The New York Times said in an editorial on Thursday, March 13:
For all the grief that has come of their association over the years, the White House and the FBI still have not got the relationship right. That is painfully evident from their bungled dealings over possible Chinese efforts to influence last year's election. There may be an innocent explanation for the mishandling of this matter, but it would be hard to guess that from the exhibition put on by the White House and FBI. On Monday evening they were firing accusations and denials across Washington like artillery fire.
When the bureau learned last spring that China might be trying to funnel money illegally into congressional campaigns, the FBI director, Louis Freeh, should have seen to it that President Clinton was informed. China is rapidly becoming America's most important foreign rival, and an effort by the Chinese government to influence the American electoral process bears immediately and directly on relations between the two countries. But instead of telling the president, Freeh or someone working for him dispatched low-level officers to brief two White House staff members in June 1996.
Exactly what was said has yet to be determined, but at least one of the White House staffers insists he left the meeting convinced he had been instructed not to share the information with his superiors and neither man apparently did so. Their failure to inform anyone in the White House until January reflects poorly on their judgment and the operations of the National Security Council staff. The staff was run by Anthony Lake, now Clinton's nominee to be director of central intelligence. The disorganization in his shop warrants close examination by the Senate.
But the larger issue is the obligation of the FBI to keep the president and his senior advisers informed about important national security matters. That is not accomplished by sending bureau aides to meet with their White House counterparts. The FBI thought the intelligence information important enough to send representatives to meet directly with some members of Congress it believed might be targeted by the Chinese to receive laundered donations. That the matter could be shared with legislators deflates any rationale for keeping the president out of the loop, unless the FBI was already investigating Chinese contributions to Clinton's election campaign. So far, there is no evidence to indicate that.
Attorney General Janet Reno on Wednesday tried to write off the affair as a "misunderstanding." She said the FBI representatives had merely told the White House staffers the information about China was "sensitive and should be handled carefully." Reno, of course, seems to consider the whole campaign finance scandal a misunderstanding, and her chronic underreaction cannot be taken as a good indicator of the seriousness of these matters.
History teaches that some separation is essential between the White House and the FBI. Watergate showed the danger of a president and his aides using their authority to derail an FBI investigation into campaign crimes. Before that J. Edgar Hoover, the longtime FBI director, all but blackmailed the White House into protecting his agency and his job. More recently, the Clinton White House misused the bureau to justify the dismissal of aides in the travel office and improperly gained access to hundreds of FBI background files.
All of that may have led Freeh to maintain his distance when the China information appeared. But separation on investigative matters that may involve the White House is different from limiting White House access to intelligence and national security information relating to the actions of an ambitious foreign power.
There are few more important or sensitive relationships in Washington than that between the White House and the FBI. Freeh and Clinton should have figured out how to maintain the bureau's independence without sacrificing its assistance on such a vital matter as possible Chinese interference in the American political system.