans (the Gold Star family who

appeared at the Democratic National Convention) and stated, “Jesus. You should

read this. And Trump should go f himself.” Strzok responded favorably to the

article and added, “And F Trump.” Page replied, “So. This is not to take away from

the unfairness of it all, but we are both deeply fortunate people.” She then sent

another text message, “And maybe you’re meant to stay where you are because

you’re meant to protect the country from that menace. To that end, read this:” and

forwarded a David Brooks column from the New York Times about Trump “enablers”

in the Republican Party who had not opposed Trump. Strzok responded, “Thanks.

It’s absolutely true that we’re both very fortunate. And of course I’ll try and

approach it that way. I just know it will be tough at times. I can protect our

country at many levels, not sure if that helps….”

When asked to explain what she meant by “you’re meant to protect the

country from that menace,” Page began by stating, “I was totally appalled that the

President would insult the father of a dead service member…. And just find that

unconscionable and disgusting and cruel.” She also stated that the “menace” was

“the potential threat to national security that Trump or his people pose if [the]

predication [for the Russia investigation] is true.” Strzok told us that he did not

interpret Page’s reference to “protect the country from that menace” to refer to

Trump. He stated, “I take menace a little differently. I take, I take the menace as,

again, I view any foreign interference with our electoral process to be a threat, to

403

be a violation of law…. So when I see menace, I, you know, is that Trump, is that

Russian interference, is it the combination of the two?”

August 8, 2016: In a text message on August 8, 2016, Page stated,

“[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” Strzok responded,

“No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.”203

When asked about this text message, Strzok stated that he did not

specifically recall sending it, but that he believed that it was intended to reassure

Page that Trump would not be elected, not to suggest that he would do something

to impact the investigation. Strzok told the OIG that he did not take any steps to

try to affect the outcome of the presidential election, in either the Midyear

investigation or the Russia investigation. Strzok stated that had he—or the FBI in

general—actually wanted to prevent Trump from being elected, they would not

have maintained the confidentiality of the investigation into alleged collusion

between Russia and members of the Trump campaign in the months before the

election. Page similarly stated that, although she could not speak to what Strzok

meant by that text message, the FBI’s decision to keep the Russia investigation

confidential before the election shows that they did not take steps to impact the

outcome of the election.

August 15, 2016: In a text message exchange on August 15, 2016, Strzok

told Page, “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s

office—that there’s no way he gets elected—but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk.

It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40….” The

“Andy” referred to in the text message appears to be FBI Deputy Director Andrew

McCabe. McCabe was not a party to this text message, and we did not find

evidence that he received it.

In an interview with the OIG, McCabe was shown the text message and he

told us that he did not know what Strzok was referring to in the message and

recalled no such conversation. Page likewise told us she did not know what that

text message meant, but that the team had discussions about whether the FBI

would have the authority to continue the Russia investigation if Trump was elected.

Page testified that she did not find a reference in her notes to a meeting in

McCabe’s office at that time.

Strzok provided a lengthy explanation for this text message. In substance,

Strzok told us that he did not remember the specific conversation, but that it likely

was part of a discussion about how to handle a variety of allegations of “collusion

between members of the Trump campaign and the government of Russia.” As part

of this discussion, the team debated how aggressive to be and whether to use overt

investigative methods. Given that Clinton was the “prohibitive favorite” to win,

203 Although we received Page’s August 8 text message to Strzok from the FBI as part of its

production of text messages in 2017, Strzok’s response to Page was not among those preserved by

the FBI’s text message preservation software, and therefore was not produced to us. The OIG’s Cyber

Investigations Office recovered this text message, along with others, in May 2018 through forensic

analysis of a folder found on Page’s and Strzok’s Samsung S5 devices.

405

Strzok said that they discussed whether it made sense to compromise sensitive

sources and methods to “bring things to some sort of precipitative conclusion and

404

Strzok said that they discussed whether it made sense to compromise sensitive

sources and methods to “bring things to some sort of precipitative conclusion and

understanding.” Strzok said the reference in his text message to an “insurance

policy” reflected his conclusion that the FBI should investigate the allegations

thoroughly right away, as if Trump were going to win. Strzok stated that Clinton’s

position in the polls did not ultimately impact the investigative decisions that were

made in the Russia matter.

May 18, 2017: Mueller was appointed Special Counsel on May 17, 2017.

The next day Strzok and Page exchanged text messages in a discussion of whether

Strzok should join the Special Counsel’s investigation. Strzok wrote: “For me, and

this case, I personally have a sense of unfinished business. I unleashed it with

MYE. Now I need to fix it and finish it.” Later in the same exchange, Strzok,

apparently while weighing his career options, made this comparison: “Who gives a

f*ck, one more A[ssistant] D[irector]…[versus] [a]n investigation leading to

impeachment?”204 Later in this exchange, Strzok stated, “you and I both know the

odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely I’d be there no question. I hesitate in

part because of my gut sense and concern there’s no big there there.”

Strzok acknowledged that his text messages could be read to suggest that

Strzok held himself responsible for Trump’s victory and Clinton’s defeat because of

the Midyear investigation and that he viewed the Russia investigation as providing

him an opportunity to “fix” this result by working on an investigation that could

result in the impeachment of President Trump. However, Strzok said he strongly

disagreed with this interpretation and provided a lengthy explanation for these

statements. Strzok said that he wanted to “finish” the Russia investigation rather

than be reassigned midway through and lose the institutional knowledge of issues

being investigated by the Special Counsel. He further stated that he was referring

to Russia’s use of the Midyear investigation in its election interference efforts.

Strzok explained, “[I]t wasn’t so much the investigation about Midyear, but then

how it played into, how it was being portrayed in the political environment, how it

was being leveraged by the government of Russia and all the social media

disseminations…. [W]e then came to see all this kind of overlap and replaying of

events with regard to the involvement of Russia, and certainly the back-and-forth

with some elements of the Trump campaign.” When asked what he wanted “to fix,”

Strzok identified the misperception that “Russia wasn’t involved,” given that “Russia

did interfere with our elections.”

204 Strzok expressed similar sentiments in an email to Page using his FBI UNET (unclassified)

account. On May 22, 2017, at a time when Page was working for the Special Counsel but Strzok had

not yet joined the Special Counsel investigation, Page forwarded Strzok a Washington Post article

entitled, “Trump asked intelligence chiefs to push back against FBI collusion probe after Comey

revealed its existence.” Strzok responded saying, “Yup. Assuming you/team will do it via Mueller?”

When Page confirmed this, Strzok responded, “God I suddenly want on this. You know why.” Page

replied that she would leave the Special Counsel investigation and “happily” return to her work at the

FBI if Strzok really wanted to join the investigation. Strzok responded, “I’m torn. I think – know –

I’m more replaceable than you are in this. I’m the best for it, but there are others who can do OK.

You are different and more unique. This is yours. Plus, leaving a S[pecial] C[ounsel] (having been an

1. SC) resulting in an impeachment as an attorney is VERY different than leaving as an investigator….”

405

When asked to explain his comment about working on an investigation

“leading to impeachment?” Strzok denied that he had already prejudged the Russia

investigation. He described himself as a person:

[W]ho has had access to the information about the, all of these cases

and all of the ins and outs of what the allegations [in the Russia

investigation] are. And that he has both, as it matters as a public

servant, he has a professional concern about the allegations…. And

he is concerned on the impact of the national security of the United

States. He finds that he has an expertise and a competence in this

line of work, and he feels compelled and driven to pursue that and

pursue those facts where they lay.

He stated further that his professional actions, including on the staff of the Special

Counsel, were not affected by political bias.

We also asked Strzok about his “no big there there” message.” Strzok

stated:

As I looked at the predicating information, as I looked at the facts as

we understood them from…the allegations that Russia had these

emails, and offered to members of the Trump campaign to release

them. As we looked at the various actors, the question [was,]…was

that part of a broad, coordinated effort, or was that simply a bunch of

opportunists seeking to advance their own or individual

agendas…which of that is it?

…My question [was] about whether or not this represented a large,

coordinated conspiracy or not. And from that, as I looked at what

would give me professional fulfillment, what I thought would be the

best use of my skills and talents for the FBI and for the United States,

whether to take, which path to take.

