WEBVTT - Questions Raised in White House-FBI Hacking Talks (Audio)

0:00:00.040 --> 0:00:02.240
<v Speaker 1>Earlier this month, the New York Times reported that the

0:00:02.279 --> 0:00:05.440
<v Speaker 1>Trump the Trump campaign officials had had multiple contacts with

0:00:05.519 --> 0:00:09.040
<v Speaker 1>Russian intelligence agents during the two thousand sixteen presidential campaign.

0:00:09.600 --> 0:00:12.639
<v Speaker 1>The next day, Deputy FBI, the deputy FBI director, told

0:00:12.640 --> 0:00:15.520
<v Speaker 1>White House Chief of Stance Rants Previous that the report

0:00:15.600 --> 0:00:19.119
<v Speaker 1>was not true, and FBI Director James call Me allegedly

0:00:19.160 --> 0:00:22.239
<v Speaker 1>repeated that to previous. Later, the White House pushed back

0:00:22.320 --> 0:00:24.720
<v Speaker 1>hard to discredit the time story, and, according to The

0:00:24.720 --> 0:00:27.600
<v Speaker 1>Washington Post, had put the CIA director and other senior

0:00:27.640 --> 0:00:31.159
<v Speaker 1>intelligence officials, as well as senior members of Congress, in

0:00:31.240 --> 0:00:34.440
<v Speaker 1>touch with the media to undercut the story, and after

0:00:34.479 --> 0:00:37.320
<v Speaker 1>the FBI had refused to go on the record. Was

0:00:37.360 --> 0:00:39.199
<v Speaker 1>all of this legal and proper? Was it okay for

0:00:39.240 --> 0:00:42.120
<v Speaker 1>the FBI to tell the White House about the status

0:00:42.120 --> 0:00:44.920
<v Speaker 1>of its investigation into this matter? Here to talk with

0:00:44.960 --> 0:00:47.159
<v Speaker 1>us about that? As Matt Miller, a partner at Villa

0:00:47.240 --> 0:00:49.840
<v Speaker 1>Novo who was the director of the Office of Public

0:00:49.920 --> 0:00:54.640
<v Speaker 1>Affairs at the Department of Justice during the Obama administration, Matt,

0:00:55.080 --> 0:00:59.400
<v Speaker 1>what are the rules in the federal government about FBI

0:00:59.520 --> 0:01:04.120
<v Speaker 1>contact act with the White House on pending investigations? So

0:01:04.319 --> 0:01:06.080
<v Speaker 1>there are a couple of things that are relevant here.

0:01:06.120 --> 0:01:10.320
<v Speaker 1>One is that the FBI, under longstanding practice that applies

0:01:10.360 --> 0:01:12.840
<v Speaker 1>not just to the White House but anyone that they're investigating.

0:01:13.160 --> 0:01:16.160
<v Speaker 1>They don't you know, they don't inform the subjects of

0:01:16.200 --> 0:01:19.400
<v Speaker 1>their investigations. Uh, what is true in a news story,

0:01:19.480 --> 0:01:21.520
<v Speaker 1>what's not true? So if you're a major bank that's

0:01:21.560 --> 0:01:24.160
<v Speaker 1>being investigated by the FBI and the New York Times

0:01:24.160 --> 0:01:25.800
<v Speaker 1>writes the story and you call them up, they won't

0:01:25.800 --> 0:01:28.319
<v Speaker 1>tell you, oh no, that that thing you read the

0:01:28.360 --> 0:01:30.600
<v Speaker 1>story is not true, because they don't do that. And

0:01:30.640 --> 0:01:33.520
<v Speaker 1>of course, in this case, the White House, Um, the

0:01:33.520 --> 0:01:36.319
<v Speaker 1>White House may not be a subject of investigate this investigation,

0:01:36.360 --> 0:01:40.040
<v Speaker 1>but we know that the president's campaign associates are uh,

0:01:40.080 --> 0:01:43.399
<v Speaker 1>and the president's campaign is and potentially the President himself

0:01:43.400 --> 0:01:45.080
<v Speaker 1>and their number of people in that White House who

0:01:45.160 --> 0:01:48.520
<v Speaker 1>worked on the campaign. So there's a there's a problem

0:01:48.560 --> 0:01:51.640
<v Speaker 1>there with the FBI communicating with them. And then it's

0:01:51.720 --> 0:01:54.680
<v Speaker 1>it's compounded by the fact that they're long standing Department

0:01:54.720 --> 0:01:58.360
<v Speaker 1>of Justice guidelines that say that that say, any contact

