Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick: “We’re Back to Where Mueller Began: Counterintelligence” (January 19, 2019) - Episode Summary

Main Theme

This episode explores the often-misunderstood nature of the Russia investigation's counterintelligence origins, the legal and national security complexities raised by President Trump’s actions, and recent bombshell reporting about his possible connections to Russian interests. Dahlia Lithwick interviews Asha Rangappa—a former FBI agent and Yale lecturer specializing in counterintelligence—to clarify the difference between criminal and counterintelligence investigations, examine what it means to be investigating the President as a national security threat, and assess what the latest news stories do (and do not) change.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Setting the Table: The Law of Trump (00:33–03:29)

• Dahlia Lithwick recaps an eventful week: RBG recovering from surgery, Supreme Court decisions on arbitration and use of force, and—most relevant—a spate of Trump/Russia revelations:
  • NYT: The FBI opened a counterintelligence inquiry into whether Trump was working for Russia.
  • Washington Post: Trump had secret meetings with Putin with missing or destroyed notes.
  • BuzzFeed: Trump allegedly directed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about Trump Tower Moscow.

2. What Is a Counterintelligence Probe? (03:31–05:54)

• Lithwick asks Rangappa: What does it mean that the Russia investigation “started as counterintelligence, not as a criminal investigation”?
• Rangappa:
  • FBI’s criminal side investigates violations of law; counterintelligence side identifies and neutralizes foreign intelligence activities.
  • These sides can—and often do—overlap; they are not mutually exclusive:
    • “If you come across criminal activity during a counterintelligence investigation, that can be the basis for then opening a criminal case...” (04:50)
• The “wall” between intel and criminal cases (pre-9/11) has been lowered, making parallel investigations easier.

3. What Do Counterintelligence Investigators Actually Do? (07:14–09:37)

• Special agent work often means surveillance, identifying “who is compromised, who is compromising”.
• Monitoring diplomats and consular staff suspected of spying is routine.
• Foreign intel goals differ by country: e.g., China targets trade secrets, Russia is unusual for focusing significantly on “subversion” and destabilizing institutions, not just intelligence collection.
  • “Russia is unique because their intelligence services...a good chunk of what they do is subversion.” (08:52)

4. Deep State Accusations & the FBI’s Actual Logic (09:37–12:28)

• Responding to claims (e.g., Kellyanne Conway’s) that a “deep state” was targeting Trump:
  • FBI’s focus: “pressing on...spots that they thought were susceptible to...manipulation.” (09:49)
• Counterintelligence cases open only when reasonable suspicion on specific individuals or activities is substantiated, subject to rigorous internal documentation and accountability.
  • “[This is] quite the opposite of the evidence of the deep state... people putting their name to documents saying, we believe that this person may pose a threat to national security.” (14:30)

5. What Happens After a Case Is Opened? (15:54–18:43)

• Main value of NYT’s story: establishes an individual case was opened on Trump—but what happened next?
  • Preliminary counterintelligence investigations cap at 6 months; must “upgrade” to a full investigation if evidence justifies it.
    • “If you have not met that next threshold by six months, you need to shut it down. You are required by law to shut it down.” (17:38)

6. When the President Is the National Security Threat (18:43–22:15)

• The “Stranger Calls”-like scenario: the threat is inside the house.
• FBI cannot neutralize a President as it would a foreign asset (e.g., surveil, cut off access, flip as a double agent).
  • “He is the Chief of the intelligence agencies... the ultimate consumer of the intelligence they collect.” (20:30)
• The only available neutralization option: exposure—informing Congress and the public, albeit at risk to sources and methods.

7. Overlap Between Obstruction and Counterintelligence (22:15–26:25)

• Discussion of how acts like firing Comey may straddle both criminal obstruction and counterintelligence interests.
• Rangappa: Possibly, the counterintelligence case “formalizes the suspicion of underlying collusion which the obstruction was trying to prevent from being discovered.” (02:10, referenced at 26:22)
• Notably, William Barr’s legal views imply that criminal obstruction by the President is only plausible if there's an underlying collusion attempt the obstruction seeks to hide.

8. Will the Counterintelligence Story Ever Come Out? (26:25–31:32)

• Standard counterintelligence practice is secrecy; public trials are rare.
  • “These typically don’t see the light of day... Usually we want to keep what we know close to the chest.” (27:53)
• In this unique case, “exposure” (public indictments, public reporting) may be the only way to neutralize the threat.
  • Mueller’s indictments of Russian actors were as much about telling adversaries “we know what you did” as about courtroom justice.
• Criminal charges seen are “just slivers of the big story” (31:13)—more may never publicly emerge.