Page stated that she understood Strzok’s reference to “unfinished business”

that he had “unleashed” and needed “to fix and finish” to be “a reflection of our

Director having been fired,” and “the purported reason for why the Director was

fired was his mishandling of the Midyear investigation, and the work force was, you

know, in mutiny, and it was all about Midyear.” She disagreed with the suggestion

that Strzok felt responsible for Clinton’s defeat in the election. She said she

interpreted Strzok’s reference to impeachment to mean he wanted to be involved in

the Russia investigation because it was so important “it might lead to

impeachment,” not because “it will lead to impeachment.”205 (Emphasis added). In

response to the OIG’s question as to whether Strzok’s text messages made it

appear that he was biased against Trump from the beginning of the Special Counsel

investigation, Page acknowledged that the text messages could be read that way,

205 Strzok gave a similar explanation for the email he sent to Page referencing a Special

Counsel investigation “resulting in an impeachment.” He stated, “[W]hile it says that, I think my

sense was very much, you know, where it could result in an impeachment. I am, again, was not, am

not convinced or certain that it will….”

406

but stated, “[T]hat’s just not how I read it.” She stated, “He wants to finish the

Russia investigation to do, right, this President fired the Director. This President’s

team is being investigated for potentially colluding with the Russians in the 2016

election. So, [he] want[s] to finish [his] involvement.”

4. Other Notable Text Messages

In this section, we briefly discuss other text message exchanges between

Page and Strzok that have received significant public attention.

April 1, 2016: On April 1, 2016, Page sent the following text message to

Strzok: “So look, you say we text on that phone when we talk about hillary

because it can’t be traced, you were just venting bc you feel bad that you’re gone

so much but it can’t be helped right now.” Page told us that this was an example of

why she and Strzok used their work phones to conceal their affair from their

spouses. Page stated, “[T]hat [text message] follows us communicating personally

on our personal phones, and his wife inquiring what it is he was doing. And so my

saying, tell her we’re talking about Hillary is not in fact because we were talking

about Hillary, but coming up with an explanation for him to provide his wife with

respect to why we were on that phone.”

June 30, 2016: On June 30, 2016, Strzok sent the following text message

to Page: “…Just left Bill…. He changed President to ‘another senior government

official.’” Based on context, Strzok told us “Bill” referred to Priestap. Strzok

stated:

My recollection is that the early Comey speech drafts included

references to emails that Secretary Clinton had with President Obama

and I think there was some conversation about, well do we want to be

that specific? Is there some, out of deference to executive

communications, do we want to do that? And I remember that

discussion occurring. I remember the decision was made to take it

out. I know I was not the person who did it.

Strzok told us that he saw no indication that this decision was done “to curry favor

or to influence anything.” Page told us that she could not remember the discussion

referenced in this text message. We also discuss this change to Comey’s July 5

statement in Chapter Six.

July 24, 2016: On July 24, 2016, before the Russia investigation was

formally opened, Page and Strzok exchanged numerous text messages in which

they discuss U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph “Rudy” Contreras. Judge Contreras

is also a current member of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC).

They discuss, among other things, Strzok hosting a social gathering and inviting

Contreras. They also discuss whether Contreras would “have to recuse himself” on

“espionage FISA” cases given “his friend oversees them.” We asked Strzok about

this exchange and his relationship with Contreras. Strzok stated that he considered

Contreras a friend and explained that they met years ago when their children

attended the same elementary school. Strzok stated that this text message

407

exchange reflected that “it had been a while since he had seen” Contreras and he

was telling Page that it would nice to see Contreras and find out how he was doing.

Strzok continued:

What it was not, and I will say this in response to, again, a lot of the

speculation I’ve seen. At no time did I ever with Judge Contreras

think of or in actuality reach out for the purpose of discussing any case

or trying to get any decision, provide any information, or otherwise

influence him with regard to any investigative matter that I or others

were involved with.

Strzok told us that Judge Contreras “knew that [Strzok] worked or may have

worked national security matters for the FBI,” but knew nothing about the specifics

of Strzok’s job or any of the cases he worked. Strzok stated that he never

discussed specifics of any investigation with Judge Contreras. Strzok also told us

that the social gathering discussed in this text message exchange never occurred.

We also asked Strzok about the recusal discussion reflected in the text

messages. Strzok stated:

[This] came up in the context of now that he was on the FISC and that

we did have a relationship, the question about, from an ethical

perspective and doing the right thing from an ethical perspective,

where the lines of either notifying the court and/or either his recusal or

my recusal with regard to matters that might bring us in contact with

each other on the professional side.

And so the discussion which then came up…was, whether in the

context of being the head of the Counterespionage Section, were

there, noticing the court or at a minimum noticing [the Department’s

National Security Division Office of Intelligence] of that personal

relationship to allow the court to make the appropriate decision, or,

you know, the, the conglomeration of all of us to make the appropriate

ethical decision of whether or not to do was the substance of this

discussion. But all of this discussion is a consideration of doing the

right, appropriate, ethical thing. It is the polar opposite of what is

being suggested by some. This is, this is the flip side of that saying

we want to make sure we’re absolutely doing the right thing. And by

the way…Judge Contreras is thoughtful and extraordinarily

conscientious about ethics and doing the right thing. So this is, if

anything, and what is particularly personally aggravating to me is this

speaks highly to him as a person, to us as the way we were thinking

about it. And it’s being absolutely twisted in the, the complete

opposite direction.

Strzok told us that this text message exchange was not about any particular case

and represented a more general concern of what he should do.

408

September 2, 2016: On September 2, 2016, Page and Strzok exchanged

the following text messages. The sender of each message is identified after the

timestamp.

09:41:30, Strzok: “Checkout my 9:30 mtg on the 7th”

09:42:40, Page: “I can tell you why you’re having that meeting.”

09:42:46, Page: “It’s not what you think.”

09:49:39, Strzok: “TPs for D?”

09:50:29, Page: “Yes, bc potus wants to know everything we are

doing.”

09:55:21, Strzok: “I’m sure an honest answer will come out of that

meeting….”

This text message exchange occurred during the period in which Midyear was

effectively closed—after Comey’s July 5 announcement and prior to the discovery of

Midyear-related emails on the Weiner laptop in late September. Strzok told us that

these text messages referenced a request by the White House to get a

“comprehensive idea across the U.S. Intelligence Community” about the scope of

Russian interference activities and details of what Russia was doing. Strzok stated

that this was “strictly limited to Russian actors” and he did not believe any

investigations of U.S. persons were part of this request. Page stated that this

exchange had “nothing to do with the Clinton email investigation.”

November 9, 2016: The day after the presidential election, on November

9, 2016, Page sent the following text message to Strzok: “Are you even going to

give out your calendars? Seems kind of depressing. Maybe it should just be the first

meeting of the secret society.” We asked Page about this message. Page stated

that the “calendars” referenced in this text message were “funny and snarky”

calendars of Russian President Vladimir Putin in different poses, such as “holding a

kitten.” Page told us that Strzok had previously purchased these calendars as “dark

gallows humor.” Page stated that the reference to the “secret society” was also a

“dark sort of” humor about Trump winning the election and concerns she and

Strzok had about Trump. Page continued:

And so, we somewhat with dark humor, but also somewhat, you know,

with real concern as, of course, our Director actually gets fired, talk

about, like, well, when he shuts down the, when he finds out about the

investigation and shuts down the FBI, you know, we’ll form a secret

society so we can like continue the investigation. So that’s just, that’s

obviously not real. I mean, that’s just us being, you know, sort of

snarky. But that’s a, that’s a joke. I mean, a reflection of that sort of

joke.

Strzok stated that he “took and certainly believed [this text message] to be a

joke.” Strzok explained:

409

I had gotten a bunch of Putin 2017 calendars where he is in various,

glorious displays of Russian patriotism for each month. And we were

going to give it out to the, kind of the, the closer senior members of

the [Russia investigation] team, just to, you know, hey, we made it to,

to Election Day just as like, you know, thanks for your hard work

because people, you know, had been truly working very hard….

To give that out and, you know, and Lisa, you know, saying, God, you

know, and the thought was, you know, give it out like right around the

election. And then my, my take of Lisa’s, and I think the everyman,

commonsense take of this is that it’s like, God, you know, is that

something you would want to, you know, want to do right now? And,

you know, the secret society is entirely in jest.