0:01:58.480 --> 0:02:02.120
<v Speaker 1>between the Justice Department, of which the FBI is a component,

0:02:02.320 --> 0:02:04.680
<v Speaker 1>and the White House are supposed to be funneled through

0:02:04.840 --> 0:02:08.680
<v Speaker 1>very prescribed channels, typically through the White House Council's office

0:02:08.960 --> 0:02:11.520
<v Speaker 1>lawyer and a lawyer, UM, to make sure there is

0:02:11.560 --> 0:02:15.600
<v Speaker 1>no communication about an investigation, because then there's the potential

0:02:15.639 --> 0:02:18.000
<v Speaker 1>for the White House to tamper with that investigation, to

0:02:18.040 --> 0:02:21.280
<v Speaker 1>try to influence it, to try to pressure the FBI. Matt,

0:02:21.720 --> 0:02:25.919
<v Speaker 1>do we know from the FBI that the FBI actually

0:02:26.000 --> 0:02:29.600
<v Speaker 1>did tell the White House things about the investigation or

0:02:29.639 --> 0:02:32.560
<v Speaker 1>is that coming from the White House. It's all coming

0:02:32.600 --> 0:02:35.720
<v Speaker 1>from the White House. Um. And and that is a

0:02:35.720 --> 0:02:38.840
<v Speaker 1>problem here because, UM, I don't think this is a

0:02:38.880 --> 0:02:41.560
<v Speaker 1>partisans thing to say the White House. This white House

0:02:41.600 --> 0:02:44.160
<v Speaker 1>has a credibility problem. There are a number of, you know,

0:02:44.360 --> 0:02:47.000
<v Speaker 1>documented instances in which the White House has said things

0:02:47.040 --> 0:02:49.880
<v Speaker 1>that turn out later to not be true. So it's

0:02:49.880 --> 0:02:53.320
<v Speaker 1>been reported that that, um, the direct deputy It's been

0:02:53.320 --> 0:02:56.120
<v Speaker 1>reported from the White House to reporters that the deputy

0:02:56.160 --> 0:03:00.000
<v Speaker 1>director said these reports were bs. Those were the quote,

0:03:00.840 --> 0:03:03.640
<v Speaker 1>UM they used. We don't know if that's exactly what

0:03:03.680 --> 0:03:06.200
<v Speaker 1>they said. It could be that there was some minor

0:03:06.280 --> 0:03:08.440
<v Speaker 1>thing that they would quibble with in that New York

0:03:08.480 --> 0:03:11.640
<v Speaker 1>Times story, but that doesn't mean, uh, the entire story

0:03:11.760 --> 0:03:13.880
<v Speaker 1>was wrong. Or the import of the story was wrong,

0:03:13.960 --> 0:03:16.680
<v Speaker 1>and the FBI so far has neither commented on it

0:03:17.000 --> 0:03:19.240
<v Speaker 1>on the record, nor if you look at the reporters

0:03:19.240 --> 0:03:21.080
<v Speaker 1>that are coming this closely, they're not even really getting

0:03:21.080 --> 0:03:23.640
<v Speaker 1>a lot of background guidance from the bureau. Well, Matt,

0:03:23.840 --> 0:03:26.320
<v Speaker 1>if this is a Department of Justice guidelines, you have

0:03:26.360 --> 0:03:28.240
<v Speaker 1>a new Attorney General in place, you have a new

0:03:28.280 --> 0:03:30.400
<v Speaker 1>president and a new White House Chief of Staff and

0:03:30.400 --> 0:03:32.880
<v Speaker 1>all the rest of it in the administration, couldn't they

0:03:32.919 --> 0:03:35.880
<v Speaker 1>have just changed the rules if they wanted to. Well,

0:03:35.960 --> 0:03:38.320
<v Speaker 1>they could, but as far as we know, they haven't. Um.

0:03:38.360 --> 0:03:43.160
<v Speaker 1>They have made no indication that they withdrew um those guidelines. Um.

