Speaker 1: Traditionally, the House Intelligence Committee has been a model of
Speaker 1: bipartisan cooperation, with the chair and the ranking minority member
Speaker 1: of the committee working together closely, and the committee's work
Speaker 1: is generally done behind closed doors. But last week, Committee
Speaker 1: Chairman Devon Nunas announced that the intelligence community had incidentally
Speaker 1: collected conversations involving members of Donald Trump's transition team while
Speaker 1: it was engaging in surveillance of foreign targets. Nuna has
Speaker 1: subsequently apologized to the Intelligence Committe's Democratic members for how
Speaker 1: he disclosed the information about the surveillance, but the incident
Speaker 1: has raised questions about whether the Intelligence Committee can conduct
Speaker 1: a thorough, bipartisan investigation into questions about Russian interference in
Speaker 1: last year's election and possible contacts between the Trump campaign
Speaker 1: and Russia. Here to talk to us about what's going
Speaker 1: on with Chairman Nunez and the Intelligence Committee are Andrew Kent,
Speaker 1: professor at Fordham Law School, and uh Eliza Gutian, co
Speaker 1: director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the
Speaker 1: Brennan Center. UM, thank you both for being here today. Andrew,
Speaker 1: this is a somewhat confusing and um seemingly strange situation
Speaker 1: here where you have the uh, the chairman of the
Speaker 1: House Intelligence Committee having gone to the White House with
Speaker 1: information when it's possible the committee is going to be
Speaker 1: investigating the president. How unusual is this situation in your view?
Speaker 1: I think it's extremely unusual, and uh, you know, a
Speaker 1: number of folks on the Republican side, including John McCain,
Speaker 1: have said as much. Um. Obviously there are close political
Speaker 1: links between a president and members of his party in
Speaker 1: the Congress. But when the president's own conduct and the
Speaker 1: conduct of his campaign and close aids to him are
Speaker 1: the subject of such an incredibly important and sensitive investigation
Speaker 1: that the House Intelligence Committee is undergoing, Uh, you know,
Speaker 1: this behavior by by the chairman is really extraordinary and
Speaker 1: quite inappropriate. Liza, It's still unclear because new Naz has
Speaker 1: refused to say where he got these documents from their
Speaker 1: supposedly classified documents. If they are really classified documents and
Speaker 1: he showed them or told the press about them without
Speaker 1: telling his committee members or anyone else, is that a
Speaker 1: prosecutor prosecutable offense. Well, certainly, Nuns himself and many others
Speaker 1: on his committee have really made a point of underscoring
Speaker 1: how dangerous it is to leak classified information and have
Speaker 1: emphasized that people who do leak such information should be prosecuted,
Speaker 1: so if they are to be believed, it absolutely is
Speaker 1: a prosecutable offense. And it does appear that some of
Speaker 1: what uh Mr Nunez was saying in his press conferences
Speaker 1: was classified information. Now the president is able to be
Speaker 1: classify information, uh quickly and easily. And there is a
Speaker 1: question in this case about whether there was coordination between
Speaker 1: the White House and and Newness in his announcements. And
Speaker 1: recently we learned that Noons was actually at the White
Speaker 1: House the day before he gave his press conference using
Speaker 1: some secure compartment and facilities there. That's a place where
Speaker 1: you go to look at classified information. So you know,
Speaker 1: there's some real questions here about where this information came from.
Speaker 1: And and and frankly, you know, if the president did
Speaker 1: be classified information so he could reveal it, I think
Speaker 1: that's that's more disturbing than than it is reassuring. Well, Andrew,
Speaker 1: let's say, you know, putting aside this situation, you end
Speaker 1: up with a where you have an intelligence Committee chairman
Speaker 1: finding out information that might be relevant to an investigation
Speaker 1: or to the White House. Um in some way, you know,
Speaker 1: that's important. What is the appropriate protocol here, what's supposed
Speaker 1: to happen. Well, there's not really a protocol in a
Speaker 1: situation that's as politically charged and abnormal as this, But
Speaker 1: I mean, I think we would hope that, you know,
Speaker 1: in any kind of extraordinary circumstance, we fall back on
Speaker 1: the kind of tried and true procedures, and those procedures
Speaker 1: would be, um, you know, bipartisanship on the committee, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, letting the Democratic members see it, letting the
Speaker 1: expert staff who um uh you know who served the
Speaker 1: members of that committee be involved and things, and then um,
Speaker 1: if necessary, making a decision you know, at the committee level,
Speaker 1: to communicate with with executive branch agencies about this and
Speaker 1: ideally to do it uh privately first before you know,
Speaker 1: going and having a quite confusing news conference first at
Speaker 1: the Capitol and then a second one at the White House,
Speaker 1: like the chairman did. Lies about a minute here. Noon
Speaker 1: has served as an advisor to Trump's transition team. So
Speaker 1: should he be investigating this at all? Some of the
Speaker 1: people he must know when he may have been involved
Speaker 1: in some aspect of this. I mean, that's an excellent question.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure that Initially, the fact that he didn't
Speaker 1: serve on the on the Trump transition team or as
Speaker 1: an advisor. I'm not sure that that should disqualify him
Speaker 1: out of hand to be leading an investigation, But if
Speaker 1: you add some of the behavior we've since seen since then,
Speaker 1: and particularly these press conferences, I think that does raise
Speaker 1: some very serious questions about whether he's conducting an impartial
Speaker 1: investigation or whether he's really trying to act to support
Speaker 1: the Trump administration, which is not his job as an
