Speaker 1: Earlier this month, the New York Times reported that the
Speaker 1: Trump the Trump campaign officials had had multiple contacts with
Speaker 1: Russian intelligence agents during the two thousand sixteen presidential campaign.
Speaker 1: The next day, Deputy FBI, the deputy FBI director, told
Speaker 1: White House Chief of Stance Rants Previous that the report
Speaker 1: was not true, and FBI Director James call Me allegedly
Speaker 1: repeated that to previous. Later, the White House pushed back
Speaker 1: hard to discredit the time story, and, according to The
Speaker 1: Washington Post, had put the CIA director and other senior
Speaker 1: intelligence officials, as well as senior members of Congress, in
Speaker 1: touch with the media to undercut the story, and after
Speaker 1: the FBI had refused to go on the record. Was
Speaker 1: all of this legal and proper? Was it okay for
Speaker 1: the FBI to tell the White House about the status
Speaker 1: of its investigation into this matter? Here to talk with
Speaker 1: us about that? As Matt Miller, a partner at Villa
Speaker 1: Novo who was the director of the Office of Public
Speaker 1: Affairs at the Department of Justice during the Obama administration, Matt,
Speaker 1: what are the rules in the federal government about FBI
Speaker 1: contact act with the White House on pending investigations? So
Speaker 1: there are a couple of things that are relevant here.
Speaker 1: One is that the FBI, under longstanding practice that applies
Speaker 1: not just to the White House but anyone that they're investigating.
Speaker 1: They don't you know, they don't inform the subjects of
Speaker 1: their investigations. Uh, what is true in a news story,
Speaker 1: what's not true? So if you're a major bank that's
Speaker 1: being investigated by the FBI and the New York Times
Speaker 1: writes the story and you call them up, they won't
Speaker 1: tell you, oh no, that that thing you read the
Speaker 1: story is not true, because they don't do that. And
Speaker 1: of course, in this case, the White House, Um, the
Speaker 1: White House may not be a subject of investigate this investigation,
Speaker 1: but we know that the president's campaign associates are uh,
Speaker 1: and the president's campaign is and potentially the President himself
Speaker 1: and their number of people in that White House who
Speaker 1: worked on the campaign. So there's a there's a problem
Speaker 1: there with the FBI communicating with them. And then it's
Speaker 1: it's compounded by the fact that they're long standing Department
Speaker 1: of Justice guidelines that say that that say, any contact
Speaker 1: between the Justice Department, of which the FBI is a component,
Speaker 1: and the White House are supposed to be funneled through
Speaker 1: very prescribed channels, typically through the White House Council's office
Speaker 1: lawyer and a lawyer, UM, to make sure there is
Speaker 1: no communication about an investigation, because then there's the potential
Speaker 1: for the White House to tamper with that investigation, to
Speaker 1: try to influence it, to try to pressure the FBI. Matt,
Speaker 1: do we know from the FBI that the FBI actually
Speaker 1: did tell the White House things about the investigation or
Speaker 1: is that coming from the White House. It's all coming
Speaker 1: from the White House. Um. And and that is a
Speaker 1: problem here because, UM, I don't think this is a
Speaker 1: partisans thing to say the White House. This white House
Speaker 1: has a credibility problem. There are a number of, you know,
Speaker 1: documented instances in which the White House has said things
Speaker 1: that turn out later to not be true. So it's
Speaker 1: been reported that that, um, the direct deputy It's been
Speaker 1: reported from the White House to reporters that the deputy
Speaker 1: director said these reports were bs. Those were the quote,
Speaker 1: UM they used. We don't know if that's exactly what
Speaker 1: they said. It could be that there was some minor
Speaker 1: thing that they would quibble with in that New York
Speaker 1: Times story, but that doesn't mean, uh, the entire story
Speaker 1: was wrong. Or the import of the story was wrong,
Speaker 1: and the FBI so far has neither commented on it
Speaker 1: on the record, nor if you look at the reporters
Speaker 1: that are coming this closely, they're not even really getting
Speaker 1: a lot of background guidance from the bureau. Well, Matt,
Speaker 1: if this is a Department of Justice guidelines, you have
Speaker 1: a new Attorney General in place, you have a new
Speaker 1: president and a new White House Chief of Staff and
Speaker 1: all the rest of it in the administration, couldn't they
Speaker 1: have just changed the rules if they wanted to. Well,
Speaker 1: they could, but as far as we know, they haven't. Um.
Speaker 1: They have made no indication that they withdrew um those guidelines. Um.
