NBC News national security contributor Frank Figliuzzi spent 25 years in the FBI, ending his career as the agency’s top counterintelligence officer. Along the way, he hunted down terrorists, helped arrest corrupt local officials, and policed his fellow agents as the bureau’s chief inspector.
His new book, “The FBI Way: Inside the Bureau’s Code of Excellence,” argues that the FBI was successful because it applies a strict code of conduct to its own. Here is a condensed version of a question and answer session with NBC’s National Security and Intelligence correspondent, Ken Dilanian.
KEN DILANIAN
Frank, why did you become an FBI agent? And why did you stay so long inside the Bureau?
FRANK FIGLIUZZI
So, it all started when I was 11 years old. And the best I can explain is that I lived in southern Connecticut, we were in the New York media market. And I kept watching the FBI, reading the newspapers, watching the news on television, with the FBI killing the mobsters and organized crime families. And I thought it was really cool. These guys are using their brains to take down criminals and threats to society. And, of course, I was watching TV shows where, you know, the FBI solved everything in an hour, including commercials. And so I decided, at age 11, to write a letter to the special agent in charge of the FBI in Connecticut saying: Hey, I’m an 11-year-old boy and I would like to be an FBI agent. And behold, he wrote me back. Now, I think that on a deeper level, I was created with a sense of right and wrong, a sense that there is justice, that needs to happen. I feel that there are forces in the world that are not good and need to be defeated. And I and I think we all contribute to that.
DILANIAN
Let’s talk about the FBI way. What is the FBI code and why do you think it works most of the time?
FIGLIUZZI
Yes, I know, it’s true. In fact, I would say the FBI has a history of success, values-based leadership, what is called values-based performance, values-based leadership. The Bureau’s track record is much longer than most Fortune 100 companies. And that’s the subject of the book. I took 25 years of observations and absorbed internally how the FBI operates under extreme stress, when the stakes are higher and right. Most of the time. I distilled it into what I call seven C’s. The book is called “The FBI Way” because I think it has something to offer each of us. You don’t have to spend 25 years in the FBI to learn some of the leadership lessons about what it takes to preserve your values, your family, your company, your country, when you are under severe stress. And we are under severe stress. “
DILANIAN
Let’s talk about the past four years. Anyone who is watching you regularly knows that you believe the past four years have been incredibly difficult for the FBI. Is there any sense in which the FBI lost its way during the Trump era?
FIGLIUZZI
So one of the things that led me to launch this book was that I saw what I call a bureau knocking out of control. Now, the FBI leadership is not without blame here. And I deal with that in the book that I deal with Jim Comey and his decision to call a press conference and say, quote, no reasonable prosecutor would ever sue Hillary Clinton. At that moment, he politicized the FBI. He didn’t want to, that wasn’t his intention. He is a man of high integrity, but he has forgotten two things. One, the FBI is not a prosecuting agency across the street from the Department of Justice. Number two, he is responsible for a boss called the United States Attorney General, who needed to make that decision. And the consequences of this political bureau politicization resulted in a less effective FBI in the public eye. Because I know when you pull your credentials and ask for help and cooperation from a member of the public in a kidnapping, a terrorist act, whatever, if they stop for a minute, because they cannot trust the equipment, the organization, then we all suffer from the point of view of national security. And as we speak, the FBI is knocking on doors across America, trying to prevent the next act of domestic terrorism. And we cannot allow citizens to stop for a moment to ask themselves whether these people are reliable.
DILANIAN
And let’s talk about that horrible uprising on January 6, that Capitol uprising. Many people consider this an act of domestic terrorism. And I wonder if you think it was a failure of the FBI’s intelligence?
FIGLIUZZI
Right. So I have said publicly that this was not so much a failure of intelligence as it was a failure to act on the basis of available intelligence. For me, the phrase failure of intelligence means that you didn’t even imagine it would happen. This is a situation where we all saw it coming. … NBC News reported that the FBI shared concerns about violence with the Capitol Police with the Joint Task Force on Terrorism in the capital region. The NYPD intelligence unit shared its concerns about the violence with the Capitol Police. And now we find out that there was an internal memo at the Capitol Police that said bad things could happen here. So, not a failure of intelligence for me, but a failure to act on the basis of intelligence and a security breach.
Most people do not understand that there is no law against domestic terrorism. There is no set of investigative tools as in international terrorism. Therefore, the ability to prevent this is something else. And I’ve heard people say, why didn’t the FBI just call the building? And you know, despite the stance of the Capitol police, the FBI is not in the business of protecting buildings. They are not security guards. They are not officers responsible for that building, but they are responsible for preserving democracy and national security. And then we need some answers.
DILANIAN
This is a real highlight of how the FBI deals with the collection of information about domestic extremism, domestic terrorism. They are obviously gathering a lot of intelligence now, right, using the authorities they have. Obviously, you believe that this is a matter of laws and authorities, but is it also potentially a matter of will and resources? Everything above?
FIGLIUZZI
I think it’s very, very true, that without investigative tools to get in front of us and monitor, chat between hundreds of thousands and millions of people on posts, who may or may not be using their real names, and they probably aren’t just not happening , nor are there any legal authorities to do so. This is a problem. Lawyers coming in and telling us rightly FBI or DOJ Hey, there are issues of civil freedom and freedom of expression here. Are you talking about monitoring someone because it is an aspiration? They, they wanted Trump to be dead, they wanted Biden to be dead, they, they, they could do something if they could … against the guy who’s really running and planning. This is a monumental task.
DILANIAN
An interesting example of how you believe that responsibility should be devoid of politics is your opinion of Peter Strzok, one of the FBI’s leading counterintelligence investigators, who launched the investigation in Russia and became a hero to many on the political left for because of his actions, but was fired because of his conduct. And you say that this dismissal was justified. Explain.
FIGLIUZZI
Oh yeah. As soon as the evidence about Pete Stzrok emerged, it was only for those who may not know the name, but his name is unfortunately known because of the role he played in the public perception of the Bureau. Look at the talented counterintelligence officials, he was the second person in the counterintelligence division at the time, he was leading the case for counterintelligence in Russia that ended up becoming a special legal inquiry. And, of course, we now know that there was evidence that he had highly partisan exchanges, e-mail and / or text with an FBI lawyer, Lisa Page. This was an extramarital affair for both, but much more significant for the bureau, he was an executive in charge of an investigation, speaking in a partisan and highly politicized way about the investigation and the possible subjects of the investigation. I knew immediately that it would have to be closed. I said that on MSNBC and was criticized on social media: ‘Hey, Frank, you can’t say that because, you know, he’s one of the good guys … it’ll fit Trump’s narrative, which somehow he’s bad . This was not politics, for me. For me, it was a senior executive who broke the code. We had a senior executive who embarrassed the bureau. caused disdain to be launched against the bureau and caused capital sin – caused the FBI to be seen as a political entity. He should have been fired, he was fired … And imagine if it wasn’t: the FBI would never be able to punish a low-level employee for similar comments during an investigation.
DILANIAN
Right. And speaking of counterintelligence, you retired after serving as an assistant counterintelligence director, which some people call America’s top spy hunter. We are living in a time of danger from counterintelligence, it seems to me, as frightening as anything in the Cold War after 9/11. Not a week goes by without us seeing a case of Chinese economic espionage outside the Department of Justice; we just received a massive invasion of the US government by Russian intelligence. Talk about the counter-espionage image now, how dangerous is it? What should the United States government be doing to strengthen its systems and its people?
FIGLIUZZI
You must be doing a lot. I talk about this in the final chapters of my book because, in a chapter called consistency, I don’t want people to think that consistency means strict adherence to how you do something. And the discussion we are having now means the ability to consistently understand what your mission is and then define how you do it. So, for the FBI after 9/11, it was an alert, right? The FBI was very good at telling you what happened after it happened. I mean, we could say that Mohammed Atta, the main hijacker on 9/11, ordered a Slurpee with his credit card on 9/11. We’re great at that. But we had to turn to become an intelligence agency that could predict and prevent the next act of terrorism. As soon as that happened, something similar has to happen now.
… One of the areas is counterintelligence and its hybrid nature with cybernetics; the new battleground is cybernetic. China and Russia have decided that they cannot overcome us militarily now. They will do something that the Chinese call winning without a fight. Winning without a fight is cybernetic. And they are very good at that, as are Russia, Iran and North Korea. So, at the FBI, we saw very complicated approaches to this. The FBI has a cyber division, they have a counterintelligence division, they have a counterterrorism division, they have a criminal division. Well, this is very good. But the opponent does not care for the division in which it falls or not. So now the reality is that you don’t know the difference between reacting to a cyber attack. It’s the Russian intelligence service or a group of hackers, right? Is it a terrorist organization or is Hezbollah attacking us via cybernetics? Everything comes together. And therefore, a much more holistic approach is needed. And perhaps a review of priorities is necessary.