The presiding justice of superior court and as us attorney who led undercover public investigations that involve wiretaps i have done this a lot and i viewed my role in those approvals as making sure the wiretap application was consistent with the criminal statute that we were trying to prosecute, that it was relevant to that. You werent an investigator, just making sure the material is in the statute. Correct. I think that probably very often took as an established fact that the fbi agent or Police Officer was telling us the truth, not customary prosecutorial practice to do an inquisition or a review of every statement made by an fbi agent or state Police Officer in preparing a warrant. If you have the slightest hint that something is wrong you definitely pursue that but the focus is more does this warrant a criminal case that we are making and that is the nature of the review at that level and you would hope the factual stuff would be sorted out before it got to the Deputy Attorney general. That is a fair rendition of the way the system plays out. I know people are frustrated about accountability, rosenstein did what you are talking about. By virtue of her position a different specific question. I will state for the record i dont believe rosenstein or miss yates intentionally submitted false information to the court. With that, senator klobuchar is next. Thank you, mister chairman. There you go. I want to take a moment after listening to the last questions i want to thank you for your dedicated service to our country. I spent some time in your state of georgia and how respected you are as us attorney on both sides of the aisle and all that you did, such an example for career employees at the Justice Department, that was you, you spent your career working on justice. I want to thank you for that and people watching this hearing have a different impression of you who i greatly admire and it is important as we look at senator hollys questioning not to lose sight of the context in which investigations into Michael Flynn and carter page took place, considered russian efforts, and effort that continues to this day, we all know that many of us had some classified briefings that i cant go into but this is continuing. You received and reviewed intelligence about russian interference in our 2016 election and help to court made the response. The attack that has been verified by trump intelligence officials, and the director of intelligents. Christopher ray said similar things. A coordinated effort by foreign power of this magnitude to interfere in our election. I really appreciate that. The point is spot on. Lets be really clear about this. This was an attack on our democracy, absolutely unprecedented. The russians are coming at us from multiple ways. An organized effort to break into the dnc and hack the email. They were looking around in the state. And trying to put a thumb on the scale, to try to aid the election of donald trump, then we find out Mister Papadopoulos so the russians reached out to the Trump Campaign prior to this release of emails suggesting they assist on the anonymous release of emails. This is an attack on our democracy and an investigation it requires all the Intel Community and everybody else to bear down on this. You testified before this committee, a highranking security official like flynn caught on tape with a born official saying one thing and another thing to the Vice President of the United States, mike pence. Just so we are clear on National Security officials being compromised in this way can you talk about the National Security risk of blackmail. Within the Us Government to be compromised on a foreign adversary. The russians knew that general flynn not only engaged in these discussions, lied about it to the Vice President lied to it seems a lifetime ago. The kind of thing we are fearful about give leverage over general flynn. Special counsel found russian interference in our election was sweeping and systematic, with 34 indictments with associates and advisers on federal charges. Are you are ever in effect for colin to question the finding of a special counsels report, that russia interviewed in the president ial election, the russian government perceived to benefit to secure the outcome. Bipartisan Senate Intelligence committee came to the same conclusion. In effect call into question the assessment of fbi director ray, interference in our election, interference in the 2018 midterm was in his words a dress rehearsal for the 2020 elections . That was something we need to be vigilant about, this was something that happened in the past. It is happening right now. Appointed by donald trump, working to make sure a foreign country does not influence our election but one of the ways we do this hacking and while 50 state election systems is also about what goes on on social media so that is where a lot of education efforts go. Are you are era of any facts that question the findings in the conference report of 120 contacts between the Trump Campaign to russia. Know, i am not. Thank you very much. I want to understand what happened here. Are you saying Mister Papadopoulos met with russians on behalf of the campaign . Approached by that. That is not my question. Is there any evidence Mister Papadopoulos met with russians on behalf of the campaign . Mister papadopoulos was a Foreign Policy advisor met with an individual Mister Papadopoulos charged with colluding with the russians. The context and timing. The Mueller Report is out and we will not go after these people twice and suggest papadopoulos transcribed interviews, would be treason. Dont want to bring these people back up and suggest they did something they didnt do. I think you know, he talked to a confidential human source. A foreign intelligence official in august, absolutely correct. Russian agent. Connected with russian intelligence. Really . Man. That is a new revelation. Miss yates, pull closer to the mike if you can. We are straining to hear. In response to chair grahams questions and senator cornyns questions you characterize comey, when senator graham used the word rogue, that is a word you could use and senator cornyns discussion, there is a violation of the rules and norms and behavior in the investigation. What about mister or . Could we use similar words to describe his behavior in the course of this investigation . Let me clarify because it is important we be accurate. Mister comays positions to interview general smith without coordinating that interview could be characterized as rocha. It was not characterized directly so it is important to be accurate. Mister ohr, in terms of his behavior in 2016 he was apparently aware steel was desperate to prevent donald trump from being elected. With