0:03:43.400 --> 0:03:46.600
<v Speaker 1>But you know that is a big underlying problem. You know,

0:03:46.680 --> 0:03:50.360
<v Speaker 1>there is a longstanding practice that d o J is independent,

0:03:50.480 --> 0:03:53.800
<v Speaker 1>that the president can't tell or the President doesn't tell

0:03:53.840 --> 0:03:56.360
<v Speaker 1>the Attorney General who to prosecute, and by the same

0:03:56.400 --> 0:03:59.680
<v Speaker 1>token doesn't tell the Attorney general. Here's what you shouldn't

0:03:59.680 --> 0:04:02.560
<v Speaker 1>invest the gate. But it's not the Constitution anywhere, it's

0:04:02.560 --> 0:04:04.680
<v Speaker 1>not a law, it's not even in a regulation. It's

0:04:04.720 --> 0:04:07.800
<v Speaker 1>just long standing norm. Because that's what prevents this from

0:04:08.040 --> 0:04:11.520
<v Speaker 1>becoming a banana republic. Um. But if the if the

0:04:11.560 --> 0:04:15.240
<v Speaker 1>Attorney General were to, you know, withdraw those guidelines and

0:04:15.280 --> 0:04:18.279
<v Speaker 1>institute nuance. He certainly could, but it would be a

0:04:18.320 --> 0:04:20.360
<v Speaker 1>major weakening of the rule of law, and I think

0:04:20.640 --> 0:04:23.520
<v Speaker 1>something that that people would really look at with great

0:04:23.560 --> 0:04:26.560
<v Speaker 1>concern about what it means for the future of independent

0:04:26.640 --> 0:04:31.800
<v Speaker 1>law enforcement. Matt, you have several committees investigating this, and

0:04:31.839 --> 0:04:35.200
<v Speaker 1>the Senate Intelligence Committee is one of those. The top

0:04:35.279 --> 0:04:39.159
<v Speaker 1>Democrat on that, Mark Warner, warned the panel's chairman over

0:04:39.240 --> 0:04:42.560
<v Speaker 1>reports that the Republican work with the White House to

0:04:42.640 --> 0:04:46.440
<v Speaker 1>try to squash the negative stories about Russian interference in

0:04:46.600 --> 0:04:50.160
<v Speaker 1>last year's elections, calling it a threat to the integrity

0:04:50.279 --> 0:04:55.599
<v Speaker 1>of the congressional probe. Is there any way that Congress

0:04:56.240 --> 0:04:59.839
<v Speaker 1>can investigate this with the number of Republicans that are

0:05:00.040 --> 0:05:02.560
<v Speaker 1>to be involved in different ways? Or should there be

0:05:02.600 --> 0:05:06.000
<v Speaker 1>an independent investigator? You know, I think there ought to

0:05:06.040 --> 0:05:10.640
<v Speaker 1>be an independent investigator. I've long thought that the Intelligence Committee,

0:05:10.640 --> 0:05:13.479
<v Speaker 1>even if it could conduct a fair investigation, isn't a

0:05:13.520 --> 0:05:16.600
<v Speaker 1>great channel because, um what, a lot of what they

0:05:16.640 --> 0:05:18.680
<v Speaker 1>do is classified. At the end of the day, if

0:05:18.680 --> 0:05:21.640
<v Speaker 1>they write a report, they're dependent upon the White House

0:05:21.680 --> 0:05:24.080
<v Speaker 1>and the Administration to tell them what they can declassify.

0:05:24.200 --> 0:05:27.080
<v Speaker 1>I think it needs to be uh an independent commission.

0:05:27.120 --> 0:05:29.680
<v Speaker 1>And and that's even that that's even more true now

0:05:29.680 --> 0:05:32.440
<v Speaker 1>when you see reports that the person the chairman of

0:05:32.440 --> 0:05:37.599
<v Speaker 1>that committee who is supposedly UH investigating the this this

0:05:37.839 --> 0:05:42.400
<v Speaker 1>um UH this potential potential collusion between the campaign and

0:05:42.440 --> 0:05:45.400
<v Speaker 1>the Russian government is taking direction from the White House

0:05:45.440 --> 0:05:48.880
<v Speaker 1>about how to manage stories. It gives you, you know,

0:05:48.960 --> 0:05:50.480
<v Speaker 1>gives me, and I think it gives a lot of

0:05:50.560 --> 0:05:54.240
<v Speaker 1>other people great doubts that that investigation really is independent.

