Transcripts For CSPAN2 White House Was Warned General Flynn Could Be Compromised 20170509

Well try to make this as reasonably short as possible and if you need a break, please let us know. So, people wonder what are we doing, what are we trying to accomplish . In january, the Intelligence Community unanimously said that the russians through their Intelligence Services tried to interfere in the 2016 american president ial election, that it was the russians who hacked podestas emails, it was the russians who broke into the Democratic National committee and was russians who helped empower wikileaks. No evidence that the russians changed voting tallies, how people were influenced by what happened, only they know and god knows, but i think every american should be concerned about what the russians did. From my point of view, theres no doubt in my mind it was the russians involved in all the things i just described. Not some 400 pound guy sitting on a bed or any other country. Russia is up to no good when it comes to democracies all over the world. Dismembering the ukraine, the baltics are always under siege by russian interference. So, why . We want to learn what the russians did, we want to find a way to stop them because theyre apparently not going to stop until somebody makes them. The hearing that was held last week with director comey, asked a question, is it fair to say that russian government still involved in american politics . And he said, yes. So i want house members and senators to know the president ial campaign in 2016, it could be our campaigns next. I dont know what happened in france, but somebody hacked into mr. Macrons account and well see who that may have been, but this is sort of what russia does to try to undermine democracy. So, what are we trying to accomplish here . To validate the findings of the Intelligence Committee as much as possible and come up with a course of action as a nation bipartisan in nature because it was the Democratic Party of 2016 were the victims. Could be the Republican Party of the future. When one partys attacked, all of us should feel an attack. It should be an article 5 agreement between both major parties, all major parties, that when a foreign power interferes in our election, doesnt matter who they targeted, were all in the same boat. Secondly, the unmasking, the 702 program. Quite frankly, when i got involved in this investigation, i didnt know much about it. Director comey said the 702 program, which allows warrants for intelligence gathering and a vital intelligence tool, ive learned a bit about unmasking and what ive learned is disturbing. So i dont know exactly all the details, what goes into unmasking an american citizen being incidentally surveilled when they are involved with a Foreign Agent. Id like to know more and i want to make sure that that unmasking can never be used as a political weapon in our democracy. So im all for hitting the enemy before they hit us. Intelligence gathering is essential, but i do believe we need to take a look at the procedures involved in 702, particularly how unmasking is requested, who can request it and what limitations exist, if any, on how the information can be used. So thats why were here. Were here to find out all things russia and the witnesses are determined by the evidence and nothing else. The 702 reauthorization will come before the congress very soon and i, for one, have a lot of questions i didnt have before. Ive enjoyed doing this with senator whitehouse, senator feinstein and grassley have been terrific. Let it be said that the chairman and Ranking Member of the subcommittee have allowed us to do our job. Empowered us and have been handson and its much appreciated. With that, ill recognize senator whitehouse. Thank you, chairman graham, for the important work the subcommittee is doing understood yur leadership investigating the threat of russian interference in our elections. In january, americas Intelligence Community disclosed Vladimir Putin engaged in an election influence campaign throughout 2016. In march, director comey confirmed, i quote him, the fbi as part of its investigation, russia to interfere in the 2016 election and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and russias efforts. The fbi and the Intelligence Communitys work is appropriately taking place outside the public eye. Our inquiry serves broader aims. To give a thorough Public Accounting of the known facts, to pose the questions that still need answers, and to help us determine how best to protect the integrity and proper functioning of our government. At the subcommittees first hearing on march 15, we heard from Expert Witnesses about the russian toolbox for interfering in the politics of other countries. Now we can ask which of these tools were used against us by the russians in 2016. Heres a checklist propaganda, fake news, trolls and bots. As told in march, russian statesponsored media outlets, rt and sputnik, churned out manipulated truths, false news stories and conspiracies, end quote, providing a weaponized fake news effort openly supporting Donald Trumps candidacy, quoting again, while consistency offering negative coverage of secretary clinton. This was to again, quote, a deliberate, well organized, well funded, wideranging effort, end quote, by russia, using trolls and bots to amplify its messages particularly across social media. These facts are not disputed by any serious person, so this is a yes on the checklist. Hacking and theft of political information. Throughout 2015 and 2016, russian Intelligence Services and statesponsored hackers conducted Cyber Operations against u. S. Political targets. Includeing state and local election boards, penetrating networks, probing for vulnerabilities and stealing private information and emails. Attribution of these crimes to russian actors was confirmed in our last hearing and by many other sources, so this is another yes. Timed leaks of damaging material. Russian intelligence fronts, cutouts and simpleympathetic organizations like guccifer 2. 0, wikileaks, manipulate Public Opinion and influence the outcome of an election. Roger stone foresaw stolen data on twitter in 2016. Timing can matter. On october 7, just hours after the damaging access hollywood tapes of donald trump were made public, wikileaks began publishing emails stolen from Clinton Campaign manager john podesta. So, yea again. Assassination and political violence. Last act, Russian Military Intelligence Reportedly conspired to assassinate the thenPrime Minister of montenegro as part of a coup attempt. Russian opposition figures are routinely the targets of statedirected political viviolence. Boris nemsof was brazenly murdered near the kremlin in 2015. Thankfully we have no evidence of that happening here. Investment control and key economic sectors. We learned from heather conleys testimony in our last hearing that the kremlin playbook is is to manipulate other countries through economic penetration, heavily investing in critical sectors of the target countrys economy to create political leverage. Putins petro politics uses russias control of natural gas to create political pressure, but no, as to that tactic here so far. Shady business and financial ties. Russia exploits the dark shadows of economic and political systems. Fbi director comey testified last week that the United States is becoming the last big haven for Shell Corporations for the opacity of the corporate form allows the concealment of criminal funds and can allow foreign money to directly and indirectly influence our political system. Since the Citizens United decision, weve seen unprecedented dark money flow in our election from 501c4 organizations. We dont know whos behind the dark money or what theyre demanding in return. Using Shell Corporations and other devices, russia establishes elicit Financial Relationships to develop leverage against prominent figures through the carrot of continued bribery or stick of threatened disclosure disclosure. How about here . Well, we know President Trump has long pursued business deals in russia. Hes reported to have done or sought to do business since the mid 1990s. As he chased deals in russia throughout the 2000s, he deputized a colorful character named felix sader. Saders family has links to russianorganized crime and felix, himself, has had difficulties with the law. Sader said in a 2008 deposition that he would pitch Business Ideas directly to trump and his team on a constant basis. As recently as 2010, sader had a Trump Organization Business Card in an office in trump tower. Donald trump jr. Said in september 2008 that he made half a dozen trips to russia in the proceeding 18 months, noting that russian investors were heavily involved in trumps new noting that russian investors were heavily involved in trumps real estate projects. We see a lot of money pouring in from russia, he said. One trump property in midtown manhattan had become within a few years of opening a prominent depository of russian money according to a report in Bloomberg Business week. Here there are big questions. Corrupting and compromising politicians. Financial leverage, they use compromising material to pressure and manipulate targeted individuals with the prospect of damaging disclosures. Has russia compromised, corrupted, cultivated or exerted improper influence on individuals associated with donald trump, his administration, his transition team, his campaign or his business . Another big question mark. We know donald trump has had a number of russia friendly figures. In august 2015 trump met with michael slim, director of the Defense Intelligence agency, with relationships between Russia Military intelligence. In december of that year flynn traveled to moscow for a paid speaking appearance at a University Gala for rt where he was seated next to Vladimir Putin. Two month after that trip, reportedly surfing as an informal security advisor. Trump identified a littleknown Energy Investor is carter page as one of his Foreign Policy advisor is in late march 2016, page told Bloomberg Politics friends and associates had been hurt by us sanctions against russia and there is a lot of excitement in terms of the possibilities for creating a better situation. On april 27, 2016, trump and several advisers including Jeff Sessions met russias ambassador to the United States before a campaign speech, the speech was hosted by the center for National Interest had been arranged by trump soninlaw jared kuttner. He attended the Trump Convention and told the Washington Post he had multiple contacts, before and after the election. After the november election Russias Deputy foreign minister confirmed the government had communicated with the trump team during the campaign. We know Michael Flynn spoke with the ambassador on december 29th, the same day president obama announced sanctions against russia for its interference in the 2016 election. Trump transition and Administration Official thereafter made false statements to the media and the public about the content of flynns conversations apparently as a result of flynn having misled them. This led trump to ask for flynns resignation, something that could shed some light in our testimony today. The administration has yet to take responsibility for or explain these and other troubling russia links dismissing facts as fake news and downplaying significance of individuals involved. 100 days into the Trump Administration, two years since he declared his candidacy for president only one person was held accountable for improper context with russia, Michael Flynn. Even then the Trump Administration maintained flynns communications with the ambassador were not improper, he simply lost the confidence of the president. We need more thorough accounting of the fact. Many years ago and 18 minute gap transfixed the country and got everybodys attention another investigation. In this case we have an 18 day gap between the notification of the white house that a senior official had potentially been compromised and action taken against the senior officials role. The Trump Administration has displayed serious errors of judgment and at worst these irregularities reflect efforts in compromising corruption at the hands of russian intelligence is my sincere hope is this hearing and those to come will help us find out. Thank you, chairman. Our two witnesses are well known and will be sworn in. The former director of National Intelligence, mister clapper, served for decades in uniform and dedicated his life in intelligence gathering. Ms. Yates is the former Deputy Attorney general, people in the legal profession, please rise. Affirmed the testimony, affirm the testimony are about to give us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god. Mister clapper. Certainly didnt expect, i thought it was all done with this when i left the government. This is only the first of two hearings this week. Understandably, and so serious to focus, hopefully bipartisan focus by the congress and the American People. And russian interference, in this president ial election process, and the Community Assessment or ica. And whatever information, and came up with an the congress and the classified form. And against the ica was produced, and classification and executive to what i can discuss. My direct official knowledge stopped on 20 january when my term of office was over. The ic was a coordinated project from three agencies, cia, nsa and fbi, not all 17 components of the Intelligence Community, those three. Under my former office, only extensive Intelligence Reporting about many russian efforts to collect on and influence the election of the president ial election, president obama asked us to do this in december and have it completed before the end of his term. The 2 dozen or so analysts for this task were handpicked am a seasoned experts from each of the contributing agencies, given complete, unfettered mutual access to all Intelligence Data and importantly complete independence to reach their findings. They found the russian government pursued a multifaceted influence campaign in the runup to the election including aggressive news of cybercapabilities. The russians used cyberoperations against both Political Parties including hacking into servers used by the Democratic National committee and releasing stolen data to wikileaks and other media outlets. Russia collected uncertain Republican Party affiliate targets but did not release any republican related data. The Intelligence Community includes the f and directed and influence the campaign to erode the faith and confidence of the American People in the president ial election process, second that he did so to demean secretary clinton and third, he sought to advantage donald trump. These conclusions were reached based on the information gathered and analyzed, thoroughly vetted and approved by directors of the three agencies and these russian activities result in assessment briefed first to president obama on 5 january and president elect trumps trump tower on the sixth and congress be a series of five from the sixth through 13 january, a classified version annotated with footnotes with thousands of pages of supporting material, the key judgments in the unclassified version published on the sixth of january were identical to the classified version. It had been four months since issuance of this assessment is directed comey and rogers testified before the house Intelligence Committee on 23 march and confidence levels reached at the time still stand. I think that is a statement to the quality and professionalism of the Intel Community people who produce such compelling Intelligence Report during a tumultuous controversial time under intense scrutiny and with a very tight deadline. Throughout the public dialogue about the issue over the past few months or related topics have been raised for clarification. I would like to provide a sense of clarification. First i want to address the meaning of, quote, unmasking which is an unofficial term that has appeared frequently in recent months and often misused and misunderstood. What frequently happens, in the course of conducting lawfully authorized surveillance on validated foreign intelligence targets of collecting agencies, picking up communications involving us persons, direct interface with a validated foreign intelligence target or discussion about those us persons by validated foreign intelligence so under Intelligence Community minimization procedures the identity of these us persons are typically masked and reports to intelligence consumers and referred to each report at a time as us person one, us person 2 etc. However, there are cases to fully understand the context of the communication obtained or the threat that is posed, the consumer of collective intelligence may ask the identity of the us person be revealed. Why the unmasking is necessary and that explanation is conveyed back to the agencies that collected the information. It is up to that agency whether approving a request or provided entity and if the us persons identity is revealed it is provided only to the person who requests it, not to a broader audience. This process is subject to oversight reporting and the need of transparency, my former office publishes reports and statistics of how many identities are unmasked based on collections that occurred in section 702 of the Amendment Act i will speak about in a moment. In 2016 the number was 1934. On several occasions in my 6 years at dni requested the identity of us persons to be revealed. In each instance i made these requests to fully understand the context of communication and what was posed. At no time did i submit a request for personal proposal purposes or look at intelligence, nor am i aware of any instances of such abuse by anyone else, second is the issue of leaks. Leaks were completed with unmaskings in the Public Discourse but they are two different things. Unmasking is a legitimate process that consists of requested approval by proper authorities as described. A leak is unauthorized disclosure of classified or Sensitive Information improper under any circumstance. I long maintained during my 50 year career in intelligence that the National Security sources methods, they can put assets lives at risk. For the record in my long career of never knowingly exposing classified information in an inappropriate manner, third is the issue of counterintelligence investigations conducted by the federal bureau of investigation. I cant comment on any particular counterintelligence investigation it is important to understand how such investigations relate to the Intelligence Community and general practice i followed during my time with respect to fbi counterintelligence investigations. When the Intelligence Committee obtained information suggesting us person is acting on behalf of foreign power, the stated procedure is to share that information with the investigatory body which is the fbi. The bureau then decides whether to look at the information and handle any ensuing investigation if there is one given its sensitivity, given the existence of a counterintelligence investigation closely held at the highest levels. During my tenure it was my practice to defer to the fbi director both director mueller and directed comey on whether, when and to what extent they would inform me about such investigations. Stems from the unique position of the fbi which travels both intelligence and Law Enforcement and as a consequence i was not aware of the counterintelligence investigation, the richer comey referred to during the testimony before the House Committee for intelligence on a 20th of march. That conflates with my public statements. Finally on section 7002 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act amendment as it is called, what it governs and why it is. The foreign Intelligence Surveillance court to prove electronic surveillance of nonus persons, foreign intelligence outside the United States. Section 702 is a tremendously effective tool in identifying terrorists and the privacy and Civil Liberties of us persons and as the chairman indicated section 7002 is due for reauthorization by congress this year, it was renewed in 2012 for five years and expires on 31 december this year. So many misconceptions flying around, it would be tragic for 702 to be the casualty of misinformation and to lose a tool that is so vital to the safety of this nation. The conclusion that russias influence activities in the runup to the 2016 election constituted the high watermark since the 1960s that disrupt and influence our elections. They must be congratulating themselves to have exceeded their wildest expectations with a minimal expenditure of resource, they are now emboldened to continue such activities in the future here and around the world and to do so more intensely. If there has ever been a clarion call for action against a threat to the foundation of our Democratic Political system, this episode is it. I hope the American People recognize the severity of this threat and collectively counter the fabric of our democracy. I now turn to my former colleague acting attorney general sally yates for any remarks she has to make. Microphone. Chairman graham, Ranking Member whitehouse industry was members of the subcommittee, i am pleased to appear before you in this incredibly important topic of russian interference in the last president ial election and related topics of the subcommittee investigating. For 27 years i was honored to represent the people of the United States with the department of justice. I began as an assistant United States attorney in fall of 1989 and like all prosecutors i investigated and tried cases and worked hard to ensure the safety of the community. And and the corruption section, the privilege of serving as Deputy Attorney general for two years and finally the Current Administration asked me to stay on as acting attorney general. Throughout my time i was incredibly unfortunate to be able to work with the talented, career men and women at the department of justice who followed the fact and applied the law with tremendous care and dedication and who are in fact the backbone of the department of justice and at every step, in every position from ausa to acting attorney general, i always tried to carry out my responsibilities in a way that would engender the trust and confidence of the people whom i served. I want to thank the subcommittee for conducting an impartial and thorough investigation of this vitally important topic. The efforts by a foreign adversary to interfere and undermine our democratic process and those of our allies pose a serious threat to all americans. This hearing and others the subcommittee has conducted and will be conducting in the future on a bipartisan step in understanding is a threat, confront it going forward. Is the Intelligence Community assist in its january 2017 report, developing capabilities to use against the United States, we need to meet those threats which i sincerely appreciate the opportunity to take part in todays discussion. I want to note in my answers i tend to be as comprehensive as possible, while respecting my legal and ethical boundaries. As the subcommittee understands, many of the topics of interest today concern classified information i cannot address in this public setting. My duty to protect classified information applies just as much as a former official as it did when i lead the department. In addition i am no longer with the department of justice and i am not authorized to discuss the deliberations within doj or the executive branch. Particularly on matters that may be the subject of Ongoing Investigation. I take those obligations very seriously. I appreciate the subcommittees shared interest in protecting classified information and preserving the integrity of the investigations for the part of justice may now be conducting. I look forward to answering your questions, thank you. Senator grassley, would you like to make a statement . Okay. Okay. All right. Senator feinstein. Thank you. Let me be very brief. We have prepared for the committee, i would like to ask staff to distribute a background and timeline on Lieutenant General Michael Flynn and some of the key dates involved which may be of help to the subcommittee. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the subcommittee, chairman graham and Ranking Member whitehouse, you have done a good job and the whole subcommittee has, thank you very much. All the remarks in the record. I think it is a foregone conclusion about russias involvement. We see it replicated even in the french elections, perhaps not to the extent, certainly replicated. On february 9, 2017, the Washington Post reported flynn had misled the Vice President or pens had misspoken. Lieutenant general flynn resigned his post on february 13th, four days after the post broke this story. There are many Unanswered Questions about general flynn including who knew what, who knew what and when. For example the president now reporting that in addition to a warning from sally yates concerns were raised by former president obama directly to then president elect trump. 95 days before flynn resigned. 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 for today. What role did flynn play in high level National Security decisions bolstering the 95 days and the 18 days when the white house was on notice. I look forward to hearing more about this from you, acting attorney general yates. You have stated you want the white house on january 26th, nearly three weeks before flynn resigned, that he had not been truthful and might be vulnerable to russian black male. 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. I will put my whole remarks in the record, mister chairman. I hope to ask a question about these few comments. Thank you for this opportunity. Mister chairman, a letter dated november 18, 2016, from the Ranking Member on the House Committee on oversight government reform, representative Elijah Cummings giving Vice President elect pens notice about conflict of interest regarding general flynn. On march 5, 2017, you said the following, here is the question. Does intelligence exist that can definitely answer the following question, there were improper contexts between the Trump Campaign and russian officials, we did not include any difference in our report, the nsa, fbi, cia, with my office, director of National Intelligence that had anything that had any reflection of collusion for members of the Trump Campaign, no evidence that included in our report, i understand that but does it exist, no, not to my knowledge. Do you have any evidence, that would suggest in the 2016 campaign, anybody in the Trump Campaign colluded with the russian government Intelligence Services and in proper fashion. I cant answer that. I dont get that. He issued the report and he said he didnt know of any. What do you know that is not in the report. Are you asking me . The director also said he was unaware of the fbi counterintelligence investigation. Would it be fair to say the counterintelligence investigation was not mature enough to come into his report . Is that fair, mister clapper . That is a possibility. What i dont get is how the fbi can have a counterintelligence investigation suggesting collusion and you as director of intelligence do not know about it and the fbi found a report that basically said there was no collusion . I can only speculate why that was so. If there was any evidence it didnt reach the evidentiary bar in level of confidence we were striving for in the Intelligence Community assessment. Makes perfect sense to me. Are you familiar with the dossier about a guy in england . Did you find a credible report . We didnt make a judgment on that. That is one reason we did not include it in our intelligence assessment. It is included. We couldnt corroborate the sourcing particularly second or third order sources. The dossier. If i can clarify one answer, you may have misunderstood me. You asked whether i was aware of any evidence of collusion and i declined to answer because answering would reveal classified information. I believe that is the same as a director comey gave when he was asked this question as well. He made clear and i make clear the just because i say i cant answer it, you should not draw from that the assumptions that that means the answer is yes. This illustrates what i was trying to get in my statement about the unique position between intelligence and Law Enforcement. Whatever they are doing on the counterintelligence side, miss yates, what did you tell the white house about mister flynn . I had two in person meetings and one phone call about mister flynn. The first meeting on january 26th called done mc can that morning and told him i had a sensitive matter i needed to discuss with him, couldnt talk about it on the phone and needed to see it and he agreed to meet with me later that afternoon. I took a Senior Member of the National Security division overseeing this matter with me, we met in his office at the white house so we could discuss classified information. We began our meeting telling him there had been press accounts of statements from the Vice President and others that related conduct mister flynn had been involved in. If i tell you what happened i will be very careful not to reveal it wasnt true, collected some intelligence from an incidental collection system. Is that fair to say . Let me ask you this. Did anybody make a request to unmask the conversation between the Russian Ambassador and mister flynn . I cant answer a question like that. I dont. Is there a way to find that out . In another setting. A record somewhere to make a request and unmask the situation with general flynn. It was made to be represented. I cant speak to this specific case but i can comment that yes. Those are all documented. I dont mean to interrupt but this is important to me. How did the conversation between the Russian Ambassador and mister flynn make it to the Washington Post . All of this i dont know the answer to that. Nor do i know the answer. Is it fair to say if somebody did make and unmasking request, we would know who they were and 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 described. A request made to the justice. To the agency. That is my understanding. There should be a record in the system weather and unmasking request is made for the conversation between mister flynn and the Russian Ambassador. We should be able to determine if it was made, who made it and we can ask what did they do with the information. Is that a fair statement . Yes. What did you finish . What did you tell the white house . I told them there were a number of press accounts of statements by the Vice President and other highranking white house officials about general flynns comments we knew to be untrue. We told them how we had this information, how we had acquired it and we knew this was untrue and white House Counsel had an associate. General flynns underlying conduct, the context of which i cannot go through because it is classified but we went through a fair amount of detail, the underlying conduct, and walked through the various press accounts and how it had been falsely reported. We told the white House Counsel general flynn had been interviewed by the fbi on february 24th. Mister mc can asked how he did and i declined to give an answer to that and we then walked through why we were telling about this and we explained the underlying conduct general flynn had engaged in was problematic in and of itself. We felt the Vice President and others were entitled to know that the information they were conveying to the American People wasnt true and we wanted to make it really clear out of the gate that we were not accusing Vice President pens of knowingly providing false information to the American People and in fact mister mc can responded back to me letting me know that anything general flynn would have said would anything Vice President mike pence said would be based on what general flynn told him. We told him the third reason was we were concerned the American People had been misled about the underlying conduct, and and it is clear from the Vice President and others, and we have no proof of this information. That created a compromise situation where the National Security could be blackmailed by the russians. The action deemed appropriate. And any president ial candidate staff or campaign, during the 2016 election cycle. Say that again. Any incidental collections for the Intelligence Community to collect information involving a president ial candidate on either side of the isle. Here in 201516 . Director comey was asked this question and declined to answer. I need to follow the same line the doj has drawn. You should not draw from that the my answer is yes but that the answer would require me to reveal classified information. My response, not the domestic following the comey line, the director testified a few days ago in full committee, the fbi interviewed mister flynn a day before or two days before your meeting at the white house and you testified you had told the white House Counsel the fbi reviewed flynn and mc gun asked how did he do. Did you have the 302 with you in the white house . Did you show it to white House Counsel or seen it at the time you went to the white house . The fbi conducted the interview on the 24th, a readout from the fbi, a detailed readout, funding agents that conducted the energy, we didnt want to wait for the 302, we wanted to get it to the white house as much as possible so we had folks who spend a lot of time with agents. How this impacted their investigation. Did you take that summary with you . Did you have a document to describe the fbi interview, with general flynn . I have notes to describe that interview, the individual that is with me, senior career official from the National Security division did you discuss criminal prosecution with mister flynn . General flynn . No recollection in the first meeting, it did come up in the second meeting when Mister Mc Gann called me the next morning and asked the morning of the 27th if i could come back to the office. There are four topics to discuss and one of them, criminal statutes and more specifically the second meeting at the white house. With the same two individuals. You went back pursuant to a phone call request. The meeting was on the afternoon of the 26th, Mister Mcgann called me and asked the to come to the white house to discuss this and we set up a time and i went over there that afternoon. And in the white House Counsels office, you could have waited until you are agent 302 in the interview of general flynn. Why go ahead of that, why not wait . This is a matter of some urgency. In making the determination about notification we have to balance a variety of interests for the reasons i described a few minutes ago, we felt it was critical that we get this information to the white house, in part because the Vice President was making false statements to the public and we believed general flynn was compromise with respect to the russians. We were balancing this against the fbi investigation as you always do and take into account the investigating agencies desires and concerns how a notification might impact the Ongoing Investigation. Once general flynn was interviewed there was no longer a concern about the impact on the investigation. Are you where the interview took place under what circumstances . Its a place at the white house. The flynn interview. Do you know if flynn was represented by counsel at the time . I dont believe he was. The scenario you are concerned about is you were seeing these statements from the white house that were inconsistent with what you knew you presumed the white house was being truthful which meant flynn was misleading them which meant he was vulnerable to manipulation by the russians who knowing what had taken place could call up the National Security advisor to the president and say you got to do this or we will out you with all your folks and your career is done. I went back over the second day, why does it matter to doj of one white house official lies to another white house official and we explained it was a whole lot more than that and went over the same concerns we raised the prior day that the concern about the underlying conduct, he had lied to the Vice President and the American Public had been misled and importantly every time, the misrepresentations are getting more specific as they were coming out. Every time that happens, it increased the compromise and you dont want your National Security advisor compromise with the russians. Any take aways from the first meeting or action items you left with . There was an action item in the second meeting because we talk about several issues. To get the order right, there were two meetings and a phone call. Was the phone call the phone call set up in the second meeting a third substantive phone call. One of the issues Mister Mcgann race with me on the 22nd, the day after the first meeting, his concern, and giving this information to take action. Taking action might interfere with the fbi investigation and we told him the senior career official and i, we should not be concerned with, general flynn had been interviewed, their action would not interfere with any investigation and specifically saying it wouldnt be fair of us to tell you this and expect you to sit on your hands. With the interview general flynn accelerated once you became aware of this information and felt you needed to get his statement quickly . We wanted to tell the white house as quickly as possible, we are working with the fbi in the course of the investigation but certainly we did. The first thing you know is you have information but one thing was said and the white house is saying Something Different and you know that information irrespective of who is involved needs to get 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 go to white House Counsel. That would not have a negative impact on the investigation at that point. In the second meeting as to whether or not they would be able to look at the underlying evidence described of general flynns conduct, we were inclined to look at the underlying evidence, to go back to doj and make logistical arrangement with that. Hands we worked with the fbi over the weekend on this issue and get back on monday morning and called him first thing monday morning to let him know. The underlying evidence. Was that the phone call or is there a separate phone call . I would let him know i needed to see him, two meetings and a phone call at the end to let him know. That the material was available. He had to call me back. On monday the 30 through. That is the end of this episode looking at the material. Dont know what happened because that was the last day with doj. Senator grassley. Mister clapper, you say you never exposed classified information in an inappropriate manner. I asked director comey these questions last week, for both of you, yes or no. As far as you know has any classified information relating to donald trump or his associates been declassified and shared with the media. Not to my knowledge. Next question, have either of you ever been an anonymous source in a news report about matters relating to Donald Trumps associate the russianss attempt to meddle in the election. Absolutely not. Third question, did either of you often arise someone else at your respective organizations to be an anonymous source in a news report about donald trump or his associates . No. As far as either of you know, have any Government Agencies referred to any of the leaks over the last several months to the Justice Department for potential criminal investigation . I dont know. I dont know if that has happened. I am not at doj so i dont know what has been referred. Neither one of you know whether the department authorized criminal investigation of the leaks. Have any of you been questioned by the fbi about any leaks . I have not been. No. I want to discuss unmasking, mister clapper, ms. Yates, did you request the unmasking of donald trump, his associates or any member of congress . In one case i did. I cant discuss it any further. If i ask details you said you cant discuss that, is that what you said . Not here. Did you request unmasking of donald trump, his associates or any member of congress . Did either of you review classified documents and donald trump and his associates or members of congress unmasked . Can you give details . I cant. Miss yates, have you . If i have and i cant give you details. Did you share information about Trump Associates or members of congress with what else . Thinking over 6 years i could have discussed with my deputy or general counsel. Miss yates. In the case of the flynn matter i had discussions with members of the intel committee, not sure that is responsive to your question. In both cases you cant give details here. The fbi notified the Democratic National committee of relations intrusion into the systems in august of 2015 but the dnc turned down the offer to get the russians out, and access to their servers. And in the spring of 2016, wikileaks began releasing the hacked dnc emails last july that took 27,000 of the 27,500 dnc emails that were released or sent after the fbi notified the dnc of the breach. Mister clapper, would you agree one of the lessons of this episode is people should cooperate with the fbi when notified of foreign hacks . Yes, i generally think that is a very good idea. Mister clapper, you said the russians did not release any negative information on republican candidates. I believe that is not quite right on june 15, 2016, released to the smoking gun more than 200 pages of the dnc Opposition Research on donald trump, hundreds of pages of what i call dirt, this happened two days after the wall street journal published a plan for Republican Convention delegates to revoke, to prevent donald trump from securing the nomination. Why wasnt the russian release of harmful information about donald trump addressed in the ratio report, this wasnt evaluated during the review. Consult with the analysts that were involved, to definitively answer that, i dont know personally whether they consider that or not. Can you submit that as an answer in writing . I am a private citizen, i dont know what the rules are. My obtaining potentially classified information, i will look into it. You testified the Intelligence Community conducted an exhaustive review of russian interference with analysts involved with sensitive raw Intelligence Data. Do you have any reason to believe any agency would have withheld any relevant information . I dont believe so with one potential caveat which is there is the possibility acknowledging this role that the fbi plays in straddling intelligence and Law Enforcement that for whatever reason they may have chosen to withhold investigatory Sensitive Information from the report. I dont know that. I was not apprised of that. Just suggesting it as a possibility. My time is up, thank you. Mister chairman, i am not going to ask you anything that deserves a confidential or secure answer, after your second in person meeting with mister macbegan, there were four topics he wanted to discuss. Would you list those topics . Sure. The first topic and the second meeting is why did it matter to doj and one white house official lied to another. The second topic related to the applicability of criminal statutes and likelihood that affirmative justice would pursue a criminal case, the third topic was his concern that they are taking action might interfere with an investigation of mister flynn and a fourth topic, the request to see the underlying evidence. All those topics were satisfied with respect to your impression after the second meeting . Yes. The only thing left open was the logistics to make arrangements for them to look at the underlying efforts. You did make those arrangements. We did make those arrangements but i dont know whether that ever happened, if they looked at that evidence or not. Fair enough. Apparently Lieutenant General flynn remained 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 i am in a position to have an answer to that. We were really concerned about the compromise here and that is the reason we were encouraging them to act. I dont know what steps they may have taken during the 18 days to minimize. Did you discuss this with other career professionals . A to notification of the 26th, the topic of a lot of discussion with other members of the Intel Community and we discussed it at great length. After the 30th, i didnt have any further discussions. After that point what was being done. That you consult with other career prosecutors. Absolutely. We had experts in the National Security division as we were navigating the situation, making a determination about how best to make the notification so we could get the information to the white house that they needed. What is the point you are trying to make, yes or no will be fine the general flynn had seriously compromised the security of the United States and possibly the government by what he had done, whatever that was. The point is logic would tell you you dont want the National Security advisor to be in a position where the russians have leverage. In terms of what impact that may have had or could have had i cant speak to that but we knew that was not a good situation which is why we wanted to let the white house know about it. The guardian has reported British Intelligence Service First became aware in late 2015 of suspicious interactions between trump advisers and russian intelligence agents. This information was passed on to Us Intelligence agencies over the spring of 2016. Multiple european allies passed on Additional Information to the United States about contact between the Trump Campaign and russians. I cant answer that. General clapper, is that accurate . Yes, it is and it is also quite sensitive. Let me ask you this. The specifics are quite sensitive. When did component of the Intelligence Community open investigations into the interactions between trump advisers and russia . What was the question . When did component of the Intelligence Community 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 when he advised investigation in july. Was the reaction when you advised that the investigation be opened as early as july 15 . Mr. Clapper im sorry. Senator feinstein i thought you said that you advised mr. Clapper director comey did announced that the f. B. I. Initiated an investigation in july of 2016. Senator feinstein what did the intelligence agencies do with the findings that i just spoke the guardian wrote about. Im not sure about the accuracy of that article. Cc so clearly over, going back to 2015 there was evidence of soviet, russian, excuse me, freudian slip, russian activityi mainly in an information gathering or reconnoitering mode where they were investigating Voter Registration rolls and the like. That activity started early. And so we were monitoring this as it progressed and certainly as it picked up, accelerated in the spring, summer and fall of 2016. O okay. So let me go back to you, yates. Ms. Yates. I take it you are very concerned. Concerned. What was your primary during all of this . Now, you were worried that general flynn would be compromised. What did you think would happen if he were, and how deeply he wouldve been compromised . We had two concerns. Compromise was certainly the number one concern and the russians can use compromised material, information come in a variety of ways, sometimes overtly and sometimes suddenly. Our concern was you have a very sensitive position like the National Security advisor andos you dont want that person to be in a position where ache in the russians have leverage over him. But i will also say another motivating factor is that we felt like the Vice President was entitled to know that information he had been given and that he was relying to the American Public wasnt true. So what you are saying isna that general flynn lie to the msce president . Thats certainly how it appeared, yes, because the Vice President went out and made statements about general flynns conduct he said were based on what general flynn had told him. We knew that just glad it wasnt true. Well, as the days went on, what was your view of the situation . Because the were i guess two weeks before, was it 18 days, before director flynn was dismissed . Again i was toying with doj after the 30th, and so i wasnt having interaction or any involvement in this issue after that day. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Senator cornyn. Thank you, chairman graham and senator whitehouse for todays hearing. This is important. The American People have every right to know as much as possible about russian interference in our elections. But as a think as of the directors us before many times, this is not anything new, although perhaps the level and t intensity and the sophistication of both russian overt and covert operations is really unprecedented, and i think that Intelligence Community for the assessment. I do regret while these two witnesses are certainly welcomed and were glad to have them here, the former National Security advisor susan rice has refused to testify in front of the committee. It seems to me there are a lot of questions that she needs to answer. I would point out though that, mr. Chairman, that 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 buys chairman warner, 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 completes what understandably is an incomplete picture when you can only talk in a public setting about part of the evidence, but it is important for the americant 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 i think is frankly pi concerning, particularly we were looking at reauthorizing section 702 of the patriot act by the end of next year. Because as many have said, ias cant recall your specific words, but i know director comey has called about the crown jewels of the Intelligence Community. Y. 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, and that is unmasked 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 that 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 t the case of 702, going to be nsa. And i know for my part, as indicated in my statement over my six and appears as dni, i occasionally asked six and a half years occasionally asked identities to be unmasked to understand the context of what i was concerned about, and those of us in the Intelligence Community are concerned about is the behavior of the validated for an intelligent target, isthr that target trying to coopt, recruit, bride, penetrate or what . Its difficult to understand that context by the labels u. S. Person one, u. S. Person too. And as well i should point out, doing that on anecdotal basis one report at a time, in which you need to look at is, is there a pattern here . And so i tried on my part to be very, 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 bearing on how important or critical it was and what threat might be posed by virtue of, again, the behavior of the validated for an intelligence target. Ll so our focus was on the target,e not as much as the u. S. Person only to understand the context. The fact that some appropriate authority might request and receive the unmasking of the name of theen u. S. Person does not been authorized the release of information that classified information into the public thatin. That remains a crime, does it not . Yes. Ed again, thats why attempted to verify in my statement ha pushed the button. Thats why in my statement i attempted to make the distinction between unmaskingut and offers legitimate process with approval by the appropriate authorities and leaking, whichh is an unauthorized process under any circumstance. Mr. Chairman, i think its really important that in order to determine who actually requested the unmasking and in order to establish whether appropriate procedures were undertaken under both legislative oversight and judicial oversight, that we determine what the paper trail is and follow it if i may, i had to be very careful here about how i phraseo this, but of which is repeat to you the definition what 702 issues for, collection against a nonu. S. Person overseas. I dont think you could say that enough, director clapper. R. Its important because people need to understand happy to say it again. We are getting foreign intelligence to keep the American People safe but also respecting the privacy rightseo and the Constitutional Rights of american citizens. A absolutely. Ms. Yates, this is the first time you have appeared before congress and she left the department of justice, and i just wanted to ask you a question about your decision to refuse to defend the president s executive order. T in the letter that you sent to congress you point out that 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 proposed executive order was lawful on its face and properlya drafted. Is it true that the office of Legal Counsel did conclude that it was lawful on his face and properly drafted . Yes, they did. The office and you overruled them . I did. What is your authority to i overrule the office of Legal Counsel when it comes to a legal determination . The office of Legal Counsel has a narrow function, and thath is to look at the face of an executive order and to determine purely on its face whether theres some set of circumstances under which at least some part of executive order may be lawful. And importantly they do not look beyond the face of executivee order, for example, statements admit contemporaneously or prior to the execution of eo that may bear on a content and its intent and purpose picked that office does not look at those factors, into determining the constitutionality of this executive order that was anpo important analysis to engage in and one that i did. Ms. Yates, i thought the department of justice had a longstanding tradition of p defending a president ial action in court, that the original uncut risible laggards in favor whether this argument might prove to be ultimately up to persuasive which of course is up to the courts to decide and not you, greg . B it is correct that often times but not always the Civil Division of the department of justice will defend an action of the present one action of congress if there is a a reasonable argument to be made. In this instance all arguments have to be based on truth. Because where the department of justice. We are not just a law firm. We are the department of justice. You have to distinguish the truth from lawful . Yes. Because in this instance in looking at what the intent was of executive order, which was derived in part from analysis of facts outside the face of the order, that is part of what led to our conclusion that it was not lawful, yes. Ms. Yates, united distinguished career for 27 years at the department of justice, and i voted for your confirmation. Because i believed that showed a distinguished career. But i have to tell you that i find it a normalcy disappointinu that you somehow vetoed theof decision of the office of Legal Counsel with regard to the lawfulness of the president order and decided instead that you would counterman executivee order of the present of the United States because you happet to disagree with it as a policy matter. I just have to say that. I appreciate that, senator, let me make one thing clear. It was not purely a policy met a big effect i remember myma confirmation hearing. In an exchange that i had with you and others 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 ofleae your colleagues, that would even reflect poorly on the department of justice, would i say no . And i looked at this, i made a determination that it believed it was unlawful. I also thought that it was inconsistent with the principles of the department of justice, and i said no. Thats what i promise 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 do than in a court of law and leave it for the court to decide. I did not say it was lawful. I said it was unlawful. D senator durbin is next but i have one quick, if you dont mind, senator durbin, about how 702 works. You said something, general clapper, i dont quite understand. Is it unlawful to surveillance with a fisa warrant a Foreign Agent in the United States . No, its not. But thats another provision. Okay. I want to make sure theres a procedure to do that. There is spirit senator durbin. Just to your point, you said the word overseas. Ambassador kislyak was an overseas on december 29 and was he . Thats correct. Thank you. Let thank you, mr. Chairman pickling is at the outset in response to senator cornyn, in your conclusion about the unlawful nature of muslim travel ban was, of course, a position which was supported by three different federal courts that stop the enforcement of that van and ultimately led to the present with the drawing that particular travel ban, is that not to . Thats correct. Se thank you Gala Committee at the outset that thi this is a qk import hearing. Want to thank senator graham and senator whitehouse for the bipartisan nature and cooperation in this hearing. I think the test when we receivh from these witnesses and the presence of so many other of my colleagues is an indication of how we view the severity andit gravity of the issue for us. I am a troubled that is Great Committee with its great chairman and all its members does not have professional staff assigned to this investigation. Its the ordinary step of the subcommittee who are working at. I think what weve seen with the situation calls for the appointment of an independent commission, president ialesiden commission, or congressionalalcm commission, one that is clearly independent, transparent and can get to the bottom of the russian involvement in our last electioe process and the threat it faces, we face in the future because of it. Short of that will continue to do our best on a Committee Level with resources in both Intelligence Committee and here. This is an issue that beg banksr so much more. I might also say ive started here from the republican side of the table some real concern about section 702, which senatos lee, republican member, and myself, have been calling foron ofform on for several years. Unfortunately we didnt have the support from other side of the table when we did. D. I hope that we can get it now. When we talk about real reform of protecting the rights of individuals in america. Ms. Yates, let me ask you about this meeting on january 26. With white House Counsel. You shared the Justice Departments concerned about hij commune with russia, his apparent dishonesty about those communications and his own ability to blackmail, correct . T . Thats right. Was anything else but a relationship of general flynn and the russians other than his representation that he had no conversations that you want don mcgahn about . No. O. Him ab so did go back to his trip to moscow, money received and so forth . No, did not. N stripping on the question. Yes. Venue had a second meeting next day, correct on june 27 . At his request, yes. And at the second meeting did mr. Mcgahn say anything about whether he had taken the information youve given them the previous day to the president . No, he didnt tell us. T are you aware of the fact that mr. Spicer, the White House Press secretary on paper 14, said, quoted immediately after the Department Just as noted by the white House Counsel of theun situation, the white House Counsel break the president in a small group of Senior Advisors . Ise meter reports to that effect but thats all i know is from the media spirit so there was no statement by mr. Began he had neither spoken to the present about your concern with his nationals good advisor or with any other members of the widest . He didnt advise us in a second meeting anyone you have discussed this with at the prior evening. Ve i also want to question, keeps gnawing at me that mr. Mcgahn asked of you come is anything wrong with one white house official line to another white house official . Well, to be fair to mr. Mcgahn, i wouldnt say that he said is anything wrong. His question was more a sense of whats it to the Justice Department if one white house i official is lying to another . In other words, why is it something doj would be concerned about . Thats why we went back through the list of issues and reasons why this was troubling to us. Did you think it was a legal reason to be concerned if oneas white house official like to another white house official . We didnt go into that, to the extent he may be talked about like 1001 violation, that was a something that we were alluding to or discussing with mr. Mcgahn. I think his point when he made that point to me was that he wasnt sure why the departmentio of justice would care about one line to another, not to be discussing whether that was, in fact, a crime. The reason you told it was i what . Was that, again it was a whole lot more than one white house official line to another. Personal it was the Vice President of the United States and the Vice President have been gone out and provide that information to the American People who had then been misledn and the russians knew all of this, making mike flynn compromised now. M you said it earlier i believe that mr. Mcgahn asked you if you thought they should fire general flynn at that point. What was your response . Told it was not our call as to whether general flynn was fired. That we were giving them this information so they could take action, the action they believee was appropriate. On federal 14th after general flynn resigned, seanas spicer said, quote, there was nothing in what general flynn did intensive conducting itself that was an issue. Do you have any idea what he meant by those words . No. All i can say is he didnt reach that conclusion from his conversation with us. I cant speak to how he arrived at. Let me ask you, there is a period of time 18 days we refer to during the course of this and during that 18 days a number things occurred. General flynn continued to serve as the National Security adviser for 18 days. After you would briefed the white house about the counterintelligence risk that he posed. And during those 18 days generak flynn continued to hire a key senior staff on a nasa city council, announce new sanctions on irans listed missile program, met with the japanese Prime Minister shinzo abe along with President Donald Trump at a maralago and participate in a discussions about responding to a north Korean Missile launch and spoke repeatedly to the press about his communications with Russian Ambassador kislyak. Ms. Yates, in your view whether National Security concerns in these decisions be made after the information you shared fromh the white house . I was no luck with doj after january 30 so i wasnt aware of any actions that general flynn was taking. I couldnt really opine on that. General clapper, your comment come if you had the warning froa the white house, part may come from the department of justice to the white house about general flynn possibly being compromised here and in these important National Security decisions that followed, would your concern about that . . I would hypothetically, yes. I mean again, i was gone from the government as well when all this happen. You had quite a career in intelligence and National Security, and here you have a man thats been told the white house has been told, he could be compromised and blackmailed by the russians, continues to make he highest level decisions of our government. It well, that is certainly a potential vulnerability, no question about it. I would say so. Thank you very much. Thanks, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Chairman. G thank you to the witnesses for being here today. Mr. Klapper, you testified as to the harms that come from leaks, the harms it come to our National Secret and he also testified about the importance of protecting classified information and keeping a classified. R during your many years in intelligence and that they dni,a have you ever knowingly forwarded classified information to a nongovernment employee on t nongovernment computer who did not have authorization to receive that information . Not to my knowledge, recollection, no, sir. And director clapper, what would you do at the dni it discovered that an employee of yours had forwarded hundreds or even thousands of emails to adi nongovernment individual, theiro spouse, on a nongovernment computer . Well, you know, im not an investigatory or prosecutorial element, but if i were unaware bit i would certainly make known to the appropriate officials that that was going on. With that strike you as anything ordinary . Hopefully not. What concerned with that raise for you . It raises all kinds of potential security concerns. Again, depending on the content of the email, what the intent was, theres a whole bunch of variables here that would have to be considered. But potentially again this is a hypothetical scenario. It could be quite concerning. What would you expect tou happen if you made him a referral of an individual who wed forwarded hundreds or thousands of classified whatever the transgression, potential transgression was, there were sufficient evidence of a compromise, we would file a crimes report. Thats the standard procedure that we use when theres the potential for investigating and prosecuting someone. Last week i asked similar questions fbi director comey, and he said an individual do that would be subject to quote significant administrative discipline. But that he was highly confident they would not be prosecuted. Do you share that assessment . En well, i dont know. W. I think the track record is that Prior Administration of thing prosecuted more people for leaking than anyone in many other administration in the past. Its difficult to do that, and there are many cases we could not prosecute or even seek a a crimes report because the potential audience of people that couldve been the perpetrator of these insecurities could not beat oth identified. It is true that other individuals who are not in the direct employ of the democratic nominee for president were prosecuted for the conduct. E let me shift to a differentdiret topic. Director clapper, you also testified that you are not aware of any intercepted communications of any the president ial candidates or campaigns other than the Trump Campaign that is been discussed here, is that correct . Tha yes, but thats to my knowledge, but, you know, Prior Administrations, prior campaigns, that wouldnt have been visible to me so i cant say. But in 2016 you are not aware of any other campaigns or candidates . No. Ms. Ms. Yates, same question to you. Are not aware of anyf interception of the trump and campaign. Tions and are you aware of any intercepted communications of any of the candidates or campaigns . No. Okay, because earlier when t chairman graham asked you that i thought you declined to enter, so perhaps i know misunderstood. And i may have misunderstood the question. I thought the question i decline to answer was a different one than that, some called daschle and try to get a chance clear it up. You have no information of any intersection of the Bernie Sanders campaign, hillary Clinton Campaign or any of the candidate in 2016 or campaigns . No. Okay. Lets revisit the topic, ms. Yates, at you and senator cornyn were talking about. Is it correct that the t constitution thats the executive authority and the president . Yes. And if an attorney general disagrees with a positive testing policy decision of the present, a policy decision of its lawful, does the attorney general have the authority to direct the department of justice to defy the president s order . I dont know whether thern attorney general has the authority to do that or not but i dont think would be a good idea and thats not what it did in this case. Well, are you familiar with eight usc section 1182 . Not off the top of my head, no. It is the binding statutoryng authority to the executive order that you refuse to implement and l. A. To your termination. So it certainly is irrelevant and not a terribly obscurexpress statute. By the explicit text of the statute it says, quote, whenevel the president finds that the entry of any alien or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interest of the United States he may by proclamation and such. As he shall deem necessary to suspend the internet of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem appropriate. Would you agree that that is broad statutory authorization . I went an unfamiliar with that and im also fairly with an additional provision of the ina that says no person shall receive preference shall beissun discriminate against an issuance of a decent because of race, nationality, or place of birth. That i believe was promulgated after the statute that you justw quoted, and thats been part of the discussion with the courts with respect to the ina is whether this more specific statute trumps the first one that you just described. My concern was not an ina concern here. It rather was a constitutional concern, whether or not the executive order here violated the constitution, specifically the establishment clause and equal protection and due proce process. There is no doubt the argument you laid out our arguments that we can expect litigants to bring, partisan litigants who disagree with the policy decision of the president. I would note on january 27, 2017 the department of justice issued an official legal decision, determination by the office of Legal Counsel that the executive order, and ill quote from the opinion, the proposed order is approved with respect to form an legality. Thats a determination, llc policy on gender twice and that it was legal. Three days later determined using your own words that although oh lc had opined on the celtic not addressed whether it was quote wise or just. I also in that same directive said i was not convinced it was lawful. I also made the point that the office of onc looks purely at the face of the document and again makes a determination as to whether there is some set of circumstances under which some portion of that eo would be enforceable, would be lawful. They importantly do not look outside the face of the document. And in this particular instance, particularly what we wereal talking about a fundamental issue of religious freedom, not the interpretation of some arcane statute but religious freedom, it was appropriate for us to look at the intent behind the president actions and intent is laid out in final very brief question. In the over 200 years of the department of justice history, are you aware of any instance in which the department of justice has formally approved the legality of the policy and three days later the attorney general has directed the department not to follow that policy and to defy the policy . Im not but im also not aware of a situation with offia of Legal Counsel was advised not to tell the attorney general about it until after it was over. And you, ms. Yates. I would note that might be the case if theres reason to suspect partisanship. Senator klobuchar. Thank you. I want you thank you very much for your service, ms. Yates, from beginning to end, your distinguished career as a prosecutor. And i just was putting this timetable together and i realized that your psyche meeting when he went over to the white house to one them of general flynns lying and his connections with russian was at the same day that this refugee order came out, and it was the same day that you had to leave the Justice Department. When did you meet with the White House Council on that date . I met with white House Counsel, best operate can recall, about 3 oclock in the afternoon on the 30th. And during that meeting did he mention anyone mention that strategy order was about to come out . To be acting attorney general of the United States . No. And i was one thing a concern to us that not only was departmentn leadership not consulted here and beyond by the leadership the subject matter experts, the nasa could expert, not only was the department not consulted, we were not even told about it. And i dont about this from a media report. So you learn about after the meeting from the media . Right. El then its true that duringuro your hearing, and then senator sessions, now the attorney general, actually asked you if the views of the president once to execute