1. Instant Messages between Agent 1 and Agent 5

Agent 1 is an experienced counterintelligence agent and was assigned to the

Midyear investigative team from August 2015 through the conclusion of the

investigation. Agent 1 was one of four agents responsible for the day-to-day

activities of the Midyear investigation. Agent 1’s duties included conducting witness

interviews and Agent 1 was one of the two agents who interviewed former

Secretary Clinton on July 2. Agent 5 is also an experienced counterintelligence

agent and was a member of the Midyear filter team. As a member of the filter

team, Agent 5 was responsible for identifying privileged communications among the

materials obtained by the FBI to ensure that they were not reviewed by the

investigative team. Neither Agent 1 nor Agent 5 was assigned to the FBI’s Russia

investigation or the Special Counsel investigation.

As noted previously, we identified instant messages sent by Agent 1, often to

Agent 5, that expressed opinions critical of the conduct and quality of the Midyear

investigation. We discussed these message in Chapter Five. In addition to those

messages, we identified two instant message exchanges that appeared to combine

a discussion of politics with a discussion of the Midyear investigation. We also

identified instant messages between Agent 1 and Agent 5 that expressed support

for Clinton and hostility toward Trump. We discuss these messages in this section,

along with explanations provided by Agent 1 and Agent 5. Because it is relevant to

their explanations, we note that Agent 1 and Agent 5, who are now married, were

in a personal relationship that predated their assignment to the Midyear

investigation.

1. Instant Messages Referencing the Midyear Investigation

On July 6, 2016, the day after Comey’s Midyear declination announcement,

Agent 1 and an FBI employee not involved with Midyear exchanged messages about

the investigation. During the course of this discussion, Agent 1 described the prior

weekend’s activities, which included the interview of Clinton. A portion of this

410

instant message exchange follows. The sender of each message is noted after the

timestamp.206

15:07:41, Agent 1: “…I’m done interviewing the President – then

type the 302. 18 hour day….”

15:13:32, FBI Employee: “you interviewed the president?”

15:17:09, Agent 1: “you know – HRC” [Hillary Rodham Clinton]

15:17:18, Agent 1: “future pres”

15:17:22, Agent 1: “Trump cant win”

15:17:31, Agent 1: “demographics dont line up”

15:17:37, Agent 1: “America has changed”

We asked Agent 1 if he thought of Clinton as the next president while conducting

the Midyear investigation. Agent 1 stated, “I think my impression going into the

election in that personal realm is that all of the polls were favoring Hillary Clinton.”

We asked Agent 1 if he treated Clinton differently because of this assumption.

Agent 1 stated, “Absolutely not. I think the message they said that our leadership

told us and our actions were to find whatever was there and whatever, whatever

that means is what it means.”

Comey sent the first letter to Congress about the Weiner laptop discovery on

October 28, 2016. Agent 1 and Agent 5 exchanged instant messages about the

letter and Trump’s reaction to it later that day. The sender of each messages is

noted after the timestamp.

13:46:48, Agent 5: “jesus christ… Trump: Glad FBI is fixing ‘horrible

mistake’ on clinton emails… for fuck’s sake.”

13:47:27, Agent 5: “the fuck’s sake part was me, the rest was

Trump.”

13:49:07, Agent 1: “Not sure if Trump or the fifth floor is worse…”

13:49:22, Agent 5: “I’m so sick of both…”

13:50:25, Agent 5: “+o( TRUMP”207

13:50:30, Agent 5: “+o( Fifth floor”

13:50:34, Agent 5: “+o( FBI”

13:50:44, Agent 5: “+o( Average American public”

206 All instant messages produced to the OIG reflected Greenwich Mean Time. We have

corrected times to the Eastern Time Zone as a result. In addition, some instant messages contained

emojis, which we omitted unless they affected the meaning of the message. We also do not include

other intervening instant messages unless they contribute to understanding the highlighted messages.

207 The symbol used in these messages is a “sick face” emoticon. See IM Emoticons, at

http://sheet.shiar.nl/emoji (last accessed April 28, 2018).

411

We asked both Agent 1 and Agent 5 about these messages. Agent 1 and Agent 5

both stated the reference to “fifth floor” referred to the location of the FBI WFO’s

Counterintelligence Division. Agent 1 continued: “Again, you know, I think a

general, general theme in a lot of this is some personal comment, or, you know,

complaining about common topics and leadership and, and venting.” Agent 5 also

described this as general complaining to Agent 1 and also as an example of her

being “very tired of working” these types of cases. Agent 5 also noted that she was

not involved in the review of the Weiner laptop.

2. Instant Messages Commenting on Trump or Clinton

On August 29, 2016, Agent 1 and Agent 5 exchanged the following instant

messages as part of a discussion about their jobs. The sender of each message is

noted after the timestamp.

10:39:49, Agent 1: “I find anyone who enjoys [this job] an absolute

fucking idiot. If you dont think so, ask them one more question. Who

are you voting for? I guarantee you it will be Donald Drumpf.”

10:40:13, Agent 5: “i forgot about drumpf…”

10:40:27, Agent 5: “that’s so sad and pathetic if they want to vote for

him.”

10:40:43, Agent 5: “someone who can’t answer a question”

10:40:51, Agent 5: “someone who can’t be professional for even a

second”

On September 9, 2016, Agent 1 and Agent 5 exchanged the following instant

messages.

08:56:43, Agent 5: “i’m trying to think of a ‘would i rather’ instead of

spending time with those people”

08:56:54, Agent 1: “stick your tongue in a fan??”

08:56:58, Agent 5: “i would rather have brunch with trump”

08:57:03, Agent 1: “ha”

08:57:15, Agent 1: “french toast with drumpf”

08:57:19, Agent 5: “i would rather have brunch with trump and a

bunch of his supporters like the ones from ohio that are retarded”

08:57:23, Agent 5: “:)”

Agent 5 told the OIG these instant messages “referenced TV programming and

commentary that Agent 1 and Agent 5 had recently viewed together.” Agent 5

continued, “The reference was not a general statement about a particular part of

the country, rather it was in jest and pertained to individuals’ inability to articulate

any reason why they so strongly favored one candidate over another.”

412

On Election Day on November 8, 2016, Agent 1 and Agent 5 exchanged the

following instant messages.

14:21:10, Agent 1: “You think HRC is gonna win right? You think we

should get nails and some boards in case she doesnt”

14:21:56, Agent 5: “she better win… otherwise i’m gonna be walking

around with both of my guns.”

14:22:05, Agent 5: “and likely quitting on the spot”

14:28:43, Agent 1: “You should know;…..”

14:28:45, Agent 1: “that”

14:28:50, Agent 1: “I’m…..”

14:28:56, Agent 1: “with her.”

14:28:58, Agent 1: “ooooooooooooooooooo”

14:29:02, Agent 1: “show me the money”

14:29:03, Agent 5: “<:o)”

14:29:14, Agent 5: “screw you trump”

14:19:18, Agent 5: “wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!”

14:29:32, Agent 5: “go baby, go! let’s give her Virginia”

14:30:03, Agent 1: “not to my country. You just cant get up and try

to appeal to all the worst things in humans and fool my country….”

14:30:12, Agent 1: “Just 49% of us…..”

14:30:25, Agent 5: “let’s hope it’s 49% or less…”

14:30:31, Agent 5: “we’ll find out…”

In a December 6, 2016 exchange, Agent 5 complained to Agent 1 about

being required to be on call on the day of the presidential inauguration. In the

middle of expressing displeasure about this, Agent 5 sent a message to Agent 1

that stated, “fuck trump.” On February 9, 2017, in the context of an FBI employee

receiving a presidential award for public service, Agent 5 messaged, “…I think now

that trump is the president, i’d refuse it. it would be an insult to even be

considered for it.”

We asked Agent 1 and Agent 5 about their use of instant messaging

generally and about these messages in particular. As mentioned in Chapter Five,

Agent 1 told us that he believed that instant messages were not retained by the FBI

and therefore used less caution with those communications than he would have

with other types of communications, such as email or text messages.208 Agent 5

208 Agent 1 explained the reason for his belief that the instant messages were not retained,

stating, “So my understanding of [instant messaging] in the FBI is that it was implemented about four

or five years ago, roughly. Because I did internal investigations, at the time I was on the espionage

413

also made this point, stating that she considered these exchanges as a private

“outlet” to Agent 1. Both Agent 1 and Agent 5 apologized for their use of instant

messaging in this manner and told us that they were embarrassed.

