the election was in question. And he wanted, one, the briefing; and, two, he was very insistent about sending this letter.
So the conversation was a very difficult and contentious conversation. He made it clear at some point that he had been in the Oval Office and spoken to the President, which surprised me, to say the least. I told him that he had violated the White House contacts policy. His response to that was something to the effect of "It's a policy, there's a lot more at stake here than a policy." And I reminded him that I was his boss at that point and that he was not to do that again and that he was making these comments and sending emails and drafting letters without the knowledge of what the Department had actually done in terms of investigations, that he was being reckless. And I recall toward the end saying: What you're proposing is nothing less than the United States Justice Department meddling in the outcome of a Presidential election.
And his answer was: I think a lot of people have meddled in this election.
It got fairly contentious. As I said, Jeff Rosen and Jeff Clark have known each other for a long time, and he was sort of—Jeff Rosen was, of course, the boss for both of us. So he was going to make these decisions. But he was also a little bit more of the peacemaker in this conversation. I was angry, and he tried to find a way forward and said: Well, look, Jeff, if you want a briefing, if you have the appropriate clearances to get such a briefing, then you can get it. But you're going to see that the IC, the intelligence community, will not support these allegations. And, with regard to the letter, you know, there is no reason to send such a letter. It's not supported by the investigations. It's not supported by the evidence.
He said: Rich knows what the investigations are. He knows this much better than you do. You haven't had the benefit of that. So you have to understand that we, Jeff Rosen and I, have a much better understanding of what's going on here, and we have