that information is shared with you . No matter, that information was shared, with those conversations. You have been in the department of justice for 27 years. If you take a look, i am not an attorney, not a prosecutor but i have read or a witss report, does any of that make you angry with the lack of what i consider to be professionalism . Folks involved in this investigation are highly trained and educated. Is it fair to say there werent any rookies to provide you with evidence or provide you with information to make a decision . I would agree errors and omissions were unacceptable. A lot of people are interrupting you. It has to do with delay and the fact we are virtual. I apologize for that. It seems to me the cynic in me makes it hard to believe when they knew what they knew about the credibility of the steel dossier that they wouldnt think that was important to bring up the chain of command when making critical decisions and anybody and that process, before he went around you leading up to information you were acting on it seems to me some of these people should have been disciplined or fired. Do you agree with that . Dont know what is going on. Information should have been provided on the National Security position. Go ahead. Trusttes i also sspector general holden decision that he did not find evidence that any of these agents were acting with bias or political motive. When i looked at and read the try to figure to out what went wrong, what he seemed to have were agents who agents who superimpose and use their own judging from what was material are what was exculpatory and decide then what they would provide to the lawyers and the National Security division. Thats not how it should work. They should be giving all of the information to lawyers so those forced lawyers can make that determination. Could you at least understand combine some of the actions, their errors and omissions in some of the personal communications between some of thoseat involved why skeptic would maybe find hard to believe to take a generous view of it just being an honest mistake . Well, senator, the Inspector General would read over a million documents, over 107 interviews. I think hes in a better position that i am to be able to answer that question and he found again there was no evidence on bias or political. Do you believe the doj has everyone been or to believe the doj can actually charge someone under the logan act . Can it . Frankly ive never engaged in the analysis because we were not adequate to make a final determination to whether general flynn will be charged under the logan act. What i was trying to make clear to senator graham, that was not the prism through whiche we were examining this. Did you ever seriously consider prosecuting flynn under the logan act . We did not make an official decision when i was there but i believed it was very unlikely that well prosecute them under the logan act. It wasas a counterintelligence threat, not a criminal prosecution of the logan act that was the focus. Thank you ms. Yates. Senator coons. Thank you, chairman graham and Ranking Member feinstein. Thank you, ms. Yates for your 20 some years of service to the United States department of justice and foror your testimony here today. Let me just begin at the outset sort of a framing here. Do youou have any doubt that russian attack the United States during the 2016 president ial election with the intention of changing the outcome or influence the outcome of that election . None. You have any reason to be concerned with the russians man fact, be trying to do that again for the 2020 election . I think all of us should be very concerned about that. Our Intelligence Committee has told us that. Let me go back to some issues that event touched on before but make sure weve had a chance to explore them. Carter page was never charged in the Russian Investigation and out of the whole 448 pages of the Mueller Report only eight pages pertain to carter page but theres been some focus on it today. Just tell us briefly if you would when did you learn of the errors in the carter page fisa application . Long after i left office. When that fisa application reached a your desk as Deputy Attorney general after several layers of departmental review what were you looking for . What was appropriate for you to be looking for . I would like to explain what the process is for the fisa. I was looking to determine whether or not given the facts that had been sworn to in the affidavit from the fbi why the that met the Legal Standard for fisa. Youre right, theres several layers of review, the seven different lives every year ater the department of justice and i would expect a similar number of layers of review at the fbi. There have been quite a good bit of back and forth before the original fisa was signed, about a month of back and forth between the National Security division lawyers and the lawyers and agents of the fbi. When you did ultimately learn there were errors, did that strike you as inappropriate, uncalled for, in violation of practice and tradition . Absolutely. Not only was it unacceptable, i had great concern about how this impacts the departments credibility with the fisa court and otherwise and thats why it is incumbent upon Department Lawyers and agents not just in a highprofile case but in any case to work hard to be absolutely scrupulously accurate in every single document that is filed. When you went to the white house january 26, you had something serious to Tell White House counsel dond mcgahn. You went to tell them if i understand correctly that the president s National Security adviser general flynn could be blackmailed because he was lying about the content of this conversation with the russians. Is any there any doubt in yourd that general flynn glide about his conversations with the russians . No, there is not. General flynn pled guilty to lying to the fbi. Some have called lying to the fbi, which is a felony by the way, a process crime. Could you explain why lying to the fbi in the context that we are talking about here strikes at the very heart of the criminal Justice System . Certainly. First, in connection with any investigation the only way the department of justice can go about its job is people when theyre interviewed by the fbi are truthfulin and candid and providend complete information. Thats the only way to figure out what th facts are and to be able to determine if charges should be filed. Given your knowledge, if i could, of the flynn case and your 27 year career at justice, were you surprised when doj moved to dismiss the case after general flynn had pled guilty to lying to the fbi . I was very surprised by that. Let me ask a closing question if you could. Why was it important to interview