Transcripts For CSPAN2 Fmr. Acting Attorney General Sally Yates Testifies On Russia... 20240712

Good morning, everybody. The hearing will come to order. Today were going to have a video hearing with ms. Sally yates, who was the acting attorney general for a period of time in january of 2017 and was the number two at the department of justice in early january 2017. Ms. Yates appeared before the committee on may 18th, 2017. That was before the Mueller Investigation really got started. It was before the horowitz report about the Mueller Investigation was issued, and i believe much has been learned since may of 2018 2017. And we would like to discuss certain topics with ms. Yates. My view of ms. Yates is that she exercised good caution and legal judgment in january of 2017, and if people had followed her advice, things might be different today, so i just want to let you know, ms. Yates, from my point of view, you analyzed the situation fairly correctly, and we will get into that later on. Whats the purpose of this hearing . Its to ask questions of ms. Yates knowing then what she knows now carter page warrant application, in may of 2017, we didnt know that the russian sub source presented evidence to the fbi in the form of a dossier that was full of hearsay and bar talk that was eventually repudiated by the russian sub source. We didnt know in may of 2017 as clearly as we do now, that without the dossier, there had been no warrant issued against carter page. Ms. Yates signed the original warrant application in october and a renewal in january, and after the horowitz report, we now find there were 17 major violations of procedures and protocols regarding the warrant, and well give ms. Yates a chance to talk about what she knew and when she knew it. Most importantly, to me, is this january the 5th meeting between ms. Yates and the president in the oval office, 2017. We didnt talk about that in may of 2017. That wasnt part of our discussion. Since may of 2017, weve come to learn now that there was a meeting in the oval office with director comey, ms. Yates, the president , the Vice President , clapper, and brennan. We now know at the end of that meeting, which was called to brief the president about russian interference in the 2016 election, and i want everyone to know ms. Yates included that the russians did interfere in our election. It was the russians who hacked into the dnc and stole the Clinton Emails and the russians were up to no good. That is not a bone of contention with me. What happened during cross fire hurricane is very much a concern of mine. So on january the 4th, 2017, we now know that the fbi agents who were investigating general flynn as part of a counterintelligence investigation had recommended that general flynn be dropped from the cross fire hurricane investigation. The cross fire Hurricane Team determined that cross Fire Investigation a review of logical databases didnt yield any information on which to predicate further investigative efforts. This is on january the 4th, 2017, where the fbi was making a recommendation through a memo to drop general flynn from the counterintelligence Investigation Called cross fire hurricane. We now know that peter strzok told mr. Barnett wait a minute, the seventh floor at the fbi wants to keep this thing going. What happened next . A january 5th meeting in the oval office. Weve never had a chance to talk to ms. Yates about that meeting. What do we know . We know that after the general briefing, there was a pull aside that president obama asked comey and yates to stay behind. And president obama mentioned the fact that he was aware of an intercept between general flynn and the Russian Ambassador. Ms. Yates was not aware of that intercept, and she said in her 302, she was so surprised by the information she was learning that she was having a hard time processing it and listening to the conversation at the same time. The president of the United States knew about the surveillance of general flynn, talking to the Russian Ambassador, but the number two at the Justice Department did not know. The question is who told the president . And did they have the authority to tell the president . Did they go around ms. Yates and the department of justice . If so, why . The bottom line about the january 5th meeting is to find out how the number two at the department of justice was unaware of this event and to the public, why does this matter to you . General flynn was the Incoming National security advisor. The election was over. Trump had won. He had picked his team. General flynn was going to be the National Security advisor replacing susan rice. What have we learned . That there were intercepts between general flynn and the Russian Ambassador in december. Flynn was talking to the ambassador about russian sanctions imposed by the Obama Administration. Those conversations have been released to the public, and he was talking to the russians about give us a chance to come in. Dont escalate now. Lets see if we can work through this. Heres whats so stunning to me. There were people at the fbi considering that a violation of the logan act. What is the logan act . It is a law that was written in 1799 that prohibits american citizens without permission from the government talking to foreign individuals about differences in policy. I want everybody in america to understand the way the system works. The Transition Team of the Incoming Administration should be talking to foreign leaders and representatives about how the transition will work and about policy differences. I want to ask every senator to think, have you called a foreign leader in your time in the senate to express differences or concern about a particular Administration Policy . Have you violated the logan act . I consistently talked to foreign leaders about my differences with republican and democratic administrations. Have i violated the logan act . Ive called up the israelis and urged them to push back against the Iran Nuclear Agreement because people in america will listen to you. I thought it was a bad deal. Did i violate the logan act . I called the kurds and our allies in syria, the sdf, and i asked them to rally their allies in washington to push back against President Trumps decision to withdraw all of our forces from syria. Did i violate the logan act . No. No one in history of the department of justice has ever been prosecuted for violating the logan act. Why are we having these hearings . To make sure that laws like this cannot be used as political tools to get people you dont like. And we need to clear up once and for all how the logan act works in america. I dare say that every Incoming Administration routinely has discussions with foreign leaders about policy differences and how things will be different. Ms. Yates, when she understood what was going on was very concerned that a prosecution under the logan act was being contemplated. The question is, who brought up the logan act in the january 5th meeting . Whose great idea was this . Ms. Yatess 302 interview where she talked about the january 5th feeting with the fbi january 5th meeting with the fbi doesnt mention the Vice President being in the meeting. What do we now know . We know she was shocked and was having a hard time following the conversation because she was stunned that the president knew about the intercept with flynn and the Russian Ambassador, and she did not. What have we learned . Weve got an email from susan rice to herself on inauguration day, and it starts with on january the 5th, the meeting in question, following a briefing by ic leadership, on russian hacking during the 2016 president ial election, president obama had a brief following conversation with fbi director jim comey, Deputy Attorney general sally yates in the oval office. Vice President Biden and i were also present. This is evidence coming from susan rice that in the january 5th meeting the set aside, the Vice President was there. What else have we found since we last talked to ms. Yates . We found agents notes from mr. Strzok that comey, the director of the fbi, reported to agent strzok who was intricately involved in cross fire hurricane and gave him a readout on the meeting. According to agent strzoks handwritten notes, it says vp logan act, president , these are unusual times, vp, ive been unintelligible on the Intel Committee for ten years and ive never. President , make sure you look at things and have the right people on it. President , is there anything i shouldnt be telling Transition Team . This is the director, kizlyak call appears legit. Strzok is telling us that comey told him that not only the Vice President was in the january 5th set aside meeting, it was the Vice President who brought up the logan act. We need to find out what happened and who was there, and this is the first step in the journey. And again, why does it matter . It matters a lot to me. We have oversight of the department of justice here. How could it be that the number two in the department of justice not know about an investigation of the Incoming National security advisor and the president did . Who at the fbi, the department of justice went around ms. Yates to tell the president about the investigation . Whose idea was it to suggest that the interaction between flynn and kizlyak was a violation of the logan act . If thats going to be the standard of this country, you are destroying the ability to do a transition, and to every senator in this room, we have all violated the logan act under that theory. Every one of us have reached out to some Foreign Government to show differences with the Current Administration. The logan act has never been used for a reason. I think it was used here as a sham reason, to find out more about general flynn who the Obama Administration did not like. The bottom line is, when this is over, we need to fix it. We need to make sure going forward, in the next transition, no matter who wins, that you can talk with foreign leaders without being afraid of going to jail. General flynn wasnt talking to the russians about hey, pay my house off, give me money. He was talking to the russians about dont escalate the sanctions fight. Give us a chance to come in and well start over. My god if thats a violation of the law, god help us all. To her credit, sally yates did not want to go down that road. General flynn was interviewed on january the 24th, by the fbi, without her permission, against her counsel. She recommended that the department of justice notify the Current Administration about the concerns they have with general flynn, that the right thing to do would be to call mcgahn and the Trump Administration and tell them about the concerns that they had about general flynn. The fbi went down a different path. The fbi called flynn and suggests to him that you dont need a lawyer, that we just want to talk to you, want to get it over quickly. Do you mind meeting with us . And when flynn said i would like my lawyer, they said no, if you do that, we have to go way up to the chain, that will slow things down. What did flynn tell mccabe . Well, you have got the transcript. You know what i said. If there was a violation of the logan act, you had the transcript, why did you need to talk to him . There were going to manufacture a crime, not try to figure out what he did. Thats my view. We will see if over time that matters. I will end on this, if followed ms. Yates advice and gone to the white house to tell them about their concerns, the way he should have done it, because she said what happened with the fbi was problematic and inconsistent with what should have happened. Been a lot of heart ache saved in this country. Were going to keep pressing on to find out what happened in that january 5th meeting, and were going to try to fix this so it never ever happens again. Folks, i will end with this, the Obama Administration, department of justice, had one view of the logan act. The fbi had another view of the logan act. But the thought that the logan act could be used against Incoming National security advisor, who was talking to the russians about different policy, that that could be used as a basis for an interview, that that could be a crime should shock us all because if it can happen to general flynn, it can happen to everybody on this committee because we do this all the time. Senator feinstein . Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. As i understand this, today is the second hearing in the chairmans examination of cross fire hurricane. Thats the fbis investigation into Russian Election interference and ties to the Trump Campaign. Inspector general horowitz confirmed after a 19month investigation the fbi had a legitimate basis to investigate whether the Trump Campaign was involved in russias efforts to interfere in the 2016 election. Specifically, in late july, 2016, australian officials informed the fbi that the Trump Campaign advisor George Papadopoulos had advanced knowledge that russia was willing to, quote, assist the Trump Campaign, end quote, by a anonymously releasing dirt on clinton in the form of thousands of emails. The fbi learned this one week after wikileaks had released 20,000 emails that russia had hacked from the computers of the Democratic National committee. Given the circumstances, it was essential that the fbi investigate. Todays witness, former Deputy Attorney general sally yates has said russias attack on our election required both an investigation and a response, and as Inspector General horowitz confirmed, the opening of the investigation had nothing to do with reporting from Christopher Steele, the socalled steele dossier. That counterintelligence investigation, cross fire hurricane, eventually became the Mueller Investigation. And former Deputy Attorney general Rod Rosenstein recently confirmed to this committee that the steele dossier had nothing to do with the Mueller Investigation either. Muellers investigation detailed sweeping and systematic russian interference in the 2016 election. The special counsel determined that the russian government, quote, perceived it would benefit from a Trump Presidency and worked to secure that outcome, end quote. The Mueller Investigation uncovered more than 120 contacts between the Trump Campaign and individuals linked to russia, revealing that the Trump Campaign knew about, welcomed, and expected it would benefit electorally from russias interference. The investigation also established that individuals associated with the Trump Campaign repeatedly lied to congress, the special counsel and the American People to conceal their contacts with russia. We also disagree with President Trump and his allies claims about Michael Flynn, namely, that obama officials including Vice President biden, unfairly targeted flynn in order to undermine trumps presidency. The facts are well known and not in dispute, but let me review them. In late december, 2016, president obama imposed sanctions to punish russia for its unprecedented attack on our democracy. That same day, flynn spoke several times with Russian Ambassador sergey kizlyak. Transcripts of the calls revealed that flynn urged russia not to escalate matters but to respond to u. S. Sanctions in a quote reciprocal end quote or quote even keeled end quote manner. Flynn did not express disapproval for russias interference in the election. Instead, he sent a clear message that the Incoming Administration was not interested in Holding Russia accountable, a message that undermined u. S. Policy. When flynn was interviewed about his conversations with kizlyak, as part of cross fire hurricane, he did not tell the truth. He was charged by special counsel mueller and pleaded guilty twice to lying to the fbi. He stated in court under oath that his actions were wrong and that he accepted full responsibility for them. Despite flynns guilty pleas, this may, attorney general barr intervened to dismiss the case, over the objection of career prosecutors. Flynn was not treated unfairly. In fact, it appears that he was granted favorable treatment, by having the Justice Department seek to dismiss his case even after he admitted guilt and took responsibility for his actions. I believe this sends a wrong message. It signals that it is acceptable to lie to the fbi, and it raises legitimate questions about whether an ally of the president receives special treatment. Given her involvement in the early stages of mr. Flynns case, i hope that our witness today, former Deputy Attorney general sally yates can shed additional light on why the Flynn Investigation and charges were warranted. Let me just say this, the real question isnt whether the logan act was violated. The question is whether flynn was acting on his own, without the president elects knowledge or permission. If so, that was a counterintelligence problem. If, however, the incoming president did know that flynn was talking to kizlyak, asking russia not to overreact to u. S. Sanctions and suggesting that the Incoming Administration would not hold russia accountable, then why was the incoming president not interested in Holding Russia accountable for interfering in the 2016 election . I hope that we will use the investigations findings to harden our defenses, including addressing russias attempts to interfere in the 2020 election and the president s unwillingness to denounce foreign interference. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, senator feinstein. Ms. Yates is appearing here voluntarily, and i appreciate that. She had some reasons she couldnt be here in person, which i think have been accommodated and were legitimate. Weve agreed to the following that she will answer questions within the following scope, knowledge of events described in the doj report and fisa applications and other aspects of fbi cross fire hurricane investigation, knowledge of the russian interference of the 2016 president ial election, ms. Yates knowledge of the investigation of general flynn, and we will try to honor that. I appreciate her doing this voluntarily. With that understand, i would like now to swear ms. Yates in. you may make your opening statement. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. Some of you know, i was a career prosecutor. I was honored to represent the people of the u. S. Twentyseven years through five democratics and broken. Represent the people. Ive testified on general topi topics. Hes particularly interested in one particular subject, january 6, 2017. If you could speak more loudly. Just speak up a little bit. Sure. Youve indicated that you are interested in the meeting that occurred in the oval office in 2017. Can yall hear me okay now . Much better. Ill just go directly to that. This meeting took place two months after the 2016 election. This was a time when we were just beginning after terrys, systematic attack on our democracy. Weve all heard russian interference in the election so much that its kind of lost its shock value. This attack on our homeland was shocking. Our Intelligence Community determined russia, acting on the orders of president Vladimir Putin. A massive effort to undermine faith in our democratic process to hurt now president donald trump. The russian government had Cyber Attacks with information in a coordinated campaign to organize social media against american citizens. This unprecedented act of oppression could not go unanswered. December 28, the Obama Administration took the first step by addressing 30 suspected russian intelligence offices and imposed other sections on commercial. It was an attack on our democracy deterred them. I expect they would immediately retaliate but then the next day they reversed course and they said they didnt intend to take any action. The administration was perplexed by this abrupt change in president obama had the Intel Community to figure out what happened. The fbi discovered the answer. Michael flynn, the Incoming National security advisor was having back channel discussion with Russian Ambassador. The conversations between general flynn and the ambassad ambassador, general flynn essentially neutered the message of deterrence. General flynn was trying to persuade the russians and not to escalate the situation so they could reset the relations. The day after general flynn called, he himself announced the russians wouldnt take any action whatsoever to respond to americans sections. President trump pleaded a petition. In a followup call between he and flynn, he advised flynn moscow made the decision and course reversal as a direct result of lynns request. So that was happening in the days that led up to this january 5 meeting. On that day, the white house had the intel the president and Vice President and National Security advisor for russian interference. Portions of the assessment were to be released publicly the next day. I was asked to stand in in her place. Following in the oval office, they asked us to stay back with the Vice President. Our calls on the president began after by saying something to the effect that had calls between them and flynn and he didnt want to influence anything. What he did want to know was whether the white house would continue to share National Security information with general flynn during the transition. At this time, i didnt know why the president was asking this question because this was the first i had heard of the calls between them. I was really surprised both that general flynn engaged in these discussions and director new about them but i didnt. After the oval office, they said they are outside the oval office and i was irritated that they didnt take the calls. I asked him why this was the first i was hearing of this and he told me they briefed the National Security division about the calls the previous day and he expected this. It turned out they had in fact made an appointment for that afternoon. While i dont recall all the details of the conversation in the oval office, it was clear on the important points. The purpose of this meeting was for the president to find out whether based on the calls between ambassador and general flynn transitioned to be careful about what was shared with general flynn. During the meeting, the president , Vice President and National Security advisor did not attempt to direct or influence any kind of investigation. That would have set off alarms for me and stuck out both of the time and in my memory. No such thing happened. The president was focused entirely for the National Security implications by sharing sensitive intelligence information with general flynn during what was already underway. I will close with this. This election year, i hope we wont lose sight of the very real threats on the adversary to undermine our democratic process and that we will continue to proactively protect the integrity of our elections. I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you. Thank you very much. You mentioned it was shocking for the russians did, i agree we need to stop it. Did you read the report . Were you shocked . I certainly was shocked. The conduct it was reflected so lets talk about that. Talking about using a document that came from a russian sub force to get a warrant against american citizens repeatedly that was full of garbage. Does that bother you . Im not sure they rebuked the department of justice and fbi regarding the carter page one application. Senator, i believe the fbi has a duty do you believe they fulfilled that duty . No, i do not believe they did. You signed the application in october and january, correct . Thats right. Knowing then what you know now, would you sign it . I would never sign any documents. The document was a fraud, is that a fair statement, if you knew then what you know now you wouldnt sign it . I wouldnt sign anything that contains errors. Did that contain errors . I believe you didnt know that what you signed was wrong. The question is, if you had known, he wouldnt have . No, if i knew it contained that information, i would not have. You agree with me, it did contain Incorrect Information . I know that now. Thats all i am trying to s say. Im not saying you lied to the court, i am saying you signed something that was a lie and you didnt know it. Lets talk about the january 5 meeting. Was the Vice President there . Yes, he was. Did he mention the logan act . I dont remember the Vice President saying much. So you dont remember him mentioning the logan act . No. Did anybody mention it . I have a vague memory of one mention of it. In what context . Im not sure if it was from the Oval Office Meeting or what you think let her answer the question. Just because shes a woman, doesnt mean she has to be cut off. I appreciate that your constructive so heres my question, was the logan act mentioned in the meeting . Im not sure. That is fair. You dont know if it was mentioned in the meeting or not. I do know that he did at some time but im not sure i got you. Heres the question, with his behavior, was it part of the logan act in your opinion . It could have been a technical violation that was not the focus. The fbi or us from focusing on counterintelligence. Do you realize january 4, the fbi recommended drop general flynn from crossfire hurricane . I know that now, i didnt know that at the time. But january the fourth, the fbi said there is no reason to keep looking at general flynn. On january 5, you have a meeting with the fbi director or you believe he mentions the logan act in regard to the general flynn, is that correct . What i understand is that, and i didnt know at the time because i wasnt privy to the fbis intro documentation for the counterintelligence did you know what was going on . No. You did not know the fbi had a counterintelligence investigation of general flynn . No, i did not. Heres my question, the january 24 interview about general flynn, two fbi agents, did you authorize that interview . No, i did not. I knew there was a legitimate say that again i didnt authorize interview because i wasnt told about it in advance. Not the same thing as saying i dont believe on. You believe there was a legitimate basis for the interview . Yes. What was that . Back at the time, we were in a situation where we had evidence of the russians were attempting to influence the election. The election was over. Give me just a second, i can laid out for you. No, heres what we are going to do. Im going to ask questions and youre going to give me answers. What was the basis of the general flynn interview . Wasnt part of hospira hurricane . My understanding, yes, it was. Was it part it was about the halls. Please, we are talking about the interview from january 4. Was it determined there was a violation . Was at the basis . No. I was not about the logan act,. Would he have the transcript of the conversation . Of that information. Did you have the transcript of the conversation between the National Security advisor and russia the fbi agent may have had the actual was a counterintelligence investigation of a phone call . It was a counterintelligence investigation, the Trump Campaigns potential relationship with the russians. That makes no sense. January 4, they recommend drop flynn. They mentioned the local act and you advised against prosecuted the logan act, true . He never made an official decision but i think it was unlikely. That was not the primary concern. It was a counterintelligence concern. I want to understand what led to the interview. You didnt authorize the interview, you wanted to go to the white house and tell them about the problem, didnt you . Thats right. When you heard about the interview, you got upset, didnt you . I was upset they didnt ordinate that. Yes, i was. Did they go rogue . So wait a minute. Thank you. So heres what im trying to say. Did i violate the logan act when i called the israelis suggested you need to come out against the iranian deal because its bad for the u. S. And israel even though that was the policy of the Obama Administration . If you were a representative of the government, while the Obama Administration was with im not part of the Obama Administration. No, i understand that but i think the logan act is a reflection of our countries my question is, what a u. S. Senator, in your view, i like the logan act if they reached out to Foreign Government contrary to Foreign Policy . If we were negotiating on the behalf of the u. S. Government, it may. Its all about the logan act, its just not why did they mention the logan act if its not about that . Its a reflection of our longstanding policy. Is it the longstanding policy of the u. S. Incoming administration cant talk to foreign leaders about change in policy . We can certainly talk to foreign leaders about a potential change in policy in the future but this wasnt that. You had one administration leaving in two weeks and you had a new administration coming in, urging them dont escalate. To anybody who thinks thats a violation of the boeing act, thats stunning as. You cant really talk to anybody or hit the ground running so i dont understand where the logan act came up and i do believe deeply you were surprised the president knew about the intercept and you didnt. Who told the president of the u. S. About the intercept between this act and flynn . I dont know but it doesnt surprise me. Did you ever ask anybody . No. I would expect the president with no. But you didnt know. You were surprised. Who around you to tell the president . Only is coming out, have you been talking to the president about this is not me . I asked why he knew about it and i didnt. What did he tell the president about it . I dont know. Never asked comey, did you tell the president about the investigation . No, my concern was that the president knew. We were very surprised he knew and you didnt. Right, because director comey was part of the department of justice. Heres the question whos the most likely person to tell the president about the investigation . Its more than an investigation. About the intercept. Didnt he pull comey aside . I think this information was shared with the intelligence do you think he asked comey about that . Mr. Chairman, give her a chance to answer. Im sorry, do believe the most logical person to tell the president about the intercept was comey . Hes in charge of the investigation. First, director comey wasnt talking to the president about investigation. About the intercept. I dont know if it was comey or the director of National Intelligence or who. Was the director of National Intelligence be investigating violations of the logan act . When they reversed course heres my question, was the Intelligence Community investigating the logan act . Senator, i dont know how many times i can say that wasnt it, it was a counterintelligenc keep saying he was dropped from the investigation january 4. Makes no sense that you didnt know and im trying to find out how the president knew and you didnt. You still cant tell me. You wont let me finish the sentence. My understanding is, they suggested the specific parts on general flynn before they knew about the conversation with ambassador. I still dont get it but thank you. Michael flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the fbi about his conversations with Russian Ambassadors. He also lied to Vice President pence who repeated flynn lies on national television. Well explain this made flynn susceptible to russians blackmail. The Justice Department