investigating. and this really is important. because there are leaks, i would argue, that are important leaks that do compromise national security that should be investigated and at times people should be prosecuted for those leaks. but then there are other leaks that just embarrass the administration. they re not leaks that actually compromise national security but they embarrass the president. and we now president trump has been outraged by some of those leaks. he s been outraged by leaks of conversations he s had with foreign leaders. and he s wanted the justice department to go after the people responsible for those leaks and hold them accountable. so i think we still need to know what this leak was before we re able to answer is this an appropriate investigation. i m leaving aside whether some of these tactics are appropriate or not. but whether the investigation itself is appropriate or whether it looks like retaliation. one last question for you, matt. if as you say under at
new york times. but something important happened after the justice department did under eric holder who the is attorney general. president department recognized that they had gone too far and put in place a series of regulations that are supposed to prevent this from happening without the justice department going to the media organization and trying to negotiate some sort of a accommodation in advance. and it is obvious that didn t happen in this case. what s supposed to happen under the new regulations is that the justice department before it subpoenas a reporter as information because this is important. this is different from subpoenaing a reporter s testimony. the reporter doesn t know if you ve gotten the emails or gone and gotten phone records. they have no ability to go to court to block it. roo it. the justice department under holder put in new regulation that is would allow for some kind of negotiation between the media the outlet and the justice department and give the
you described, there would have to be some sort of accommodation, there would have to be some sort of negotiation with a media outlet or a reporter before a reporter was surveilled in this way as part of a leak investigation, i ve got my control room needs to stop talking in my ear for a second. thank you very much. sorry, matt. i had two people talking to me at the same time i was trying to talk to you. at the same time as holder if holder put in those rules, obviously we have a different attorney general now. if this was done in violation of d.o.j. policies, if this new york times reporter was surveilled inappropriately, how was that policed within the justice department? it would have to be policed by the inperspective general. there is a loophole the attorney general can use if they determine i think negotiations say if negotiations with the media outlet would pose a substantial threat to the investigation, if it would harm national security. the attorney general can
the media outlet would pose a substantial threat to the investigation, if it would harm national security, the attorney general can essentially suspend that negotiation or you know not negotiate with the media outlet. it s hard to see how in this case, just looking from the outside that would be applicable here. it s something that would be policed by the inspector general. but ultimately these are regulations that are put in place by the attorney general. they can be rescinded by the attorney general. attorney general sessions and attorney general rosenstein announced early on they were looking on the regulations and decide whether they shall be withdrawn. they haven t withdrawn testimony they re in place. pu they ve been skeptical of them and they ve you could talked about cracking down more on leaks that have happened in the past. we don t know exactly how they decided to make this decision to subpoena you know, reporters or whether they suspended or whether they you know essentia
has been resistant about turning over information to the justice department. i think one of the things we don t know here is what leak the justice department is investigating. and this really is important. because there are leaks i would argue that are important leaks that do compromise national security that should be investigated. and at times people should be prosecuted for those leaks. but then there are other leaks that just embarrass the administration. they re not leaks that compromise the national security but they embarrass the president. we know that president trump has been outraged by some leaks. outraged by leaks of confidentials he had with foreign leaders. and he wanted the justice department to go after the people who are responsible for the leaks and hold them accountable. i think we we still need to know what this leak was before we we are able to answer, you know is this an appropriate investigation? i m leaving aside whether some of the tactics are appropriate or