general flynn . What was the purpose that underlay questioning general flynn . General flynn have had conversation with the Russian Ambassador, back channel come secret conversations and had been covering it up, have been providing false information to the Vice President and others to put out publicly. We, the governor, needed to know what is going on here. Was general flynn acting on his own or was he working with others lacks the investigators needed to be able to figure out what the relationship was between the campaign and the russians. And had general flynn been honest, had he told them the truth in this interview, then the agents would have known then but they only learned much, much later after he finally told the truth, and that is that these were not offthecuff conversations that he was having with theheff Russian Ambassador. But rather these weree conversations that were carefully organized in planned with other members of the trump transition period and he also been very careful to lie about and cover up even to the point of sending his deputy out when the news first broke of this to call the Washington Post and to give them w false information and you to say he had never discussed sanctions at all. Because the covert continued after that [inaudible] thank you, ms. Yates. Thank you for your testament and for your service to our nation. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. Did general flynn commit a crime . When you say what general flynn did was ithe a crime . Talking to the Russian Ambassador. Again, i know i am on the record on this. We were doing i counterintelligence investigation. Thank you. Snort kennedy. Senator kennedy. Thank you fr appearing today. Violate the law by colluding with russia to influence the 2016 president ial election . Ms. Yates special counsel mueller found there was insufficient evidence to establish a conspiracy between donald trump and the russian campaign. Sen. Kennedy do you agree with that . Ms. Yates [indiscernible] i read the Mueller Report. Sen. Kennedy so there is doubt in your mind . Ms. Yates i did not say that, but i am not in a position to comment on that. Sen. Kennedy you just cant bring yourself to say he did not violate the law . Ms. Yates senator, you are putting words in my mouth. Specialand trust counsel mueller in his determination that there was insufficient evidence. I accept that. Sen. Kennedy you dont like donald trump, do you . Ms. Yates i dont respect the manner in which he has carried out the presidency. Sen. Kennedy you despise donald trump, dont you . Ms. Yates i dont despise anyone, senator. Sen. Kennedy isnt it true that there were a handful of people despised donald trump and wanted to do everything they could do to keep them from being president . Ms. Yates i cant speak as to whether other people despised donald trump. Sen. Kennedy were you part of that group . Ms. Yates no. Sen. Kennedy isnt it true that there were a handful of people at the department of justice during the Obama Administration that despised donald trump and did everything in their power to keep them from being president . Ms. Yates i am not aware of anyone in the department of justice doing anything to keep donald trump from becoming president. Sen. Kennedy were you part of that group . Ms. Yates no and i am not aware of anyone doing that. That was not only surprising but shocking. Sen. Kennedy would it be fair to say that was aeele dossier keystone of the russian collusion investigation, wasnt it . Ms. Yates no it was not. Carter paget of the fisa affidavit. If you read the Mueller Report you will see that the steele dossier does not play a role at all. Sen. Kennedy so you dont think it was important to the fisa applications . Said, yes as i just with respect to the phis applications and carter page. Your question was not that. Your question was respect to special counsel muellers investigation. Sen. Kennedy was the steele dossier critically important to the fisa applications . Ms. Yates yes it was. There was information with respect to carter page. Sen. Kennedy i think we can agree on this. The steele dossier was junk, wasnt it . When you say junk i dont know how to describe that. Sen. Kennedy what do you think about it . You think its true . Ms. Yates senator, there is information that was in the certainly called into question now. Sen. Kennedy no. I apologize. Go ahead. Isnt it a fact that the steele dossier is junk . Ms. Yates there is certainly evidence now that calls into question the reliability of portions of the steele dossier. Sen. Kennedy did you check to see if it was junk before you signed off on the phis applications fisa applications . Upon the fbi rely to be the factfinders. Sen. Kennedy so you did not independently check. Ms. Yates no, i did not independently factcheck and i am not sure how i would go about doing that. Sen. Kennedy let me make sure i understand. You signed off on two of the applications. You are asking for permission to closelled somebody who is to a candidacy for the president of the United States in one instance, and in the second instance actually was the president of the United States. You took no independent steps to see if the steele dossier was accurate . Is that your testimony . Ms. Yates i am not following your question when you talk about sen. Kennedy let me try to be clearer. The steele dossier was critical to at least several of the fisa applications, one of which you signed off on . Dossier that the steele , with hindsight, may not have been completely accurate. You are investigating a president of the United States and you did not check to see if it was accurate . Let me put it another way. Lets suppose my staff came to we haveow and said evidence that chairman graham is colluding with china to influence the president ial election. [laughter] i say what is the basis of that . Have a reliable source we can trust and we want you to call him out. Outi go out and call him with verifying the reliable source. Am i not like a rock only dumber . Isnt that what you did . Ms. Yates thats not at all what i did. Every stepy tell me you took to verify the veracity of the steele dossier. You didnt do anything, did you . Ms. Yates if i could get a chance to answer. Mr. Chairman. Accusations are being made, the witness should have an opportunity to respond. Sen. Graham i agree, you may respond. Ms. Yates thank you very much. Are implyingor you that this phis application not ons application was a candidate for president , it was for someone who was not a current member of the campaign. With respect to the process, the fisa process is such that the fbi is the factfinder. Process where a they are required to document every single fact in the affidavit is accurate and that they can trace it