now says the flynn case should be dismissed because his lies were not material to a legitimate investigation. Do you agree . Why or why not . Thank you. If i would be hardpressed to be able to think about an interview that was more material the fbi was conducting to get to the bottom of whether there were individuals u. S. Citizens or the Trump Campaign who were working on this. We have a National Security advisor after the russians, attempted to put up a scale on our election. Rather than when he spoke with the russians telling him stay out of our election, keep your nose out even of they reset to go forward but to rebuke him let them know we will not tolerate their country intervening, not only did he not do that, he was making that and on top of that the question was, are you saying the flynn case should be dismissed because the lies were not material to a legitimate investigation . No, they were absolutely materialized in a legitimate investigation. I guess im not understanding what you are saying. Ill try again. The situation was at the time, we have general flynn engaging in discussions with the Russian Ambassador who were essentially neutering them. Lets not good for them to be doing. They needed to understand what the relationship was here between general flynn and the russians. To trying to find out from him, had general flynn been honest and they came to him, saying he admitted what he said than the Mueller Investigation would be lingering and general flynn was not acting on it these were not conversations off the top of his head but rather, he was coordinating with an opening National Security and other transition to members. It was deliberate plan conversation with the ambassador to essentially tell them dont worry about it, things are going to change. s committee may 18, 2017, you said Michael Flynns lives to Vice President pence, conversations with Russian Ambassador made flynn vulnerable to russian black males and to state the obvious, who do not want the National Security advisor compromised by the russians. You also said flynns underlying conduct was problematic in and of itself. You could not go further because it was classified. Transcripts of flynns calls with ambassador have been declassified and released publicly so why was flynns underlying conduct problematic . They were imposed by the Obama Administration. They were trying to intervene in that. He recognized himself and admitted later when he was cooperating with them, he didnt even write down his conversations with the Russian Ambassadors he knew those discussions would be the full policy of the Obama Administration and there would be a problem. Thats why he lied about it and covered it up so general flynn didnt think he was doing anything problematic and he wouldnt have any thing. Is a possible lynn lied to the fbi about his calls to conceal the fact that the Trump Administration did not plan to hold russia accountable for interfering in the election . That is certainly what they needed to talk to general flynn about. Why he had this discussion, who was part of it and what was behind it but unfortunately, general flynn was not truthful and not able to do that. The inspector horwitz confirmed the crossfire hurricane investigation was opened up at the end of july, 2016. The fbi was told by australia, a trusted ally and intelligence partner that the Trump Campaign advisor, George Papadopoulos had advanced knowledge is that russia planned to release stolen emails to harm flynn help trump. The fbi learned this shortly after wikileaks released nearly 20000 emails stolen by russia from the nc computers. Wasnt there some obligation for the fbi to investigate . To learn what russia was doing and who was involved . Absolutely. Really startling information. The fbi will part of the Intel Community was already trying to the hard to get to the bottom. Then they learned from the Foreign Governments but someone affiliated with the russians approach Foreign Policy advisor of the Trump Campaign and told him the russians have dirt on Hillary Clintons thousands of emails that could be released anonymously and wanted to know if the campaign was interested in this. When they found out the information had come in may, then actually happened. This was something everyone would recognize you have to get to the bottom of. The Justice Department moved to dismiss the case against Michael Flynn who pleaded guilty to lying to the fbi. The lead prosecutor resigned from flynn and District Court judge, Emmett Sullivan took the unusual steps of appointing an outside lawyer, former judge, john to oppose the departments motion. According to the judge, the Justice Departments effort to dismiss flynns case is highly irregular. And a gross abuse of prosecutorial power. In order to benefit a political ally of President Trump. Do you agree the departments a motion to dismiss flynns case is highly irregular . If so, how . Prosecutors for almost 30 years and am certainly have never seen one like this. From our perspective, theres no issue in respect to the north to the governments ability to do this. Not only for the transcript in black and white there but general flynn had twice pled guilty and sworn he would. Thank you. Thank you for your public service. You approved the first and second fisa applications prior to approving it. I didnt understand. I did. Do you want me to speak more loudly . Im sorry to interrupt. You told me you did review them in their entirety. Okay. Ive reviewed all of the factual information. Okay. Number two, when you were interviewed by ig horwitzs office about your decision to approve the First Quarter page by the application, you stated the following about steeles research. While certainly there was an implication that he was doing Opposition Research, its got to be for somebody. I mean hes been hired by someone. My understanding was the fbi didnt know. The Inspector General said the steel dossier was essential to the quarter page pfizer. If it was clear to you at the time that steel was conducting Opposition Research for someone, you act responsibly to at least have an elementary understanding of the extreme conflicts involved regarding his employment before approving the first pfizer application. At the time of the first pfizer, we are concerned for reasons i expressed to the Inspector General. Logical tell you somebody is out there doing research. The fbi didnt know. The National Security Division Worked, there would be something in the pfizer that laid out what they speculated. It is very unusual but here they felt like it was important to flag that and let them know even though the fbi didnt know it was being paid for by the dnc but there was a possibility. In april 2016, president obama said i dont talk to the fbi directors about pending investigation. In the 302 of the interview with the fbi, you said in your january 5, 2017 meeting with obama and colby, there was discussion about flynn and potential violations on the local act. According to theis classified notes summarizing the meeting, president obama said to call me, make sure you look at things and have the right people on it. How can you swear obamas april 2016 statement with the january 5, 2017 meeting with comey and obama . Yes, the meeting was about an investigation at all. I can tell you that something that would have crossed the lines and president obama, then President Biden and influencing an investigation would have said it all for me. This was about the National Security implications of continuing to share Sensitive Information with general flynn given what they learned about back channel discussion with the Russian Ambassador to move to sanctions. Your january 5, 2017 meeting with president obama had two parts. The first part included biden, kobe, and rice. The second part was just you, comey and the president. In either meeting, did crossfire hurricane for the steel dossier ever come up . No. Did you or one of your colleagues ever discuss crossfire hurricane or the steel dossier with president obama or Vice President biden . I cant imagine any of my colleagues would. I have eight seconds left. Thanks to an attorney general bar material relating to flynn has finally been released. The records show the fbis plan to close the flynn case in early january 2017 until stroke interceded. The fbi deliberately set up to prosecute him and get him fired and there was no derogatory information on flynn. When you work Deputy Attorney general and acting attorney general, were you aware of this information . On this investigation, he never said anything about these calls and i was under the impression that this interview of general flynn in the context of the broader crossfire hurricane investigation, that being trying to get the connections between the russians. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Its good to see you again. President trump said he did lie and thats why i had to fire him. The last time he testified before this committee in may 2017, i asked about your decision is acting attorney general by don beget hand. Then his mind to multiple Trump Officials including Vice President. About his conversations with Russian Ambassador. You supported informing the white house even though some others did not. He stated the need to notify the administration and it became clear as the white house increasingly specific and denials of flynn and sanctions with the Russian Ambassador which increased mr. Flynns ability to blackmail. Do you believe general flynn was effectively compromised . There was a list and thats why he got information to the white house so they could act. The conversations themselves were concerning that was part of the counterintelligence investigation. You have to balance the investigation with the need to address the compromised threat. In doing that, so they could act. Others who presumably did not know the information they were providing to the American Peoples fault so they would quit doing that. Its probably no surprise when President Trump removed general flynn but you believe by encouraging russia not to react to u. S. Sanctions further undercuts our nations response to russias attack on our elections . I do. I think that is the concern. The sanctions were to punish and deter. When general flynn, the country says nevermind on sanctions, just going to move forward, that doesnt send the message that we want them to stay out of our way. It undercuts our efforts. It certainly does. Thank you. Some of his defenders argued because the fbi suspected flynn continues to lie about his conversations with the Russian Ambassador, he was entrapped in his interview by the fbi. In your view, is it ever entrapment for investigators to give individuals an opportunity to tell the truth about relevance in their investigation . General flynn opens questions to give an opportunity to tell the truth about what happened in his conversations about the Russian Ambassador. He gave nothing but an oculus points, something about sanctions. Triggering his memory and hughes that for specific things, even using the exact language. If youre trying to set somebody up, which i dont know how you set somebody up to lie, you dont generally try to help them out like that. You either fly or you dont lie. Last week the attorney general claimed the interview was untethered to the investigation. Do you agree with that . Given what you learned about december calls the Russian Ambassador and misrepresentations of those calls . Absolutely. They notified the white house. Interview general flynn was the fbis investigation to try to discern whether the ties between the Trump Administration and russians. Thank you. Inspector general surveillance targeting president Trump Campaign official involved quarter page, i would submit questions about that. Can you speak to whether the government was specifically targeting lynn with surveillance intercepting his calls with the Russian Ambassador . No. That was not of general flynn. Im not permitted to tell you. There was no surveillance general flynn. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Very quick, let me make sure i understand this. The interview with general flynn, we are investigating a policy difference between the Trump Administration and the Obama Administration . No. It was a policy difference. You want investigating crime where you . We were investigating a counterintelligence that. Is a counterintelligence investigation based on policy difference . Its a counterintelligence investigation. Wait a minute. This is very important. Your beef with plaintiff was he was undercutting obama policy. Is that what you are worried about . No. I was worried about him undercutting obama policy and then was covering it up. No, he hadnt even talked to the fbi. He said the fbi over, there was no leak of anything so you were investigating a policy difference. No. Not accurate. There was a coverup before this. When did you know about that . Thats why i wanted why didnt you go to the white house and say this is your policy position . The concern was not about policy difference. The concern was about him undercutting Obama Administrations and then covering it up. Mr. Chairman, i should note, she said before, they are following counterintelligence threat which was closed january 4. Thats not accurate. It was not closed january 4. Recommended to be closed january 4, the day before the meeting. The only problem is that you didnt like flynn changed the policy are talking about changing the policy. He had every right to do that. What we are doing is criminalizing policy differences. Thats why flynn got prosecuted because they hate his debt. Let me change the subject a bit. Aced on your long and distinguished service with the department of justice, are you aware any precedent for both the Major Party Nominees for president of the u. S. Being investigated either for a crime counterintelligence investigation in the run up to a president ial election . No. Neither. Let me ask you, during the investigation of Hillary Clinton over her email server, james comey, the fbi director at a press conference july 5 where he talked about investigation, derogatory information collected during the investigation but yet, said no reasonable prosecutor prosecutes that case. Did you know before july 5, 20 2016, that he would do that . I didnt. Did you know when he reopened the case after anthonys computer was looked at you know he would reopen the case . Before hand . I cant tell you that, that was more than four years ago cap. I didnt try to review any of that. I cant tell you whether before hand. Would you agree it was highly, director comeys conduct was irregular . I dont know how to characterize his conduct. You dont know how to characterize it . The fbi director has a direct report to the deputies attorney general, correct . Correct. From the time crossfire hurricane was open on july 31 until you signed the first pfizer application on october 21, director comey you a prize to what the investigation show showed. We had interactions, three times a week on the National Securities division. They provided the information but i dont think the fbi provided as much information as they should have. Now that i know more about the investigation. I would agree Inspector General investigation, it matters. There should be Department Leadership as well as more. Thank you. Would also agree director comey should have consulted with you and the attorney general and during the dealings with the Hillary Clinton investigation before making those public comments. That violates the rules and norms of the department of justice, wouldnt you agree . He should have consulted with us, yes. He said he thought