Transcript: James Comey's Full Interview With Steve Inskeep And Carrie Johnson

Nearly a year after President Trump fired James Comey, the former FBI director is out with a new memoir, A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, And Leadership. Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep and NPR Justice Correspondent Carrie Johnson talked to Comey about his book, his role in shaping the outcome of the 2016 election, and where the FBI's credibility stands. Here's the full transcript of their conversation.

Steve Inskeep: You recount a number of instances in your career where it could be said that you were effectively paying lip service to what your bosses wanted while subtly trying to do something else. Is that the essence of the job in law enforcement as you see it right now?

You have to give me particulars, since I don't see the pattern that you see.

Inskeep: You don't see — well let's talk about the pattern. 2004, very famous case — John Ashcroft was the attorney general, you're the deputy attorney general, and you have an effort by the White House to get Ashcroft to sign a surveillance order and your role was effectively to prevent that from happening. You were doing something other than what the White House would have wanted. We could discuss — and we are going to discuss — when you were serving under the attorney general of President Obama, Loretta Lynch. So that's why I asked that question, is that a big part of the job as you see it.

The reason I'm confused I don't get your reference to lip service. In 2004 it was about leading the Justice Department when it was saying that we couldn't certify to the legality of particular surveillance activities, and then defending that judgment.

Inskeep: But the White House wanted you to do that. That's why I'm --

Sure, they'd have probably been happier if I had paid lip service, but no, that was about trying to --

Inskeep: You disagree with the way I phrased it, but have I gotten something there? Part of your job as a senior law enforcement official is not always to do what you're asked to do.

I think that's right. I think that's fair and it's to represent the values of the institution that you work in and that you lead.

Inskeep: Well, let's talk about that incident in 2004, since it is well known. An incident in which there was pressure for a surveillance order to be signed, and you were among those that didn't want it to be signed. Who were you standing up for, or what were you standing up for in that instance?

Standing up most immediately for the Justice Department, and in a broader sense for the rule of law. The Justice Department's role there was to say what the law was and what it could reasonably support with respect to the surveillance activities, and some very smart lawyers in the Justice Department had taken a look at this activity and concluded they couldn't advance reasonable legal bases for a big part of it. And so my job was to represent that view, the department and the law.

Inskeep: So you're thinking about the law but also thinking about the institution, protecting the institution that you work for.

Correct. Correct. And in that instance it's the Justice Department and so the rule of law and the Justice Department are inextricably bound up.

Inskeep: You were praised a lot when that incident came to light years ago for taking the stand that you did. Do you feel you did as well in sticking up for the law and for your institution when it came to the Hillary Clinton email case and the Trump and Russia case?

I think so. I think those were more no-win situations. In a way that the 2004 was to my mind — and to the mind of the other lawyers at Justice — pretty clear cut; simply couldn't find a legal basis to advance, and so it was a much easier question. In the email investigation in particular there was never a circumstance where there was a clear good option, there were just bad options and you were choosing between them. So in a way 2004 was easier.

Inskeep: Was easier than these cases? You find these to be more complicated.

Yeah, yeah.

Carrie Johnson: You talk about getting hatred or vitriol from all sides now of the political spectrum, and trying to tune out a lot of those people. But there are people whom you respect who have leveled criticism. People like Jamie Gorelick, a Democrat Justice Department veteran, Larry Thompson, Republican Justice Department veteran, who after your decision to give that news conference in July 2016 wrote that you were damaging the democracy, that the department is an institution, not a person. How do you respond to that? Those feelings have not gone away, in fact, they may have hardened since then.

Yeah. And so I try to listen to it, because I could be wrong. I could be reasoning poorly, I could be seeing facts poorly and so I really try. And it's a balance, right? You don't want to listen to all criticism or you'll be overwhelmed and you'll be crushed like a grape. But you want to listen to people that you know to be thoughtful and experienced, and so I've tried to listen to it. I disagree with that, and I hope very much that those people read the book which is — wasn't the purpose I wrote the book, but in telling the stories to try and illustrate the challenges of trying to make decisions in a good way, I'm able for the first time to tell the full story about why I made the decisions I did. And I think if they look at it in an open minded way, they may come away with a different view.

Johnson: The other thing I'm hearing from inside and outside the Justice Department now is that Jim Comey was a pretty darn good prosecutor in his day. If he were a prosecutor now, and one of the people he was likely to use as a witness was out writing books and on a media tour, that would raise a lot of questions about inconsistencies and challenges to the case itself. Why are you talking now?

I think that's reasonable. And what I'd say in response is normally, you don't want your witnesses out