We asked Agent 1 whether he believed these political discussions raised

questions about the integrity or reliability of the Midyear investigation. Agent 1

stated:

I don’t based on knowing my actions. I guess I would kind of repeat

what I said before. Yes, I, I have personal, a personal life, private

opinions, private views. I think what happened here is that I used

instant message and chat like it was my home.

…I like the job of fact-finding and having it lead you where you go. I

don’t start any day with an endgame in mind of let it, let it go to, go to

that. That’s the way I think I act, that’s how I think I’ve acted over

my whole career. That’s how I, that’s how I know I acted in, in this

case.

Yeah, I think that, I understand your question because it’s an FBI

system. I just unfortunately did not view it that way and did not use it

that way. I used it as, as, you know, some of my worst hits here, as

a, a way to relieve stress, as a way to be jocular, as a way to

exaggerate, as a way to blow off steam, as a, you know, potentially

get sympathy from, and then, you know, it was compounded by

frustrations from other people coming to me for answers for why

certain people got elected, and is it our fault, and, so I think there was

a, kind of a cocktail of, of stress in this case that came out on this

system like it was a conversation.

So I, I don’t, I don’t think so based on knowing my actions and what I

did knowing the actions of the people around me.

We also asked Agent 1 whether his personal beliefs impacted his investigative

actions in Midyear. Agent 1 responded:

[I]n no way do I think it, it impacted my view. I guess the best way is

almost like a, it’s almost like you switch on your, when, when we did

our morning meetings, it was what do we have and where do we go

next? It, it was just like almost, you know, like there’s a, there’s the

professional side, the do your job side, and there’s a personal side.

And I think a lot of this falls into the personal side.

squad, my awareness was that it was not logged by the FBI because I tried to get those records for

internal investigations.” Agent 5 stated the she also had requested instant messages in prior internal

investigations and been told that they were not preserved. Agents 1 and 5 told the OIG that they

learned in April 2017 that the FBI had retained instant messages since February 2015, as the result of

receiving a memorandum about preservation and criminal discovery obligations stemming from the

FBI’s instant messaging system. The FBI email distributing this memorandum advised employees that

the FBI began preserving instant messages in February 2015 and stated, “Lync should not be used for

messages in February 2015 and stated, “Lync should not be used for

substantive communications.”

414

…It was only to try to do the right thing…. That’s, that’s the only

thing, the only thought process in my head when I was, when I was

doing my job.

We asked Agent 5 how she would respond to someone who read these

messages and concluded the opinions expressed in them impacted the Midyear

investigation. Agent 5 stated:

Well, I can see someone who doesn’t know us at all saying the same,

wondering, I guess, if [our political beliefs] could have impacted [the

Midyear investigation]. I can tell you in no way did my political or

what I understand of [Agent 1], no political anything is going to

interfere with us doing our job as professionals.

I can see me going into these rants. I can see me ranting in some of

these, and, you know, again, I think all of these are very personal, offthe-

cuff…these are personal, private messages. I mean, you could

probably even see the difference between, if you’ve seen anything in

my [career] that I put to the file…for, you know, case-related things.

I am very thorough, methodical, and I think through everything when

I’m typing it. I don’t even cut corners with acronyms. I, I treat that

extremely seriously in my [career], and even before I became an

agent.

So I, I would tell that person that part of being a professional, part of

the oath that I swore here to work, I…uphold it. And I upheld it at

this point. I, I do have personal beliefs and personal opinions. You

know, I expressed some of those. Some of them come out in

frustration. Some of them come out in jokes. I can see us quoting

things kind of just to make us smile, you know, make us feel better,

you know, after sometimes tough days. And…I would say in, in no

way has it ever or would it ever affect the way I, I handle any

investigation, any case, any professional work that I, that I put

forward.

1. FBI Attorney 2 Instant Messages

FBI Attorney 2 was assigned to the Midyear investigation early in 2016. FBI

Attorney 2 was not the lead FBI attorney assigned to Midyear and he told us he

provided support to the investigation as needed. FBI Attorney 2 told us that he was

also assigned to the investigation into Russian election interference and was the

primary FBI attorney assigned to that investigation beginning in early 2017. FBI

Attorney 2 told us that he was then assigned to the Special Counsel investigation

once it began. FBI Attorney 2 left the Special Counsel’s investigation and returned

to the FBI in late February 2018, shortly after the OIG provided the Special Counsel

with some of the instant messages discussed in this section.

We identified instant messages on FBINet involving FBI Attorney 2 that

discussed political issues. Most of these exchanges appeared to be jokes or

attempts at humor, often involving Trump. We asked FBI Attorney 2 in general

415

about the use of FBI instant messaging in this manner. FBI Attorney 2 told us that,

in general, he regretted his use of instant messaging in this manner and noted “it’s

not something that I did routinely.” He described these messages as “commentary”

on recent political events and not connected to decisions or activities in

investigations. FBI Attorney 2 stated that almost all of these messages were sent

to co-workers he “considered to be” friends and he “was talking to them in that

capacity,” and “[n]ot in a professional capacity.” FBI Attorney 2 reiterated that

these messages or views had “absolutely” no impact on his work on investigations.

He stated:

I, like most people, have particular views on, on politics. I’m a bit of a

news junkie when it comes to government. It’s one of the main

reasons I, I joined the federal workforce is because I’ve always found

it so fascinating and interesting.

But when it came to doing my work, I never injected this, this type of,

of color commentary or this type of water cooler type talk into that. I,

I maintained impartiality and just tried to work through the issues

individually as they came through. So if they needed some assistance

on a warrant or some assistance on, you know, potentially pursuing

contacts with another government agency or something like that, like,

I just, I assisted with the process more like, kind of like an XO type

role I guess.

Among the general discussion of political issues by FBI Attorney 2, we

identified three instant message exchanges that raised concerns of potential bias.

The first of these exchanges was on October 28, 2016, shortly after Comey’s

October 28 letter to Congress that effectively announced the reopening of the

Midyear investigation. FBI Attorney 2 sent similar messages to four different FBI

employees. The timestamps of these messages are included below. The messages

stated:

13:44:42, to FBI Employee 1: “I mean, I never really liked the

Republic anyway.”

13:44:52, to FBI Employee 2: “I mean, I never really liked the

Republic anyway.”

14:01:52, to FBI Employee 3: “As I have initiated the destruction of

the republic…. Would you be so kind as to have a coffee with me this

afternoon?”

15:28:50, to FBI Employee 4: “I’m clinging to small pockets of

happiness in the dark time of the Republic’s destruction”

FBI Attorney 2 described these messages as reflecting his surprise and frustration

that the FBI “was essentially walking into a landmine in terms of injecting itself

[into the election] at that late in the process.” FBI Attorney 2 continued:

I think that, that there is some distinguishment between my

frustration at the way that the Bureau is operating itself in October in

416

terms of, of wading into the process at that point…. But, I think that

there is a distinguishment between having reservations about the way

that we were operating and just expressing the frustration about,

about us coming into the process. It’s like, in terms of, of, you know,

what’s not in here too is like, you know, we, at that point we had

investigation, the Russia investigation was ongoing as well. And that

information was obviously kept close hold and was not released until

March. So, you know, it, it was just kind of frustration that we weren’t

handling both of them the same way with, with that level I guess.

FBI Attorney 2 described the “destruction” language as “hyperbolic” and “off-thecuff

commentary to friends.”

The second exchange we identified occurred on November 9, 2016, the day

after the presidential election. FBI Attorney 2 and another FBI employee who was

not involved in the Midyear investigation exchanged the following instant messages.

Note that the sender of the instant message is identified after the timestamp and

intervening messages that did not contribute to the understanding of this exchange

are not included.

09:38:14, FBI Attorney 2: “I am numb.”

09:55:35, FBI Employee: “I can’t stop crying.”

10:00:13, FBI Attorney 2: “That makes me even more sad.”

10:43:20, FBI Employee: “Like, what happened?”

10:43:37, FBI Employee: “You promised me this wouldn’t happen.

YOU PROMISED.”

10:43:43, FBI Employee: Okay, that might have been a lie…”

10:43:46, FBI Employee: “I’m very upset.”

10:43:47, FBI Employee: “haha”

10:51:48, FBI Attorney 2: “I am so stressed about what I could have

done differently.”

10:54:29, FBI Employee: “Don’t stress. None of that mattered.”