back to a specific place in the fbi files that established that. A problem that the page fisa process has revealed is that just because there is a fact in the fbi files that establishes a document that establishes that fact there were also inconsistent facts that were not included in the affidavit. Lawyers in the National Security division spent a lot of time working with the fbi in putting together the affidavits and the applications here. They necessarily must rely upon the fbi, who are the factfinders , to be certain of the accuracy. That is exactly how the phis application is set up. It is the fbi agent. Sen. Kennedy mr. Chairman, i am confused. Could you tell me every step you took to verify the accuracy of the steele dossier . Upon the fbirelied as the factfinders here and the lawyers in the National Security division to vet the accuracy of the phis a fisa application. Sen. Kennedy you hate trump . Trump. Es i do not hate i have to speak up for the career men and women of the department of justice. Sen. Kennedy i am not talking about the career men and women. I think you and your colleagues have tarnished the reputation of the fbi. Sen. Graham if im a we will go to the next witness. Sen. Kennedy am i out of time . An. Graham i want to make point, we will go to senator blumenthal. Did not that miss yates do an independent investigation of the affidavit. I think most people in that situation are not required to do that. I do want to ask one question. Once the dossier was known to be unreliable, did the people who did the interview have a duty to notify their superiors about their concerns and about the information they found . Ms. Yates are you talking about the interviews at the end of january . Sen. Graham yes. Ms. Yates yes they did. Sen. Graham can you imagine a circumstance where they did not do that . Ms. Yates i cant speculate as to what happened, this was in the final days in my time at the department of justice. I agree with you that the information from that interview should have been provided to lawyers in the National Security division so it could be incorporated in the fisa applications. Sen. Graham shouldnt have been provided to mr. Mccabe who was in charge of the investigation . Ms. Yates i dont know how it works at the fbi, but i would expect that would happen. Sen. Graham do you think it is fair for this committee to ask those questions . Ms. Yates its not really up to me. Sen. Graham [indiscernible] thank you. Senator blumenthal . We are going to find out who knew what, when, and what they did about it. Sen. Blumenthal let me just say, thank you for your appearance today and your patience with us including myself, because i am likely to repeat some of the questions that you may have already answered. Let me say at the outset, when you appeared before this in may of 2017i said , whether wehings agree or disagree i hope there are young prosecutors and young members of our Intelligence Committee who will watch this that is the say kind of professional i want to benot just an expert but a person of deep conviction and conscious. Conscience. I repeat that because i felt that then and now about you and i appreciate your service to our here toand your being go through some of these questions which have been repetitive and even, with all due respect, unnecessarily antagonistic. I want to come back to one of the fundamental issues here. Madethe recommendation was toa number of the fbi agents close the investigation on january 4, as far as you know where those agents aware of the conversations between Michael Flynn and ambassador kislyak . Ms. Yates i think you are referring to the specific counterintelligence investigation of Michael Flynn. My understanding is they did not know about those conversations. This is really a red herring here. I wasnt even aware that there was a specific investigation opened up on general flynn at that time. We didnt need that to interview general flynn. Circumstances called out for an interview in the context of the investigation. Sen. Kennedy you have just sen. Blumenthal you have just answered what was going to be my next question. Investigation into Michael Flynn was legitimate, correct . When he was questioned by the fbi himself . Ms. Yates yes. Sen. Blumenthal his lies to the fbi were material . Ms. Yates they certainly were. President nthal the the department of justice has moved to dismiss the case against Michael Flynn on the basis that his false statements to the fbi were not material, the investigation was not wastimate, but i think that powerfully and clearly contradicted by the evidence you have given us today. Chairman i. Know other colleagues have made reference to it but over the past few days we have received classified briefings about the , absolutely shocking, and startling threats from malign foreign interference in that istions potentially ongoing. These briefings emphasize our responsibility to focus on the present and the future in terms of that threat and i hope that this investigation or series of hearings will in no way distract or deflect the nations attention from that continuing foreign threat to our election security. Its absolutely chilling based on the facts we received in a classified setting. I believe the American People need and deserve to know them. I think these facts should be declassified immediately. We have a responsibility to address them in this committee and elsewhere. Time, attention, and energy that these hearings are taking will in no way distract us from that ongoing challenge thata is essential to our responsibility. It is not just peripheral. It is central and essential. Want to give you an opportunity to clarify a part of your testimony relating to George Papadopoulos. I think you are referring to referring toe emails that russia planned to release involving contacts with him. Were you suggesting George Papadopoulos was a russian or Foreign Agent . Ms. Yates no i was not. What i was suggesting was that if he had got that information from someone who was associated with the russians you, senatorthank blumenthal for clearing that up for mr. Papadopouloss sake. Senator cruz . , when did miss yates you first become aware that the Obama Administration was surveilling the donald Trump Campaign . The Obama Administration was not surveilling the donald Trump Campaign. So a pfizer application is not surveillance fisa application is not surveillance . Ms. Yates that was for carter page who was a former member of the campaign. Sen. Cruz so you say it has nothing to do with the donald Trump Campaign . Ms. Yates no, sen. Cruz is it the campaign or not . Ms. Yates senator, im trying to give you accurate information. Carter page was a former member of the Trump Campaign at the time sen. Cruz . Sen. Cruz