FBI Declined White House Request To Publicly Knock Down Media Reports About Communications Between Donald Trump's Associates And Russians Known To U.S. Intelligence During The Campaign
DON LEMON, CNN HOST: Breaking news, a CNN exclusive. Is the White House playing politics with an FBI investigation? This is CNN TONIGHT. I'm Don Lemon. CNN learning exclusively that the FBI declined the White House request to publicly knock down media reports about communications between Donald Trump's associates and Russians known to U.S. intelligence during the campaign. That's according to multiple U.S. officials read on the matter. Meanwhile, a senior White House official telling CNN that Trump administration assigned homeland security to work with the justice department on a legal case to justify its temporary travel ban to on people from Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Lots to get to. I want to get right to our CNN exclusive about White House efforts to respond to CNN and other -- reporting about contacts with Russian context with high level advisors of then candidate Donald Trump last year. Jim Sciutto, Evan Perez, broke the story along with Pamela Brown,</s>JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Don, CNN has told that the FBI rejected a recent White House request to publicly knock down media reports about communications during the 2016 presidential campaign between Donald Trump's associates and Russians known to U.S. intelligence. Multiple officials tell CNN that White House sought the help of not just the bureau but other agencies investigating the Russian matter to say that the reports were wrong and that there had been no contacts. These officials telling us - you recall that CNN and "New York Times" first reported just over a week ago this story. So far the White House has not commented to us On the Record.</s>LEMON: Evan Perez, not a typical request. How did it start?</s>EVAN PEREZ, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Don. Well, a U.S. official tells us that this all began with the FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe and White House chief of staff Reince Priebus on the sidelines of a separate White House meeting on the day after these stories were published. Now, White House official says that McCabe told Priebus that the "New York Times" story vastly overstated what the FBI knows about these Russian contacts. But another U.S. official says that McCabe didn't discuss the aspects of the case. And we don't actually know what McCabe told Priebus. The White House official says that Priebus later reached out to McCabe and to the FBI director James Comey asking for the FBI to at least talk to reporters on background to dispute the stories. FBI refused. And we should note that the FBI has refused to comment on this story.</s>LEMON: Interesting. Jim, White house chief of staff Reince Priebus denied that story. This is what he said a week ago on FOX News Sunday.</s>REINCE PRIEBUS, WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: The "New York Times" last week put out article with no direct sources that said that the Trump campaign had constant contacts with Russian spies. Basically, you know, some treasonous type accusations. We have now all kinds of people looking into this. I can assure you, and I have been approved to say this, that the top levels of the intelligence community have assured me that that story is not only inaccurate but it is grossly overstated and it was wrong. And there is nothing to it.</s>LEMON: And Jim, the investigation is still ongoing, correct?</s>SCIUTTO: Listen. To say there is nothing to it is at minimum premature because we know the FBI is still investigating these communications. Several members of the House and Senate intelligence committees tell CNN that Congress is still investigating these alleged contacts. And that investigation has begun. And they started to collect documents, records and will later call witnesses to testify to these questions. Still open question what the contacts were and what the significance and meaning of these contexts were.</s>LEMON: It is interesting that they are criticizing sources on background and that's what they are asking allegedly the FBI to do. Evan why is this not a typical back and forth between the White House and the FBI?</s>PEREZ: Well, Don, the communication between the White House and the FBI were unusual at the least because of decade old restriction on these types of contacts. Now, the request from the White House would appear to at least violate the procedures that limit the types of contacts and communications between the FBI and White House on pending investigations. A White House official said that the White House only reached to the FBI because McCabe initiated the conversation. But either way the White House is asking the FBI to refute stories and that runs contrary to the justice department's procedure memos which were issued in 2007 and 2009 that would limit the direct communications on pending investigations between the White House and the FBI, Don.</s>LEMON: All right, Jim, Evan, now great reporting. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. And I want to bring in now CNN senior political analyst David Gergen, political commentator Jen Psaki, Kristen Soltis Anderson, a columnist for "the Washington Examiner" and historian Jon Meacham, author of "Destiny and Power." Good to have all of you on. David Gergen, I want to get your reaction to this exclusive reporting that the FBI refused a request from the White House to publicly knock down recent stories about the Russian contacts with high level advisors of then candidate Donald Trump last year. What do you think of this?</s>DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, for starters, Don, it is inappropriate for the White House to reach out to the FBI about a pending investigation. The FBI protocols are quite clear about that. But generally speaking traditions within the White House are you keep your hands off. This is, you know, for the sake of FBI investigation and making sure that it does not either in fact or by appearance that the White House is not trying to influence investigation like this. You just stay out of it. Now, charitable argument is that Reince Priebus is new on the job as chief of staff, didn't understand the protocol and, you know, he just wandered afield. The less charitable interpretation of course is that the White House was trying to muscle the FBI which is highly objectionable.