The Threat

The Threat Plot Summary

Introduction

In the late spring of 2017, a scene unfolded in the Oval Office that would come to symbolize a profound crisis in American governance. FBI Acting Director Andrew McCabe sat across from President Donald Trump, who bluntly asked him: "Who did you vote for?" This extraordinary breach of protocol—a president demanding political loyalty from a law enforcement official—marked just one battle in a larger war threatening the rule of law in America. For over a century, the Federal Bureau of Investigation had maintained a delicate balance: serving the executive branch while remaining independent from political influence. Now that independence faced its greatest test. The story of the FBI's struggle during this tumultuous period illuminates essential questions about power, justice, and constitutional governance. How does a law enforcement agency maintain its integrity when the president seems intent on bending it to his will? What happens when foreign threats and domestic political pressures converge? This narrative takes us from the Bureau's earliest battles against Russian organized crime through its transformation after 9/11, to the controversial Clinton email investigation, and finally into the heart of the Russia probe that would place the FBI at the center of a national storm. Throughout these challenges, dedicated public servants fought to uphold their oath to the Constitution—often at great personal cost—revealing both the strengths and vulnerabilities of America's democratic institutions.

Chapter 1: Origins and Evolution: The FBI's Founding Mission (1908-1990s)

The Federal Bureau of Investigation began its journey in 1908 as a modest force of just 34 special agents. Created during Theodore Roosevelt's presidency, this small investigative unit within the Department of Justice would eventually grow into America's premier law enforcement agency. In these early decades, the Bureau's mission focused primarily on interstate crimes, counterespionage, and civil rights violations—though its implementation of this last mandate would prove deeply flawed under J. Edgar Hoover's 48-year directorship. Hoover, who led the FBI from 1924 until his death in 1972, shaped the Bureau into a powerful, professional organization with cutting-edge forensic capabilities. Yet his tenure was also marked by troubling surveillance of political activists, most notoriously during the COINTELPRO operations targeting civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. This dark chapter revealed how even institutions designed to uphold the rule of law could become tools for suppressing dissent when operating without proper oversight. The post-Hoover era brought significant reforms. In 1976, Attorney General Edward Levi issued the first comprehensive guidelines governing FBI operations, establishing clear restrictions to prevent political abuses. These guidelines marked a turning point, institutionalizing the principle that the Bureau must execute its mission fairly, independently, and according to the law. By the 1980s, the FBI had redirected its energies toward combating organized crime, using new legal tools like the RICO statute (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) to dismantle the Mafia's operations across America. The 1990s brought new challenges with the rise of international terrorism and transnational criminal networks. Under Director Louis Freeh (1993-2001), the Bureau expanded its global presence, opening legal attaché offices in capitals worldwide and building relationships with foreign law enforcement agencies. This international perspective proved crucial as the FBI confronted emerging threats from Russian organized crime networks following the Soviet Union's collapse—criminal enterprises that would later become entangled with Russian state interests in ways few could have predicted. By the late 1990s, the Bureau had established itself as an organization where agents lived by a core mission statement: "to protect the American people and uphold the Constitution of the United States." This dual mandate—protecting people while preserving constitutional principles—would be severely tested in the decades to come, as external threats and internal political pressures created unprecedented challenges for the Bureau's independence and integrity.

Chapter 2: Russian Organized Crime and Domestic Threats (1996-2001)

In February 1998, an elderly Russian immigrant with a furniture store in Brooklyn made a phone call to the FBI's New York field office. Speaking with a thick accent, he told the agent who answered that he was being "racketeered" by Russian thugs demanding protection money. This seemingly routine complaint opened a window into a sophisticated criminal underworld that was rapidly taking root in America following the Soviet Union's collapse—a development that would have profound implications for U.S. national security in the decades to come. Russian organized crime operated according to principles forged in the Soviet gulag system. The elite criminals, known as "vory v zakone" (thieves-in-law), lived by a code that rejected legitimate work and government authority. Their bodies were covered in prison tattoos—a visual language where stars on the shoulders signified authority and crosses on knuckles tallied prison terms. These criminals had brought their operations to America, establishing extortion rackets, human trafficking networks, and sophisticated financial fraud schemes in immigrant communities from New York to Miami. One of the first major vory to reach American shores was Vyacheslav Ivankov, who established operations in Brighton Beach, Brooklyn. When FBI agents finally arrested him in 1995, he spat at the camera during his perp walk. Even at his sentencing in 1997, he remained defiant: "I am not in a church. I have no need to make a confession." This attitude reflected the profound contempt for legal authority that characterized the Russian criminal worldview. The Bureau's approach to Russian organized crime drew on lessons learned fighting the Italian Mafia. Special Agent Raymond Kerr assembled a dedicated squad in New York that meticulously built cases against Russian criminal enterprises. In 1998, they made history by using the RICO statute against the Gufield-Kutsenko Brigade, a gang that extorted businesses, sold fraudulent documents, kidnapped businessmen, and committed arson. The investigation marked a turning point in law enforcement's response to these new criminal networks. What made Russian organized crime particularly troubling was its growing entanglement with legitimate business and government in Russia itself. By 1999, the FBI had helped shut down a seven-billion-dollar Russian money-laundering scheme through the Bank of New York—an early warning sign of how criminal money could potentially corrupt Western financial institutions. As one agent observed: "In Russia, there is no effective distinction between organized crime and government." This blurring of boundaries between criminal enterprises and state power would later create vulnerabilities that foreign adversaries could exploit against the United States. While Russian organized crime represented an evolving external threat, domestic terrorism also demanded the Bureau's attention. The 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, which killed 168 people, demonstrated the deadly potential of homegrown extremism. Then in 1996, a pipe bomb exploded during the Atlanta Olympics, part of a series of attacks by domestic terrorist Eric Rudolph. These cases revealed the complex challenge of protecting Americans from threats that emerged from within the nation's own borders—a challenge that would take on new dimensions after the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Chapter 3: Counter-Terrorism Transformation After 9/11 (2001-2013)

The morning of September 11, 2001, shattered America's sense of security and transformed the FBI forever. As the Twin Towers collapsed and the Pentagon burned, the Bureau's mission underwent an immediate and profound shift. Director Robert Mueller, who had taken office just one week earlier, declared that preventing terrorist attacks would now be the FBI's number one priority—a dramatic reorientation for an organization traditionally focused on investigating crimes after they occurred. This transformation required revolutionary changes in how the Bureau operated. Thousands of agents who had been working criminal cases were reassigned to counterterrorism. The FBI created new specialized units like the International Terrorism Operations Section (ITOS) and established the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), where representatives from all intelligence agencies worked side by side. Most significantly, the Bureau embraced a more intelligence-driven approach, focusing on understanding terrorist networks and disrupting plots before they materialized. The challenge was immense. In the aftermath of 9/11, FBI agents conducted thousands of interviews, followed countless leads, and detained hundreds of suspects as part of the PENTTBOM investigation (Pentagon/Twin Towers Bombing). The political pressure to prevent another attack was relentless, creating what one agent described as "a dank, gray shadow of uncertainty and bleak anxiety." Agents spoke of "muscling" investigations—throwing massive resources at every potential threat, leaving no lead unexplored, no matter how tenuous. Cases from this era revealed the evolution of terrorist threats. In 2006, British and American authorities disrupted a plot to bring down transatlantic airliners using liquid explosives disguised in beverage bottles—the reason travelers today must limit liquids in carry-on luggage. In 2009, Najibullah Zazi planned to detonate bombs on the New York City subway using instructions he received from al-Qaeda trainers in Pakistan. Meanwhile, homegrown violent extremists inspired by online propaganda presented a growing challenge, exemplified by the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing carried out by the Tsarnaev brothers. The Bureau's response to terrorism raised difficult questions about civil liberties and proportionality. The mass detention of Muslim immigrants after 9/11, enhanced interrogation techniques, and expanded surveillance authorities all generated controversy. The creation of the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG) in 2009 represented an attempt to develop more effective and ethical interrogation methods—but debates continued about the proper balance between security and liberty. By 2013, the FBI had successfully prevented numerous major attacks, but the costs of constant vigilance were becoming apparent. The "collect everything" mentality that dominated early counterterrorism efforts gradually evolved toward more targeted approaches. As one agent observed: "We learned that if you tell me there's a terrorist in California, I can't look at every human being in the state. We had to develop better ways to focus our resources." This evolution toward more sophisticated targeting would prove crucial as new challenges emerged, from the rise of ISIS to unprecedented threats from foreign interference in American democracy.

Chapter 4: Clinton Email Investigation and Political Pressure (2015-2016)

On March 3, 2015, The New York Times published a story that would ignite one of the most controversial investigations in FBI history: "CLINTON USED PERSONAL EMAIL AT STATE DEPT., POSSIBLY BREAKING RULES." The revelation that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had exclusively used a private email server for official business triggered immediate questions about the handling of classified information. By July, the FBI had opened what would become known internally as "Midyear Exam"—a case whose political implications would test the Bureau's independence like never before. The investigation faced unique challenges from the outset. Unlike typical FBI cases conducted quietly out of field offices, Midyear was run from headquarters as a "special" due to its extraordinary sensitivity. A dedicated team worked seven days a week in a secure room called "the Bubble," meticulously examining tens of thousands of emails. Their technical achievements were remarkable—recovering deleted messages from the "slack space" of servers and reconstructing communications piece by piece. Each recovered email was reviewed for classified content and sent to the appropriate intelligence agency for verification. Beyond the technical challenges lay the more complex question of intent. Proving criminal mishandling of classified information required demonstrating that Clinton or her staff knowingly violated the law. The team conducted dozens of interviews, trying to determine whether the private server was set up for convenience, as Clinton claimed, or to circumvent federal records laws. Throughout this process, tensions grew between FBI investigators and Department of Justice prosecutors, who took a more cautious approach to witness interviews and evidence collection. The political environment surrounding the case became increasingly toxic. With a presidential election approaching, both Democrats and Republicans viewed the investigation through partisan lenses. Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates—both political appointees—chose neither to recuse themselves nor to fully engage, creating what one FBI official called "a fatal choice." This ambiguous position was further compromised when Lynch met privately with former President Bill Clinton on an airport tarmac in Phoenix—an encounter that raised serious questions about the Department's independence. Director James Comey ultimately made the fateful decision to announce the investigation's conclusion himself on July 5, 2016. Breaking with tradition, he held a press conference where he described Clinton's handling of classified information as "extremely careless" but not criminal. This unprecedented action—a law enforcement agency publicly detailing an investigation that resulted in no charges—reflected Comey's belief that the Department of Justice had lost credibility to make such an announcement, but it also injected the FBI directly into the political maelstrom of a presidential campaign. The consequences continued to unfold throughout the election season. In late October, when emails potentially connected to Clinton were discovered on the laptop of former congressman Anthony Weiner, Comey faced another impossible choice: remain silent about a potentially significant development, or inform Congress as he had promised to do. His letter to Congress on October 28—just eleven days before the election—revived the controversy at a critical moment. Though the FBI ultimately determined these emails contained nothing new, the political damage was done. As one agent reflected: "In 2016, it seems we did influence the election, despite our policy to avoid doing exactly that."

Chapter 5: The Russia Investigation and Institutional Independence (2016-2017)

In late July 2016, as presidential campaigns reached full intensity, the FBI quietly opened a counterintelligence investigation into possible coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. This investigation, which would become known as "Crossfire Hurricane," began after Australian officials alerted their American counterparts that Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos had boasted about Russians offering dirt on Hillary Clinton. The inquiry initially focused on four individuals with ties to both the Trump campaign and Russia: Papadopoulos, Carter Page, Paul Manafort, and Michael Flynn. The investigation unfolded against the backdrop of Russia's unprecedented interference in the U.S. election. Throughout 2016, Russian hackers breached the Democratic National Committee and other political organizations, while Russian-controlled social media accounts spread divisive content designed to inflame tensions among American voters. Intelligence agencies had high confidence that these efforts were directed by the Russian government—but the question of whether anyone in the Trump campaign had coordinated with these activities remained unresolved. Following the election, the investigation entered a new phase. In December 2016, President Obama imposed sanctions on Russia for election interference. When Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak discussed these sanctions with incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, Flynn later misrepresented these conversations to FBI agents and to Vice President Pence. This deception raised counterintelligence concerns: Why would a senior official lie about contacts with Russia? Flynn ultimately resigned after just 24 days in office. The independence of the investigation faced its greatest test on May 9, 2017, when President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey. The White House initially claimed this decision was based on Comey's handling of the Clinton email investigation, but Trump later told NBC's Lester Holt that he had "this Russia thing" in mind when making the decision. This admission raised serious questions about whether the president was attempting to obstruct the investigation—questions that would intensify when reports emerged that Trump had previously asked Comey to drop the Flynn investigation. Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe found himself navigating a constitutional crisis. In the chaotic week following Comey's dismissal, McCabe worked urgently to protect the Russia investigation from political interference. He briefed congressional leaders on the FBI's work and pressed Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to appoint a special counsel. When Rosenstein revealed that the president had directed him to write a memo justifying Comey's firing, the need for independent oversight became even more apparent. On May 17, 2017, Rosenstein appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel to oversee the Russia investigation. This decisive action established a crucial safeguard for the investigation's independence. As McCabe reflected: "If I got nothing else done as acting director, I had done the one thing I needed to do. The Russia investigation was on solid ground. Everybody who needed to know about it knew about it. If the investigation ever got wiped away, that would involve forces beyond my control." The episode illustrated how the FBI's institutional independence—essential to the rule of law—depends not just on formal rules but on the courage of individuals willing to uphold constitutional principles in the face of immense pressure. As one agent observed: "The Bureau is not political. The FBI did not pursue this investigation with any sort of political intention in mind." Maintaining this independence would become increasingly difficult as political attacks on the Bureau intensified.