sen. Cruz what was the reason for the fisa on carter page . Ms. Yates a number of reasons. We had gotten information that the russians wanted to be able to assist the Trump Campaign. Sen. Cruz you say it had nothing to do with the Trump Campaign. Ms. Yates i said he was not a member of the Trump Campaign at the time we initiated the fisa. Time at then your department of justice, are you aware of any other political opponents of president obama that were being surveilled . Again, if you are talking about the court authorized surveillance of carter page any cruz are you aware of surveillance of any other political opponents . Any other candidates for president including the chairman ms. Yates the answer to that is no and i think there is no information that the russians were interested in any other candidates. Sen. Cruz so your testimony is no other candidate in 2016 was being surveilled other than carter page and the Trump Campaign, is that right . Ms. Yates other than carter page. Sen. Cruz when did you first theme aware of investigation and the surveillance on carter page . Ms. Yates when the fisa application was presented in october i knew that the nsc lawyers were working on it prior to that with the fbi. It would have been in october. Sen. Graham wasnt papadopoulos also being taped . An. Cruz the chairman asks good question. Ms. Yates i was not aware at that time, but my understanding a recordedre was conversation between papadopoulos and a source. Not wiretap surveillance. But the government orchestrated this . Ms. Yates [indiscernible] that theam we know government orchestrated a recording of conversations of papadopoulos and got a warrant against carter page. That seems to me, surveillance. Sen. Cruz when they came to you asking to surveilled members of the Trump Campaign because of conduct they allegedly did while members of the Trump Campaign, what do diligence Due Diligence did you do . You told senator kennedy you trusted the fbi. Did you doligence before signing off on what we now have reason to believe was a profound politicization of Law Enforcement and intelligence. Ms. Yates there was a tremendous amount of back and forth between the lawyers in the National Security division and the fbi. Sen. Cruz i asked what you did. What Due Diligence did you do . To yates with respect whether the facts were accurate. Sen. Cruz did you inquire if it was Opposition Research funded by the dnc or Hillary Clinton . Ms. Yates i did have discussions about that. Sen. Cruz with who . Ms. Yates a lawyer. Sen. Cruz bruce orr . Ms. Yates no. Sen. Cruz s wife was working for fusion gps being paid by Hillary Clinton and the dac and he was involved in the investigation. Did anybody inquire about that . Ms. Yates i learned about that from the inspectors investigation. Sen. Cruz [sigh] you said earlier that nobody was trying to get President Trump. Have you read the horwitz Inspector General report . Ms. Yates i have. Inspector general horwitz did not find any evidence of bias or political leaning. Sen. Cruz with all due respect, Inspector General horwitz found 17 material misstatements including a lawyer from the fbi who fraudulently altered a document and submitted it, and took the question was carter page and asset for the cia, the cia said yes and he altered the document and changed it to a no. You are telling me that nobody wanted to get trump . How about the lawyer that fraudulently altered a document to get the surveillance . Ms. Yates i am telling you that Inspector General horwitz in 170 interviews and more than one million documents resubmitted make a decision that there was no evidence of a clear motive or bias. Sen. Cruz let me make a final observation. You mentioned in your testimony the principal career men and women of the department of justice and the fbi. Principlesremendous whose integrity has been called into question by the profound politicization of the leadership of the department and of the bureau. On turning the fbi and cia into a tool of Opposition Research and attacking your political opponents, to go all the way to the oval office as you did on january 5 with president obama and joe biden, going after their political opponents is wrong and it has done damage to the professional men and women of integrity at the department of justice and the bureau. Sen. Graham now senator hirono. Bias indid not find any opening up the investigation, but he was dumbfounded by the series of events that occurred, including manipulating evidence and the withholding of information from the court. He said, that is hard to explain. Not for me it is not. Senator hirono . Sen. Hirono thank you, mr. Chairman. The person who has politicized the department of justice is the current attorney general bill barr. There has been a lot of talk about the errors and omissions in the fisa application process and the ig investigation where they interviewed 100 people and looked at a million documents and as miss yates just testified there was no finding a political bias or improper motivation in the opening of that investigation. Christopher wray, the fbi director has taken more than 40 corrective steps to address the concerns. Director has warned that russia is engaged in Information Warfare and even as we speak they are continuing to interfere with our 2020 president ial election. Their interference in 2016 was shocking and massive. Do you think our country is adequately prepared to combat russian interference in this upcoming election . Ms. Yates i am no longer in government, so i dont know what is going on. Gosh i hope so. Is in all of government approach. No matter democrats or republicans, i think and hope that we all share the same objective that we want to protect the integrity of our elections. Sen. Hirono i completely agree. That leads me to my next question. President is not taking russian interference in our election seriously. To your knowledge, has President Trump ever punished or criticized russia for its attack on our democracy in 2016 . Ms. Yates i am not an authority on that from an official standpoint, but i cant recall an instance. I cant remember one. Sen. Hirono if he has i would like somebody to pointed out to me. I dont think he has even acknowledged current efforts by russia to undermine our upcoming elections. Warrantsy 26, 2017 new President Trumps National Security advisor Michael Flynn lied to investigators about withing with sanctions the Russian Ambassador about sanctions and he had a back channel going on. Did general flynn pose a National Security risk to the United States . Ms. Yates it was certainly a concern and the russians had leverage over general flynn. The russians use leverage whenever they can. Sen. Hirono somebody as close to the president as the National