Andrew Allard '25
Executive Editor
Pictured: Professor Citron and Peter Strzok talk in Caplin Pavilion.
Photo Credit: Andrew Allard '25.
This past Tuesday, April 18, Peter Strzok visited the Law School for an interview with Professor Danielle Citron. The event was sponsored by the LawTech Center and Law, Innovation, Security & Technology.
Peter Strzok was formerly the Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division. In that role, he led the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential elections.[1]He also worked on Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation, and he was the lead agent on the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server.[2]
A DOJ inspector-general investigation identified text messages Strzok sent to an FBI lawyer in 2016, in which Strzok wrote, “We’ll stop” then-candidate Donald Trump from becoming president.[3] These messages and Strzok’s role in high-profile investigations garnered attention from Republican critics.
In 2018, Strzok was fired by the then-Deputy Director of the FBI, David Bowdich.[4] Strzok sued the DOJ over his termination and the release of his text messages in a case that is still pending before the District Court for the District of Columbia.[5]
Against this dramatic backdrop, Strzok came to the Law School to talk about spy stories. Strzok recounted his work on the FBI investigation of the Illegals Program, a Russian network of sleeper agents. Strzok helped to uncover two Russian agents, Andrey Bezrukov and Elena Vavilova, who had assumed the identity of a Canadian couple living in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Strzok compared the years-long investigation of undercover agents to seasons in sports. “You have players that return, and then eventually, they transfer out, and you get new players in. It’s a recurring process.” For that reason, counterintelligence is a job without an endpoint. And constant cross-competition between multiple state actors adds another layer of complexity. “It’s like two fields, where the offense is playing the defense, while simultaneously on the second field, the defense is playing the offense. And it’s not just two teams—it’s eighteen all playing each other.”
Strzok sees this ongoing fight as a serious risk for American democracy. “If we think democracy is not fragile in the United States, we do that at our own peril.” Citing George Washington’s farewell address in 1796, Strzok said that Americans have always been concerned about foreign interference in their government. Such concerns, Strzok suggested, have become especially problematic in our time. “I see some political figures willing to put their party over their nation, willing to team up and work with foreign powers to advance a political agenda at odds with protecting a sense of national security.”
Professor Citron recalled hearing Mr. Trump’s request that Russia “find” Hillary Clinton’s emails and wondering, “How is that not a crime?” Strzok agreed that the request was “unprecedented.” But Strzok said that the way courts have interpreted the knowledge requirement in campaign finance laws has made it very challenging for prosecutors to bring charges—even when a candidate accepts illegal foreign assistance.
Strzok also recalled Mr. Trump’s meeting with Putin in Helsinki, in which Mr. Trump expressed doubt about the U.S. intelligence community’s determination that Russia had interfered with the 2016 election. Strzok said that Trump showed “abject subordination to a hostile foreign power” unlike any he had seen during his time at the FBI. “Trump is a sort of sui generis counterintelligence threat.”
But the problem of foreign interference goes beyond individual political actors. Strzok also pointed to what he described as a “sea change” in how Americans used social media between 2012 and 2016. Russian operatives, Strzok argued, were prepared to “jump into” platforms like Twitter and Facebook, just as their reach into American politics was growing. Even so, Strzok said that Russia was not the primary driver of disinformation on American social media—domestic political actors were.
Strzok expressed optimism that the problem of disinformation is gaining due attention from young Americans. “Your generation has a built-in fascination with disinformation. When I contrast my kids talking with their grandparents, they’re polar opposites. The emails that come in from my parents have things that just make you say, ‘Oh come on. This is obviously not true, stop worrying about it.’”
Strzok also suggested that adopting laws that better define campaign contributions may help create guardrails for candidates’ behavior. “I would like to see laws that increase transparency for financial contributions and more disclosures on less tangible things of value.” Strzok said that increased transparency may help restore electoral norms that were lost in 2016.
Finishing his remarks, Strzok emphasized the need for the government to earn public trust and encouraged students to help build that trust. Strzok lamented that certain politicians, particularly members of the far right in Congress, “are not building that trust, they’re attacking it—and they’re doing it in a partisan way.” Strzok encouraged students to get involved in their communities, particularly on school boards, where there are “concerted efforts going on right now to influence” which elements of our history will be taught. “Be engaged in a thoughtful way, because there are people involved in a way that is not thoughtful.”
---
tya2us@virginia.edu
[1] www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-agent-peter-strzok-fired-over-anti-trump-texts/2018/08/13/be98f84c-8e8b-11e8-b769-e3fff17f0689_story.html.
[2] Id.
[3] www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-receiving-briefing-ahead-of-public-release-of-report-expected-to-criticize-fbi/2018/06/14/c08c6a5a-6fdf-11e8-bf86-a2351b5ece99_story.html.
[4] Id.
[5] www.courtlistener.com/docket/16020887/strzok-v-barr/.