10:54:31, FBI Employee: “The FBI’s influence.”

10:59:36, FBI Attorney 2: “I don’t know. We broke the momentum.”

11:00:03, FBI Employee: “That is not so.”

11:02:22, FBI Employee: “All the people who were initially voting for

her would not, and were not, swayed by any decision the FBI put out.

Trump’s supporters are all poor to middle class, uneducated, lazy POS

that think he will magically grant them jobs for doing nothing. They

probably didn’t watch the debates, aren’t fully educated on his policies,

and are stupidly wrapped up in his unmerited enthusiasm.”

417

11:11:43, FBI Attorney 2: “I’m just devastated. I can’t wait until I

can leave today and just shut off the world for the next four days.”

11:12:06, FBI Employee: “Why are you devastated?”

11:12:18, FBI Employee: “Yes, I’m not watching tv for four years.”

11:14:16, FBI Attorney 2: “I just can’t imagine the systematic

disassembly of the progress we made over the last 8 years. ACA is

gone. Who knows if the rhetoric about deporting people, walls, and

crap is true. I honestly feel like there is going to be a lot more gun

issues, too, the crazies won finally. This is the tea party on steroids.

And the GOP is going to be lost, they have to deal with an incumbent

in 4 years. We have to fight this again. Also Pence is stupid.”

11:14:58, FBI Employee: “Yes that’s all true.”

11:15:01, FBI Attorney 2: “And it’s just hard not to feel like the FBI

caused some of this. It was razor thin in some states.”

11:15:09, FBI Employee: “Yes it was very thin.”

11:15:23, FBI Attorney 2: “Plus, my god damned name is all over the

legal documents investigating his staff.”

11:15:24, FBI Employee: “But no I absolutely do not believe the FBI

had any part.”

11:15:33, FBI Attorney 2: “So, who knows if that breaks to him what

he is going to do.”

We asked FBI Attorney 2 about this exchange. FBI Attorney 2 stated, “I’d

say that we’re just discussing our personal feelings on [the outcome of the election]

between friends, yeah.” When asked about the FBI employee meant by “[y]ou

promised me this wouldn’t happen,” FBI Attorney 2 told us that he “did not

promise [the employee] anything,” and stated, “I think, again, it’s just kind of the

way that [the employee] and I converse. We tend to exaggerate some statements

back and forth to one another.” We also asked FBI Attorney 2 what he meant by “I

am so stressed about what I could have done differently.” FBI Attorney 2 replied:

That was a, that was a reference to, again, just in terms of the way

that we opened or how long it took us to open [in October]. You

know, with the, with the knowledge that the information was there [on

the Weiner laptop], why we didn’t work on it to, to gain access sooner,

as opposed to later because it was a, a bit of a, of a gap between us

learning of the information in New York and, and officially getting the

case reopened again….

Just in terms of like what I could have done to, to either have

accelerated the process or to, like how I expressed to [FBI Attorney 1]

that I didn’t know if this was the correct way for the Bureau to be

doing this notification, et cetera. Whether, you know, I could have

said something differently to her that would have resonated in, or, or

418

would have been part of the discussion. But I wasn’t anywhere near

the, the room deciding on these factors….

It was just kind of like a discussion on how I could have either moved

the process along more quickly or more efficiently at a, at a more, at

an earlier time, or whatnot.

When asked if he thought earlier action on the Weiner laptop would have alleviated

the need to send the letter to Congress, FBI Attorney 2 stated:

Well, not, not, I don’t think that that would have alleviated the need

for the letter in the Director’s eyes. But if we would have opened a

few weeks earlier, as opposed to at that time, two weeks before the

election, I think it, you know, it would have given more time for the

FBI’s actions and, and required and, and necessary investigation to, to

occur to allow the, the public a chance to make their own decisionmaking.

FBI Attorney 2 again reiterated that his “personal political feelings or beliefs…in no

way impacted” his work on the Midyear or Russia investigations.

The third exchange we identified was on November 22, 2016. FBI Attorney 2

sent an instant message to FBI Attorney 1 commenting on the amount of money

the subject of an FBI investigation had been paid while working on the Trump

campaign. FBI Attorney 1 responded, “Is it making you rethink your commitment

to the Trump administration?” FBI Attorney 2 replied, “Hell no.” and then added,

“Viva le resistance.” FBI Attorney 1 responded that Trump was “going to eliminate

all of our pensions in order to pay for people like” the person discussed in the

instant message exchange, and FBI Attorney 1 and FBI Attorney 2 then began a

discussion of federal pension and retirement issues.

We asked both FBI Attorney 2 and FBI Attorney 1 about this exchange. FBI

Attorney 2 stated:

So, this is in reference to an ongoing subject. And then following that,

like I interpreted [FBI Attorney 1’s] comment to me as being, you

know, just her and I socially and as friends discussing our particular

political views, to which I see that as more of a joking inquiry from

her. It’s not something along the lines of where I’m not committed to

the U.S. Government. I obviously am and, you know, work to do my

job very well and to continue to, to work in that capacity. It’s just the,

the lines bled through here just in terms of, of my personal, political

view in terms of, of what particular preference I have. But, but that

doesn’t have any, any leaning on the way that I, I maintain myself as

a professional in the FBI.

We asked FBI Attorney 2 if “Viva le resistance” signaled he was going to fight back

against President Trump. FBI Attorney 2 responded:

419

That’s not what I was doing…. I just, again, like that, that’s just like

the entire, it’s just my political view in terms of, of my preference. It

wasn’t something along the lines of, you know, we’re taking certain

actions in order to, you know, combat that or, or do anything like that.

Like that, that was not the intent of that. That was more or less just

like, you know, commentary between me and [FBI Attorney 1] in a

personal friendship capacity where she is just making a joke, and I’m

responding. Like, it’s not something that, that I personally believe in

that instance.

FBI Attorney 2 acknowledged that both he and FBI Attorney 1 were assigned to the

Russia investigation at this point in time and he “can understand the, the

perception issues that come from” this exchange.

FBI Attorney 1 stated that she and FBI Attorney 2 were friends and often had

discussions unrelated to work. She acknowledged that that this was “not the right

place to make those kind of comments.” We asked FBI Attorney 1 what she meant

by the message, “Is it making you rethink your commitment to the Trump

administration?” She stated, “I think what I meant was are you going to leave the

government and start working to get more money.” We also asked FBI Attorney 1

what she understood FBI Attorney 2 to mean when he messaged, “Viva le

resistance.” FBI Attorney 1 told us, “I think it was a joke obviously. But I think it

was intended to say that, you know, he was committed to continuing to work for

the Bureau, for these cases.” FBI Attorney 1 stated that nothing about this

exchange affected her work on the Russia investigation.

1. Analysis

The conduct of the five FBI employees described in sections A, B, and C of

this Chapter has brought discredit to themselves, sowed doubt about the FBI’s

handling of the Midyear investigation, and impacted the reputation of the FBI. As

described in Chapter Five, our review did not find documentary or testimonial

evidence directly connecting the political views these employees expressed in their

text messages and instant messages to the specific investigative decisions we

reviewed in Chapter Five. Nonetheless, the conduct by these employees cast a

cloud over the FBI Midyear investigation and sowed doubt the FBI’s work on, and

its handling of, the Midyear investigation. Moreover, the damage caused by their

actions extends far beyond the scope of the Midyear investigation and goes to the

heart of the FBI’s reputation for neutral factfinding and political independence.

We were deeply troubled by text messages sent by Strzok and Page that

potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were

impacted by bias or improper considerations. Most of the text messages raising

such questions pertained to the Russia investigation, which was not a part of this

review. Nonetheless, when one senior FBI official, Strzok, who was helping to lead

the Russia investigation at the time, conveys in a text message to another senior

FBI official, Page, that “we’ll stop” candidate Trump from being elected—after other

extensive text messages between the two disparaging candidate Trump—it is not

only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a

420

willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral

prospects. This is antithetical to the core values of the FBI and the Department of

Justice. Moreover, as we describe in Chapter Nine, in assessing Strzok’s decision to

prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Midyear-related

investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop in October 2016, these text

messages led us to conclude that we did not have confidence that Strzok’s decision

was free from bias.