lynch had a conflict of interest because of the tarmac meeting between president clinton and attorney general during the course of the Hillary Clinton email investigation but that would not have prevented him from consulting with you. Did he do so . Did he consult with me on what precisely . Did he consult with you on the Hillary Clinton investigation and his intentions to go public the investigation and you served the role of the department of justice when it comes to charging or not somebody charging somebody with a crime . We did not have a discussion about it, no. Does that surprise you . Your the direct supervisor of the fbi director, if he didnt consult with you or tell you what he was doing or he didnt respond to your inquiries, wouldnt that strike you as highly unusual . Not ideal. Ideal thats quite an understatement. [laughter] okay, well agree on that. So may 9, 2017, Rod Rosenstein, your successor as Deputy Attorney general wrote a memo in regard to director conleys activities during which he said director comey didnt violate the norms and rules of the department of justice he said since he showed no remorse and was likely to repeat the conduct again that he recommended dismissal. If you agree with his analysis in that . Im not going to go into that. Youre not going to answer my question . I dont think its appropriate for me to weigh in. And asking you to answer a question about the highest levels of the department of justice whether this is the new norm or whether director comey violated those norms and his dismissal was justified on the basis you have no opinion about that . Sandra, im not going to weigh in on whether the attorney general on the memo or not but i will say regardless of how out of bounds doctor comey may have been in on the clinton case, im concerned that was the real reason. What strikes me was he was out of control and i assume you would be concerned about that you might have called him to ask him to change his conduct. Welcome back. Let me congratulate you. Today marks the second time during the Trump Administration testified before this committee. Thats some of appearances equals the total number of times attorney general sessions, acting attorney general and attorney general plot appeared for this committee in their official capacity combined. So congratulations. We cant seem to bring the attorney general here but former attorney general so welcome. Thank you for being here. Id like to ask for a reflection on Michael Flynn and ask about the following. Flynn apparently suspicion context starting in 2015 when he sat next to Vladimir Putin in moscow. Accepted payments from multiple entities. Failed to report the payment of his Financial Disclosure forms when he became National Security advisor to President Trump. According to a new report during the 2016 campaign, flynn worked with individuals who claimed to be in contact with russian affiliate in an effort to obtain Hillary Clintons emails. When signed a contract to work with the turkish government during the campaign and he lied about his work for turkey on his filings. December 2016, flynn had conversations with Russian Ambassador which he urged russia not to respond to u. S. Pensions that the Obama Administration has imposed because of Russian Election grants within the u. S. That is a policy difference. No time during these calls did flynn approve disapproval of russian interference in the u. S. Understanding you cant get into classified details, can you tell us whether the administration was specifically surveilling Michael Flynn when identifying these phone calls . Absolutely does not on Michael Flynn. President obama, we are trying to figure out why on the russians responding or retaliating . The implicated they would invest with the fbi has done. The policy difference here apparently was the believe the Obama Administration that putin should pay a price for interfering in the u. S. Election by opposing sanctions on russia and what appears to be a phone call from lynn aspiring to the National Security advisor to the new president saying dont worry about it. You were wondering why putin was not responding and considering other this phone call had an impact . Punishing the russians, trying to throw out an election doesnt seemed like a policy to me, it seems something all americans would want. I would think they would certainly someone aspiring to be the National Security advisor to the president of the u. S. , flynn lied about his conversations in the fbi and Vice President pence, denying he talked about sanctions, stepped down as National Security advisor in february 2017 but before he did, january 26 and 27 in 2017, you briefed white House Counsel don mcgann about Michael Flynn. You shared the Justice Department concern about flynns communications with russia and dishonesty about the communications and vulnerability to blackmail. Correct . That is correct. Yet, unbelievably after you briefed the white House Counsel about flynns will and ability to blackmail and dishonesty january 28, 2017, President Trump spoke on the phone for nearly an hour with Vladimir Putin while general flynn said the oval office with her. Its not a fact . I dont know that person. I read it and have seen it. As a White House Photo showing flynn in the oval office during that call. Was it appropriate for him to sit in on phone calls with Vladimir Putin after you provide the briefings . He made it very clear that we were providing information saying they could take action so it would be surprising that of all things, would have general flynn sitting in on a phone call with Vladimir Putin. He gets sent to russia to be involved in that call. It seems like the same message general flynn, dont worry about the interference. If you believe russian interference in american elections is a threat to our democracy, and i do, and most others do as well, in this approach by general flynn is antithetical to what we consider the basic fundamentals of our nation. A man aspiring to be National Security advisor to the president should know better. I yelled. I remember the conversation with the president obama and the prime minister. Ill have more latitude after the election. Maybe the administrations want to change positions with Different Countries is not unusual but quickly, did you know of efforts for interfering the elections before the election itself . Yes. Did you impose sanctions before . The attorney general would get invo. What did they do . What did they do . Did they impose sanctions . They did not impose sanctions. Did they call the russians and say stop . Actually do believe their work medications with the russians. Do you agree with mia didnt work quite . If i could answer the question. This was with a Public Statement that was made that the Obama Administration want to be very careful that i wasnt doing anything that would impact the election or perceived to be impacting the election. The information that was put out then was to make sure for example when the russians were rooting around in the state election system to put out the information which by the way there was no evidence that it impacted and whether they were able to get in. I agree with that. Rooting around in their the Obama Administration was contacting the states and trying to make sure they understood they needed to shore it up a further understanding was they wanted to make a bias bipartisan point and there were folks on your side of the aisle that refused to. But heres my point. You knew the russians were up to no good and you did nothing about it effectively so we dont need a lecture from the Obama Administration about aint tough on russia. There plenty of knowledge and apparently nothing happened. Senator lee. Said thank you mr. Chairman. Ms. Yates when youre theyd Deputy Attorney general was that your policy that both should be treated equally, that is had there have been any reason from the department of justice standpoint to approach an Obama Administration official differently from a Trump Administration official . No. We made the determination when we notified the white house about general flynn. He it was in part because i wanted to make sure that we were treating the Trump Administration the same way that we would the Obama Administration. Had that occurred what would that have consisted of and what would it have looked like if you treated an official trump from the Trump Administration the same as the Obama Administration and who would have been notified before this could have preceded . We did go to the white house and notified the white house about what we have learned about general flynn. What was different was with respect and im not sure where the lights when out what would have been different was with respect to the interview of general flynn i would have notified the white House Counsel in advance before that interview. Did anything like that happen here lexus and a for one from the team notified . Prior to the interview, no. That was one of my concerns about it. It was a protocol issue and not a legal issue. Its certainly something that would have been an irregularity. You have not acknowledged then that the Obama Administration treated the incoming Trump Administration differently. The department of justice treated the Trump Administration different than they would be Obama Administration. We worked hard to make sure we did not treat them differently. I understand you are working hard to do that at that wasnt the outcome. You deviate from the ordinary protocol. The only protocol heres the fbi conducted the interview of general flynn without a Courtesy Call to the white house. When you told, when you told director comey that there should have been a discussion about reporting the interview in raising these things with comey he responded to with Something Like you can understand why i did this to widget according to your 302 year responded no and comey responded he didnt want to look political. The 302 notes you were offended by that implication. Can you elaborate on this and tell me why you were offended in what specifically offended you. Senator as you heard me say so many times ive been a prosecutor for 30 years and ive rusiecki public corruption issues but for both democrats and republicans and the way we do our job or did our job with doj was you dont consider political implications in making prosecutor investigation decisions and i was offended by mr. Comeys implication that he would be perceived differently than i would. Got it. Let me ask you was at your regular for agents to plan to attempt to quote get him to lie so he can prosecute them or get them fired up for the interview as stated in the notes . Is that an irregularity . Im sorry senator all i heard was at the end and irregularity. Would you mind repeating the question . For agents to plan to get to quote get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired. Certainly that is not an appropriate way for the fbi to conduct itself in i dont believe thats what they did with her specter general flynn and if youve read the 302 its pretty clear. Is it a regular for mccabe to a pressured general flynn to appear without counsel . I dont think he was pressured to appear without counsel. All right justin may claire want to get to the bottom of what went wrong. How was the fisa application to surveilled an american citizen and a major Party President ial campaign approved with 17 significant errors and omission and no one knew until the department of justice Inspector General conduct did an audit and an audit or the way that would have never been conducted had the surveillance not involve a staffer for future president ial campaign and President Trump lost in 2016 v. Significant errors and omissions would never have come to light, would they . While i dont know that. Inspector general ive known him for a long time and i wouldnt necessarily say that. Were you aware that agents were using information compiled a Christopher Steele at the request of the dnc at the up time you signed the fisa application or the first renewal . I was not aware that the dnc was funding it. There was a chance that we did not know that to be a fact. The Inspector General did not identify that and by the way not to quibble here but there were seven errors, not 17 in the fisa app in one error too many. Said mr. Chairman if i could ask one more brief question. Were you aware of the concerns with the reliability of the information that was provided by Christopher Steele and what we now refer to as this deal. Ca before signing either the initial carter page by the application or the first renewal . Now, i wasnt senator and along with that concern comes the interview that took place after i signed the original and the first. Thank you mr. Chairman. I see my time has expired. Senator whitehouse. Ms. Yates let me ask you a couple of simple questions if you could hear me out here. The first is the sort of origin of the story here is a telephone call between ambassador kislyak and general flynn. You became aware of that in the course of regular counterintelligence activities, correct . That is correct. Were you surveilling general flynn or ambassador kislyak . I can tell you what we were doing that is surveilling general flynn. Im still not going to tell you what we were doing but thats classified. So we will just let logic followthrough would not be unusual for a sovereign nation to monitor the communications of a rival nations ambassador irrespective of which nation you are in, correct . That standard counterintelligence practice . I want to be really clear on classifications. But you are being really clear that you are not surveilling general flynn. Absolutely not. So the next thing you know, you know of this conversation because you have overheard it and the white house at very high levels including the Vice President is denying that conversation took place, the conversation that you knew happened. A National Security adviser who has had a conversation with the Russian Ambassador that the president is denying took place. Theres a counterintelligence concern about the conversation given the fact that he was undercutting sanctions against the russians were interfering in our election it is an intelligence problem that the russians, does it raise the prospect that general flynn had lied to the Vice President in the Russian Ambassador would know that and be able to exert leverage on the National Security adviser . Exactly senator. Theres a very specific issue right there, correct . Thats correct. And he gives the russians leverage against mr. Flynn possibly, general flynn. That is the concern. Let me take you to a different question. You have been asked that if you knew of the errors and omissions that the Inspector General found in the fisa warrant would you sign the warrant . And they think the answer that ever prosecutor myself included must give to that question is no, of course we would never submit to a court a warrant application at the new contained errors or omissions. That is correct, is it not . Thats right senator. That is not in my mind somebody whos been in that situation that does not end the inquiry. The question then is if you had been aware of the errors and omissions in the fisa warrant one response would be to shut down the investigation and roll it up. A second would be to find out why the the errors and omissions were there, investigate the misconduct that led to that but go ahead with the investigation because it remained predicated and worth pursuing. Both of those are possible options are they not . No. Yes, they are possible options. If we were in a situation in which any error or arm all mission and a warrant affidavit