Chapter 6: Constitutional Crisis: Trump's Loyalty Demands and Political Retaliation (2017-2018)

On May 10, 2017, the day after FBI Director James Comey's firing, Acting Director Andrew McCabe received an unexpected call. President Trump was on the line, dispensing with the longstanding policy limiting direct contact between the White House and FBI. "Most people here were very surprised," McCabe cautiously told the president regarding Comey's dismissal, contradicting Trump's assertion that FBI employees were "happy" about the firing. The president then invited McCabe to the Oval Office, initiating a series of extraordinary interactions that would test the constitutional boundaries separating law enforcement from political control. In their first Oval Office meeting, Trump asked McCabe point-blank who he had voted for in the 2016 election—an unprecedented question that struck at the heart of the FBI's nonpartisan tradition. This was, in effect, a loyalty test. As McCabe later reflected: "The president was trying to be my krysha," using the Russian term for a protection racket. Similar demands had been made of Comey, who documented Trump asking for his "loyalty" and pressuring him to drop the investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. The president's attacks soon became public and personal. In July 2017, Trump began targeting McCabe on Twitter, falsely claiming his wife had received campaign donations from Hillary Clinton when she ran for Virginia state senate in 2015. "Problem is that the acting head of the FBI & the person in charge of the Hillary investigation, Andrew McCabe, got $700,000 from H for wife!" Trump tweeted, misrepresenting legal campaign donations from Virginia's Democratic Party. These baseless accusations—repeated at campaign rallies where Trump called McCabe "corrupt"—were designed to undermine both McCabe's credibility and the Russia investigation he oversaw. Behind the scenes, the administration was taking concrete steps to exert control over the Department of Justice. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who had recused himself from the Russia investigation due to his role in the Trump campaign, faced regular presidential criticism for this decision. When Sessions refused the president's demands to "un-recuse" himself and take control of the investigation, Trump publicly humiliated him, calling him "weak" and "disgraceful." This pressure campaign revealed a fundamental misunderstanding of the Justice Department's proper role—treating it as the president's personal law firm rather than an independent institution bound by law. The attacks intensified after McCabe testified to Congress in December 2017, confirming Comey's account of his interactions with the president. "FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe is racing the clock to retire with full benefits. 90 days to go?!!!" Trump tweeted during the Christmas holidays, signaling his intention to deny McCabe his pension after 21 years of service. In January 2018, newly appointed FBI Director Christopher Wray, under pressure from the White House, asked McCabe to step aside as deputy director. The final blow came on March 16, 2018, when Attorney General Sessions fired McCabe just 26 hours before his planned retirement, citing an Inspector General report that McCabe had "lacked candor" during an internal investigation. Trump celebrated on Twitter: "Andrew McCabe FIRED, a great day for the hard working men and women of the FBI - A great day for Democracy." The timing and manner of the dismissal—which McCabe learned about from television news—appeared calculated to maximize personal damage while sending a chilling message to other law enforcement officials. This period represented a profound constitutional crisis—a president attempting to bend federal law enforcement to his personal will while publicly undermining investigations touching his own interests. As McCabe observed: "The FBI must be independent and guided only by the truth and the Constitution. A functional relationship between the FBI and the White House is paradoxical...The FBI needs to have the political independence to be an honest broker in all situations."

Summary

Throughout its century-long history, the FBI has walked a precarious tightrope between serving the executive branch and maintaining the independence essential to its mission of upholding the rule of law. This fundamental tension reached unprecedented levels during the turbulent period from 2016 to 2018, when external threats from Russian interference collided with internal pressures from political forces seeking to undermine legitimate investigations. The Bureau's struggles during this period reveal a broader conflict at the heart of American democracy: the perpetual challenge of ensuring that no individual, not even the president, stands above the law. The lessons from this critical chapter in American history extend far beyond the FBI itself. They demonstrate how democratic institutions depend not only on formal rules and procedures but on the courage and integrity of individuals who comprise them. When President Trump demanded personal loyalty from law enforcement officials, when he publicly attacked the credibility of investigations touching his interests, when he fired officials who refused to bend to his will—these actions tested whether America's constitutional guardrails could withstand unprecedented pressure. That the rule of law survived, albeit damaged, testifies to the resilience of institutions built on professional ethics and constitutional principles. Yet this resilience cannot be taken for granted. The health of democratic governance requires constant vigilance from citizens who understand that justice must operate independently of political influence, that facts matter more than partisan narratives, and that public servants who uphold their oath to the Constitution deserve support rather than retribution. This is the enduring challenge: ensuring that America remains a nation where the law applies equally to everyone, where investigations follow evidence rather than political directives, and where the institutions charged with protecting justice can do so without fear or favor.

About Author

Loading...

Andrew G. McCabe

Read more