Speaker 1: But you know that is a big underlying problem. You know,
Speaker 1: there is a longstanding practice that d o J is independent,
Speaker 1: that the president can't tell or the President doesn't tell
Speaker 1: the Attorney General who to prosecute, and by the same
Speaker 1: token doesn't tell the Attorney general. Here's what you shouldn't
Speaker 1: invest the gate. But it's not the Constitution anywhere, it's
Speaker 1: not a law, it's not even in a regulation. It's
Speaker 1: just long standing norm. Because that's what prevents this from
Speaker 1: becoming a banana republic. Um. But if the if the
Speaker 1: Attorney General were to, you know, withdraw those guidelines and
Speaker 1: institute nuance. He certainly could, but it would be a
Speaker 1: major weakening of the rule of law, and I think
Speaker 1: something that that people would really look at with great
Speaker 1: concern about what it means for the future of independent
Speaker 1: law enforcement. Matt, you have several committees investigating this, and
Speaker 1: the Senate Intelligence Committee is one of those. The top
Speaker 1: Democrat on that, Mark Warner, warned the panel's chairman over
Speaker 1: reports that the Republican work with the White House to
Speaker 1: try to squash the negative stories about Russian interference in
Speaker 1: last year's elections, calling it a threat to the integrity
Speaker 1: of the congressional probe. Is there any way that Congress
Speaker 1: can investigate this with the number of Republicans that are
Speaker 1: to be involved in different ways? Or should there be
Speaker 1: an independent investigator? You know, I think there ought to
Speaker 1: be an independent investigator. I've long thought that the Intelligence Committee,
Speaker 1: even if it could conduct a fair investigation, isn't a
Speaker 1: great channel because, um what, a lot of what they
Speaker 1: do is classified. At the end of the day, if
Speaker 1: they write a report, they're dependent upon the White House
Speaker 1: and the Administration to tell them what they can declassify.
Speaker 1: I think it needs to be uh an independent commission.
Speaker 1: And and that's even that that's even more true now
Speaker 1: when you see reports that the person the chairman of
Speaker 1: that committee who is supposedly UH investigating the this this
Speaker 1: um UH this potential potential collusion between the campaign and
Speaker 1: the Russian government is taking direction from the White House
Speaker 1: about how to manage stories. It gives you, you know,
Speaker 1: gives me, and I think it gives a lot of
Speaker 1: other people great doubts that that investigation really is independent.
Speaker 1: And the only solution to that is taken out of
Speaker 1: the hands of that chairman UM and put it into
Speaker 1: an independent mission. Well, Matt, back to the UH the
Speaker 1: question of how this should have been handled. You know,
Speaker 1: you mentioned that this White House has credibility problem. Certainly
Speaker 1: the press doesn't seem to believe them right now on
Speaker 1: a lot of things, and so when they're faced with
Speaker 1: a situation like this, where there let's assume for the
Speaker 1: moment the Times report was incorrect, is it a little
Speaker 1: unfair to say, well, you just have to you know,
Speaker 1: you can't get the folks who actually know about this
Speaker 1: involved to deny it. Wouldn't that be you know, unfair
Speaker 1: and frustrating for the White House. Well, so here here
Speaker 1: is the the issue with that. UM, yes, that's true,
Speaker 1: but that's that's that's largely the case when you're um,
Speaker 1: uh say you, when you are the subject of an
Speaker 1: investigation by independent law enforcement. You may think a report
Speaker 1: is not true, but no one else in the universe
Speaker 1: can then go to the FBI and direct them to
Speaker 1: go out and correct it. The problem is, you know
Speaker 1: what what is known in military circles here is command influence.
Speaker 1: You know, the FB, the director of the FBI ultimately
Speaker 1: can be fired by the president. UH. The head of
Speaker 1: the CIA and one of the other people who apparently
Speaker 1: got on the phone with reporters can be fired with
Speaker 1: the president. The White House mediates disputes between UH, the
Speaker 1: FBI and the CIA and other intelligence agencies. So there's
Speaker 1: a reason they're supposed to be independent from the White House,
Speaker 1: UH is so that there cannot be this sort of
Speaker 1: pressure and influence that leads them to doing something UM
Speaker 1: that they should not do. Well, but we're about at
Speaker 1: a time. I want to thank UH Matt Miller from Viennovo,
Speaker 1: partner of Vienova from being for being here on Bloomberg Law.
Speaker 1: That's it for this edition of Bloomberg Law. Will be
Speaker 1: back tomorrow thanks to our technical director Chris Tracomy and
Speaker 1: our producer David Sutterman. Coming up on Bloomberg Radio, Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Markets with Carol Masser and Corey Johnson. Carol, what have
Speaker 1: you got coming up? What do we talk about? We're
Speaker 1: gonna talk a little bit about a company that makes
Speaker 1: video games with some cool properties. Also gotta talk about
Speaker 1: Warren Buffett with his investor letter over the weekend. Get
Speaker 1: a lot to say. He always has a lot to say,
Speaker 1: doesn't it. And we all listen, don't we. That's right,
Speaker 1: that's coming up straight ahead on Bloomberg Radio. This is
Speaker 1: Bloomberg