Security advisor, i would say that equals a National Security risk and i think that is the response. During an earlier back with the chairman there was a question of whether general flynns discussion with the Russian Ambassador about sanctions related to a policy difference it standard runofthemill stuff for a member of an Incoming Administration to undermine sanctions imposed by the Current Administration against a country that passively interfered in our elections, particularly when that country interfered in favor of the Incoming Administration . Resetting or did it raise a lot more concerns . Good faithpeople of can have different views on policy. [indiscernible] opposed to the russians trying to meddle in our elections very stand unified and make sure we send the adequate message sen. Hirono this administration is not sending that adequate message to russia that they will not interfere with our elections. Having spent nearly three decades at the justice thattment, do you believe obstruction of justice conduct as described in the Mueller Report was enough to indict donald trump and would he be indicted if he was not the president of the United States . Ms. Yates [indiscernible] having been a prosecutor for a number of years officials at the doj signed a letter saying that the evidence provided would have led to him being prosecuted. Sen. Hirono you agree with that assessment . Ms. Yates im not here to take sides, i just want to look at the specific allegations. But there are some very troubling allegations. In. Hirono resulting multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice were he not a sitting president. That certainly the Mueller Report made it clear that that was a stumbling block for his being able to make a conclusion about obstruction. Sen. Hirono thank you very much. Thank you. I think i was a great exchange. You cant tell us whether or not you agree with the conclusion there was no conspiracy between the Trump Campaign and the russians but you sure as hell feelia comfortable opining about the 2000 2000 people who signen about obstruction of justice. So let me ask you again, are you okay with the part of the report where mueller said there was no evidence of conspiracy between the Trump Campaign and the russians sufficient to proceed forward . [inaudible] the Mueller Report did not find that there was no evidence of a conspiracy. What we found was the evidence do you think there was evidence of a conspiracy . May i please finish my answer . Go had. I absolutely accept that conclusion. I think i said a that before, of the special counsel mueller. Hes in a in a much better posn that i am. You think mueller let trump off on obstruction of justice . I dont have of you as to whether he let him off. I have tremendous respect for special counsel mueller and i believe he was doing his job responsibly and in the way it should be done. Thank you veryy much here senator blackburn. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ms. Yates, thank you for coming to us willingly. I actually left the hearing room and came back to my office to ask the questions because i think we can do a little better this way and can move through more quickly and you wont have to repeat yourself because we do want to get some things on the record, so thank you for this. I want to be sure that ive understood some of your answers and statements. You had a standard process for reviewing fisa applications, is that correct . Yes. You stated that your review of the carter page fisa application was no different from any other,ff is that corre . No, i did not state that. Was your review of that we needed different from any other fisa application pgh yes i reviewed this one more carefully. What led you to review it morebu carefully . A a significant and sensitive matter. Okay. Whobu briefed you on that application . Who actually gave you all the Background Information and briefed you on that application . There were a number of lawyers both from nationals could division and aes lawyer on my staff from the attorney generals office. There were a variety of attorneys from the National Security division. Did you not have one person in your office that was responsible to clear information and then bring it to you . Yes. As i was trying to explain there are lawyers and the National Security division who worked on the fisa with theio fbi. They go to their levels of approval, it then comes to my office. It was a lawyer in my Office Figures to be in the National Security division who is an expert on these matters. She spent a lot of time on this. She is the one who provide the most detailed briefings to me in addition to my reading the fisa. Did you ever suspect that something might be wrong with this information is . At the time i signed it, no. No,d we so you never had any inclination that something may not beg right . Let me ask you this. The agents who falsified and made the inaccuracies that you have said now you would not have signed it knowing inaccuracies were in it, these agents who knowingly did something wrong and gave false information, should they be held to account . Should they face consequences . Should they face jail time . Certainly if is our agents o knowingly and intentionally provide false information in affidavits of the should be consequences for them. I am not going to speak to what further investigation to find out more of the detail of who falsified all of these. De let me i think theres some internal fbi process that address that. With respect to the inaccuracies in the fisa there was information that was inconsistent with the information that was in the affidavit. It was not untrue. It was information that was also relevant and should absolutely have been included in that affidavit. Did you know about the oars relationship to steal . Know i did not. You no knowledge of that . None. But he was in your office, correct . Thats right. Struct page, the relationship and the vitriol for President Trump, were you aware of that . No. You never any conversation on it. Is no, i dont think anyone did into the Inspector General report. And then comeys disdain for President Trump, you never do anything about that . I dont, i am not saying no he didnt have disdain for President Trump. Im not speaking to that. Okay. And then you never heard any talk about people within the doj or the fbi tried to cook up a plot to stop trump to block his when he and then to block his residency . Not onlyya did i never hear that, that would have been so out of bound. We all would have acted to stop it and it is completely antithetical to the department of justice runs. We know that transpired. [talking over each other] i to tell you i think this is one of the things that gets passed, the people in