ended the underlying investigation, a lot of criminal conduct and legitimate investigations would be improperly brought to a premature conclusion, correct . Im sorry say x. And thats pretty standard prosecutor 101. If theres something you think might be wrong with the warrant that you are being asked to sign you get that fixed but you dont necessarily end the investigation, correct. You need to find out whether theres further information that would support it but you would need to get to the bottom of it. You would do an internal best occasion to get to the bottom of why you are presented the warrant application with errors and omissions of my point is a very simple one. That does not mean the end of the investigation necessarily. In fact its not necessarily uncommon to dissolve the problem and you go ahead with your investigation is if its properly predicated and justified, correct . That is correct. Thank you. I agree with everything you just said. Thats exactly the way it should work and i want to let ms. Yates know i have no doubt what she signs the application she did so in good faith relying on the information to be truthful and that she would not have brought it to court and have no belief that she did. Senator hawley. Thank you mr. Chairman and thank you ms. Yates for being here. When we pick it up right there because the chairman says he is no doubt that you had no intent to defraud the cord and then i would mr. Rosenstein was here before the committee and im sure you saw his testimony or read it a few weeks ago he said that he couldnt be to blame or otherwise be held accountable for the falsified fisa applications and the terry on the statements because he just relied on the representations that were made to him so we are left wondering who exactly is responsible here . The seems that nobody is really responsible and somehow or another federal court a secret federal court was actively misled and presented with falsified evidence that nobody in the chain of command is to blame so let it ask you about your own responsibility. Did you read these fisa applications . Yes. You did . That your testimony today . You told the Inspector General that you had no recollection actually of reviewing renewal application number one. Is your testimony today different . No, what i told the Inspector General was my recollection is sitting at my desk and asking questions i was reviewed. He said he didnt have a specific recollection of viewing number one and its great if you did because id like to ask you more detail questions and i just want to get grandma testimony. Yes, i did. Interesting. Now you told the Inspector General that the carter page fisa application that you signed off on and you now say that you read and carefully reviewed that these applications by the way contains multiple material misstatements and would later contain falsified evidence. He said these were not a close call and you told the ig that do that that the application the initial application and the renewal were appropriate steps and you didnt have any qualms about them but do you recall what the fisa court set about these applications . Yes senator and when speaking with the Inspector General it was based on the assumption that all the information was accurate and later in what the fisa court was responding to later there were more errors and omissions. The air is where they are time you signed off on them were they not in you testified to read them closely so they were there when you signed off on them, correct . That is correct. Let me remind you what the fisa court said to the fbis handling of the carter page applications which are approved in you now say you read was antithetical to the heightened duty of candor of the court. The frequency with which representation made by fbi personnel turned out to be unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession with which they withheld information detrimental to their case calls into question whether information contained another fbi applications is reliable end quote. Are you still of the view that these applications were not a close call at all and you would do the same thing now but these are appropriate steps i think was your testimony to the ig. You stand by that . Yes senator its my testimony in context with the Inspector General. It was the procedure based on information presented to me. So you are passive party in the city tested by now and you are telling us he did read the applications but you were also duped by the fbi so is for that reason you signed off on misleading applications of the fisa court said were so bad and so misleading to call into question all of the submissions by the fbi so youre a passive party set your testimony today . No sir, senator i was not at all. Could you serve some kind of control and exercise responsibility and let me ask you you this would response to a did you bear for the collaborative and systematic misleading of a secret federal court . The number two person in this department i was responsible for the actions of doj. That includes there the fbi and all the lawyers in the department of justice. I was responsible in that sense for the actions of all. So do you regret the fact that you signed applications that contained false and misleading material in the court has called into question their ability to rely on anything that the fbi said . I certainly would grant that the department of justice with the fbi fisa application is antithetical to my responsibilities to the court and its inconsistent with what my experience with what the fbi has been in terms of preparation of affidavits and the accuracy. Let me ask you one other thing in my time has expired. One final question, i noticed that you said the ig didnt know who Christopher Steele was working for a new opined that he thought maybe he was working for Republican Party and we know from steel himself he told the ig that he feels told the fbi in july 2016 youd been hired by the democrats and we know that your deputy bruce orr knew that steel was working for the democrats and the same deputy your deputy while he was working for you was actively facilitating contact between the fbi and steel and also between the state department and steel. How does this happen on your watch . Is this normal for you to permit your deputies to facilitate contacts between Political Parties and the fbi and the state department . Is that routine behavior . The Inspector General found i was completely unaware of the actions. Im sorry come i didnt hear that. Can you repeat that . The Inspector General found a major report that i was completely unaware of her is orrs actions in any of the russian investigations and carter page fisa. I seem to detect a pattern here. Ms. Yates says she has no idea what her deputy is doing to facilitate contact between a Political Party opposes research in the aig had no idea these applications that she signed material misled a federal court in mr. Rosenstein said he had no idea. Nobody pierce know anything in this government yet somehow a federal court was deliberately and systematically misled so severely that they now say they cant trust anything that the fbi did and if this doesnt call for cleaning up house in teaching fbi and doj hadnt know what is. Rousseau r is still on the payroll. Thank you. Senator coons. We will take a break. Mr. Chairman i see no reason for those remarks. They are inflammatory. I think the witness ought to be able to respond if she chooses. She certainly may and let me give my 2 cents worth. I dont think is inflammatory at all. Think its the truth. She bruce orr is orchestrating meetings. What the hell is going on over there . I will say with all due respect we have a deliberate and systematic misleading of a federal court here but i dont think you can say anything more inflammatory than what the federal court itself said when they issued an incredible statement. Ive never seen a federal court little of the fisa state issue saying they have no confidence in any of the submissions of the fbi based on the level of lying. Everybodys deployment nobody is to blame is the problem. Well take a five minute break and let her respond. Hello . Mr. Chairman . Yes sir. While we are waiting if i can make one point because i have been in the shoes of ms. Yates both as the attorney general of rhode island which is one of the three states with full criminal jurisdiction and the office of attorney general and the statute that requires the attorney general personally to get wiretap authorization from the persuading justice of the superior court and as u. S. Attorney led undercover public corruption and other investigations that involved wiretaps. Ive done this a lot and i viewed my role in those approvals as mick insure that 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. You are just making sure the material complied with the statute. Correct. I think thats probably the role. Its an established fact that the fbi agent or the Police Officer who filed the affidavit was telling us the truth. I couldnt agree with you more. Its not customary prosecutorial practice to an inquisition our view of every factual statement made by an fbi agent or a Police Officer preparing a warrant. If you have the slightest hint that something is wrong youd definitely pursue that but the focus is more does this werent fit the criminal case that we are making and that is the nature of the review at that level. You would hope that the factual stuff would the taken out before it got to the Deputy Attorney general. I think that is a fair rendition of the way the system plays out and i know people are frustrated about accountability but i think rosenstein did what you were talking about in ms. Yates. I agree. I will state for the record i dont believe rosenstein or ms. Yates intentionally submitted false information to the court. With that senator klobuchar is next. Thank you very much mr. Chairman. Ms. Yates . There you go. I want to take a moment having listening to the last question i want to take a moment to thank you for your dedicated service to our country and ive some time in your state of georgia and i know how respective your from your time as u. S. Attorney on both sides of the aisle and also all that you did to set such an example for career employees and the Justice Department because that was you and you your career working on justice and so i want to thank you for that and i dont want people watching this hearing to have a different impression of you because you are greatly admire. As we look at senator hawleys question not to loose context of a concerted russian effort to interfere with their election and that continues to this day. We all know that. Many of us have been public in recent lab classified briefings that we cant go into and we know this is is continued and Deputy Attorney general you received and reviewed intelligence about russian interference in our 2016 election and helped to coordinate the response. What was your understanding of that attack which by the way has been verified by trump intelligence officials and people pointed by this president including dan coats the director of intelligence who once said that they were emboldened and getting bolder including Christopher Wray who said a similar thing. Has the United States ever confronted a coordinated effort by a foreign power of this magnitude to interfere in our elections . Thank you for your very kind words senator klobuchar. I really appreciate that. The point is spot on. The attack and lets be really clear about this, this was an attack on our democracy and an attack was absolutely unprecedented. The russians were coming at us through multiple gates. There was an organized effort to break into the dnc and to have the emails. There was a social Media Campaign against Hillary Clinton and they were lurking around in the state election system. All of this is going on and then we find it is for the purpose of trying to put a thumb on the scale for one particular candidate here to try to aid the election of donald trump and to hurt Hillary Clinton and beyond that we find out early on mr. Papadopoulos said the russians had actually reached out to the Trump Campaign prior to the emails offering and suggesting that they could assist with the anonymous email so this was an unprecedented attack on our democracy and an investigation that could require all of the Intel Community and everybody else to really bear down on this to figure out what happened. When youre before this committee may 27 to be talked about the dangers of having a highranking security official at former National Security adviser mike flynn caught on tape with a foreign official saying one thing in private and cod in public saying another thing to the Vice President of the United States and that would be Vice President heads. Just so we are clear on the dangers of National Security officials being compromised in this way can you talk about the National Security risk of lock male . Black male . Here are great concern was the russians general flynn had not only engaged in the back channel discussions with him but he had lied about it to the Vice President and the one flying to them he had sent them out to lie to the American People about it. The Vice President was lied to by flynn. Thats right it seems like a lifetime ago right now but its exactly the kind of thing that we were fearful about that the russians would leverage general flynn. One dang i want test to the council that russian interference in our election was sweeping and systematic and resulted in 34 indictments of individuals and convictions of advisers on federal charges are you aware of any collins questioned the finding of the special counsels report that the russian government interfered in the 2016 president ial election and sweeping and systematic fashion or the russian government perceived it would benefit from a to secure the outcome . Not only am i not aware of anything inconsistent but the bipartisan citizen Intelligence Committee came to the same conclusion to very aware of the assessment of fbi director wray that russians interference in our election was ongoing and that her parents in the 20 team midterm was in his words a dress rehearsal for the 2020 elections . No in fact one thing we need to be vigilant about is this is not something thats happened in the past. Its happening right now. Exactly in their people have been pointed by the present and are well aware of is working to make sure that a foreign country is not able to influence our election but as you know one of the ways they do this is not just trying to hack into all 50 state election systems which they tried come its also about what goes on on social media that is where a lot of our education efforts go, have to go because a lot of this stuff is just false things that people say about candidates. Are you aware of any faksa con to question the findings in the special comes report that without or the 120 contacts between the Trump Campaign in the time period of 2016 and individual links to russia . No im not. All right, thank you very much. Thank you and i want to make sure we understand what happened here preview mentioned mr. Papadopoulos. Are you saying that mr. Papadopoulos met with russians on behalf of the campaign . Im saying mr. Papadopoulos was approached by an individual. No thats not my question. Is there any evidence as to papadopoulos met with russians on behalf of the campaign . Mr. Papadopoulos wasnt foreign intelligence adviser for the campaign. Mr. Papadopoulos was in charge with was charged with colluding with the russians . You are forgetting about the context and the timing. With all due respect the Mueller Reported seven we are not going to go after these people twice and suggest that they are treasonous because in the papadopoulos transcribed interview to work with the russians would be treason. I would never do that. I just do want to bring these people back up and suggest they did something they didnt do. Senator tell us. [inaudible] i think you know when you talked to the confidential human source he denied it that we all know the information that he provided to the foreign intelligence officials in august was absolutely correct. Was he a russian agent . He was connected with russian intelligence. Really . Thats a new revelation. Senator tell us. Thank you mr. Chairman and ms. Yates one thing you may want to do is pull up closer to the bike if you can. We are hearing you put where straining to hear. In response to some of chair grams questions and senator cornyns questions you characterized, he and i think you said when senator graham used the word world you said thats a word you could use and senator cornyns discussion with you you said there were certainly a violation of some of the rules of the norms in some of the behavior of those involved in the investigation was not ideal. What about mr. Orr . Could we use the more words to describe mr. Orrs behavior in the course of this investigation . Let me be clear about one thing here because it think its important. Director comeys decision to interview general flynn without coordinating that interview could be characterized as rogue and i was than not characterizing general call me generally. Its important to be accurate and fair there. On mr. Orr and in terms of his behavior back in november 2016 he was apparently aware that steele was desperate to prevent President Trump from being elected. Was that information shared with you . None of that information was shared and i dont think mr. Orr should have been having this conversation without telling us [inaudible] you were in the department of justice for 27 years and thank you for your service. If you take a look at and im not up attorney and im not a prosecuting prosecutor that i have read this report appeared as any that make you angry at the lack of what i consider to be professionalism . Spoke so involved in this investigation are highly trained and educated. Is it fair to say there werent any rookie positions to provide you with information to make a decision . I was certainly agree with you that the errors and omissions were totally unacceptable. Im sorry and honestly i think a lot of people are interrupting unit had to do with the fact that we are virtual so i apologize for that but it just seems to me the cynic in me makes it hard to believe when they knew what they knew about the credibility of the steele dossier that they wouldnt think that thats important to bring up in the chain of command when you are making critical decisions. Is that something you feel like anybody in that whole process, anyone whether they were working for you oro grande you leading up to the information that you are acting on it seems to me that some of these people should have been disciplined or fired. Do you agree with that . I cant speak to that but i can say the information should been provided to the National Security division. We were working with the fisa applications. Im sorry go ahead ms. Yates. I also trust Inspector Generalss inclusion that he did not find any evidence that any of these agents were acting with any kind of lyrical will. When i looked in the report to try to figure out what went wrong what you seem to have for agents who superimpose them use their own judgment on what was exculpatory and what they were provide for the National Security division. They should be getting all of that information to the lawyers so those lawyers can make that determination. Ms. Yates can you understand if you combine their actions and errors and omissions of some of the personal Committee Kate is between some of those involved why a skeptic would find it hard to believe to take a generous view of it to just be in knots mistake . Span asked senator the Inspector General i believe he did over 170 interviews so i think hes in a better position than i am to be a lancer that question and there was no evidence of bias. Mazzy hd believed the doj or do you believe these doj can charge someone under the logan act . Can it . Senator i never engaged in that analysis because we were not making a final determination whether general flynn would be charged and i was trying to make clear to senator graham that is the prism for which we are examining this. Did you ever seriously consider trusty kitting flynn under the logan act . We did make an official decision when i was there but i leave its very unlike you would prosecute him under the logan act. Again it was a counterintelligence threat not a criminal prosecution of the logan act. Thank you ms. Yates. Mr. Coons. Thank you for your testimony here today. Let me begin at the outset in a framing here do you have any doubt that russia attacks the United States during the 2016 president ial election with the intention of changing the outcome or implementing the outcome of the election . No. Give any reason to be concerned that the russians may in fact be trying to do that again for the 2020 election . I think all of us should worry. [inaudible] let me go back to some issues that men touched on before but picture we have had a chance to explore them. Carter page was never charged in the russia investigation and that of the whole four and 40 pages of the Mueller Report only eight pages pertain to carter page that there has been some focus on it today so 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. And when that fisa application reached your desk as Deputy Attorney general after several layers of departmental review what were you looking for . When he reviewed that what were you looking for what was appropriate for you to be looking for . I would like to explain. I was looking to determine whether given the fact councils have sworn to the fbi whether that met the legal standards for a fight than you are right. There were seven different layers of review at the department of justice and i would expect a similar number of layers of review at the fbi and their had been a lot of back and forth before the original fisa was signed. There was backandforth between the security lawyers and agents in the fbi. When you did ultimately learned that there were errors in that, did that strike you as inappropriate uncalled for and violation of practice and tradition . Absolutely and not only was it unacceptable i have great concerns about how this impacts the departments credibility both with the fisa court and otherwise and thats why its incumbent upon the agents not just in a highprofile case but in any case to work hard to be scrupulously accurate in every single document. When you went to the white house in january 26 you have something serious to tell white House Counsel john mcghan went to tell him if i understand correctly that the president s National Security adviser general flynn could be blackmailed because he was lying about the content of his conversations with the russians. Is there any doubt in your mind that general flynn lied about his conversations with the russians . Now no, theres 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 they are interviewed by the fbi are truthful and candid and provide complete information prevents only way to figure out what the facts are and to be able to determine if charges should be filed. If i could given your knowledge 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 . And let me ask at closing question if i could why was important interview general flynn . The was the purpose in questioning general flynn . General flynn had conversations with the Russian Ambassador and had been covering it up and providing false information to the Vice President others to put out publicly. We may need the government needed to know what was going on here. Was general flynn acting on his own or was he working with others because the investigators needed to be able to figure out what the relationship was between a campaign and had general flynn told the truth in this interview the agents would have known then and what they learned much much later after he told the truth and these were not offthecuff conversations that he was having with the Russian Ambassador. Rather these were conversations that were carefully organized and planned with other members of the trump transition and he also has been very careful to lie about and coverup even to the point of sending his deputy out when the news first broke up this to call the Washington Post indyk give them false information and to say he had never discussed sanctioned the adult. The coverup continued after that as they told lies to more and more people. Thank you ms. Yates and thank you for your testimony and your service to our nation. To general flynn committed crime maam . When you say what general flynn did. Was a crime talking to the Russian Ambassador . Against senator we were doing a counterintelligence investigation. Not a criminal desiccation. Thank thank you. Senator kennedy thank you. Senator kennedy. That counselor thank you for appearing today voluntarily. To donald trump violate the law by colluding with russia to influence the 2016 president ial election . Special counsel mueller found there was insufficient evidence to establish a conspiracy between donald trump in the russian campaign. Im in no position [inaudible] so there is some doubt in your mind . Senator didnt say that. I just dont think im in a position to opine on that. You just cant here bring yourself to say that he didnt violate the law . No. You are putting words in my mouth. I expect and trust special counsel mueller and his determination that there was insufficient evidence for that. Ikes at that. You dont like donald trump, do you . I dont respect the manner which is carried out the presidency. You despise donald trump, dont you . I dont despise anyone senator. See the is it true that there were a handful of people at the fbi that despise donald trump and wanted to do everything they could do to keep him from being president . I cant speak as to whether other people despise donald trump. Were you part of that group . No senator, is not pretty as venture there were a handful of people at the department of justice during the Obama Administration that despise donald trump and did everything in their power to keep him from being president . Im i am not aware of anyone at the department of justice doing anything to try to keep donald trump from becoming president. Were you part of that group . Now and i am not aware of anybody doing that. That would not only surprised me the shock me. Would it be fair to say, strike that. This deal dossier was a keystone to the russian collusion investigation, was that . No, it was not. It was a part of the carter page fisa affidavit if you read the Mueller Report you will see in the steele dossier does not play a role at all. Say you dont think it was important to the fisa applications . As i just said senator guest with respect to the fisa application and carter page but your question was not that question was with respect to special counsel muellers investigation. Stay back there enough. Let me be sure and steady. Was this deal dossier critically important to the fisa applications . Yes it was. There was information with respect to carter page. Ive only got five minutes and i think we can agree on this. This deal dossier was junk, was that . Now steele dossier when you say junk i dont know how to respond to that. Do you think its true . Senator this information that was in the dossier and certainly its called into question now. Well no kidding. Mag give my answer senator. Youre right, i apologize counsel. My question was is that the fact that this deal dossier is john . I think there is certainly evidence that calls into question there were many portions of the steele dossier. Did you check to see if it was junk before you signed off on the fisa applications . Senator it was provided by the fbi and sets forth the factual basis of review by the bond they have the eye to be the factfinders. Say you didnt independently check . No senator did not independently fact check and im not exactly sure how to discover that. Let me make sure i understand. You signed off on two of the applications. You are asking for permission to survey a somebody who is close 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. And you took no independent steps to see the steele dossier was accurate. Is that your testimony . Senator im sorry im not all in the question when you talk about. Let me try to be clearer. This deal dossier was critical to at least several of the fisa applications one of which you signed off on. Let me finish my question said that the steele dossier in hindsight may not open completely accurate. You are investigating a president of the United States and you didnt check if it was accurate . The may put another way but lets suppose my staff came to me tomorrow and said we have evidence that chairman graham is colluding with china to influence the president ial election. I say okay whats the basis of that and they say we have a reliable source that we can trust and we want you to call him out. Indyke loud and call him out verifying the reliable source. In minot like it rock only bikes is not what you did . Thats not at all what i did senator. And tell me the steps you took to verify the voracity of the steele dossier which was junk. You didnt do anything, did you . Let me ask you one last question. If id can get a chance to answer that. Wait a minute mr. Chairman. The witness should have an opportunity to respond. I agree. You may respond. Thank you very much. You are implying that the fisa application the fisa application was on an individual formerly with the campaign and not a current member of the campaign. Secondly with respect to the process the fisa process as the fbi has indicates use of factfinding to the engage in what is called a process where they are required to document in every single fact in the affidavit is accurate and if they can trace it that to the fbi files and establish that. The problem i think the fisa process has revealed is just because there is a the fact in the fbi file that establishes that fact there were also inconsistent facts that apparently were not included in that affidavit. Lawyers in and the National Security division spent a lot of time working with the fbi in putting together the affidavit and the application but they necessarily must rely upon the fbi who are the factfinders in this to be certain that the accuracy and in fact thats how the fisa application is set up. Is the fbi agent. Mr. Chairman i confuse. Could you just tell me every step he took to verify the accuracy of the steele dossier . The lawyers and the National Security division gives the accuracy of the fisa application. Senator we do not hate trump. If i may. The career men or women of the department of justice. Im not talking about the career men or women payday think you and her colleagues have tarnished the reputation of the fbi. If i may we will go to the next witness. Them i have time mr. Chairman . Barely. You have a second. One thing i do want to make a point and we will go does senator blumenthal is like set that ms. Yates did not do an independent investigation of the affidavit a night agree with senator whitehouse. I think most people in that situation are not required to do that but i do want to ask one question. Once the dossier was known to be unreliable ms. Yates did the people who did the interview did they have the duty to notify their superiors about the concerns and about the information they found . Are you talking about the interview that took place at the end of january . Yes maam. Yes, they did. And you imagine a circumstance where they did not do that . I cant speculate as to what actually would happen but this was my final days of the department of justice and i agree with you. I agree with you that the information for that interview should have been provided to the National Security division so as to be incorporated in the fisa application. Should have been provided to mr. Mccabe who is in charge of the investigation . I would expect they would happen but i dont know. Finally do think its fair for this committee to ask those questions . Its a not really up to me to be telling you whats fair. Who knew what and when . Thank you. Senator blumenthal. Thats what we are going to do. We are going to find out who knew what and when and what they did about it. Thank you mr. Chairman and let me say ms. Yates thank you for your appearance today and thank you for your patience with us including myself because im likely to repeat some of the questions that you may have already answered but let me say at the very outset when you appeared before this committee in may of 2017 i said among other things quote whether we agree or disagree with you i hope there are young prosecutors and young members of our Intelligence Committee who watch this hearing and say thats the kind of professional i want to be not just experts put a person at deep conviction and conscience and i repeat that today because it is something i feel as deeply now as it did then about you ms. Yates and i appreciate your service to our country and your being here to go through some of the questions which have been repetitive and even with all due respect unnecessarily antagonistic. And i want to come back to one of the fundamental issues here. When the recommendation was made by a number of the fbi agents to close the investigation on january 4 so far issue know where those agents aware of the conversation between Michael Flynn and ambassador kislyak . Senator think you are referring to the specific counterintelligence investigation of Michael Flynn and my understanding is no, they did not know about the conversations. Theres really a red herring here because i was even aware that there was a specific investigation opened up for general flynn at that point. We didnt need that to interview general flynn. 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 sen. Richard blumenthal is questioned by the abi himself. Speech of yes pretty. Sen. Richard blumenthal and they were material correctat pretty. Sally yates they certainly work. Sen. Richard blumenthal the president or i should think the department of justice had moved to dismiss the case against Michael Flynn on the basis the statements to the fbi were not material. Or investigated is not legitimate free to think that is clearly and powerfully contradicted by the evidence that you have given us today. Let me say, mr. Chairman, and i know others of our colleagues have made reference to it. But over the past few days, we have had briefings about the continuing absolutely shocking and startling information from foreign interference and on election, that is potentially ongoing. In these briefings i think emphasize is our response ability to focus on the present and the future in terms of that threat. Hope that this investigation or these serious hearings will in no way distract us or deflect the nations attention from that continuing foreign threat to our election security. It is absolutely chilling based on the facts that weve had in a classified setting. I believe the market people need and deserve to know them. The facts need to be declassified immediately. We have a responsibility to address them. In this committee andns elsewhe. And i hope that time and attention and energy that these hearings are taking pulling away distract us from that ongoing task. It is a challenge that is central to our responsibility. It is not justli peripheral. For convenience. It is central and essential. Ms. Yates, montague opportunity to clarify a part of your ortestimony relating to George Papadopoulos. I think you are referring to emails that russia planned to release involving contact with him. Just clarify. Are you suggesting that he was an russian or Foreign Agent pretty. Sally yates i was suggesting was that has gotten that information from someone who was potentially, not that he was the russian agent. Sen. Richard blumenthal thank you very much. Thank you mr. Chairman. Ms. Yates, when did you first become aware that the Obama Administration was surveilling the donald Trump Campaign. Sally yates the Obama Administration was not surveilling the donald Trump Campaign. So if i sent application is not surveillance pretty. Sally yates device application was for carter page was a former member of the Truck Campaign at that point pretty. So your testimony is that the investigation the cover page and nothing to do with donald Trump Campaign pretty. Sally yates is the campaign or not. Sally yates senator, im trying toto give you inaccurate information. Carter page, was a former member of the Trump Campaign. At the time that the fisa was happening. So what was the reasoning for that. Sally yates there were a number of reasons. First when we got the information, the russians and make the overtures they wanted to be able to assist the Trump Campaign. Had nothing to do with the Truck Campaign you decide that. Sally yates i said that he was not a member of the Trump Campaign. At the time it was initiated. In your time at the department of justice, are you aware of any otherou political opponents of president obama are being surveillanced . Pretty. Sally Yates Sally Yates also asking something different. Im asking if youre aware of any surveillance of any other political opponents. Any other candidates fory president 2016. Their whole bunch of them including the chairman and myself. Were either yes or no. Sally yates answer to that is no. And there is no information the russians were with any candidates other than donald trump. Other than conservation the Trump Campaign. When did you first become aware of investigation and the surveillance carterr page. Sally yates device application was given to me in october. I knew there must be Law Enforcement working on it. Or prior to that. It wouldve been in the october range. I dont mean to interrupt but wasnt he also being taped. Sally yates my understanding of the time my understanding is that there was a recorded conversation between papadopoulos and source. Not wire cast surveillance. Statement but the government orchestrated this right. Sally yates not sure. So we know that the government had a recording. This seems to me, surveillance. So 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 did Due Diligence to do pretty deep respect at all. You already told senator kennedy that you just trusted the fbi. You do not ask about the sources. What do Due Diligence did you do before signing off on what we now have significant reasonably was a profound politicalization of Law Enforcement and intelligence. Sally yates senator, there was a tremendous amount of talks back and forth between the lawyers National Security division and the fbi. Ted cruz i asked what you do. Youre the one signing off on it. When Due Diligence did you do. Sally yates the facts were accurate. Ted cruz so did you write inquire that it was research on Hillary Clinton of the d c. Speechms of yes, i did have a discussion about that. With a lawyer. Ted cruz have been resort pretty. Sally yates no he was not working on this. Ted cruz but his wife was working for them and being paid by Hillary Clinton of the d c and he certainly was actually involved in this and is the issue. Did you know that. Did anyone inquire about that pretty. Sally yates io health i do not. He was not working with us on any of these. Ted cruz you said earlier the nobody was trying to get President Trump. And if you read the respecte tht pretty. Sally yates i have any found that he did not find any evidence. Ted cruz with all due respect, the Inspector General found 17 material missed statements in the fisa applications including a lawyer from the fbi who fraudulently altered a document and submitted it and in fact, at the question, was carter page asset from the fbi for the cia. The cia said yes. He altered the document and he changed it to a no. Youre telling me that nobody wanted to get top. About that lawyer the fraudulently altered to document to get the surveillance. Sally yates i am telling you is Inspector General, 170 interviews and reviewed lots of documents. To be able to make political motive or not pretty. [inaudible]. Ted cruz me make a final observation pretty you mentioned in your testimony. The principal to career men and women in the department of justice and the fbi. Youre right, there are tremendous principles whose integrity has been called into question byit the profound politicization of the leadership of the department and of the bureau. And to sign off on turning the fbi and cia into a tool of Opposition Research and attacking your political opponents, and to go all of the way to the oval office as you did on january 5th with president obama and joe biden, going up there political opponent. It is wrong and is done immeasurable damage to the professionals and the men and women of integrity of the department of they justice. He did not find anybody, and opening up the counterintelligence investigation. But heen was dumbfounded by the series of events that occurred includingcc manipulating evidene and all of the withholding of information from the court. He said its hard to explain. Not for me its not. Thank you mr. Chairman. The person is very much politicized the department of attorney generals, theres been a lot of talk today about the Justice Department, and the fica application process. In the ig investigation where they interviewed hundred people and a million documents. And they said there was no finding of political bias or impropers motivations. But it hasnt been brought out the fact that there response, the recommendations has taken more than 40 corrective steps to address the concerns. If you director has learned that russia is engaging in Information Warfare and even as we speak, they are continuing to interfere with our 2020 president ial election. We know that their interference in 2016, was talking a massive pretty to thing our country is adequately prepared to combat russias interference in this upcoming election in. Sally yates i dont know what is going on. [inaudible]. And i hope this is, whether they are democrats or republicans. Or anything else. I think in hopes that we all share the same objective pretty elite work to protect the integrity of our elections. I completely agree with you. But thats an expression because it seems that President Trump is not taking this seriously. Into your knowledge, the president ial ever criticized russia is attacks on our democracy in 2016. Sally yates im not an authority on that. I cannot recall an instance. Nothing is ever happened but it sure cant remember one. A few if you have, pointed out to me. I dont think you can evening dollars at current efforts by russia to undermine our upcoming election. In going on. On generate 26, 2017. Toward the white house that present trump National Security advisor Michael Flynn had lied seand denied that the russian investor and he had a back channel conversations going on. This general flynn pose a National Security risk to the United States. Sally yates there certainly concern and that the russians and when interfere it where they can produce. [inaudible]. I would say that the National Security risk and thats i how i take your response. And during an earlier backandforth the chairman, there was a question on whether general flynn discussions with restaurant and best and ten investor was the problem of an incoming and ministration try to reset the relationship with another country. But it is not standard runofthemill stuff remember of the upcoming and a ministratn to undermine sanctions imposed by the Current Administration against the country that massively interfered with our elections. That way that that country interfered with the upcoming f administration. This is the mayor resetting. It raises a lot more concerns. Sally yates i certainly understand that the people and different views or challenges. But i would expect that whether the be with the Trump Administration, we would be autonomous to the russian strain of federal and they stand unified make sure. [inaudible]. In this administration certainly, when theres two russia, you will not interfere with our elections. Now having step spent nearly three decades of the Justice Department pretty do you believe the present trump obstruction of justice conduct as described in the mall report was enough to invite him. Do think he wouldve beenioce prosecuted working on president of the United States. Sally yates i certainly think having been myself. [inaudible]. Me put it this way, with the doj officials, defined a letter indicating prosecutors pretty. Do you agree with that. Sally yates on be precise here. On the look the specific allegations. But theres certainly very troubling are allegations with us pretty. And possible with felony justices. Bring on ascending president pretty. Sally yates the miller report made it clear that someone blocked to make in conclusion about this pretty. Thank you very much. I think it was a great exchange. You cant tell us whether or not you agree with the conclusion. There is no conspiracy between the top campaign andwa the russians. But you sure as feel comfortable about the 2000 people signed out about obstruction of justice. So let me ask you again. Are you okay with the heart of the report for more said there was no evidence of conspiracies between the top campaign and the russians. Sufficient to proceed forward. Sally yates . [inaudible]. The Mueller Report did not say that there was no evidence. Do you think there was evidence of conspiracy. Sally yates i absolutely expect or accept that conclusion. From special counselor. He is much better position than in. Am. You think he let trump off on of justice. Sally yates i dont have a view of that. I have tremendous respect for special councilman mueller. He took a job responsibly. And what should be done pretty. Thank you very much. Senator blackburn. Inc. You mr. Chairman. Thank you for coming here willingly credit i actually left the hearing room and came back to my office to ask the question. So i think we can hear you. Maybe your you a little better this way. And move a little bit more quickly you will have to repeat yourself because we do want to get some things on the record. So thank you for this. I want tois be sure that im understood some of your answers and statements. You got a standard process for reviewing fisa applications. Is that correct. Sally yates yes. And you stated that your review of the cover page fisa application was no different from any others. Is thatt correct. Sally yates no i did not say that. Rn was your review any different from any other fisa application. Sally yates yes, i reviewed this one more carefully. What led you to review it carefully. Sally yates a very significant. [inaudible]. And who briefed you on that application. Sally yateswho actually gave yoe Background Information brief you on that application. Sally yates National Security division and on myself in the attorney generals office. [silence]. Se there were variety of attorneys from the National Security division. Digital have one person in your office that was responsible to clear information and bring it to you. Sally yates yes there were lawyers in the National Security Division Work onhe the fisa with the fbi. They go through their levels of approval. And then it comes from my office. There is a lawyer in my office used toe be the. [inaudible]. She spent a lot ofth time on th. Shes the one who provided the most detailed briefings to me. In addition to me reading. Okay, did you ever suspect something might be wrong with thiss information. Sally yates at the time assign them, no. Have you ever any inclination something may not be right. Sally yateslet me ask you this. The agent who falsified and made the inaccuracy you and send now, you would not have signed it knowing these inaccuracies. Should 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. Sally yates ages knowingly and intentionally provided false information on affidavit should be. Not going to state. [inaudible]. Did they find out more of the details of the falsified these. [inaudible]. Interviewed information that was inconsistent with the information in the affidavit prayed is information that also should absolutely have been included in the affidavit. Okay, did you know about the forced relationship. Sally yates no i did not. You had no knowledge of that. That he was in your office correcto. Pretty. Sally yates thats right. Okay. Page, that relationship, for present trump. Were you aware of that. Sally yates no read. Never having tried pretty never heard any conversation on it pretty. Sally yates no, i dont think anybody did until the Inspector General took it pretty. And then, you never heard anything and President Trump. Sally yates im by saying no, i did. Im not speaking to that. Okay. Then you never heard any talk about people within the doj or the fbi trying to stop trump block is winning and then to block his residency. Sally yates senator, that wouldve been so out of bounds. We all wouldve probably stopped that. That is completely opposite of how the department of justin works pretty. We know that transpired. So i have to tell you. This is one of the things that gets passed that people in tennessee ask me about. How couldme you possibly have bn in charged of their, never head this conversation. Never heard this exchange. Not been aware if there were people who are trying to do this. Why were you not curious about the fbi being opposed to your intention to notify the white house. Youre curious about that exchange. Why did you safely did this. It is f awful but yes, we know what president obama said. About giving more flexibility at the the i will have more flexibility. In the problem with that. But then you had problems with these items. These are the inconsistencies that cause people to say, who was in charge. However they washable. Why were they turning a blind eye. If indeed they did turn a blind eye. Why were they accepting. It was paying attention to this. Because people in tennessee talk to me they say, how could it be that a private citizen committed surveilled and everybody just say, well, it happened. And move on. I know im over time mr. Chairman. I will send my time back to you. And thank you mitigates for being with us today. I think our last senator senator volker. But to put a point of that see if we can all agree with the following. Ms. Yates. When it comes to the fisa applications regarding carter page. There seems to be widespread system failure and we are trying to correct thats pretty great do you agree with that. Sally yates yes. That is what we are trying to do is make sure that never happens again pretty thank you. Senator volker. Thank you. As, many occasions oracle like you stood up for justice and actually got a lot of in and brought important integrity tour systems and i remember being very grateful that you ordered the Justice Department to not do the travel man. And ive appreciated the way you conducted yourself that way. No one is sort of drill down some your understanding as we see the Justice Departmentth continuing under the Trump Administration. In many waysni i believe is been politicized and manipulated. Instead of focusing on the democracy. For example, we know the russia wants to interfere in our election this year. And just as it did in 2016. Theyre wanting to help the Trump Campaign. But attorney general has repeatedly struggled. The attorney william barr. He said it would be wrong and illegal for the president to solicit or accept foreign assistance in elections. Some pose this question to you. Isos it legal or illegal the present joe can candidate campaign to solicit or accept help from a Foreign Government and election. Sally yates i would hope that that. Ould report sen. Booker into that point, to make it more distinct, the campaign hears from a Foreign Government. In the offering of electoral assistance, there was should to the fbi immediately corrector pretty. Sally yates yes. Sen. Booker theres a lot of areas i believe where are attorney general william barr in some ways mold was not only the legal priority but to weve seen other intervene in prosecutions arising from the russianve investigation. The two Close Associates of present trump. Legal Michael Flynn and stone are examples of that. The attorney general william barr engineering the removal of the u. S. Attorneys apparently were not sufficiently friendly to the president s personal interest. We seen the attorney general william barr to start the findings of the council molars are part of the Trump Campaign links to russian interference presentre trump later efforts to obstruct an investigation. So do you think actions like these are consistence with the duty as you said, to always seek justice and do whats right. Sally yates i think he has the highest responsibility. Any lawyer at the department of justice, is to ensure that you going about doing your job in a way that was by the publics trust. As was reassured that the rule applies the same to everyone. There people who are not tread specially. The law is not used to go after people. That is most biggest obligation of the department of justice. Sen. Booker some based on your three decades of Justice Department under both parties. Do you think the departments recent attempts to dismiss the flynnpa case, has damaged the credibility of the unprecedented in terms of what you have seen under the presence of both parties. What you think shouldh be done about this going forward. Sally yates i think anytime you something the appearance of someone close to the president differently. Ted then you look at the underlying facts. You see that in fact positions are being taken by the Justice Department and never been taken inpa any other similar cases. In the fact that no person. [inaudible]. Rated. Sen. Booker he refusedse to age to report by the u. S. Attorney john durham until after the election in november. I would like to enter into the record, the New York Times article from today titled will william barr try to help trump when the election. In the article details attorney general William Barrs apparent effort to override the chief Justice Department policies by deploying this and other investigations for political purposes. If that article could be entered into the record. And so ms. Yates, is stated that in the 2015 election, you did not want to do anything could potentially impact the candidate trump. Thats page 71 and 72 pretty so why is important for the Justice Department to avoid taking actions for the foreign election that could , potentially impacted. Sally yates investigation. [inaudible]. Not prosecute public person by saying we didnt take any action whether its a case involving the sheriff are a governor or a senator. We would not take any action that could potentially have an impact on the election. The subject to be fair to the individual but also to ensure the public hasha confidence the powers not being used to try to impact an. In this case we know that mr. Trump and very specific of activity with respect to them by talking to the fbi to make sure the date were not doing anything publicly with respect to him even though it is no longer even with the campaign at this point. [inaudible]. They were doing anything publicly to come back to the event candidate donald trump. Sen. Booker i just want to say, i think thatt retrospective, the hearings were analyzing and looking to get to the truth. But to prioritize that over oncoming election and with the International Interference that we all know we knew what was going on and with conduct of an attorney general. And it is possibly further eroding independence of that agency they run in addition to undermining of an independent election. These are the things we should be looking at right now to prevent what could happen in november. And thats me would be a serious blow to our overall democracy not hoping these are issues that we can explore is a committee. Thank you for allowing me to go over time. Its actually good to see you again. I look forward to the next opportunity we have. Thank you. Thats our cost senator. Thank you ms. Yates are appearing pretty just want to clear up some things that were brought up. Are you familiar with that armand investigation. Sally yates . [inaudible]. You know mr. Drum. Sally yates baby. You have any concerns about is doing something politically wrong. As far as you know, its an honest man. Sally yates i dont know him. So you dont have an opinion one way or another. Sally yates i dont. Is an okay for him to find out how the system failed when it comes to the fisa warrant application. Sally yates i think the Inspector General went pretty. Is okay to hold somebodyy criminally responsible who lies to the court pretty. Sally yates and someone commits a crime, of course it is okay to hold themf responsible. So you do that the dossier was no longer be alive reliable you continue to give to the court. Would that be a crime. Sally yates i assume to thank you because you understand that i did not know. Ive known devon my mind man read it never suggested that you presented false information. Here is what i am suggesting. As a possible that one of the most highprofile case in the history of the fbi, involving the Trump Campaign literally fell apart when he came to the hundred page board application and people above were not told. Its simple question. The analyst who did the 40 page memo in january and another one in march and april. They provided evidence to the system that the dossier was a bunch of garbage pretty is it okay to find out who was told about that. Sally yates i think the Inspector General he didid not. No maam. He never has. I asked you specifically, did you ask and tell analyst pretty talk to anybody about your findings read and you said no. They didnt talk to anybody about this. I believe you when you said, thatu you did not know the dossier was reliable. But if you had known it was unreliable, he would not have done it. The question for me is, i was a possible that people investigating this case were unaware that it fell apart. Is it okay for durham to look at that. You think pretty. Sally yates is not my position to say whether he should are not pretty. Will is a clear professional. Do you want people held accountable who intentionally lied to the court. Sally yates certainly, i would save the intentionally lies to the court. They should be held accountable. Suet lets talk about ethical duties. Do you have a duty to give the court information. Sally yates yes. [inaudible]. In the flint case one of the reasons they want to drop it is because o they have found evidee that was not provided. But we will have incoming and talk about flynn. When i want to let the market people now is unaware for a minute, theyre only two people the fbi who knew the dossier it was garbage. And they didnt tell anybody. I want to make sure this never happens again. I believe you do not know. I find it impossible to believe that the others were not aware of the fact that the sub source disavowed the dossier. That is when i am trying to find. Thats whenn trying to put the puzzle together. So what will the committee do next. Going to talk to the until analyst. In the case agent to others who interviewed the russian sub source in january. And again in march and again in april. My going to ask them, oh by the way, did you tell anybody in the fbi that the reliability of the dossier was going down to zero. And if you did tell somebody who wasnt. Then will decide as a nation what accountability they should have. Whether being fired and going to jail or whatever. That is the purpose of this investigation going forward. Its make sure that the biggest system, maybe ever in the fbi is not repeated. To make sure that the fbi investigating the president ial candidates, or sitting preside president , and they are held accountable when he goes off track. I just find it hard to believe the dossier was used four times to get a warrant against carter page and nobody knew it was a bbunch of garbage vertically after the january interview of the sub source. I dont believe you know. Dont believe rosenstein new. The idea that were going to blame these two people at the bottom of the pyramid is not going to go forward without some serious looking. So what will the committee be doing next pretty we are going to find out who knew what and when. And if they knew the dossier was not reliable and they continue to use it. They are going to be in serious trouble with the law. And ms. Yates, i appreciate your service to ours, country. And we will hope to keep the record open for appropriate period of time. In the hearing is adjourned. [silence]. We nice this month we are featuring book tv programs and preview of what is available every weekend on cspan2. Tonight, beginning at 8 00 p. M. Eastern, msnbc political analyst Serena Maxwell offer some thoughts on identity politics and how to trade a more inclusive democratic party. Then political consultant on hill, and brian, discussed the rise of nationalist, populist movements in the u. S. And abroad. And later, Senior Advisor for former president joe biden, 2020 president ial campaigns, Simone Sanders speaks about how americans can use their voices for change. Enjoy book tv, on cspan2. Put tv on cspan2 has top nonfiction books others on every weekend pretty coming up saturday at 5 30 p. M. Eastern, authors, robin kelly, and cornell west, talk about the black lives matter movement. On sunday, and 9 00 p. M. Eastern, and afterwards. University of california berkeley law professor and former Deputy Assistant attorney general george w. Bush administration, john with his book, defender and chief. Listen president ial power in the u. S. Constitution. He is interviewed by mark roselle, author and George Mason University founding dean of the School Policy and government pretty much book tv this weekend on cspan2. Cspan is covered every minute of every Political Convention since 1984. We are not stopping now. This month Political Convention will be ranked none another in history with the coronavirus pandemic. Plans for both gatherings are being altered, the democrats will meet the nomination joe biden as a president ial candidate on monday. Present trump will accept his parties nomination the next week. Watch cspan, and im p. M. Eastern or live coverage on the Democratic Convention starting on monday. On the republican Convention Starting next monday august 24th. Live streaming and on demand at cspan. Org. Or listen the free cspan radio app. Cspan, your unfiltered view of politics. Next, Asian Americans civil rights experts on the rise of anti asian sentiment in the u. S. During the coronavirus endemic