0:05:54.400 --> 0:05:56.640
<v Speaker 1>And the only solution to that is taken out of

0:05:56.640 --> 0:05:59.360
<v Speaker 1>the hands of that chairman UM and put it into

0:05:59.360 --> 0:06:02.640
<v Speaker 1>an independent mission. Well, Matt, back to the UH the

0:06:02.760 --> 0:06:05.839
<v Speaker 1>question of how this should have been handled. You know,

0:06:06.600 --> 0:06:09.559
<v Speaker 1>you mentioned that this White House has credibility problem. Certainly

0:06:09.600 --> 0:06:11.719
<v Speaker 1>the press doesn't seem to believe them right now on

0:06:11.760 --> 0:06:13.719
<v Speaker 1>a lot of things, and so when they're faced with

0:06:13.760 --> 0:06:16.080
<v Speaker 1>a situation like this, where there let's assume for the

0:06:16.120 --> 0:06:19.520
<v Speaker 1>moment the Times report was incorrect, is it a little

0:06:19.560 --> 0:06:21.560
<v Speaker 1>unfair to say, well, you just have to you know,

0:06:21.640 --> 0:06:24.039
<v Speaker 1>you can't get the folks who actually know about this

0:06:24.120 --> 0:06:26.560
<v Speaker 1>involved to deny it. Wouldn't that be you know, unfair

0:06:26.600 --> 0:06:31.120
<v Speaker 1>and frustrating for the White House. Well, so here here

0:06:31.200 --> 0:06:35.240
<v Speaker 1>is the the issue with that. UM, yes, that's true,

0:06:35.240 --> 0:06:38.480
<v Speaker 1>but that's that's that's largely the case when you're um,

0:06:39.080 --> 0:06:41.360
<v Speaker 1>uh say you, when you are the subject of an

0:06:41.400 --> 0:06:46.359
<v Speaker 1>investigation by independent law enforcement. You may think a report

0:06:46.480 --> 0:06:49.599
<v Speaker 1>is not true, but no one else in the universe

0:06:49.640 --> 0:06:51.640
<v Speaker 1>can then go to the FBI and direct them to

0:06:51.680 --> 0:06:53.719
<v Speaker 1>go out and correct it. The problem is, you know

0:06:53.760 --> 0:06:56.719
<v Speaker 1>what what is known in military circles here is command influence.

0:06:57.080 --> 0:06:59.640
<v Speaker 1>You know, the FB, the director of the FBI ultimately

0:06:59.680 --> 0:07:02.200
<v Speaker 1>can be fired by the president. UH. The head of

0:07:02.200 --> 0:07:04.719
<v Speaker 1>the CIA and one of the other people who apparently

0:07:04.720 --> 0:07:06.680
<v Speaker 1>got on the phone with reporters can be fired with

0:07:06.720 --> 0:07:11.440
<v Speaker 1>the president. The White House mediates disputes between UH, the

0:07:11.560 --> 0:07:14.800
<v Speaker 1>FBI and the CIA and other intelligence agencies. So there's

0:07:14.800 --> 0:07:17.440
<v Speaker 1>a reason they're supposed to be independent from the White House,

0:07:17.880 --> 0:07:19.920
<v Speaker 1>UH is so that there cannot be this sort of

0:07:19.960 --> 0:07:24.400
<v Speaker 1>pressure and influence that leads them to doing something UM

0:07:24.480 --> 0:07:27.800
<v Speaker 1>that they should not do. Well, but we're about at

0:07:27.800 --> 0:07:31.280
<v Speaker 1>a time. I want to thank UH Matt Miller from Viennovo,

0:07:31.440 --> 0:07:34.720
<v Speaker 1>partner of Vienova from being for being here on Bloomberg Law.

0:07:35.200 --> 0:07:37.200
<v Speaker 1>That's it for this edition of Bloomberg Law. Will be

0:07:37.240 --> 0:07:41.280
<v Speaker 1>back tomorrow thanks to our technical director Chris Tracomy and

0:07:41.320 --> 0:07:45.760
<v Speaker 1>our producer David Sutterman. Coming up on Bloomberg Radio, Bloomberg

0:07:45.800 --> 0:07:49.280
<v Speaker 1>Markets with Carol Masser and Corey Johnson. Carol, what have

0:07:49.320 --> 0:07:51.400
<v Speaker 1>you got coming up? What do we talk about? We're

0:07:51.400 --> 0:07:54.160
<v Speaker 1>gonna talk a little bit about a company that makes

0:07:54.280 --> 0:07:56.960
<v Speaker 1>video games with some cool properties. Also gotta talk about

0:07:56.960 --> 0:08:00.120
<v Speaker 1>Warren Buffett with his investor letter over the weekend. Get

0:08:00.160 --> 0:08:02.240
<v Speaker 1>a lot to say. He always has a lot to say,

0:08:02.240 --> 0:08:04.520
<v Speaker 1>doesn't it. And we all listen, don't we. That's right,

0:08:05.240 --> 0:08:08.760
<v Speaker 1>that's coming up straight ahead on Bloomberg Radio. This is

0:08:08.800 --> 0:08:09.440
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg