2:00

believe it or not, of Robert Hanson's

2:03

letter of apology, which we have

2:05

here at the Museum. Now just think

2:07

about that as the beginning of

2:09

a letter of apology. So I

2:11

dug up just for our sports sake,

2:14

Martha Stewart, her letter of

2:16

her apology. Today is a

2:18

shameful day. It's shameful for me.

2:22

Will Smith, after slapping Chris Roth

2:24

at the Oscars, violence

2:27

in all its forms is poisonous

2:29

and destructive. My behaviour was inexcusable.

2:32

Very different beginning of

2:34

an apology from Robert Hanson.

2:36

So we're going to discuss this, but

2:38

we're talking about a very kind of interesting

2:41

and unique individual.

2:44

Okay, so I just want to

2:46

briefly introduce our four speakers. So

2:49

first, the host of the podcast, the

2:52

man who's been pushing it along, CBS

2:56

Major Garrett. I'm sure many of you know who

2:59

he is. I know our director

3:01

of development, Laura Wright. She said that

3:03

she was coming along tonight because she's

3:05

quote, a huge fan. So I don't

3:08

know if she's in the audience. I

3:10

know that there's at least someone here

3:12

who's a major fan of yours. Major

3:16

has been at US News

3:18

and World Report, CNN, Fox,

3:21

the chief Washington correspondent for

3:23

CBS. And one of

3:25

his many claims to fame is he was

3:27

dressed down once by President Obama. So

3:30

I'm pretty sure that there's some saying out there.

3:32

If you're not, if you're not P O in

3:34

a president, you're probably not doing your job as

3:37

a journalist in Washington. But

3:40

he's also the host of the

3:42

takeout podcast, which is really excellent.

3:44

A weekly podcast on politics and

3:47

culture. I think he's really embraced

3:49

the podcast art form and obviously

3:52

with the podcast that we're here to discuss

3:54

tonight. Next, John

3:56

Fox, the FBI's

3:59

PhD. level historian since

4:01

2003. So this is his

4:04

20th anniversary. If

4:06

he sticks around for another 28 years he'll

4:08

catch up with how long J. Edgar Hoover

4:10

was at the FBI. He teaches at

4:18

Catholic University and he's an

4:20

institution almost as much as

4:22

the FBI for historians.

4:25

Next, David Major, I'm sure

4:28

many of you know who he

4:30

is, 24 years and the

4:33

FBI specializing in counterintelligence involved

4:36

in over 100 espionage cases.

4:39

That would be quite an interesting book. And

4:43

the first FBI official to be appointed to

4:45

the NSC and I believe

4:47

that he actually briefed the Gipper,

4:49

President Reagan himself. And

4:51

last but not least, David Charney, an

4:54

expert on the mind of the

4:56

spy. He's practiced psychiatry for

4:58

almost 50 years. He's a

5:00

veteran of the US Air Force and

5:03

a CIA referral consultant. And

5:05

he's also worked on another important spy case

5:07

that of Errol Pitts. So

5:10

we've got a stellar panel here tonight and

5:12

I'm really looking forward to taking

5:14

into discussion. So if you don't mind

5:16

just briefly put your hands together for

5:19

our awesome panel. So

5:26

I think it's just important to start off.

5:29

Tell us about the genesis of this podcast

5:31

major because I know that during

5:33

COVID a lot of people were working

5:35

on their sourdough bread recipe and playing

5:38

animal crossing and stuff but you had other

5:40

things in mind. Right. I

5:43

did learn to make sourdough bread. I didn't

5:45

pick up an instrument I hadn't touched since

5:47

high school. I didn't hike

5:49

the Appalachian Trail. Lots of people did very

5:51

interesting things during lockdown. My

5:53

team and I put together a lot

5:56

of different podcasts during lockdown. One was

5:58

a daily podcast on the Corona. virus

6:00

task force briefings, then we morphed

6:02

into a weekly documentary podcast. Then

6:04

we landed on the idea that

6:06

was completely out of our experience

6:09

and comfort zone, which was an episodic

6:12

serialized podcast that told one story and

6:15

told it as comprehensively as possible. And before I

6:17

say another thing, I want the three members of

6:19

my team who are here to stand

6:22

up and be recognized. Arden Fari, Sarah Cook

6:24

and Jamie Benson, please stand up and give

6:26

a call. Because

6:32

nothing we've achieved and those of you who have listened to it, if you

6:34

like it, the reason it's so good is

6:37

because I have such an incredibly formidable team

6:39

behind me. And

6:41

I want to make sure I recognize them upfront. So,

6:45

when we tried to figure out what we

6:47

would tell, what kind of story we would tell,

6:50

Arden and I principally had a

6:52

list and we went it down to two. One

6:55

was the Robert Hanson story and

6:57

one was anthrax after 9-11. Both

7:00

very compelling stories with tremendous life

7:03

and death circumstances. They

7:06

captured the public's imagination in different ways. And

7:10

I was pushing for anthrax and

7:12

Arden was pushing for Hanson. And

7:15

then at the end, when we were going to make the decision, we

7:17

switched sides. Suddenly

7:19

I started pushing for Hanton and he started pushing for anthrax. Ultimately

7:23

we decided on Hanson because Hanson's a person, not a

7:25

thing. Anthrax is a thing. And

7:30

I believe we made the right choice. And

7:33

then from that point,

7:35

two years ago, we

7:37

decided to set a very high goal. Several

7:41

books have been written about the Hanton case. I'm sure many in this audience

7:43

are familiar with them. David

7:45

Weiss is obviously the expert of experts, no

7:47

longer with us, but he's written

7:50

two enormously important books. Other books were written. A

7:53

couple of movies. It's not as if

7:55

this story hadn't been told in popular culture

7:57

at half. The

8:00

leave was there, was. For.

8:02

This particular medium podcasting a unique opportunity

8:04

to tell it in a way that

8:07

never been told before. With.

8:09

Characters. And. Voices and

8:11

perspectives that encompassed this entire

8:14

story. All. Of

8:16

it's complex. All

8:18

of it's suspense. All

8:21

of its spirit for bureaucratic blindness.

8:23

All of it's contradictions. It's.

8:25

Or a goal was that this would not only

8:28

be. Popular. In the

8:30

podcast space the people would like it

8:32

who were not aficionados in the surveillance

8:34

world or. Even in the true

8:36

crime world. That. Would be

8:38

popular there. Were. Would also be

8:41

revealing to people in the community. And.

8:45

Happily, we've gotten emails from people who thought

8:47

they knew this case and you know this

8:49

case very well. He. Told us the thing

8:51

I'm most wanted to hear from them. That.

8:53

They learn Something is what. An obstacle.

8:56

Of that's why I'm going to ask walk in

8:58

feedback to fall so far. Up

9:02

the Things as a Hope Met most of the

9:04

people in the audience of listen to the podcast

9:06

there as often. In. All not

9:08

just because major such next to me about

9:10

as really excellent and you really should listen

9:13

to vote for anybody that father to just

9:15

get them like. Of very.

9:17

Nice a second off of you sure album

9:19

what? We're sort of in the middle of

9:21

a moment. And just get them.

9:24

the North of often agreed with older

9:26

the the story is essentially this. Their.

9:28

The F B I special agents

9:30

who in every public way masks

9:33

who we actually is is real

9:35

and Daddy communists who is selling

9:37

secrets damaging secrets to the Soviets.

9:40

He. Is a profoundly visibly

9:42

religious Catholic. Goes. To mass

9:45

every single day. Betrays

9:47

his church, Betrays his family, Betrays his

9:49

children. In sickening

9:51

weights. Of.

9:54

A state attorney told us. He

9:57

is the most psychologically compartmental.

10:00

person he had ever met, meaning

10:02

we all have different ways we present

10:04

ourselves and ways we act at work or at the

10:07

gym or even at church

10:09

or something. We have different masks

10:11

and different clothing. We're

10:14

not that different. Robert Hanson was

10:16

dramatically different minute by minute,

10:19

day by day. And

10:21

all those complexities and compartmented aspects

10:24

of him make this a fascinating story. And

10:26

the people who flow through it and

10:29

the way that he was able to use his

10:33

particular approach to both computers

10:35

and espionage allowed him to

10:38

do this work for three different segments,

10:41

twice with the Soviets, once with the Russians. Evaded

10:45

detection by the FBI, sometimes sitting in

10:47

the very meetings where FBI colleagues

10:49

were talking about the great mole

10:51

hunt to find who was handing

10:53

off all this incredibly damaging information.

10:55

He's sitting there nodding along and

10:57

he knows all along he's the person. That's

11:01

the kind of drama that you can't really find

11:05

anywhere other than in cinema, but this

11:07

is all true. And the

11:09

unraveling of that and the telling of that

11:11

leading up to the FBI's

11:13

realization that it is Hanson, how

11:15

they find the way to capture him, catch

11:18

him red handed, catch him in the act and everything

11:20

that flows through that runs through the

11:22

entire pocket. Just

11:25

moving on to John, could you

11:27

tell us in terms of the

11:29

history of the FBI, he's

11:32

been called many times the most

11:34

damaging spy in FBI history.

11:36

It's probably a stupid question, but that's still

11:38

true. Well

11:41

as far as I know, I would certainly say that

11:43

it's true. The bureau,

11:46

for a number of reasons, doesn't

11:48

claim a penetration for many years.

11:51

David Wise and others have written about

11:53

perhaps one in the 60s and certainly

11:55

the First publicly known

11:57

one was 1984. And

12:00

at Yale compared to hims that was,

12:02

it was nothing of case. I'm in

12:05

so many ways and so over the

12:07

years as far as penetration sick on.

12:10

The. Bureau had very few compared to

12:12

some other agencies survive but just

12:14

the the scope of what he

12:16

handsome did put some up. There

12:18

is in the top. Two.

12:22

Or three certainly in that the country's

12:24

history. Much. Less the F B I

12:26

speak. And to do just

12:28

very briefly, And contextualize the

12:31

F B I and Sounds

12:33

counterintelligence. Use the front

12:35

counter intelligence agencies authors at

12:37

the front lines of responsibility

12:39

and just album out with

12:41

Associate So. Important F

12:43

B I Cancer intelligence is

12:45

absolutely same. All.

12:48

Agencies in the intelligence community. My

12:50

states have a counterintelligence function. On

12:53

some of them are more security

12:55

oriented or of espionage oriented. Yes,

12:57

The Eyes is a broader one

12:59

in the sense of trying to

13:02

get into the minds of the

13:04

hostile intelligence services that are trying

13:06

to penetrate or governments. But.

13:08

Also, because of his law

13:11

enforcement functions, we have the

13:13

responsibility. Of. Investigating

13:15

all these cases. As violations

13:17

of federal law and so

13:19

unlike any other agency. In.

13:21

The government's we're doing

13:23

both that counterintelligence he

13:25

and. On. What?

13:27

The hooked on the espionage side

13:30

of things. Cia obviously has a

13:32

very robust counterintelligence program, but the

13:34

same that. The other side. Arm.

13:37

And of course, financing penetrations of

13:39

themselves. But. If. They find a

13:41

spy. We have to come in because somebody

13:44

has gathered the evidence to bring that fourth

13:46

Quarter of that's where it's eventually them and

13:48

that. So. The the F B

13:50

I place a unique role model only in

13:52

the United States. There there are. Very.

13:55

Very few agencies around the world that even.

13:58

Resemble. the yeah my five is

14:01

an agency without law enforcement responsibility. So

14:03

very different from the FBI. And

14:07

I think it would be interesting now to hear

14:09

from someone that's walked the walk. Someone

14:12

who was a counterintelligence FBI

14:15

agent, someone who

14:17

was a friend, colleague, and supervisor Robert

14:19

Hanson. And I think it's fantastic

14:22

to have you on stage here tonight. So could

14:24

you just tell us, how did you first meet

14:26

him, Steve? Well,

14:29

that's a very interesting question. I

14:32

joined the Duke counterintelligence. And

14:34

I was fortunate to do it at every level you can do

14:36

it. I was a street agent for 10 years. And

14:39

then I was in executive management. I

14:41

was at the White House on the

14:43

National Security Council, working, meeting Bob, meeting

14:45

the president, briefing him on cases. So

14:48

I saw it at many, many different levels. And

14:52

like I said, I joined the FBI to Duke

14:54

counterintelligence. Little did I know that I

14:56

would end up in the middle

14:58

of the most dangerous by we ever had in

15:01

American history, at least from an FBI perspective. He

15:04

was, and I met first, in

15:07

1982, when

15:09

he was on the hall, across the hall from

15:11

me. And he was in the budget unit

15:13

at that time. And I

15:15

was in the training unit, counterintelligence training

15:17

unit. And I happened to be the

15:20

SCI control officer. Actually briefed Bob into

15:22

SCI, since the Department of Information. I

15:25

became friends with Bob Hanson over

15:28

the period of time, professional friends. Never went out

15:30

to drinking with him. He didn't, it was not

15:32

the nature of the relationship. But

15:35

it was one that

15:37

I enjoyed talking about. Bob had a

15:39

really sharp mind. And

15:41

he would come into my office and start

15:43

talking about something. And that he

15:45

would really challenge you to think about it.

15:47

For example, he came in one

15:49

time, and by the way,

15:51

he never just enters your office. He came to

15:53

the door and waited to be recognized. And

15:56

so I'd sit and look up, and there he was, like

15:58

a ghost. It was really a strange, it's... He

16:02

said he do you know they've You know

16:05

why would the Kgb always beats us and

16:07

the F B I and the rest the

16:09

community know Bob was he says he says

16:11

they practice Oda loops. Anybody

16:13

here from the Airforce. With.

16:16

You know what a little lupus? Everybody's

16:18

or of was knows nobody else does.

16:21

And that what is that? That

16:23

means that's how they train for

16:26

hims a test pilots. Have fun.

16:28

You observe, you reorient myself, make

16:30

a decision, and you act. He.

16:33

Says that's why they do it. And

16:35

he ran his own case. I found

16:37

out he did same hell have the

16:39

way he wanted to be hello Like

16:41

no other spy case I ever saw,

16:43

he was in charge of his own

16:46

individual case. And so that's

16:48

where we have very interesting conversations because

16:50

little the I know that he. Had

16:52

practical experience, On what he

16:54

was doing so. It was

16:56

an interesting relationship we had. I knew

16:58

him, Right up to the time he was arrested.

17:01

On. A dim. My first

17:03

reaction was not my bob Handsome as

17:05

I didn't know was Robert Hanssen. What?

17:08

That was? a reaction I had to him. That.

17:11

My. Bob Handsome turns out to be

17:13

the worst by an American history. Of.

17:15

And a very good why. I'm.

17:17

A good and census his trade craft was excellent.

17:20

That. That Russians never do his name which is the right

17:22

way to do it. So. To

17:24

lot of complexities of that but I saw

17:26

him and many different levels. Of.

17:29

My wife knew his wife. we want

17:31

the bureau parties together, Ill that was

17:33

the nature of our professional relationship. And

17:36

so. When. He eventually was rushed

17:38

if. I

17:40

had this feeling like I checked in

17:42

the stomach. The Mice five friend my

17:44

colleague the man works for me. he

17:46

was my subordinate for while. Was.

17:48

A spy. L a spy on earth

17:51

and people since well how far as five

17:53

hundred U S he should operate and that

17:55

was question I had a deal for. While

17:57

the have something to be a good counter

17:59

intelligence officer. He didn't know this guy was a spy.

18:01

And I said, well, they didn't paint S

18:03

on his head for it. No, there was

18:05

no obvious way to do it. That's how

18:07

good he was. We had

18:09

a lot of discussions about how do you

18:12

catch spies? And he was very smart about

18:14

things we should do. Very smart. So

18:16

I had very good conversations with him. He had a very

18:18

high IQ. I think it was like 132, something like that.

18:22

But he had a very high IQ, very

18:24

smart man, very thoughtful. He

18:26

liked what we were doing. He liked the

18:29

kind of inventive things. I came up with

18:31

in the Bureau to try to find spies,

18:34

but not him. So

18:36

it was a very interesting part of my career.

18:47

Where were you when you found out

18:49

the news? Well,

18:54

after I retired, I formed a company

18:56

called the Center for Counterintelligence and Security

18:59

Studies. And we do counterintelligence training on

19:01

everything you want. You want a course

19:03

on Israeli intelligence, Russian intelligence. We

19:05

have a course on that. And

19:10

so they were trying, the CIA was trying

19:12

to build up their denial

19:14

and deception program. So

19:16

I put together a five-day course

19:18

on denial and deception. And

19:21

it takes me about a year to really put

19:24

together a really good, solid course. And

19:26

I was preparing for that course in

19:28

our training room. People were coming in. They were

19:30

sitting down. And someone came up

19:32

to me and says, well, we found another

19:35

spy. Now, that's not surprising. I've been in

19:37

the spy chasing business my whole professional life.

19:39

So the fact that there was another one,

19:41

oh, OK, that's interesting. Where was it? The

19:44

FBI. Oh, really? Well, I've seen other spies

19:46

in the FBI. Who was it? The

19:49

guy said, well, it was Robert Philip Hanson.

