Transcripts For CNNW CNN Newsroom With Brooke Baldwin 20170508

Would engender the trust and confidence of the people whom i ser served. I want to thank this subcommittee for conducting an impartial and thorough investigation of this vitally important topic. The efforts by a a foreign adversary to interfere and undermine our democratic processes and those of our allies pose as a serious threat to all americans. This hearing and others this subcommittee has conducted and will be conducting the future are an important bipartisan step in understanding the threat and the best ways to confront it going forward. As the Intelligence Community assessed in its january of 2017 report, russia will continue to develop capabilities to use against the United States and we need to be ready to meet those threats. I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to take part in todays discussion. Now i want to note that in my answers today, i intend to be as wholesome and comprehensive as possible, while respecting my legal and ethical boundaries. As the subcommittee understands, many of the topics of interest today concern classified information that i cannot address in had this public setting. My duty to protect classified information applies just as much as a former official as it did when i led the department. In addition, im obviously no longer with the department of justice and i am not authorized to generally discuss deliberations within doj or more broadly within the executive branch, particularly on matters that may be the subject of ongoing investigations. I take those obligations very seriously. And i appreciate the subcommittees shared interest in protecting classified information and preserving the integrity of any investigations that the department of justice now be conducting. I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you. Senator grassley, would you like to make a statement . Senator feinstein . Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Ill be very brief. We have preaired for the committee, and id like to ask the staff to distribute it, a background and time line on Lieutenant General Michael Flynn and some of the key dates involve d, which may be of help to the subcommittee. And i would just like to take this opportunity to thank the subcommittee. Chairman graham and Ranking Member whitehouse, i think you have done a good job in it your whole subcommittee has sorks thank you very much. I just like to make a few comments, if i might, and put all the remarks in the record. I think it is a forgone con clougs about russias involvement. E we see it replicated even in the french election. Perhaps not to the extent or in the way, but certainly, replicated. On february 9th, 2017, the Washington Post reported that either flynn had misled the Vice President or that pence had misspoken. General flynn resigned his post on february 13th, four days after the post broke this story. There are still many Unanswered Questions about general flynn, including who knew what and when. For example, the press is now reporting that in addition to the warning are from sally yates, concerns were raised by former president obama directly to then president elect trump 95 days before flynn resigned. So the question, what role did flynn play in communications with the russians both after the first warning by president obama and then after the warning by sally yates. I hope to ask that today. What role did flynn play in high Level National security decisions, again, both during the 95 days and the 18 days when the white house was on notice. So i lock forward to hearing more about this from you, acting attorney general yates. You have stated you warned the white house on january 26th, nearly three weeks before flynn resigned that e he had had not been truthful and might be vulnerable to russian blackmail. And finally, there are other troubling questions regarding russias relationships and connections with trump advisers and associates. And there are questions about whether anyone was the target of russian intelligence either to be exploited or cultivated. So i will put my whole remarks in the record, mr. Chairman, and i hope to ask some questions around these few comments. Thank you very much for this opportunity. Yes, maam. Without objection. Mr. Chairman, may i also put into the record a letter dated november 18th, 2016, from the Ranking Member on the House Committee on oversight Elijah Cummings giving then Vice President elect pence notice about certain, what he called, apparent conflicts of interest regarding general flynn. Without objection. General clapper, on march 5th, you said the following to a question. Heres the question. Does intelligence exist that can definitely answer the following question, whether there were proper contacts between the Trump Campaign and russian tishls. You said we did not include evidence in our report, and i say our, thats the nsa, fbi, ci, a director of National Intelligence that had anything, that had any reflection of conclusion between members of the Trump Campaign and russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report. Chuck todd then asked i understand that, but does it exist. You say, no, not to my knowledge. Is that still accurate . It is. Ms. Yates, do you have any evidence, are you aware of any evidence that would suggest that in the 2016 campaign anybody in the Trump Campaign colewded with the russian government in an improper fashion . Senator, my answer to that question would require me to reveal classified information, ask so i cant answer that. I dont get that because he just said he issued the report and he said he doesnt know of any. So what would you know thats not in the report . Are you asking me . Her. Director clapper also said he was unaware of the fbi counterintelligence investigation. Would it be fair to say that the counterintelligence investigation was not mature enough to come to his to get in the report . Is that fair . Thats a possibility. What i dont get is how the fbi can have a counterintelligence investigation suggest colugs and you not know about it and the fbi sign on to a report that basically said there was no collusion. The evidence, if there was any, didnt reach the evidentiary bar in terms of the level of confidence that we were striving for in that Intelligence Community assessment. Okay, that makes sense to me. Are you familiar with the das ya about mr. Trump compiled with some guy in england . I am. Did you find that to be a credible report . Well, we didnt make a judgment on that. Thats one reason why we did not include it in the body of our Intelligence Community assessment. You didnt find it credible enough . Ween couldnt corroborate the sourcing, the second and third order sources. Are you familiar with the dossier . If i could try to clarity one answer before as well. Because i think you may have misunderstood me. You asked whether i was aware of evidence of collusion. I declined to answer because absenteeing would reveal classified information. I believe thats the same answer that director comey gave when he was asked this question as well. And he made clear, and id like to make clear that just because i say i cant answer it, you should not draw from that an assumption that that means that the answer is yes. Fair enough. This illustrates what i was trying to get at in it my statement about the unique position that the fbi straddles between intelligence and law enforcement. I just want. The country to know whatever they are doing on the counterintelligence side mr. Clapper didnt know about it, didnt make it in the report ask well e see what comes from it. Ms. Yates, what did you tell the white house about mr. Flynn . I had two inperson meetings and one phone call with the white House Counsel about mr. Flynn. The first meeting occurred on january 26th. I called don first thing that morning and tell him that i had a very sensitive matter that i needed to discuss with him. That i couldnt talk about it on the phone and needed to come see him. And he agreed to meet with me later that afternoon. I took a Senior Member of the National Security division, who was overseeing this matter, with me to meet with him. We met in his office at the white house, which is a skid so we could discuss classified information in his office. We began our meeting telling him that there had been press accounts of statements from the Vice President and others that related conduct that mr. Flynn had been u involved in that we knew not to be the truth. As i tell you what happened here, im going to be very careful not to reveal classified information. The reason you knew it wasnt true is because you had collected some intelligence from an incidental Collection System . I cant answer that, because that would call for me to reveal classified information. Did anybody ever make a request to unmask the conversation between the Russian Ambassador and mr. Flynn . Again, senator, i cant answer a question like that. Mr. Clapper, did you know . I dont. Is there a way to find that out . Well, in another setting it could be discussed. Theres a record somewhere that would make a request to unmask the conversation with the Russian Ambassador . If one was made, this would be a record of that. I cant speak to this specific case, but i can generally comment in 702 requests, yes. Those are all documented. I dont mean to interrupt you, but this is important to me. How did the conversation between the Russian Ambassador and mr. Flynn make it to the Washington Post . Which one of us are you asking . Thats a great question. I thought so. I dont know the answer to that. Nor do i know the answer to that. Is it fair to say if it somebody made an unmasking request, we would know who they were and e we could find out from them who they shared the information with . Is that fair to say . The system would allow us to do what i just droescribed . A request made to the department of justice . The agency that does the collection. Thats my understanding. There should be a record somewhere in our system whether or not an unmasking request was made for the conversation between mr. Flynn and the Russian Ambassador. We should be able to determine if it was made, who made it, then we can ask what did they do with the information. Is that a fair statement . Yes. Now, what did you finish . What did you tell the white house . I told them that there were a number of press accounts, of statements made by the Vice President and other high ranking white house officials about general flynns conduct that we knew to be untrue. We told them how we knew that how we had this information. How we acquired it and knew it was untrue. And we walked the white House Counsel, who had an associate there with him, through his underlying conduct, the contents i cant go through with you today. But we took him through the detail, what he had done, and through the various press accounts and falsely reported. We also told the white House Counsel that general flynn had been interviewed by the fbi on february 24th. He asked e me how he did and i declined to give him an answer to that. We then walked through why we were telling them about this. And the first thing we did was to explain to mr. Mcgan that the conduct was problematic. Secondly, we told him we felt like the Vice President and others were entitled to know that the information that they were conveying to the American People wasnt true. And we wanted to make it really clear right out of the gate that we were not accusing Vice President pence of knowingly providing false information to the American People. In fact, mr. Mcgan was based on told him. We told him we were concerned that the American People had been misled about the underlying conduct and what general flynn had done. And that we werent the only one this is knew all of this. That the russians also knew about what general flynn had had done and the russians also knew that general flynn had misled the Vice President and others. Because in the media accounts, it was clear from the Vice President and others that they were repeating what general flynn had had told them. This was a problem because not only did we believe that the russians knew this, but that they likely had proof of this information. And that created a compromise situation, a situation where the National Security adviser essentially could be blackmailed by the russians. Finally, we told them that we were giving them all of this information so that they could take action. The action that they deemed appropriate. I remember that mr. Mcbegan asked if he should be fired. We were giving them this information so they could action. That was the first meeting. Were you aware of incidental collection by the Intelligence Community of any president ial candidate, staff or campaign during the 2016 election cycle . Was there any president ial candidate on either side of the aisle during 2015 or 2016 . Not to my knowledge. I believe director comey was also asked this question and declined to answer it, so i need to follow in the same lines the doj has drawn. You should not draw my answer is yes, but that it would require me to reveal classified information. My response is always in the context of foreign intelligence. Following the comey line, the director testified a few days ago in the full committee that the fbi had interviewed mr. Flynn a day before or two days before your meeting at the white house and you just testified that you had told the white House Counsel that the fbi interviewed flynn ask he asked howd he do. Did you have the 302 with you when you were in the white house . Did you show it to white House Counsel . And had you seen it . No, the fbi had conducted the intervow on the 24th. We got a read out from the fbi on the 25th. A detailed read out specifically from the agents that conducted the interview. But we didnt want to wait for the 302 because we felt it was important to get this information to the white house as quickly as possible. So we had folks from the National Security division who spent a lot of time with the agents not only finding out exactly how the interview went, but how it impacted their investigation. So did you take that summary with you . Do you have any document with you that droescribed the fbi interview of general flynn . At the time that i was there, i had notes that it described that interview, as well as the individual that was with me. The senior career official had been part of all of those discussions with the fbi. Did you discuss criminal prosecution of mr. Flynn . My recollection is that did not really come up in the first meeting. It did come up in the second miting. When mr. Mcgahn called me back the next morning and asked the morning of the 27th it if i could come back to his office. So i went back with the nsd official and there were four topics that e he wanted to discuss there. One of those topic was preceasely that. He asked about the applicability of criminal statutes. This is the second meeting at the white house with the same two individuals on the following day . Right. You went back pursuant to a phone call request or . The morning of the 27th after our meeting had occurred on the afternoon of the 26th, the morning of the 27th, l. Mr. Mcg asked me to come to the white house to discuss this further. We set up a time. Ien went over there that afternoon bringing the same career official from National Security division overe seeing this investigation. He had the same associate from the white House Counsels office ask we talked through four to five more issues. You could props have waited until you seen the agents 302 from the interview of general flynn. Why go ahead of that . Why not wait . Because this was a matter of some urgency. Describe. In making the determination about notification here, we had to balance a variety of interest. For the reasons that i just described a few minutes ago, we felt like it was critical we get this information to the white house. Because the Vice President was unknowingly making false statements to the public ask we believe d that general flynn wa compromised with respect to the russians. We were balancing this against the fbis investigation. As you would always do, and take into account the investigating agencys desires and concerns about how a notification might impact that ongoing investigation. But once general flynn was interviewed, there was no longer a concern about an impact on an investigation. Do you know where that interview took place or under what circumstances . I believe it took place at the white house. The flynn interview . Yes. Do you know if he was represent represented by counsel . I dont believe he was. And the scenario you were concerned about is you were seeing all these statements from the white house that were inconsistent with what you knew. You presumed that the white house was being truthful, which meant that flynn was misleading them, whichen meant that he was vulnerable to manipulation by the russians, who knowingly what had actually taken place could call up the National Security adviser to the president and say you have to do this for us or were going to out you and your career is done. Thats right because one of the questions that mr. Mcgahn asked me was why does it matter to doj if one white house official lies to another white house official. And so we explained to him it was a whole lot more than that. And went back over the same concerns that we had raised with them the prior day. That the concern first about the underlying conduct itself that he had lied to the Vice President and others, the American Public had been misled and importantly that every time this lie was repeated and the misrepresentations were getting more and more specific as they were coming out. Every time that happened, it increased the compromise. To state the obvious, you dont want your National Security adviser compromised with the russians. Were there any take aways from the first meeting or action items that you left with . There was an action item in the second meeting because we talked about several issues. To get the order roigt, you said there were two meetings and a phone call. Was the phone call the phone call that set up the second meeting or was there a third . There was a third phone call. Wub of the issues that mr. Mcgahn raised with e me in this second meeting on the 27th, the day after the first meeting, was his concern because we had had told him before we were giving him this information so they could take action. They said they were concerned that taking action might interfere with the fbi investigation. We told him both the senior career official and i that he should not be concerned with it. General flynn had been interviewed. That their action would not interfere with any investigation, and in fact, i remember specific bically saying it wouldnt be fair of us to tell you this and then expect you to sit on your hands. Was the interview of general flynn accelerated once you became aware of this information and felt you needed to get his statement quickly . We had wanted to tell the white house as quickly as possible. Were working with the fbi and the course of the investigation, but certainly we did the first thing you know is that you have information that one thing was said and white house is saying something different. You know that information irrespective needs to get up to the white house quickly and so at that point, the decision was made to do the interview so that was locked down before you went up to white House Counsel . Right, so that would not have a negative impact on the investigation at that point. And there was a a request made by mr. Mcgahn in the second meeting a as to whether or not they would be able to look at the underlying evidence that we had that we had droescribed of their conduct. We told them we were inclined to look at the evidence. That we wanted to go back to doj and be able to make the logistical arrangements for that. It occurred late in the afternoon. This is friday the 27th. So we told them we would work with the fbi over the weekend on this issue and get back with him on monday morning. And i called him tirs thing monday morning to let him know that we would allow them to come over and to review the underlying evidence. Was that the phone call or a separate phone call . There was the phone call initially to let him know i needed to come see him. Two meetings and then a phone call at the end to let him know that the material was available. He had to call me back and i did not hear back from him until that afternoon of monday the 30th. That was the end of this episode, nobody came over to look the at the material. I dont know what happened after that because that was my last day with doj. Okay. Senator grassley. Mr. Clapper, you said that you have never exposed classified information in an inappropriate manner. I asked director comey these questions last week, so for both of you, yes or no, as far as you know has any classified information relating to mr. Trump or his associates been declassified and shared with the media . Not to my knowledge. Ms. Yates . Not to my knowledge either. Next question. Have either of you ever been an anonymous source in a news report about matters relating to mr. Trump, his associates or russias attempt to meddle in it the election . No. Absolutely not. Third question. Did either of you ever authorize someone else at your respective organizations to be in an anonymous source in a news report about President Trump or his associates . No. No. As far as either of you know, have any Government Agencies referred any of the leaks over the past several months to the Justice Department for potential criminal investigation . I dont know. As you know, senator, theres a process for doing that. I dont know if that has happened. Im not at doj anymore so i dont know whats been referred. So then i guess kind of sum up neither one of you know whether the department authorized a criminal investigation of the leaks. No, sir. Have any of you been questioned by the fbi about any leaks . I have not been. No. I want to discuss unmasking. Did either of you ever request the unmasking of mr. Trump, his associates or any member of congress . Yes, in one case i did. I cant discuss it any further than that. So if i ask you for detail, you said you cant discuss that. Is that what you said . Not here. Ms. Yates . Can you answer that question . Did you ever request unmasking of mr. Trump, his associates or any member of congress . No. Question two. Did either of you ever review classified documents in which mr. Trump, his associates or members of congress have been unmasked . Yes. Can you give us details here . No, i cant. Have you . Yes, i have. No, ien cant give you details. Did either of you ever share information about unmask Trump Associates or members of congress with anyone else . Well, im thinking back over six and a half years, i could have discussed it with either my deputy or my general counsel. Ms. Yates . In the course of the flynn matter, i had discussions with other members of the intel community. Im not sure if thats responsive to your question. In both cases, you cant give details here. No. The fbi notified the Democratic National committee of the russians intrusion in their systems in august of 2015. But the dnc turned down the fbis offer to get the russians out and refuse the fbi access to the servers. Instead, it evidently hired a private firm in the spring of 2016. Wikileaks began releasing the hacked dnc emails last july. It took roughly 27,000 emails released were emails sent is after the fbi b thoet if ied the dnc of the breach. Mr. Chlapper, would you agree oe of the lessons is that people should cooperate with the fbi when notified of foreign hacks instead of stone walling . Yes, sir, i generally think thats a very good idea. You said the russians did not release any negative information on republican candidates. I believe its not quite right on 2016 and 2. B 0 released to the smoking gun more than 200 pages of the dncs. Opposition research on mr. Trumps hundreds of pages of what i would call dirt. This happened just two days after the wall street turnl p published a plan for Republican Convention delegates to revolt to prevent trump from securing the nomination. Why wasnt the russian release of harmful information about mr. Trump addressed in the russia report and was this even evaldated during the review. I would have to consult with the analysts that were involved in the report to definitively answer that. I dont know whether they considered that or not. Can you submit that as an answer in writing . Well, im a private citizen now, sir. I dont know what the rules are on my obtaining potentially classified information. So i will look into it. Mr. Clapper, you testified that the Intelligence Community conducted an exhaustive review of russian interference and the analysts involved had complete access to all sensitive, raw intelligence data. Do you have reason to believe that any agency withheld any relevant information . I dont believe so. With one potential caveat, which is that there is the possibility, again acknowledging this role that the fbi plays in straddling both intelligence and law enforcement, that for whatever reason they may have chosen to withhold investigatory Sensitive Information from the report. I dont know that to be a fact. I was not apprised of that. Im just suggesting that as a possibility. My time is up, l. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you. Senator feinstein. Thanks very much, mr. Chairman. Ms. Yates, im not going to ask you anything that deserves a confidential or secure answer. But after your second inperson meeting with mr. Mcgahn, you said there were four topics he wanted to discuss. Would you list those four topics. Sure, the first topic in the second meeting was essentially why does it matter to doj if one white house official lies to another. The second topic related to the applicability of criminal statutes and the likelihood that the department of justice would pursue a criminal case. The third topic was his concern that they are taking action might interfere with an investigation of mr. Flynn. And the fourth topic was his request to see the underlying evidence. Were all those topics satisfied with respect to your impression after the second meeting . Yes, the only thing that was really left open there was the logistics for us to be able to make arrange thes for us to look at the underlying evidence. You did make those arrangements. We did. But again, i dont know whether that ever happened. Whether they looked at that evidence or not. Fair enough. Apparently, Lieutenant General flynn remain National Security adviser for 18 days. After you raised the Justice Departments concern. In your view during those 18 days, did the risk that flynn had been or could be compromised diminish at all . I dont know that im in a position to really have an answer for that. I know we were really concerned about the compromise here. That was the reason why we were encouraging them to act. I dont know what steps they may have taken, if any, during that 18 days to minimize. Did you discuss this with other doj career professionals . Certainly leading up to our notification on the 26th. It was a topic of o whole lot of discussion. Doj and with other members of the intel community. And we discussed it at great length. But i wasnt at doj anymore, so i didnt have anymore further discussions after the point about what was being done with respect to that. Did you consul wisubtle with other career prosecutors . Absolutely. We had the experts within the National Security division as we were navigating this situation they were work iing with the fb on the investigation and we were trying to make a determination about how best to make this notification so we could get the information to the white house that they needed to be able to act. Whats the point you were trying to make, yes or no will be fine, that general flynn had seriously compromised the security of the United States and possibly the government by what he had done, whatever that was. Our point was that logic would tell you that you dont want the National Security adviser to be in a position where the russians have leverage over him. Now in terms of what impact that may have had, i cant speak to that. But we knew that that was not a good situation, which is why we wanted to let the white house know about it. The guardian has reported that britains Intelligence Service first became aware in late 2015 of suspicious interactions between trump advisers and russian intelligence agents. This information was passed on to u. S. Intelligence agencies. Over the spring of 2016, multiple european allies passed on Additional Information to the United States about contacts between the Trump Campaign and russians. I cant answer that. General clapper, is that accurate . Yes, it is. Its also quite sensitive. The specifics are quite sensitive. When did components of the Intelligence Community open investigations into the interactions between trump advisers and russians . What was the question again . Which wh did components open investigations into the interactions between trump advisers and russians . I referred to director comeys statement before the House Intelligence Committee on the 20th of march is when he advised that they opened an investigation in july of 16. What was the reaction that you advise that the investigation be open as early as july . Im sorry . I thought you said that you advised on director comey did before the House Intelligence Committee announced that the fbi initiated an investigation in july of 2016. What did the intelligence agencies do with the findings that i just spoke about that the guardian wrote about . Im not sure about the accuracy of the article. So clearly going back to 2015 there was evidence of russian activity mainly in information gathering where think were investigating Voter Registration roles in the like. That activity started early. So we were monitoring this as it progressed and certainly as it picked up and accelerated in summer and tall of 2016. So let me go back to you, ms. Yates. I take it you were very concerned. What was your prime worry . You were worried that general flynn would be compromised. What did you think would happen if he were and how do you believe he would have been compromi compromised . E we had two concerns. Compromise was the number one concern. The russians can use compromised Material Information in a variety of ways. Sometimes overtly and sometimes subtly. And again, our concern was that you have a very sensitive position like the National Security adviser and you dont want that person to be in a position where the russians have leverage over it. But i will also say another motivating factor is that we felt like the Vice President was entitled to know that the information he was given and relaying to the American Public wasnt true. So what youre saying is that general flynn lied to the Vice President. Thats certainly how it appeared because the Vice President made statements about general tlins conduct that were based on what general flynn had told him. We knew that wasnt true. As the days went on, what was your view of the situation . Because there were two week bfrs or was it 18 day bfrs director flynn was dismissed . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Senator cornyn . Thank you, chairman, for todays hearing. This is important. The American People have the right to know. I think as the director has told us before many times, this is not anything new, although perhaps the level and intensity and the sophistication of both russian overt and covert operations is really unprecedented. And i think the Intelligence Community for their assessment. I do regret that while these two witnesses are certainly welcome and were glad to have them here that former National Security adviser susan rice has refused to testify in front of the e committee, there are a lot of questions that she needs to answer. I would point out, though, that mr. Chairman, both senator feinstein and i are fortunate enough to be on the senate Intelligence Committee, which is also conducting a bipartisan investigation under the leadership of chairman burr and one of the benefits of that Additional Investigation is that we have been given access to the raw intelligence collected by the Intelligence Community, which i think shows an incomplete picture about part of the evidence. But it is important for the American People to understand whats happening. I think this subcommittee hearing is playing an Important Role in that. I want to ask director clapper, because i think unfortunately some of the discussion about unmasking is casting suspicion on the Intelligence Community in a way that is, frankly, concerning, particularly when were looking at reauthorizing section 702 of the patriot act by the end of next year because as many have said, i cant recall your specific words, but i know director comey has called that the crown jewels of the Intelligence Community, and i am very concerned that some of the information thats been discussed about unmasking, for example, might cause some people to worry about their legitimate privacy concerns. So when it comes to incidental collection on an american person, that is unrasked at the request of some appropriate authority. Can you describe briefly the paper trail and the approval process that is required in order to allow to happen. Thats not a trivial matter, is it . The process is that, first of all, the judgment as to whether or not to unmask or reveal the identity is rendered by the original collection agency. So normally thats going to be 702 will be nsa. For my part because as i indicated in my statement, i occasionally ask for identities to be unmasked to understand the context. What i was concerned about, and those of us in the Intelligence Community are concerned about, is the behavior of the validated foreign intelligence target. Is that target trying to recoop, bribe, penetrate or what . Its very difficult to understand that context by the labels u. S. Person one, person two. And as well, i should point out, doing that on ab anecdotal basis, one report at a time, in which you need to lock at is there a pattern here. So i tried on my part to be very judicious about that. Its a very sensitive thing. But i did feel an obligation as dni that i should attempt to understand the context and who this person was because that had a huge baring on how important or critical it was in what threat might be posed by virtue of the behavior of the validated foreign intelligence targets. So our focus was ob the target, not as much on the u. S. Person only to understand the context. The name of the u. S. Person does not then authorize the release of that information, that classified information sbo the public domain. That remains a crime, does it not . Yes. Thats why i attempted to clarify in my statement the difference push the button. Thats why i attempted to make that distinction between ub masking and authorize legitimate ross with approval by the appropriate authorities and leaking, which is an unauthorized process under any circumstance. Mr. Chairman, i think its really important that in order to determine who actually requested the unmarveging and in order to establish whether appropriate procedures were undertaken both legislative oversight and judicial oversight that we determine what that paper trail is and follow it. It if i may, i have to be very careful here about how i phrase this, but i would just repeat to you the definition of what 702 is used for. Collection against a nonu. S. Person overseas. I dont think you can say that enough, director clapper. Its important because people need to understand it. We are trying to keep the American People safe but respecting their privacy rights. Absolutely. Ms. Yates, this is the first time that you have appeared before Congress Since you left the department of justice. And i just wanted to ask you a question about the decision to refuse to defend the president s executive order. In the letter that you sent to congress, you point out that the executive order itself was drafted in consultation with the office of Legal Counsel and you point out that the office of Legal Counsel reviewed it to determine whether, in its view, the executive order was law school on its face and properly is it true that the office of Legal Counsel did conclude that it was lawful on its place and properly drafted . Yes, they did. And you overruled them. I did. The office of what is your authority to to overrule the office of Legal Counsel when it comes to a legal determination. The office of Legal Counsel has a narrow function and thats to look at the face of aron executive order and to determine purely on its face whether there is some set of circumstances under which at least some part of the executive order may be lawful, and importantly they do not look beyond the face of the executive order, for example, statements that are made contemporaneously or prior to the execution of the eo that may bear on its intent and purpose. That office does not look at those factors, and in determining the constitutionality of this executive order, that was an important analysis to engage in and one that i did. Well, miss yates, i thought the department of justice had a longstanding tradition of defending a president ial action in court if there are reasonable arguments in its favor regardless of those arguments may prove to be ultimately persuasive which is up to the courts to decide and not you, correct . It is correct that oftentimes, but not always, the Civil Division of the department of justice will defend an action of the president or an action of congress if there is a reasonable argument to be made, but in this instance all arguments have to be based on truth because were the department of justice. Were not just a law firm. Were the department of justice. You distinguish the truth from lawful . Yes, because in this instance in looking at what the intent was of the executive order, which was derived in part from an analysis of facts outside the face of the order, that that is part of what led to our conclusion that it was not lawful, yes. Well, miss yates, you had a distinguished career for 27 years at the department of justice and i i voted for your confirmation because i believed that you had a distinguished career, but i have to tell you that i find it enormously disappointing that you somehow vetoed the decision of the office of Legal Counsel with regard to the lawfulness of the president s order and decided instead that you would countermanned the president of the United States because you happen to disagree with it as a policy matter. I appreciate that, senator, and let me make one thing clear. It was not purely as a policy matter. In fact, i remember my confirmation hearing. In an exchange that i had with you and other of your colleagues where you specifically asked me in that hearing that if the president asked me to do something that was unlawful or unconstitutional, and one of your colleagues said or even just that would reflect poorly on the department of justice, would i say no, and i looked at this, i made it a determination that i believed that it was unlawful. I also thought that it was inconsistent with principles of the department of justice and i said no, and thats what i promised you i would do and thats what i did. I dont know how you can say that it was lawful and say that it was within your prerogative to refuse to defend it in a court of law and leave it for the court to decide. Senator, i did not say it was lawful. I said it was unlawful. Senator durbin is next i have one quick about how 702 works. You said something, general clapper, that i quite dont understand. Is it unlawful to surveil with a fisa warrant a Foreign Agent in the United States . No, its not, but thats another provision. Okay. Im saying i just want to make sure that there is a procedure to do that. There is. Okay. Senator durbin. Just to your point, you said the word overseas. Ambassador kislyak was not overseas on december 29thth, was he . Thats correct. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Let me say at the outset to sore cornyn, in your conclusion the nature of the muslim travel ban was, of course, a position that was supported by three different federal courts that stopped the enforcement of that ban and ultimately led to the president withdrawing that particular travel ban, is that not true . Thats correct. Thank you. I want to mention at the outset here that this is a critically important hearing had. I want to thank senator graham and senator whitehouse and bipartisan nature in this hearing. I think the testimony we receive from these witnesses and the presence of so many of my other colleagues is an indication of how we view the severity and gravity of the issue before us. I am troubled that this Great Committee with its great chairman and all its members does not have professional staff assigned to this investigation. Its the ordinary staff of the subcommittee who are working it. I think that what we have seen with this situation calls for the appointment of an independent commission, president ial commission, or congressional commission, one that is clearly independent, transparent and can get to the bottom of the russian involvement in our last election process and the threat we face in the future because of it. Short of that, well continue to do our best on a Committee Level with meeker resources in both the Intelligence Committee and here, and this is i think an issue that begs for so much more. I might also say that im starting to hear from the republican side of the table about real concern about section 702 which senator lee, republican member of the committee and myself have been calling for reform on for several years. Unfortunately, we didnt have the support from the other side of the table when we did. I hope that we can get it now when we talk about real reform of the 702 and protecting the rights of individuals in america. Mice yates. Let me ask you about this meeting on january the 26th with white House Counsel done mcgann. You shared the Justice Department concerns about his communications with russia, his apparent dishonest about those communications and his vulnerability to blackmail, is that correct . Thats right. Was there anything else about the relationship of general flynn and the russians other than his representations that he had had no conversations that you warned don mcgann about . No. So it didnt go back to his trip to moscow, money received and so forth . No, it did not. It was strictly on that question. Yes. And then you had a second meeting the next day, is that correct . Thats right. On january 27thth. At his request. At mr. Mcganns request. And at that second meeting did mr. Mcgann say anything that he had taken the information that he had given you the previous day to the president . No, he didnt tell us. Are you aware that mr. Spicer the White House Press secretary said on february 14thth, quote, immediately after the department of justice notified the white House Counsel of the situation, the white House Counsel briefed the president and a small group of senior advisers. Ive seen media reports to that effect, but thats all i know is from the media. So there was no statement by mr. Mcgain he had either spoken to the president about your concerns with his National Security adviser or with any other members of the white house. No, he didnt advise us in the second meeting anyone he may have discussed us with the prior evening. I guess i might also want to a question that keecps gnawing hat me, is there anything wrong with one white house official to be lying to another white house official . To be fair to mr. Mcgann. He said his question what is it to the Justice Department if one white house official is lying to another white house official . Why is that something the department of justice would be lying about and we went back through the reasons why it was important to us. Do you think there was reason to be concerned if one white house official was lying to another official . To the extent that you may be talking about 1001 violation thats not something we were alluding to or discussing with mr. Mcgann. I think his point when he made that point to me was that he wasnt sure why the department of justice would care about one lying to another, not to be discussing whether that was in fact a crime. And the reason you told him was what . Was that, again, it was a whole lot more than one white house official lying to another. First of all, it was the Vice President of the United States and the Vice President had then gone out and provided that information to the American People who had then been misled and the russians knew all of this making mike flynn compromised now. You said earlier i believe that mr. Mcginn askann asked you thought they should fire mr. Flynn at that point and what was your response . It was not our call as to whether or not mr. Flynn was fired, we were giving them information so that they could take the action that they believed was appropriate. On february 14thth after general flynn resigned, sean spicer said, and i quote, there was nothing in what general flynn did in terms of conducting himself that was an issue. Do you have any idea what he meant by those words . No. Im not all i can say he didnt reach that conclusion from his conversation with us. I cant speak to how he arrived at that. Let me ask you there was a period of time 18 days that weve referred to during the course of this and during that period of 18 days a number of things occurred. General flynn continued to serve of as the National Security adviser for 18 days after you had briefed the white house about the counterintelligence risk that he posed, and during those 18 days general flynn continued to hire key senior staff on the National Security council, announced new sanctions on irans new Ballistic Missile program, met with japanese Prime Minister shinzo abe along with President Trump at maralago and participated in discussions about responding to a north Korean Missile launch and spoke repeatedly to the press about his communications with russia ambassador kislyak. Miss yates, in your view were there National Security concerns in these decisions being made after the information you shared with the white house . I was no longer with doj after january 30thth so i wasnt aware of any actions that general flynn was taking so i really couldnt opine on in a. General clapper, would you comment if you had had the warning from the white house or pardon me from the department of justice to the