tennessee asked me about. How could you possibly have been in charge over there, never heard this conversation, never heard thisd disdain, not been aware that there were people who were trying to do this, why would you not curious about director comey and the fbi being opposed to your intention to notify the white house . You were not curious about that it seems. Why did you say flynn did this and its awful, but yet we know what president obama said to david nevitt at about give me more flexibility after the election, ill have more flexibility. No problem with that but then you had problems with these items. These are the inconsistencies that cause people to say who was in charge, how with a watchful, why with the turning a blind eye if indeed they did turn a blind eye . Why with a accepting and who was paying attention to this . Because people in tennessee talk to me and they say how could it be that [inaudible] in that being surveilled and everybody just say, well, it happened, and move on. I know i am, mr. Chairman. I will send my time back to you. Ms. Yates, thank you for being with us today. I yield back. And i think our last senator is senator booker, but just to put a fine point on that come safely see if we can all agree with the following. Ms. Yates, when it comes to the fisa warrant application regarding carter page, it seems to be widespread system failure and were trying to correct about. Do you agree with that . Yes, i do agree with that. Thats what were trying to do is make sure it never happens again. Thank you. Senator booker. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ms. Yates, acting attorney general theres many occasions what felt like you stood up for justice and actually brought a lot of important integrity to the system and to our institutions. I remember being very grateful that you were in the Justice Department not to defend President Trumps unlawful travel ban, for example, against seven majority muslim countries. I have appreciated the way you conducted yourself in that way and i want to drill down into some of your understandings as we see the Justice Department continue under the trump administration. In many ways i believe it has been politicized and manipulated instead of focusing on those interests of justice and democracy. For example, we know that russia wants to interfere in our election this year. Just as it did in 2016. We know they are wanting to a the Trump Campaign but attorney general barr has repeatedlyy struggled, including and a house hearing just last week, to confirm that it would be wrong and illegal for the president to solicit or accept for assistance in elections. I would like to post this question to you. Is it legal appropriate for president ial campaign and trash candidate or campaign to slits or so take help from a Foreign Government in election . No. And beyond t that i would hope they would report that. Im grateful. To that point, just to make it more sustained, if they campaign hears from a Foreign Government and the offering of electoral assistance, they should reported to the fbi immediately, correct . Absolutely, yes. Theres a lot of areas i believe where attorney general barr has obfuscated or in some ways modeled what if it gives not only legal clarity but moral clarity. We have seen leaders intervened in prosecutions arising from the Russian Investigation of the two closest associates of President Trump i think Michael Flynn and roger stone are examples of that. Weve seen attorney general barr engineering the removal of u. S. Attorneys who apparently were not sufficiently friendly to the president s personal interests. We have seen attorney general barr distort the findings of the special counsel muellers report on the trumpca campaign to linko russian interference and President Trumps later efforts to obstruct that investigation. Do you think actions like these are consistent with the justicee department to duty as you said, adequate you come to always seek justice and stand foran what is right . I think thats the highest responsibility of any lawyer at the department of justice, is to ensure that youre going about doing your job in a way that would inspire the public trust. The public has to ensure that the rules apply the same to everyone. There are no people treated specially of the law is not use to go after people are enemies or not france. But thats the most sacrosanct obligation of the department of justice. Raised under three decades of experience under the apartment ofof justice, do you think the departments recent attempts to dismiss the flynn case have damaged the credibility of the unprecedented in terms of what you would see under president s of both parties . What you think should be done about this Going Forward . I think any time you have Something Like this where you are certainly as someone whos close to the present is being treated differently, and then when you look at the underlying facts and you see that, in fact, positions are being taken by the Justice Department that have never been takenby in any other similar cas before. And the fact that no career person would find that fleeting. That all does have to give you pause. Last week attorney general barr a fused refuse agree he would release a report by the u. S. Attorney john durham until after the election in november. I would like to enter into the record a New York Times article from today entitled will bill barr try to help trump when the election. The article details attorney general barrs unpaired efforts to override key Justice Department policies and norms by deploying this and other investigations for political purposes. If that article can be it or in the record, mr. Chairman . Without objection. Ms. Yates, Inspector General roth report stated in the runup to the 2016 election you, quote, did not want to do anything that could potentially impact candidate trump. Thats on page 71 and 72. Why is it important for the Justice Department to avoid taking actions just before an election that could again quote, potentially impact it . Its an important principle that [inaudible] in any investigation involving an elected official, not prosecute we didnt take any action whether it was a case involving governor or sensitive. We wouldnt take any action that could potentially have an impact on the election. Thats not just to be fair to the individual, but also to ensure that the public has confidence that the power is not being used to cut impact an election. In this case when you mention it trump i have very specific recollection of activity with respect to paul manafort. My talking to the fbi to make sure they were not doing anything publicly with respect to mr. Manafort, even though e was no longer even with the campaign. But they were