19:52

Well, I didn't know Robert Philip Hanson. I

19:55

knew Bob Hanson. And so

19:57

my initial reaction was that it was denial. I

20:00

went with one of my employees over and they pulled

20:02

up the screen of the TV and there he especially

20:04

comes up My Bob Hanson

20:07

in the picture is is the spine that

20:09

was really That was a day

20:12

and so I went in and talked to class for about

20:14

two hours about the significance of this When

20:17

was the last time that you spoke to him

20:19

before he was arrested? I

20:21

spoke to him When

20:23

he came to my office looking for he was

20:25

he came my office in the summer of before

20:27

he was arrested which was in 2004

20:31

19 Maybe

20:36

for that year before that he had come to my office

20:38

kind of looking for a job He was gonna

20:41

retire at some time and he

20:43

came and he looked awful and

20:45

I told him Bob I knew him so well, he's

20:48

about to go off. What's the matter with

20:50

you? Are you sick? No, I'm okay But

20:52

he was very depressed. He was assigned the

20:54

State Department. He says they just forgot to

20:56

be out there I'm not a part of

20:58

anything anymore. So he was really down

21:01

psychologically and So we

21:03

had a long conversation. I gave him some of

21:05

my books that I put together Which

21:08

they found when they searched this bar. Terrell

21:10

my books and his Trunk

21:14

one was on deception by the way Which

21:16

he never taken out and read but

21:20

It was it was that environment that

21:23

that Bob Hanson was the last time I saw

21:25

him so he went

21:27

on and then I never I went to

21:29

all the public hearings for him in court

21:31

in the Hearing you never spoke

21:33

to him again after he's a rat. I Had

21:37

a lot of discussions my friends and my wife about

21:39

should I do that? And

21:41

she said he wants you to do that And

21:45

I said, I don't think I want to give him that So

21:48

I didn't do it It

21:50

was kind of interesting. It would have been it would have

21:52

been interesting, but I would have known what he would have

21:55

said I knew him so well that

21:57

I probably would have known what he had so would have

21:59

said but I never

22:01

went in to see him in prison and

22:04

I'm not going to see him there. Just

22:07

briefly, how does that work for someone

22:10

like you who is in the

22:12

FBI when your friend

22:14

and former colleague gets caught?

22:16

Does the finger of suspicion start falling

22:19

on you or people looking for you? No,

22:22

that's sufficient. They didn't come in and talk to

22:24

me, obviously, for about two hours, two days actually. One

22:26

day they came in and asked a lot of things

22:28

they wanted to fill out. I had a long conversation

22:30

with the Bureau. I'd have taken eight

22:32

polygraphs, so that was never an issue that we're going

22:34

to polygraph you. There was never anything

22:37

that I had done anything wrong. What they

22:39

did do, they wanted to know what I knew about

22:41

him and his case and so forth. I was very

22:43

cooperative with them. The people that interviewed me were

22:45

my friends. I was

22:47

in the middle of the counterintelligence business. It's

22:51

a small group, but we all kind of

22:53

know each other, especially from other agencies. We

22:55

know each other. Those

22:58

are the people that interviewed me. I

23:01

did that. It was fine. Then I

23:03

started. One of the things I did is decided

23:05

to put together a course on it because I do training.

23:08

I do that now. It's amazing how many

23:10

people still don't know the Bob Hanson case.

23:13

I live in a 55-plus community on the

23:15

beach, which is good living, by the way.

23:19

People ask me, did you know that case? Yeah, I

23:21

knew very well. Well, I didn't know anything about

23:23

it. I mean, it's within the media, but

23:25

they didn't know anything about it. I

23:28

gave them a presentation at the community, and they

23:30

loved it. I had 155 people. It's

23:33

all about the podcast. Exactly.

23:36

I did. They didn't subscribe. I always

23:38

talk about the podcast. By the way, I

23:40

want to compliment the three people in the

23:43

back who interviewed me. You did a wonderful

23:45

job. I've been interviewed by a lot of

23:47

people. You guys were straight and really, really,

23:50

really professional. That's why I like the podcast,

23:52

because they are professional. The

23:55

media people can be honest, and they

23:57

can be un-honest, not very honest. And

24:00

you guys have been, you've balanced. You didn't

24:02

come out and have an agenda. Some

24:05

news people do have an agenda. And I've certainly

24:08

done that. I've been up probably

24:10

a hundred TV shows and they

24:12

came in and asked some really strange questions. CBS

24:14

is the worst, by the way. Yeah,

24:17

Dan Rather, I would, Dan Rather

24:19

became the persona nine brata in

24:21

my company because he was such

24:23

a despicable human being. I

24:25

think. Anyway, how do I really

24:27

feel about it? So,

24:30

with what the story up to

24:33

the handsome being arrested. So

24:35

I'd like to then come on to David Charney,

24:37

but just before we get there, I just want

24:39

to come back, Major.

24:43

Dave there mentioned the budget

24:46

and the podcasts. This is really

24:48

fascinating that a lot of people

24:50

wouldn't think about. Can you just tell them why

24:52

that's significant? Right, so why would working

24:55

within the budget unit matter in a story

24:57

like this? Well,

25:00

interestingly, Robert Hanson

25:02

had a couple of insights. One,

25:05

he was by even

25:08

contemporary standards of the late seventies and

25:11

early eighties, well ahead of almost

25:13

every other American in terms of curiosity and

25:16

functional comfortability with computers. And

25:19

he was light years ahead of the FBI, light

25:21

years ahead of the FBI. So

25:24

he had that going for him. He also

25:26

understood after a very brief time in

25:29

the FBI the unique visibility

25:31

he could possess internally

25:33

the FBI if he was in the

25:36

budget unit. Why? Because through

25:38

the budget unit flowed every

25:41

allocation for resources, specifically

25:43

resources related to surveillance, related

25:46

to things about David

25:49

Majors work and counter intelligence and

25:51

things that are super mundane

25:54

unless you're someone like Robert Hanson.