Speaker 1: overseer on the committee, let alone as someone who is
Speaker 1: investigating potential misconduct by the administration. Andrew, are we at
Speaker 1: a point now where Senator McCain is right and we
Speaker 1: need to have a Congress really needs to appoint a
Speaker 1: select committee that's independent of the Intelligence Committee to investigate
Speaker 1: the allegations about possible Trump campaign contacts with Russia and
Speaker 1: Russian interference in last year's presidential election. You know, I
Speaker 1: think in theory we are, but I also see no
Speaker 1: indication that it's likely to happen. Uh. You know, neither
Speaker 1: Miss McConnell on the Senate side or Paul Ryan on
Speaker 1: the House side have given any indication that they're interested
Speaker 1: in doing that. Um so, Uh, you know, certainly the
Speaker 1: Chairman Nuns his actions calling to call into real question,
Speaker 1: you know, his independence from the White House and his
Speaker 1: willingness to aggressively dig into information that might be harmful
Speaker 1: to the White House. But uh, you know, I think
Speaker 1: that's all. That's all we're going to have for the
Speaker 1: time being. Is is is the current investigations in in
Speaker 1: the in the current setting they're taking place, Liza, among
Speaker 1: congressional committees, the two intelligence committees, one in the Senate,
Speaker 1: one in the House. We're established with this unique charge
Speaker 1: that they be bipartisan to the most extent possible. In
Speaker 1: the past, have you seen either of these committees do
Speaker 1: that kind of work? Yes? Actually, I think the Senate
Speaker 1: Intelligence Committee has been remarkably bipartisan in most things. And
Speaker 1: there's certainly been exceptions to that, but for the most part,
Speaker 1: they tend to work together and to work together quite
Speaker 1: amicably and well, and often share conclusions. And even when
Speaker 1: they don't share conclusions. For example, the Torture Report, the
Speaker 1: report on the CIA's enhanced interrogation program. Uh, many Republicans
Speaker 1: dissented from or did not sign that report, but it
Speaker 1: still did not create sort of the level of animosity
Speaker 1: and infighting that we are seeing right now in the
Speaker 1: House Intelligence Committee. The House Intelligence Committee has traditionally been
Speaker 1: a bit more marked bipartisan differences, but I would say
Speaker 1: that what we're seeing right now um is sort of
Speaker 1: taking it to a new level. Andrew Eli Lake, Bloomberg
Speaker 1: View columnist, spoke with Chairman Nunez recently and he's put
Speaker 1: up a column on Bloomberg View uh saying that you know,
Speaker 1: Nonez has explained that he to Eli Lake that he
Speaker 1: in fact had gone to the White House ground to
Speaker 1: view these documents, and that the documents that he has
Speaker 1: seen were widely shared during the Obama administration. Appears with
Speaker 1: both the White House and among other members of the
Speaker 1: intelligence community, and it sort of raises the specter of
Speaker 1: whether or not it's possible that, in fact, the Obama
Speaker 1: administration was using intelligence to try to keep track of
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign or the Trump transition. Might there really
Speaker 1: be something legitimate here and what Nonez was doing and
Speaker 1: sharing this information with the White House? It's possible, and
Speaker 1: the Lake's article today was certainly a useful piece of
Speaker 1: this puzzle, but it's still quite hard to know exactly
Speaker 1: what's going on, in part because Nunas has said both
Speaker 1: contradictory sort of confusing things. I mean, he said from
Speaker 1: the beginning, and he's reiterated that he believes this was
Speaker 1: lawfully collected intelligence. And he suggested that it occurred under
Speaker 1: the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which means that it was
Speaker 1: you know, though it's a complicated statute, and we can
Speaker 1: generalize to say it means that it was a court
Speaker 1: approve uh to target somebody who is an agent of
Speaker 1: a foreign power. Um. But then, um, you know it's
Speaker 1: reported in the Lake piece that you reference. Uh, Nunez
Speaker 1: is saying that conversations between Trump and his senior advisors
Speaker 1: about the presidential transition, uh, we're somehow picked up. Um.
Speaker 1: And I have a very hard time in my mind
Speaker 1: reconciling how there could have been lawful, lawful communications of
Speaker 1: agents of the of a foreign government being swept up
Speaker 1: that included uh, those kinds of details. It's just it's
Speaker 1: quite confusing, and unfortunately I don't have, you know, I
Speaker 1: don't have a teriffic answer about exactly what's going on here.
Speaker 1: About thirty seconds, um, Liza, one of the Democratic Congressman
Speaker 1: Eric Swalwell on the committee has written for The Guardian
Speaker 1: and slam Nunez, saying he seems to be running his
Speaker 1: own intelligence service, receiving classified information exclusively briefing the president.
Speaker 1: Is this likely? Is this a committee it's likely going
Speaker 1: to be able to work together? Yeah, that's certainly a concern.
Speaker 1: And obviously the ranking member of the committee, autom Shift,
Speaker 1: has also been quite critical of Newness and his behavior.
Speaker 1: In this case, Shift seems to be in essence that
Speaker 1: the member of the committee who is most concerned with
Speaker 1: the actual Russian interference with the election and possible tries
Speaker 1: ties to the Trump campaign that the committee is supposed
Speaker 1: to be investigating. Uh. And at the hearing that took
Speaker 1: place last week, Representative Shift read through a long list
Speaker 1: of the circumstantial evidence that has come up that's been
Speaker 1: quite damning, that appears to, uh, you know, at least
Speaker 1: apply some ties between the Russian interference and the Trump campaign,
Speaker 1: and Liza, we're going to have to leave it there.
Speaker 1: Are thanks to Liza Guardtine of the Brennan Center for
Speaker 1: Justice and Andrew Kent of Fordham University for being with
Speaker 1: us on Bloomberg Law