not do anything publicly with respect to mr. Manafort because that could be unfair to then candidate donald trump. I want to thank you. My time expired. Look, i think retrospective hearings are analyzing to look at the truth then but an oncoming election with the International Interference we all know is going on and with conduct of an attorney general that is possibly further eroding the independence of that agency that they run, in addition to undermining the sacrosanct ideals of an independent election. These are the thinks we should be looking at right now to prevent what could happen in november that, to me, would be a serious blow to our overall democracy. Im hoping thesese are issues tt we can explore as the committee. Mr. Chairman, thank you fraulein me to go over time and ms. Yates, its very good to see again. I look forward to the next opportunity we have to connect. Thank you. I believe that unless senator. Ms. Yates, thank you for appearing. Just want to clear up some things that were brought up. Are you familiar with the durable investigation . I have heard of it. Thats all you know. You know mr. Durham . I dont believe we have ever met do you have any concerns about his doing something politically wrong . As far as you know is he an honest man . I dont know mr. Durham. Okay. So you dont have an opinion one way or the other . I dont. Is it okay for mr. Durham to find out how the system failed when it comes to the fisa warrantt application . I think the Inspector General did that investigation. Is it okay to hold somebody criminally responsible who lies to the court . If somewhat commit a crime yes, of course, its okay to hold them responsible. So you knew that the dossier was no longer reliable but you continue to give it to the court. Would that be a crime . I assume youre thank you because you understand i did not know. I have no doubt in my mind. I have never suggested that you presented false information to thefa court. Heres what im suggesting. Is it possible the one of the most high profile cases in history of the fbi, involving the Trump Campaign, literally fell apart when he came to the carter page or application the people above were not told . Its a simple question. The intel analyst who did the 40 page memo in january and another one in march and april provided evidence to the system that the dossier was a bunch of garbage. Is it okay to find out who was told about that . I do, again, Inspector General did that investigation speeded no, he didti not. [inaudible] i ask you specifically, did you ask intel analysts, did you talk to anybody about your findings . You saidlk no. That he didnt talk to call me or mccabe about this. I believe you when you said that you did know the dossier was reliable, that if you dont it was unreliable you would not have done it. The question foryo me is, how is it possible that people investigating this case were unaware that it fell apart . Is it okay for durham to look at that, you think . Its not in a position to be saying what mr. Durhammr shouldo or not. As a career professional do you want people held accountable who intentionally lied to the court . Certainly come i would say if someone intentionally lies to the court they should be held accountable. Lets talk about ethical duties. Do you haveth a duty to give the court and the defense exculpatory information . If youre talking about yes. Yes. Are you talking about the fisa court or either way. In the flynn case one of the reasons they want to drop it is because they found evidence exculpatory that was not provided. We will have them in and talk aboutno flynn. What i want to let the American Peopleto know is i dont buy foa minute that there are only two fbi under the house he was garbage and if you tell anybody. I want to make sure this never happens again. I believe you and rosen site did not know. I find it impossible to believe that strzok, mccabe and comey ev disavowed the dossier. Thats what im trying to find. Thats what im trying to put the puzzle together. So what will the committee do next . We arewh going to talk to the intel analyst and thehe case agt and to make others but even the russian subs was in january come again in march and again in april, and we will ask them by the way, did you tell anybody in the fbi that the reliability of the dossier has gone down to zero . And if you did tell somebody, who was it . Then we will decide as a nation what accountability they should have, whether they should be fired, go to jail or whatever. That is the purpose of this investigation t Going Forward, s make sure that the biggest system failure, maybe ever at the fbi, is not repeated. To make sure that the fbis investigativeha president ial candidate or a sitting president that they are held accountable when it goes off track. Get a warrant against carter page, and the but he was a bunch of garbage, particularly sub source. I dont believe rosenstein knew. But the idea we are going to blame these two people at the bottom of the pyramid is it its not going to go forward without some serious looking. So what will the committee be doing next . Were going to find out who knew what and when and if they knew the dossier wasnt reliable and they continued to use it, theyre going to be in serious trouble with the law. And i appreciate your service to our country and we will keep the record open for appropriate period of time and the hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] the perjury case against former trump advisory, whether a Federal District court judge should dismiss, hear is tuesday live on cspan and at cspan. Org or listen live with the free cspan radio app. Binge watch book tv this summer. Saturday evenings at 8 p. M. Eastern, settle in and watch several hours of your favorite authors. Were featurings books by former first ladies, rosalyn carter, laura bush, michelle obama. Watch tony morrison. Binge watch book tv all summer on cspan2. The House Oversight and Reform Committee held a hearing on the president s effort not to count undocumented immigrants in the 2020 census. First, well hear from former census panel, and next Steven Dillingham says he was not told about the plan to exclude immigrants, when apportioning congressional seats. Federal law requires the secretary of commerce to report, quote, the total population, end quote, of each state to the president. And it requires the president to transmit this information to congress. In the 230 year history of the census, no president has ever tried to manipulate the census count in this way. In fact, just two years ago, the Census Bureau reaffirmed its commitment to do the exact opposite of what the president is now trying to do. The bureau committed to counting every person regardless of citizenship or