Each of the five employees expressed remorse about using FBI devices and

systems for these discussions, and each also stated that they intended these

messages to be private conversations. Several of the employees also expressed

the belief that their messages would not be preserved or would be exempt from

public disclosure under FOIA. We found this reliance on the “private” nature of

these messages to be misplaced. Because these messages were exchanged on

government systems and devices, they were never “private.” Every Department

employee sees a notice each time he or she logs onto the Department’s network

informing him or her that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in

communications exchanged on government systems.209 We recommend that the

FBI add a similar warning banner to all of the FBI’s mobile phones and devices.

Indeed, rather than being “private” communications, these messages were at

all times potentially subject to being reviewed by others (including the OIG) and to

being disclosed to the public. This point seems even more obvious in light of the

significant congressional and public interest generated by the Midyear and Russia

investigations. The employees exchanging text messages and instant messages

are trained law enforcement agents or attorneys, and should have known that

these messages were potentially subject to release in response to FOIA requests,

subject to disclosure in civil litigation, or discoverable as impeachment evidence

even in the absence of the OIG investigation.210 We note that these messages also

209 After reviewing a draft of the report, Page told the OIG that the Samsung phones used by

the FBI do not include any such warning banner. The OIG confirmed with the FBI that this is accurate.

However, the notice on the FBI’s computer system applies to “all devices [or] storage media attached

to this network or to a computer on this network,” and alerts users that they “have no reasonable

expectation of privacy regarding any communication transmitted through or data stored on this

information system. At any time the government may monitor, intercept, search and/or seize data

transmitted through or data stored on this information system.” In addition, a recent Department

training stated, “DOJ systems are not your personal systems. That means you have no reasonable

expectation of privacy about maintaining any personal information, data, or applications on

Department systems, networks, or devices.” Department of Justice, Office of the Chief Information

Officer, 2018 Annual DOJ Cybersecurity Awareness Training, at 14.

210 For example, FBI Records Management Training warns FBI employees to be careful about

what they say in emails and text messages:

Remember, that emails and texts messages should be treated the same way as paper

correspondence. So be aware of what you write. It may be released through FOIA,

and be made widely available one day.

Of course, many of our records also end up in court. In civil cases, the FBI must turn

over all relevant evidence, including emails and text messages. While all documents

are viewed for privilege and redacted prior to release, there is no claim of privilege

covering inappropriate or embarrassing statements. Such as, the governor is a block

421

potentially implicate the FBI’s or prosecutors’ disclosure obligations in any

prosecutions resulting from the investigations at issue.211

We do not question that the FBI employees who sent these messages are

entitled to their own political views. Indeed, federal statutes and regulations

explicitly protect the right of federal employees to “express…opinion[s] on political

subjects and candidates” and to “exercise fully, freely, and without fear of penalty

or reprisal, and to the extent not expressly prohibited by law, their right to

participate or to refrain from participating in the political processes of the Nation”—

provided such expression “does not compromise his or her efficiency or integrity as

an employee or the neutrality, efficiency, or integrity of the agency or

instrumentality of the United States Government in which he or she is

employed.”212 While these employees did not give up their First Amendment rights

when they became employed by the FBI, Supreme Court decisions make clear that

the FBI retains the authority—particularly as a law enforcement agency—to impose

head. Although what we turn over in criminal cases can be more targeted, such as

witness statements and exculpatory and impeachment evidence. Just as in civil cases,

emails and text messages that fit into one of these categories must be turned over

regardless whether they are embarrassing or worded inappropriately….

Even though it’s a casual medium, we can’t take a casual attitude towards email. All

email, even a text or a PIN message, can be instantly copied, archived, filed, and

disseminated. Just like a memo or a 302, emails reflect on the professionalism of the

employee, and potentially the FBI as a whole. Inappropriate, offensive language, illadvised

humor, off-color references, and poorly thought out remarks have no place in

any FBI communication. And it doesn’t matter if that communication was intended as

a record or a non-record.

211 See USAM § 9-5.001, Policy Regarding Disclosure of Exculpatory and Impeachment

Information; see also United States v. Johnson, 14-CR-00412-TEH, 2015 WL 2125132, at 3-4 (N.D.

Cal. May 6, 2015) (ordering the disclosure of racist text message(s) sent or received by a police officer

involved in maintaining a crime scene); Linetsky v. City of Solon, Case No. 1:16-CV-52, 2016 WL

5402615 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 28, 2016) (ordering an assistant prosecutor to produce in discovery all text

messages between the prosecutor and law enforcement personnel pertaining to the plaintiff’s prior

criminal case); United States v. Marcus Mumford, Case No. 3:17-CR-0008-JCC, 2017 WL 652448, at

2-3 (D. Ore. Feb. 16, 2017) (finding, during prosecution of Ammon Bundy’s attorney in connection

with a scuffle with U.S. Deputy Marshals, that “the Marshals’ government issued cell phones are

subject to discovery and should any texts reveal hostility towards Defendant or in any way casts doubt

on their credibility, they must be produced.”).

212 5 U.S.C. §§ 7321, 7323(c); 5 C.F.R. § 734.402. FBI policy similarly provides that FBI

employees retain the right to participate in various specified political activities, as long as such activity

is not performed in concert with a political party, partisan political group, or a candidate for partisan

political office. The list of political activities includes the right of an FBI employee to “[e]xpress his or

her opinion as an individual privately and publicly on political subjects and candidates,” and to

“otherwise participate fully in public affairs, except as prohibited by other Federal law, in a manner

which does not compromise his or her efficiency or integrity as an employee or the neutrality,

efficiency, or integrity of the agency or instrumentality of the United States Government in which he

or she is employed.” FBI Office of Integrity and Compliance, FBI Ethics and Integrity Program Policy

Directive and Policy Guide, § 7.4.2 (Feb. 2, 2015).

422

certain restrictions on its employees’ speech in the interest of providing effective

and efficient government.213

We believe the messages discussed in this chapter—particularly the

messages that intermix work-related discussions with political commentary—

potentially implicate provisions in the FBI’s Offense Code and Penalty Guidelines,

which provides general categories of misconduct for which FBI employees may be

disciplined. This includes the provisions relating to Offense Codes 1.7

(Investigative Deficiency – Misconduct Related to Judicial Proceedings), 3.6 (Misuse

of Government Computer(s)), 3.11 (Misuse of Government Property, Other), 5.21

(Unprofessional Conduct – Off Duty), and 5.22 (Unprofessional Conduct – On

Duty).214 However, we did not identify any prior FBI misconduct investigations

under these provisions that involved a similar fact pattern or similar issues.215

At a minimum, we found that the employees’ use of FBI systems and devices

to send the identified messages demonstrated extremely poor judgment and a

gross lack of professionalism. This is not just because of the nature of the

messages, but also because many of the messages commented on individuals

(Clinton and Trump) who were inextricably connected to the Midyear and Russia

investigations. The FBI is charged with the investigation of many important and

sensitive matters, including some that generate intense public interest and debate.

It is essential that the public have confidence that the work of the FBI is done

without bias or appearance of partiality, and that those engaged in it follow the

213 The Supreme Court has held that public employees do not forfeit their right to freedom of

speech by virtue of their public employment. See Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563, 568 (1968).

However, when a citizen enters government service, he accepts certain limitations on his First

Amendment rights. See Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 418 (2006). In Pickering, the Supreme

Court recognized that a public employer has an interest in regulating the speech of its employees.

The Court strove to “arrive at a balance between the interests of the [public employee], as a citizen, in

commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer in

promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.” To strike this

balance, the Supreme Court has set forth a two-step inquiry to determine whether a public employee’s

speech is entitled to protection. See Lane v. Franks, 134 S.Ct. 2369, 2378 (2014). First, the court

must determine the threshold question of whether the employee spoke as a private citizen on a

matter of public concern. See Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 418. If not, the employee has no First Amendment

claim. If so, the second step is to establish “whether the relevant government entity had an adequate

justification for treating the employee differently from any other member of the general public.” Id.

214 These messages may also implicate other Department-wide Rules, such as Department of

Justice Information Technology Security Rules of Behavior for General Users Version 10 (January 1,

2017).

215 In 2012, “racy texts” exchanged between two FBI agents and an FBI informant were used

to impeach the agents in the prosecutions of several defendants for violations of the Foreign Corrupt

Practices Act. According to a Washington Post article about the case, which ended without

convictions, the foreman of the jury stated that the “texts were one of many things that point[ed] to

an absolutely amateurish operation” by the government. See Del Quentin Wilbur, Racy Texts Hurt

Justice’s Largest Sting Operation Targeting Foreign Bribery, WASH. POST, Feb. 13, 2013. This case and

the Washington Post article about the impact of the text messages are used in the Department’s

training on electronic discovery as an example of what not to say in text messages. However, the OIG

learned that the agents involved in that case were not investigated or disciplined for misconduct, and

that their text messages were handled as a performance issue. Both agents remain employed by the

FBI.

423

facts and law wherever they may lead and without any agenda or desired result

other than to see that justice is done.

Although we found no documentary or testimonial evidence directly

connecting the political views these employees expressed in their text messages

and instant messages to the specific Midyear investigative decisions we reviewed in

Chapter Five, the messages cast a cloud over the FBI investigations to which these

employees were assigned. Ultimately, the consequences of these actions impact

not only the senders of these messages but also others who worked on these

investigations and, indeed, the entire FBI.

We therefore refer this information to the FBI for its handling and

consideration of whether the messages sent by the five employees listed above

violates the FBI’s Offense Code of Conduct.

Additionally, we recommend that the FBI (1) assess whether it has provided

adequate training to employees about the proper use of text messages and instant

messages, including any related discovery obligations, and (2) consider whether to

provide additional guidance about the allowable uses of FBI devices for any nongovernmental

purpose, including guidance about the use of FBI devices for political

conversations.

1. Use of Personal Email

As mentioned above, we identified several instances in which Comey and

Strzok used personal email accounts for official government business. When

questioned, Page also told us she used personal email for work-related matters at

times. We briefly discuss these issues below.

On September 21, 2016, the Department issued a Policy Statement detailing

the records retention policy for email communications. The Policy Statement

contained the following guidance for the use of personal email accounts:

In general, DOJ email users should not create or send record emails or

attachments using non-official email accounts. However, should

exigent circumstances require the use of a personal account to conduct

DOJ business, the DOJ email user must ensure that the communicated

information is fully captured in a DOJ recordkeeping system within 20

days. If sending the email from a non-official account, the email user

must copy his or her DOJ email address as a recipient. If receiving a

DOJ business-related email on a non-official account, the DOJ email

user must forward the business-related email to his or her DOJ email

account. Once the user has ensured the capture of the email

information in the DOJ account, the DOJ email should be removed

from the non-official account.

See DOJ Policy Statement, Electronic Mail and Electronic Messaging Records

Retention (approved on September 21, 2016).

424

1. Comey

We identified numerous instances in which Comey used a personal email

account (a Gmail account) to conduct FBI business. We cite five examples of such

use in this section and include information provided by Comey and Rybicki about

Comey’s use of a personal email account.

On November 8, 2016, Comey forwarded to his personal email account from

his unclassified FBI account a proposed post-election message for all FBI employees

that was entitled “Midyear thoughts.” This document summarized Comey’s

reasoning for notifying Congress about the reactivation of the Midyear investigation.

In late December 2016, Comey forwarded to his personal email account from his

unclassified FBI account multiple drafts of a proposed year-end message to FBI

employees. On December 30, 2016, Comey forwarded to his personal email

account from his unclassified FBI account proposed responses to two requests for

information from the Office of Special Counsel.216 The forwarded email included

two attachments: (1) a certification for Comey to sign; and (2) a list of FBI

employees with information responsive to this request, including their titles, office,

appointment status, contact information, and duty hours. On January 6, 2017,

Comey forwarded to his personal email account from his unclassified FBI account an

email from Rybicki to Kortan highlighting language that needed to be corrected in a

Wall Street Journal article. In mid-March 2017, Comey sent from his personal

email account to his own and Rybicki’s unclassified FBI accounts multiple drafts of

Comey’s proposed opening statement for his March 20, 2017 testimony to the

House Intelligence Committee.

We asked Comey about his use of personal email for FBI business and

showed him the November 8, 2016 email with Rybicki as an example. Comey

stated:

I did not have an unclass[ified] FBI connection at home that worked.

And I didn’t bother to fix it, whole ‘nother story, but I would either use

my BlackBerry, must have been or Samsung…my phone, I had two

phones—a personal phone and a government phone. Or if I needed to

write something longer, I would type it on my personal laptop and

then send it to Rybicki, usually I copied my own address…. Yeah.

And so I would use, for unclassified work, I would use my personal

laptop for word processing and then send it into the FBI.

We asked Comey if he had any concerns about conducting FBI business on his

personal laptop or personal email. Comey stated that he did not and explained:

Because it was incidental and I was always making sure that the work

got forwarded to the government account to either my own account or

Rybicki, so I wasn’t worried from a record-keeping perspective and it

216 This refers to the federal agency responsible for investigating violations of the Hatch Act,

not to Special Counsel Robert Mueller III.

425

was, because there will always be a copy of it in the FBI system and I

wasn’t doing classified work there, so I wasn’t concerned about that.

Comey stated that he did not use his personal email or laptop for classified or

sensitive information, such as grand jury information. Comey told us that he only

used his personal email and laptop “when I needed to word process an unclassified

[document] that was going to be disseminated broadly, [such as a] public speech

or public email to the whole organization.” We asked Comey if the use of personal

email in this manner was in accordance with FBI regulations. Comey replied, “I

don’t know. I think so, but I don’t know. I remember talking to Jim [Rybicki]

about it at one time, and I had the sense that it was okay.”

We also asked Rybicki about Comey’s use of a personal email account. In

response to the OIG’s questions and in consultation with Comey, Rybicki sent the

OIG an email on April 20, 2017, that stated:

In rare circumstances during his tenure, Director Comey sends

unclassified emails from his official FBI.gov email account address to

[his Gmail account]. This permits him to open attachments and use

his personal laptop to then work on a speech or other content intended

for wide dissemination. He then sends drafts or the completed text to

his official FBI.gov email account or to another FBI.gov email account

from [his Gmail account]. He opened this personal account at about

the time he became Director….

To ensure a high level of cybersecurity, Director Comey routinely

deletes all emails from his [Gmail] account each day, and then clears

the deleted messages folder. He began this practice about two years

ago.

The Director does not recall receiving and/or seeking advice

concerning the use of these accounts.

We found that, given the absence of exigent circumstances and the

frequency with which the use of personal email occurred, Comey’s use of a personal

email account on multiple occasions for unclassified FBI business to be inconsistent

with the DOJ Policy Statement.

1. Strzok and Page

During our review, we identified several instances where Strzok used his

personal email account for government business. Examples included an email chain

forwarded to Strzok’s personal email account on December 10, 2016, discussing a

draft congressional response, and draft versions of emails on his personal email

account that Strzok eventually sent to other FBI employees using his government

account. Most troubling, on October 29, 2016, Strzok forwarded from his FBI

account to his personal email account an email about the proposed search warrant

the Midyear team was seeking on the Weiner laptop. This email included a draft of

the search warrant affidavit, which contained information from the Weiner

investigation that appears to have been under seal at the time in the Southern

426

District of New York and information obtained pursuant to a grand jury subpoena

issued in the Eastern District of Virginia in the Midyear investigation.217

We asked Strzok about these emails and his use of personal email account

for FBI business. Strzok stated:

My general practice was not to use personal email for FBI business.

The times that I did it was when it wasn’t possible or there, there were

problems with the FBI systems. In the case of I think the one issue

that came out was…the one about the draft affidavit for the Weiner

laptop.

Our phones at the time had significant limitations specifically to that.

You couldn’t view redlines. And so, and, but yet you could on an

iPhone. So I remember in the case of that search warrant forwarding

it over so I could see what DOJ changed and their comment bubbles in

regard to that. There were some other times where I was either out of

the office. I think a lot of those were either I was on travel or

certainly over the weekends. It is very cumbersome on the old

iPhones, or on the old Samsungs of the Bureau because of the way

they autocorrect spelling and the nature of the…keyboard, it is difficult

to write anything of length whatsoever. So there were times that, I

mean, I think there’s one where I was very aggravated with a set of

circumstances that had unfolded. I was going to tell my boss about it,

and I remember talking with Lisa [Page] saying, hey look, did I hit the

right tone in this because I wanted to, you know, just be respectful,

but at the same time convey my frustration.

I wrote that on my home computer, because it’s easier to type it out.