25:57

What do I mean? Well, over

25:59

time I like. applications on a weekend. What

26:02

does that suggest? Over

26:04

time for something of a high priority, what

26:07

would that suggest? Surveillance.

26:10

So by understanding all the budget

26:12

line items and

26:14

having that visibility, Robert

26:16

Hanson could with

26:19

very high levels of confidence insulate

26:22

himself from not only detection,

26:25

but even the possibility of detection. And

26:28

those were, to David Major's point,

26:31

about tradecraft, about his methodology, important

26:35

ways in which he was in early

26:37

success and then later repetitive success. Let

26:39

me add something to that. When he

26:42

was there, I was the supervisor. So

26:44

I saw what we had in the budget unit. These

26:47

are unsung heroes because the

26:49

people in the budget unit know everything because

26:51

you have to ask for the money. Then you have to

26:54

tell Congress what you did with the money and

26:56

what success you had as result of it. So not

26:58

only what you did do, what you're going to do.

27:01

And so he was in charge of the

27:03

dedicated technical program. What's that? That's everything we

27:05

do with technology and

27:08

catching spies. There was a

27:10

lot of research that goes into that, and he knew

27:12

all of that. So to compromise

27:14

on that, everything we are working on that

27:16

are going to be successful in the future,

27:18

he knows and gives it to them. People

27:22

don't realize how much the people in the

27:25

budget unit know everything. And

27:27

so that's what he did. He was in this

27:30

perfect position, as a perfect spy for a period

27:32

of time, to know everything we were working on,

27:34

did work on, or going to work on. I

27:38

think that that's really, really, really fascinating.

27:41

It's almost like defensive

27:44

forensic accounting. Use

27:47

the numbers to basically insulate

27:49

yourself. And

27:52

let's go on to David Charney

27:54

now, because I think that this

27:57

is really, really fascinating. How

27:59

exciting. was he, you know, you've

28:01

been in this business for a long time, you

28:04

can, I'm sure you can tell the BS

28:06

artists from the people that are really smart,

28:08

and Hansen was known to

28:10

be someone that thought he was

28:12

the smartest person in the room. Was he as

28:14

smart as he thought he was or how would you,

28:16

like, where would you put him? He's

28:19

not as smart as he thought he was. He's

28:21

very smart. Let me give

28:24

you two anecdotes. The

28:26

first one for the smart. On

28:29

one occasion during the time that I met with him

28:31

in jail, and bear in mind I met with him

28:33

for a full year, usually

28:36

two hours, and

28:38

when I came into that room, Hansen

28:42

started talking and

28:44

didn't stop till I left. I

28:47

said very little. He had a lot to say.

28:54

So what's the first anecdote?

28:57

He explained to me that if he

28:59

wanted to, from jail, he could

29:03

communicate with a KGB anytime

29:06

he wanted. I said

29:09

how would you do that? He

29:11

said, you know, they

29:14

have a TV set built

29:16

into the wall, but

29:19

I don't have any controls in

29:21

the wall, but I have a remote that they give

29:24

me. A

29:26

remote is a device

29:28

that uses infrared blinks.

29:33

If I arranged for it, I

29:35

could have a KGB agent two

29:38

miles away through this narrow window

29:41

that exists in that cell, and

29:44

I could use Morse code, which I know,

29:47

and I could communicate with that KGB

29:50

agent. Who

29:52

would have thought of that? I

29:55

was floored. All right.

29:57

So that's an example of how smart

30:00

he was knowing technology. But

30:03

it's also true that I

30:05

know a bit of things about this and that.

30:08

And weirdly enough, I know a bit

30:10

about nuclear physics, not a lot. And

30:13

on one occasion, Bob was

30:16

blowing off about some

30:18

issue that could be described

30:20

in metaphorical terms, having

30:23

to do with some features of

30:25

nuclear physics and all that. And

30:27

he went on and I knew that he

30:29

was saying that to anybody from

30:31

the Bureau or from any walk

30:33

of life except the physicist. They

30:37

would be totally blown away and oppressed. What

30:39

would you say to that? Except

30:42

I knew what that area of

30:44

physics was and I knew that

30:46

he had it wrong. I didn't

30:48

say that to him. But I registered it

30:51

in my mind that yes, he

30:53

was very smart, but not quite as smart as

30:55

he thought he was.

30:57

Just in terms of your profession, Dr.

31:01

Charney, how

31:03

would you label Robert Hansen, borderline

31:06

personality, schizophrenic,

31:10

sociopathic? What's the best way

31:12

to describe him through

31:15

the lens of your profession? He was

31:18

a very complicated guy. Even

31:22

I know that. I'll

31:26

give you a job in my office. Hey,

31:30

all those fancy diagnoses,

31:33

which I've heard about before,

31:35

including other things like narcissistic

31:37

or this or that. In

31:40

my mind, I think of that as name

31:42

calling. It's the appearance

31:44

of having some knowledge about psychiatry,

31:47

but it's very thin. Do

31:51

I have a

31:53

formal diagnosis from the DSM-5? The answer

31:55

is no, I do not. In

31:58

fact, for the other spies that I work with, with

32:00

a which to a three, only

32:03

one carries a formal diagnosis

32:05

in my mind and that's one case

32:07

that I cannot talk about. But

32:10

I'm saying something to you that we're

32:14

talking about a complicated

32:16

person and more often

32:18

than not these days when

32:20

I encounter complex people like

32:22

that, I'm letting go of

32:25

psychiatric diagnoses except where they're

32:27

warranted. And I talk

32:29

more about a question of the spirit of

32:31

a person. That's more

32:33

complicated and I must

32:35

admit it's indefinable. But

32:38

I would say that he was a

32:40

tortured spirit, a tortured

32:42

spirit. How

32:54

much of this is related

32:56

to his relationship with his father which

32:58

has been discussed and which

33:00

gets discussed in the podcast and I don't

33:03

want to get to Star Wars but you

33:05

know how much was the

33:07

father of the... Well

33:10

you asked an excellent question there and

33:13

here's why. The

33:15

first time that I meet any person

33:18

in my field is a touchy

33:21

time because I don't know who they are, they

33:23

don't know me. We're

33:25

uneasy and we feel each other

33:27

out and

33:30

that happened when I met for the first

33:32

time in that special cell inside

33:35

the Alexandria Detention Center

33:37

which is where all this occurred.

33:42

And he looked me over and

33:45

launched immediately into a story

33:48

from his childhood featuring

33:50

his father describing

33:53

some argument

33:55

or some trouble that occurred between the

33:57

two of them. He may have

33:59

been... 10 or 11 or 12, I'm not sure. And

34:04

the end of it is that his father rolled

34:06

him up in a rug and

34:09

kept him there for a while. And

34:12

that was a humiliation for

34:14

a boy that he couldn't bear

34:17

up to. And the fact that

34:20

that was the very first thing that he brought

34:22

up to me explains

34:25

the essential,

34:28

troubling experience of his life

34:30

growing up. And

34:33

of course I heard more details over time,

34:35

but let's put it into a single word, belittling.

34:41

When a father belittles a son,

34:45

he is saying, in effect, no

34:47

matter what you ever do, you'll never come

34:49

close to how brilliant I am. And

34:52

what's that as a message to

34:54

any boy growing up? A

34:57

father should be a mentor, should

35:00

be hoping that his son

35:02

will exceed him and

35:05

on his shoulders make contributions and

35:07

impact on the world. But

35:09

when you get the opposite message from

35:12

your own father, you

35:14

don't know how to process it.

35:17

Because you admire your

35:19

father, you're impressed with

35:21

him, and if your own

35:23

father thinks that you're a loser,

35:25

well, gee, maybe you are. How

35:28

do you outlive that? Just

35:31

before we come back to John,

35:33

I'm just wondering, Major, you've looked

35:36

at this holistically, you've spoken to

35:39

practitioners, you've spoken

35:41

to people like Dr.

35:43

Charney, you've looked at

35:45

this in the round, what did you think of

35:48

Hanson going in and did you come out

35:50

of the process of making

35:52

this podcast at the same place?

35:54

Or did your view of him change? Did you

35:57

feel more empathetic towards him? Were you

35:59

more angry at him? towards them or

36:01

what was your journey like and the

36:04

podcast? It's

36:06

a great question. I would say in the

36:08

main, the journey ended where it began. I

36:11

did not come to view Robert

36:13

Hanson more sympathetically than I did at the

36:15

beginning. I didn't view him more harshly. I

36:18

came to view him more comprehensively. I

36:21

came to have a deeper understanding of

36:23

the damage and the damage is pronounced.

36:25

And David and Dr. Carney and I had this

36:27

conversation in which I said at one point, with

36:30

Dr. Carney, lots of people have a rough relationship

36:32

with their father and they don't hand over the

36:35

most damaging secrets about the federal government at the

36:37

height of the Cold War, which Robert

36:39

Hanson did. And he

36:41

said, of course they don't. That's right. That's not

36:43

a justification. It's just part of the puzzle. It's

36:46

part of the psychological makeup that made

36:49

not only Robert Hanson tick, but

36:52

made him tick erroneously and

36:54

dangerously to our country. We

36:58

talked to more than

37:00

50 people for this podcast. We have

37:02

84 hours of tape. There's

37:05

not a single voice relevant

37:07

to this story we have not talked

37:09

to at length. We

37:12

go into the story about Robert Hanson

37:14

and his father in episode one. And

37:20

in the eight episodes of this show,

37:23

you will come

37:25

to know everything on the

37:27

plus side because there are people who were

37:30

colleagues like David Major who

37:33

liked and respected and admired Robert Hanson.

37:35

We do not run

37:38

him down relentlessly. There are

37:40

those people like David Major who upon

37:42

hearing the news, convulsed

37:45

in agony because

37:47

they liked and admired Robert Hanson so much. They

37:49

were few in number, but they're

37:52

not insignificant to this story. And

37:55

we tried to be fair about that, that

37:57

the portrayal we did not... Ghoul

38:01

eyes Robert Hanson we

38:03

did not turn him into some sort of

38:05

perpetual 24-hour a

38:08

day monster. He wasn't there

38:11

were parts of him that were redeemable and Coming

38:14

to the coming determines with that is what you have to

38:16

come to terms with in every story It's

38:19

not just one thing it's

38:21

a lot of things and being content

38:24

with that and satisfied with that

38:26

and Being

38:28

only a vessel to let people come to understand

38:30

all of its natures Is

38:33

where I consider the best part of journalism. So that's what we try

38:35

to do I'd

38:38

like to add one Anaconda

38:40

wouldn't have occurred except for Dave

38:42

major Dave major

38:45

ran a great company and

38:47

did lots of training and

38:49

on one occasion he asked me to

38:52

get up in front of an audience of people

38:54

taking his courses and Discuss

38:56

the handsome case in

38:59

the audience was one of the

39:01

other people working for David Who

39:03

was Paul? Or

39:07

more Paul

39:09

Moore was Bob

39:11

Hanson's best friend in the Bureau and

39:15

at a certain point me

39:17

having spent hours and hours with

39:20

Bob Hanson in the jail cell I had

39:23

to think about Who

39:26

would portray him as An

39:29

actor if they didn't move it It

39:32

just was a thought that passed my mind and

39:35

the reason it came to me is because I

39:37

really knew who I thought It should be Because

39:42

physically the actor looks somewhat

39:45

like Bob Hanson speaks

39:48

a bit like him and

39:50

is a mix of of Quirky

39:55

and witty witty likeable,

39:58

but annoying a bit Who

40:02

is that actor? And I give this

40:04

intro in front of the audience and

40:08

somebody steals my thunder. It is Paul

40:10

Moore on the side of

40:12

this audience who shouts

40:15

out before I can say the name, Jeff

40:18

Goldlum. And

40:22

I just, my jaw dropped because that's

40:24

exactly the actor that I had in

40:26

mind. We had never discussed

40:28

it before, Paul and me, and

40:31

yet we both picked the same actor.

40:34

And that gets to your point about

40:36

the complexity and that there were sides

40:38

to him that were interesting.

40:42

He was amusing. He could

40:45

be knowledgeable. He

40:47

could be difficult. He could be annoying.

40:49

All these things wrapped together. There

40:51

you go. I think in

40:53

the podcast that comes

40:55

across, there's the episode with

40:58

Priscilla where you're

41:01

following this episode along and

41:03

he's very tender and sweet and

41:05

gentlemanly to someone who, let's

41:08

be honest, life is not necessarily given

41:10

the best set of cards. But

41:12

then at the end, just when

41:14

you've got the sympathy, it gets taken away from you

41:17

again. You kind of go

41:19

on about it. Sure. Sure. And

41:23

for those who are not familiar with the name

41:25

Priscilla Sue Gailey and the Robert Hanson story, she

41:29

was an exotic dancer, worked

41:31

at Joanna's 1819 Club on M

41:34

Street, and Robert Hanson

41:36

befriended her. And

41:38

the assumption is instantly we must have

41:40

befriended her for sexual reasons. That

41:42

was not part of it at all. It was a

41:45

completely platonic relationship. And

41:47

Priscilla Sue Gailey, in all the retellings

41:49

of the Hanson story, has

41:52

always been given the same dismissive judgmental

41:55

label. Stripper.

42:00

That's all Priscilla Sugali is, strip her. Priscilla

42:03

Sugali is a human being. And

42:07

through the great work of Sarah Cook

42:10

on my team, took many, many

42:12

months, we found Priscilla, we talked to her. She

42:16

gave a couple of interviews right after Hanson was arrested, but

42:18

the passage of years, she has come to understand what

42:21

this wonderful year in her

42:23

life in which Robert Hanson showered her with

42:25

gifts, treated her like she

42:27

said, a princess, a whirlwind of absolute

42:30

gentlemanliness, charm, non-sexual

42:34

affection that she'd never experienced in

42:36

her entire life. She felt transported

42:38

into a place that

42:40

seemed so unreal and joyous to

42:42

her. Many

42:45

years later, she's now looked back on it and

42:47

come to the conclusion that he was setting her

42:49

up, that he was going

42:51

to use her in some way to

42:54

be a dead drop person for him,

42:56

to hand something off, to be a

42:59

conduit. And she now feels

43:01

that it was entirely chewing her up to

43:04

set her up for something. And it's a

43:06

terrible realization. That's

43:08

a journey she took in her actual lived life.

43:12

And it was imperative for me and my team once

43:14

we found Priscilla and listened to her, that

43:17

she give her chance, her one

43:20

and only chance to speak

43:22

for herself. And

43:24

my hope is removed permanently.

43:27

For anyone who listens to this podcast, that

43:31

designation, that dismissive

43:33

judgmental designation, a stripper,

43:36

she's a human being, she's a person. She

43:39

lived a life that intersected with

43:41

Robert Hanson. And her perspective on

43:44

his psychological makeup, his being, his

43:46

willingness to use people is as relevant

43:48

as any others in

43:50

this story. We found her, she's

43:53

there, and we're proud that she's

43:55

in. And again, I'm

43:57

not just saying that's because you're here in major, but,

44:00

You and the team, I thought you've

44:02

done a fantastic job of humanizing her

44:04

and actually thought that the episodes

44:07

that I've listened to, I thought that was one of

44:09

the most moving parts so far. David.

44:11

One quick point I want to make.

44:15

You know, I wouldn't be here if I

44:18

didn't ask for and get permission from Bob

44:20

Henson to tell

44:22

his story, to educate

44:25

the IC, the intelligence community,

44:27

and other people about what his journey

44:29

was like, which was a

44:32

very freeing thing for

44:35

me personally. But, but

44:38

there was one topic that

44:40

he forbid me to talk about and

44:43

that was Priscilla. Take

44:45

that for what you want. Wow.

44:48

And just thinking about this case

44:50

on the round, John, how

44:52

does the FBI learn

44:56

from these types of cases? Like

44:59

your role as the FBI historian,

45:01

how does it bank knowledge?

45:03

How does it learn from the past?

45:06

Tell us a little bit more about that.

45:09

How instructive is the, like does everybody who

45:11

goes to the academy learn about Robert Henson?

45:14

Like just give us a little bit more of

45:16

the institutional, the way that Robert

45:18

Henson has been institutionalized in the FBI.

45:21

It's an interesting question, Andrew. As

45:26

part of formal curriculum in the

45:28

Bureau, I don't know what role

45:31

it specifically plays. I do know

45:34

that the CI officers I've talked to

45:36

are all aware of the case and

45:39

often know a fair bit.

45:42

So certainly something is conveyed

45:44

there. The idea of

45:46

learning from this though, I think is

45:48

incredibly important. Part

45:51

of what I've tried to do, at least

45:53

in my capacity, which is publicly oriented, has

45:56

been to talk about the role of

45:58

the case, especially in some

46:01

of the broader issues, you know,

46:03

one that fascinates me is just the

46:05

issue of the insider threat, the mole

46:07

hunt, the hunt for these

46:10

spies. And I've had the opportunity

46:12

to talk about how, you know,

46:14

how so much begins in 1985 when

46:17

the CIA and the FBI and even the

46:20

British are losing sources in

46:22

the Soviet Union and we want to know

46:25

why. And it leads to

46:27

multi-agency hunts for the spies and of

46:29

course through the 90s, Edward Lee

46:32

Howard who, you know, defects the

46:34

Soviet Union is obviously

46:36

one source, but there's

46:39

more that can't be explained and

46:42

more sources keep coming out. Maybe

46:44

it's we've got alter chains now in the mid 90s.

46:47

Maybe now we've got everybody, but no,

46:49

if we look at all

46:51

the losses, there's something more

46:54

and of course that more ends up being

46:56

handsome. But in the process, as you all

46:58

know, there was someone in

47:01

the CIA who was focused on and

47:03

the lessons from this case is something

47:05

I think the entire intelligence community can

47:07

learn from because it shows

47:10

how a mistaken

47:12

identification can harm the

47:15

community as much perhaps as

47:19

finally stopping or realizing

47:21

that you've been betrayed for so long. I

47:24

think one of the interesting things about this

47:27

case and also Anna

47:29

Montes, for example, is

47:31

that it exposes some of

47:33

the institutional fissures, some of

47:35

the areas where communication

47:38

and connections not functioning properly. It

47:40

sort of throws them into relief.

47:43

Well, it does throw them into relief.

47:45

It also highlights the issue that simply

47:48

as part of the structure of our federal government,

47:51

the executive branch is split up

47:53

into many different pieces, often with

47:55

overlapping or even

47:57

sometimes conflicting responsibilities. and

48:00

the CIA often work very well together. But

48:03

there are significant institutional

48:05

differences. Their job is

48:07

to gather intelligence, to inform policymakers.

48:10

Our job is first and foremost

48:12

to enforce our national laws, even

48:15

including those national security laws. And

48:17

it means that when we gather evidence, we have

48:19

to answer to a different standard.

48:22

The courts expect something that

48:25

the president doesn't expect. And

48:27

we have to meet those demands as well. And

48:30

that does create hurdles sometimes.

48:32

And we have to figure out ways to work

48:34

around them. And sometimes how it

48:36

goes can, you know, after the Ames case,

48:39

you know, in the bureau, we start

48:41

to get some pushback on how much

48:43

of the criminal and the national security

48:45

sides mix. And, you know,

48:47

there are debates about how much of a wall there actually

48:49

was and so forth. And yet there

48:51

was something that

48:53

prevented flow of

48:56

communication even within the bureau between the

48:59

counterintelligence and the criminal investigative side

49:01

to some extent. And those

49:04

sorts of things as they come out. And

49:06

then, you know, simply the human cost of

49:08

that kind of betrayal, both

49:10

for those who are accused or

49:13

suspected mistakenly and

49:16

those who are betrayed by the one

49:18

who it turns out to be in the long run, have

49:21

lasting repercussions that we do have to deal

49:23

with and, you know, don't

49:25

always recognize even in hindsight. And

49:28

real quickly, the Hanson case

49:30

was so big and so important

49:33

that there was an inspector general's report

49:35

done on it. There's

49:38

a 36-page summary that's available for the public

49:40

to read. There's

49:42

a 300-page classified

49:44

report and a

49:46

600-page classified report.

49:49

There's also a separate commission. It

49:52

was headed by former FBI Director William Webster that

49:54

looked into all of this. David Major a while

49:56

ago said that he's been polygraphed eight times. We

49:59

will list... I'll astonish you in this audience to

50:01

learn, if you don't know it already, that

50:04

in his entire 22-year career at the FBI,

50:06

Robert Hanson was polygraphed precisely zero times. That's

50:09

changed now at the FBI. There is

50:11

a five-year rotation minimum on

50:14

polygraphing. And if you're in counterintelligence or other

50:16

more sensitive areas, it's more frequent. Not

50:20

once in his entire career was

50:23

Robert Hanson ever polygraphed. He was never

50:25

given even a preliminary financial audit. In

50:28

one of his debriefings, he said if he'd ever

50:30

been audited at any level financially, he

50:34

would have been detected. And as

50:37

we go into very elaborate

50:39

detail in episode four, which

50:41

we released last Thursday, there

50:44

were plenty of reasons in

50:46

hindsight in which the FBI could have looked at

50:48

these things and say, hmm, maybe

50:50

we ought to take a look at this first. That

50:53

didn't happen. I think

50:55

one thing in the podcast that comes

50:57

out is really fascinating as betraying the

51:00

continuity of government plan, which is

51:02

just, you know, David

51:05

Major mentioned this in the podcast

51:07

as well, which is just hugely

51:10

important. Thanks

51:29

for listening to this episode of Spycast.

51:32

Please follow us on Apple, Spotify, or

51:34

wherever you get your podcasts. Coming

51:36

up on next week's show. So

51:39

these young men used the Navajo

51:41

language to send messages, secret messages

51:43

over the radio waves in

51:46

South Pacific and many of the islands where

51:48

they were stationed. The

51:51

Japanese did not decipher

51:53

these messages. They tried. And it

51:55

wasn't until, of course, the end

51:58

of the war that they realized that they were that

52:00

it was a Native American language. If

52:03

you have feedback, you can reach

52:06

us by email at spycast at

52:08

spymuseum.org or on Twitter at INCOSpycast.

52:11

If you go to

52:13

our page, thecyberwire.com/podcast/spycast, you

52:15

can find links to

52:17

further resources, detailed show

52:19

notes and full transcripts.

52:22

I'm Erin Dietrich and your host is

52:24

Dr. Andrew Hohmann. The rest

52:26

of the team involved in the show is Mike

52:28

Mincey, Memphis Von the Food, Emily

52:30

Coletta, Emily Renz, Afula

52:33

Anakla, Ariel Samuel, Elliot

52:35

Peltzman, Trey Hester and Jen Ivan.

52:38

This show is brought to you

52:40

from the home of the world's

52:42

preeminent collection of intelligence and espionage

52:44

related artifacts, the international high music.