</s>LEMON: Jen, I have to ask you, you have been in the White House. I'm wondering if that just because you are new if that makes a difference? I mean, as Jim pointed out and Evan and now David Gergen, a request like this from the White House is a violation of procedures that limit communications between the FBI in pending investigations.</s>JEN PSAKI, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I have to say Reince Priebus been in Washington a long time. It is hard to believe wouldn't know that the FBI is law enforcement agency and there are restrictions between White House interactions with law enforcement agencies including the FBI. It is certainly not request that have ever come from Obama White House. If that would have ever been raised in meeting, that would have be completely shut down by our chief of staff for the last couple of years, Dennis McDonough. So this is absolutely out of the norm and I think it is pretty concerning that this type of slippery slope is happening.</s>LEMON: Jon, what does this say, if anything, about the Trump White House?</s>JON MEACHAM, HISTORIAN/AUTHOR, DESTINY AND POWER: Well, one thing about the FBI and the White House and things like this is it never ends well. You know, this is - the FBI -- David was once</s>LEMON: Yes. As what my colleague from another network said that what you don't realize is that you are just renting that space for the moment until the American people say no longer or, you know, your term is up. So Kristen, what is your thinking of this reporting?</s>KRISTEN SOLTIS ANDERSON, COLUMNIST, WASHINGTON EXAMINER: this is actually reminding me a little bit of that moment in "Jurassic Park" when they are talking about the raptors testing the electric fence to see. It's sort of like the folks in the White House are now testing the fence. And they are seeing - and I will take the charitable interpretation that this was Reince Priebus trying to do what he thought would be helpful, not realizing that it is overstepping boundaries and norms. I fully expect this White House to do a lot of overstepping boundaries and norms. In part, because I think they feel like that's what they ran on. That they ran on doing things incredibly different. Now, of course, they are going to run into Congress or much more likely courts that push back and say, no, you can't actually do this. No, you can't actually come in as wrecking ball on this front or that front. But I think that is what you are seeing right now is them figure out exactly where the boundaries go and how far they go before they get shocked.</s>LEMON: But Kristen, as Jen Psaki so stoutly pointed out, Reince Priebus has been in Washington for a long time. After all, he was the head of the</s>RNC. ANDERSON: But as a political operator, being the head of the RNC is dramatically different than running a government agency, much less being chief of staff in the White House. Working in a political agency, you are really good at knowing how to run ads on TV, you are good at figuring out how to organize people. It is very different than running government agency.</s>LEMON: What I found interesting was the president - was Reince Priebus on the Sunday shows talking about sources and on background. And I have wondered if he had ever spoken as source or on background. And then in this particular instance, allegedly, he is asking people from the FBI to talk to reporters as a source or on background. What gives here, Jen Psaki?</s>PSAKI: Boy, that's a tongue twister. You know, I think there has been a lot of discussion lately about sources speaking on the record, sources speaking on background, what people take as fact and what they don't take as facts. I think this president and this White House has really introduced a new challenge to the media and lot of people watching, which is what is the truth. And they no longer can most people in the media lead with something the president of the United States says because you don't know if it is true or false. So there is a lot of confusion out there. And I think a lot of this is caused from the top.</s>LEMON: Yes. David Gergen, if you are going to speak like that and you are going to talk about because sources and background, you know, just ask Carl Bernstein. You know, that's what happened with Watergate. A lot of sources, a lot of background, people on background speaking. If you are going to do that, should you say, you know, all the people that I have spoken to on background just said go ahead and reveal the information that I have. Or -- I just find that very interesting that he would do that.</s>GERGEN: I totally agree. And you know, the White House is in very contradictory positions about, you know, they don't like backgrounders. They don't like people speaking anonymously when it is critical of them but they use people to do that and they themselves do that all the time to advance their own stories. But, I want to go back to this protocol issue. Listen, it is true that Reince Priebus' previous position would not have exposed him very much to the kind of issues he is facing now. But given the -- once you are chief of staff, your job is to understand protocols. Your job is to bring a sense of order. And here is where the boundaries are for the White House staff. And you do that by calling in general counsel. And in this White House, I'm afraid to say this but it's just true, that they have been so cavalier about what the standards are. You know, the standards on ethics. They have been extremely cavalier about the conflicts of interest that are occurring with the president. And they are just sort of cavalier about - they act as if, we are here now. We own the government. We are in-charge. Everybody else listen to us. And really don't give a damn about what the sorts of the protocols are because we are different and we can tear all that stuff up. I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way. Those protocols are there to protect the integrity of the system. To protect the integrity of what the FBI is doing. They are very, very important to the rule of law in a country like ours.</s>LEMON: We are just getting started with this panel. We will be right back with more.