9. The Missing Putin Meeting Notes (33:20–36:05)

• The unexplained destruction or absence of records from Trump–Putin meetings: a “10 on the consequential scale” for counterintelligence risk. (33:58)
• No legitimate policy reason exists for such secrecy; such omissions create opportunities for leverage and manipulation by adversaries.

10. The Alleged Cohen Perjury Directive (36:05–39:42)

• BuzzFeed’s report that Trump instructed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about the Trump Tower Moscow timeline, if true:
  • “This is serious if it's borne out... It's not just lying to the FBI... but lying to Congress.” (36:35)
  • Lying to Congress undermines "the structure of the Constitution and the checks and balances that it's created." (37:17)
• The heart of the problem is not only the act, but the motive: an effort to conceal potentially compromising relationships and interests.

11. Trump’s Defense and the Leverage Problem (39:42–42:28)

• Trump and associates’ repeated lies about Russia contacts are themselves significant, regardless of whether the underlying acts were themselves crimes.
  • “People don't lie about things in the first place if there's nothing wrong with what they're doing.” (39:42)
• The vital issue is vulnerability to undue influence: “The problem is that when you are lying... and their intelligence services know the truth...that is leverage.” (41:00)
• The concealed fact need not be criminal; any secret a foreign adversary can “hang over” Trump is a national security issue.

12. William Barr’s Obstruction Testimony (43:36–47:05)

• Amy Klobuchar questions Barr: persuading a person to commit perjury, convincing a witness to change their testimony, or impairing evidence = all are obstruction, even if done by a president. (44:16–44:57)
• Rangappa: If Trump did what’s alleged in the BuzzFeed report, “I can't help him.” (44:57)
  • Barr’s prior memos explicitly separate firing Comey (which he deems permissible) from directly inducing perjury or suppressing evidence (which he calls clear obstruction).

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

“Russia is unique because their intelligence services are only partially engaged in collection. A good chunk of what they do is subversion.”
— Asha Rangappa (08:52)

“If you really had people going rogue, they would... be using loopholes in the shadows to try to gather dirt on the president and leak it… [the process] can be subject to oversight.”
— Asha Rangappa (14:33)

“You can’t move [the president] away from sensitive information. That’s what he’s entitled to see. And you’re not going to flip the President of the United States. You kind of assume that he’s already working for our team.”
— Asha Rangappa (20:30)

“He has laid it out in black and white what his whole point was: that the firing of James Comey is substantially different than a direct attempt to conceal or tamper with evidence…. that would definitely be obstruction.”
— Asha Rangappa (45:14)

“People don’t lie about things in the first place if there’s nothing wrong with what they’re doing... And the more that [Putin has], and the deeper you get in the lie, the more that they have over you, because you will be willing to do more in order to prevent the truth from coming out.”
— Asha Rangappa (39:42, 41:00)

Timestamps for Important Segments

• 03:31 — Start of interview with Asha Rangappa: "Talk to me like I’m seven..."
• 07:14 — What do counterintelligence agents do?
• 09:37 — Deep state accusations and FBI’s actual process
• 12:28 — How exactly FBI opens a counterintelligence case on a president
• 18:43 — What to do when POTUS is the intelligence threat (“calls from inside the house”)
• 23:04 — Obstruction, collusion, and the overlap with CI/probe
• 27:46 — Whether the public will ever see the “counterintelligence story”
• 33:20 — Significance of missing Putin/Trump meeting notes
• 36:05 — The BuzzFeed claim about telling Cohen to lie
• 39:42 — Why lies + possible foreign knowledge = leverage
• 44:16 — Barr’s testimony on what constitutes obstruction of justice

Overall Takeaways

• The Russia investigation’s counterintelligence roots are crucial—posing different goals and rules than a typical criminal probe.
• The fact that a formal case was opened on Trump indicates a high threshold of documented suspicion.
• Because the President is the ultimate consumer of US intelligence, standard neutralization measures do not apply—exposure becomes the only remedy.
• Many questions about criminality, collusion, and obstruction hinge on whether Trump’s motives were influenced by or were aiding Russian interests—and whether he holds secrets that create foreign leverage.
• Barr’s legal threshold for obstruction would likely be met if stories like the BuzzFeed report prove true.
• The public may never see the full counterintelligence story—but the criminal cases and public reporting provide glimpses into the scale and complexity of the entire saga.

This summary should provide a clear and detailed guide to the episode’s content, flow, and main revelations, for listeners and non-listeners alike.