I think there was one that might be a holiday greeting that I sent to

Bill [Priestap]. But, again, the sort of thing that, you know, for, for

convenience, but because on the one hand it was bulky to, our

technology was crappy, and it was impossible on the rare occasion I

would write these things. And then send them to, you know, my

account and forward it on. So it got incorporated and picked up into

the FBI system.

Strzok told us that his understanding was that FBI policy discouraged the use of

personal email and devices, but “there are allowances made” where “it is not

practical or possible to use your [FBI] device.” Strzok stated that he would double

delete any work-related emails in his personal account.218

217 The OIG previously notified the respective U.S. Attorney’s Offices about Strzok’s actions.

218 We requested access to Strzok’s personal email account. Strzok agreed to produce copies

of work-related emails in his personal account but declined to produce copies of his personal emails.

Strzok subsequently told the OIG that he had reviewed the emails residing in his personal mailboxes

and found no work-related communications. We determined that we lacked legal authority to obtain

the contents of Strzok’s personal email account from his email provider, which requires an Electronic

Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) search warrant to produce email contents. Strzok’s email

427

We also identified numerous references in text messages between Page and

Strzok about using “Imessage” (or “Imsg”) or a personal email account. A number

of these messages reference work-related discussions on those forums. We asked

Strzok and Page about this. Strzok stated, “Typically, we would iMessage personal

things.” We asked Strzok if he and Page ever exchanged work-related information

on iMessage. Strzok told us, “I do not recall that. I can’t exclude it ever, ever

happening, but I don’t recall ever sending work-related stuff on, on iMessage.”

Page told us that references to these other forums reflected “mostly personal

use” as opposed to using them for work purposes. However, she stated that she

and Strzok sometimes used these forums for work-related discussions due to the

technical limitations of FBI-issued phones. Page explained:

[I]n particular, the autocorrect function is the bane of literally every

agent of the FBI’s existence because those of us who care about

spelling and punctuation, which I realize is a nerdy thing to do, makes

us crazy because it takes legitimate words that are spelled correctly

and autocorrects them into gobbledygook. And so, it is not uncommon

for either one of us to just either switch to our personal phones or, or

in this case, where it was going to be a, a fairly substantive thing that

he was writing, to just save ourselves the trouble of not doing it on our

Samsungs. Because they are horrible and super-frustrating.

Page also noted that she and Strzok would often use personal email accounts to

send news articles to one another.

We refer to the FBI the issue of whether Strzok’s use of personal email

accounts violated FBI and Department policies. As noted above, Page left the

Department on May 4, 2018.

III. Allegations that Department and FBI Employees Improperly

Disclosed Non-Public Information

Among the issues we reviewed were allegations that Department and FBI

employees improperly disclosed non-public information. We found that Department

and FBI officials raised considerable concerns about alleged leaks of information,

particularly in October 2016, regarding the Midyear investigation and the Clinton

Foundation investigation.

provider’s policy applies to opened emails and emails stored for more than 180 days, which ECPA

otherwise permits the government to obtain using a subpoena and prior notice to the subscriber. See

18 U.S.C. § 2703(a), (b)(1)(B)(i); COMPUTER CRIME AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

JUSTICE, SEARCHING AND SEIZING COMPUTERS AND OBTAINING ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS at

129-30 (2009). In addition, although we learned that a non-FBI family member had access to

Strzok’s personal email account in 2017, Strzok told the OIG that no one else had access to his

personal email account during the period in question (i.e., late October 2016).

428

As we describe in Chapter Eleven of this report, Lynch and Comey discussed

their concerns about leaks on October 31, 2016. Additionally, on October 26, 2016,

Lynch raised her concerns about leaks with McCabe and the head of the FBI New

York Field Office (NYO), with specific focus on leaks regarding the FBI’s high-profile

investigation into the death of Eric Garner, as we detailed in our February 2018

misconduct report concerning McCabe.219 McCabe told us that he “never heard

[Lynch] use more forceful language.” The head of FBI NYO confirmed that the

participants got “ripped by the AG on leaks.” These widespread concerns about

leaks led Comey, following the 2016 election, to instruct the FBI’s Inspection

Division (INSD) to investigate whether confidential information was being

improperly disclosed by any FBI employees.220

Concerns about the impact of possible leaks on the Midyear investigation,

particularly in the October 2016 time period, are described in Chapters Ten and

Eleven. Several FBI officials told us that their concerns about potential leaks were

a factor that influenced them in the discussions about the possibility of sending a

notification letter to Congress on October 28, 2016, regarding the FBI’s discovery of

Clinton-related emails on the Weiner laptop. As then FBI General Counsel Baker

starkly characterized that decision to us, “[I]f we don’t put out a letter, somebody

is going to leak it.”

Against this backdrop, and as noted at the time the OIG announced this

review, we examined allegations that Department and FBI employees improperly

disclosed non-public information. We focused, in particular, on the April/May and

October 2016 time periods. We have profound concerns about the volume and

extent of unauthorized media contacts by FBI personnel that we have uncovered

during our review.

Our ability to identify individuals who have improperly disclosed non-public

information is often hampered by two significant factors. First, we frequently find

that the universe of Department and FBI employees who had access to sensitive

information that has been leaked is substantial, often involving dozens, and in some

instances, more than 100 people. We recognize that this is a challenging issue,

because keeping information too closely held can harm an investigation and the

supervision of it. Nevertheless, we think the Department and the FBI need to

consider whether there is a better way to appropriately control the dissemination of

sensitive information.

219 U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG), Report of

Investigation of Certain Allegations Relating to Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe,

Oversight & Review Report (February 2018), https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2018/o20180413.pdf

(accessed May 14, 2018).

220 One of those investigations led to INSD raising questions about McCabe’s conduct and

resulted in the OIG taking over the matter from INSD. Ultimately, the OIG found that McCabe himself

had authorized others in the FBI to disclose information regarding the FBI’s Clinton Foundation

investigation just days prior to the election.

429

Second, although FBI policy strictly limits the employees who are authorized

to speak to the media, we found that this policy appeared to be widely ignored

during the period we reviewed.221 We identified numerous FBI employees, at all

levels of the organization and with no official reason to be in contact with the

media, who were nevertheless in frequent contact with reporters. The large

number of FBI employees who were in contact with journalists during this time

period impacted our ability to identify the sources of leaks. For example, during the

periods we reviewed, we identified dozens of FBI employees that had contact with

members of the media. Attached to this report as Attachments G and H are link

charts that reflects the volume of communications that we identified between FBI

employees and media representatives in April/May and October 2016.222

In addition to the significant number of communications between FBI

employees and journalists, we identified social interactions between FBI employees

and journalists that were, at a minimum, inconsistent with FBI policy and

Department ethics rules. For example, we identified instances where FBI

employees received tickets to sporting events from journalists, went on golfing

outings with media representatives, were treated to drinks and meals after work by

reporters, and were the guests of journalists at nonpublic social events. We will

separately report on those investigations as they are concluded, consistent with the

Inspector General (IG) Act, other applicable federal statutes, and OIG policy.

The harm caused by leaks, fear of potential leaks, and a culture of

unauthorized media contacts is illustrated in Chapters Ten and Eleven, where we

detail the fact that these issues influenced FBI officials who were advising then

Director Comey on consequential investigative decisions in October 2016. The FBI

updated its media policy in November 2017, restating its strict guidelines

concerning media contacts, and identifying who is required to obtain authority

before engaging members of the media, and when and where to report media

contact. We do not believe the problem is with the FBI’s policy, which we found to

be clear and unambiguous. Rather, we concluded that these leaks highlight the

need to change what appears to be a cultural attitude. Accordingly, we recommend

that the FBI evaluate whether (a) it is sufficiently educating its employees about

both its media contact policy and the Department’s ethics rules, and (b) its

disciplinary penalties are sufficient to deter such improper conduct.

221 The Media Policy in effect both at the time of these events and currently authorizes only

four employees at FBI Headquarters to speak directly to the media without prior authorization. This

list includes the Director, Deputy Director, Associate Deputy Director, and the Assistant Director of the

Office of Public Affairs (OPA). All other headquarters employees are required to coordinate with OPA

prior to any contact with the media. In FBI Field Offices (FO), only the head of the FO and a

designated Public Affairs Officer are authorized to speak to the media. The policies require these

authorized FO officials to coordinate with OPA on stories with national interest.

222 These charts do not reflect communications that occurred between media representatives

and FBI employees who were working in a public affairs capacity or were otherwise authorized to speak directly to the media. 430