our unlawful, should the attorney general or Deputy Attorney general say no . What did you say . And i suggest, the attorney general should. Okay. And then moving forward here, as was mentioned by senator, this order was, after a lawsuit from the state of washington and minnesota, the court basically challengechallenge the constituy of the order. The order has now taken effect but a want to get too right nowc is the fact that the the administration then withdrew its request for an appeal of the court ruling blocking implementation of the same order and then they changed the order that you would not intimate. Right. There were a number of important distinction between travel ban one and two. At the time i had to make myutir decision, for example, executive order still applied to a green r card holders. Lawful permanent residents and those who had visas. Er there were a number of other distinctions as well. Let me say one thing about i want to get on, but go had very quickly. I understand that people of goodwill who are good folks can make different decisions about this. I understand that. But all i can say is that i did my job the best way i knew how. I looked at this dl. Ta i looked at the law. I talked with the folks at the department of justice, gathered them all to get their views and their input, and i did my job. I appreciate that. Rus lets go to russia to december 29, this is the date that actually senator graham and i were with senator mccain hearing about russian interference meeting with leaders in the baltics, georgia and ukraine to this is the date the president expanded for sanctions against russia and this is the date that Michael Flynn reportedly talked to the russians, perhaps several times, about sanctions. He then went on to not tell the truth to the Vice President. Noti one of the white house officials has described the notification that you provide a warning them of this as a heads up. How would you describe a heads up . To c well, at the risk of trying to characterize, we were there to tell the white house about something we were very concerned about and emphasize to then repeatedly it was so that they could take action. So is much more from open a simple hey, this is happening. Michael flynn did not resign his position at sashes good advisort until february 13. That is 18 days after you went over there with the formal warning. And in particular, after they knew about this on january 28, he was allowed to join President Donald Trump on an hourlong telephone call with russian president Vladimir Putin. Do you have any doubts that information that you convey to the white house on january 26e shouldve been made clear that flynn had been potentially compromised by russia, that this information was clear . The purpose in our telling pemmican was so that they could act and so that they could convey that information. I would hope that they did. It a high ranking nash is really officials caught on tape with a foreign official saying one thing and private and then caught in public sang another thing to the Vice President , is that material for blackmail . Certainly. You want to add anything to that, director clapper . No. Okay. I think its pretty quick editing is pretty clear why we are having the same today. I wanted to ask you, director clapper, a few thinks about just in general this russianwhen d influence. When director comey was here last week he said i think that one of the lessons that the russians may have drawn fromin this, talking by the election, the influence, is that this works those were jim comey his words. Do you agree . Absolutely. Oly. D as i said in a statement, that the russians have to be celebrating the success of what, for what they set out to do, minimal resource expenditure. The first objective was to sow discord and dissension, which they certainly did . And when we look at this, in addition to the hacking into the dnc and to the emails, we also have the fake news propaganda which is referenced in the report. I believe it is 209, is that all they spent in the scheme of things, Something Like that . If that, which doesnt include the government supported subsidies to rt. And how does rt work when you look at this . Rts essentially a propaganda mouthpiece for the government, since the predominance of its funding comes from the government and the management is close to putin. So its as i say i think a governmental russian governmental mouthpiece. Im asking in a capacitive former attorney general and Deputy Attorney general, i would ask this of director comey about the use of Shell Corporation can now Something Like the 2 realistic think its 5 million dogs are now done with Shell Corporations. Were trying to push so the Treasury Department puts more transparency, this is something the European Countries are working on right now. S im concerned this is another vehicle or money is laundered, concerned about loopholes and her Campaign Finance laws as well. Could you address visages onon your experience as a criminalpee prosecutor . Those are all valid concerns. We are lagging behind other countries in the world and we dont want to become a havene then when you can have Shell Corporations that can be used for all sorts of nefarious purposes. They could have National Security implications as well. Director clapper conduit to add anything to that . This is why believe an independent commission in addition to the brave work thats been done by the subcommittee and the senate Intelligence Committee which is so important as was investigation, and independent commission would allow a panel of experts to go into the next election, going to 2020 when director comey has that i expect to see them back in 2018, and especially 2020. Those are his words. Do you agree with that . Absolutely. Abs that is why an independent commission would allow us to come up with some ideas on how we can stop this from happening again, whether it is how theon media handles these things, how campaigns him of these things, how intelligence agencies when they find it handles these things. T because we cannot allow foreign. Countries to influence our democracy. Do you agree, director clapper . I certainly do and i understand how critical leaks are and unmasking and all these ancillary issues. But to me the transcendent issue here is the russian interference in our election process. What that means to the erosion of the fundamental fabric of our democracy, and that to me is a huge deal. And theyre going to continue to do it, and why not . It approved successful. Thank you. Until they pay a price. I hope which they will soon pay. Senator sasse. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you both for being here. Director clapper, how likely you think it is at the fourth Intelligence Service of trying to compromise congressional i. T. System . I think congressional are a target and certainly, i saw examples of that during my time as dni and then this is one case where we expeditiously informed the congress when we saw evidence of that, and again thats not just russians. There are others out there doing the same thing. Re what intel value when you provide to them . Well, depending on the nature of the material, it could bensiv quite sensitive, hard to make a gel statement about it but just as a general, it could be quite damaging. E dama could you talk about the relationship between that particular intel gathering on legislators and the interface with propaganda campaigns such as you say russia, ive heard you just find another russias activity among you and your neighbors . Whats relationship between propaganda and direct intel gathering . You mean on the part of the h russians . Yeah, other neighbors. They would circle you set as they have come and examples ofe that if i select george and the baltics where they will turn evidence, or what they had gathered, and use that as leverage, or if they can to use the russian acronym for compromise material so theres all kinds of nefarious things it can potentially do if they gather information like that. One of the unhelpful ways that we talk about this issue in the present context in the polarized context is its almost always retrospective about our election in 2016. It devolves into a shirt and skins exercise about what candidate you allege are supported. Director comey said he expects as cynical car just overcome expects the russian be back in 2010 and back with a vengeance in 2020. It would be helping to help to direct people to understand what russia does among its new neighbors now. Could you unpack a little bit more of how that works . If anything in many ways, particularly those countries that were in the former soviet orbit which i still feel, shall essay, paternal about. Some places like moldova or the baltics, georgia, they are very aggressive in using all the multitude of tools that were on senator whitehouse is checklist wherever they can, however they can to influence the outcome of elections towards candidates or whatever office who they think would be more pliant with them. E and, of course, whats new and different here is that that aggressiveness is spreading into western europe, as we seem, i believe in france and will in germany. And in their mind success at doing this is simply going to reinforce. So all the tools available to them, active propaganda, financing, candidates sympathetic to their cause, trolls, hacking, revelations of confidential emails, whatever it is, they would use that. Could you give us some sensee without revealing classified information the order of magnitude of the Financial Investment in these kinds of efforts . If youre a near neighbor of brush and you have your army, navy, air force and marines that you might have a little bit of an Intel Community, a little bit of intel ops, info ops campaign going, what is the russian investment . I can give you a figure. I will say though that in comparison to classical military expenditures, its a bargain for them. And, of course, what youre looking for particularly in europe is dissension, splitand d unity and, of course, and sanctions. And if they can drive wedges between and among the european nations, particularly by manipulating and influence a elections, they are going to do it. Do you stand by the ics genuine assessment that wikileaks is in no propagandaas platform for russia . Absolutely. I am an agreement with directorr pompeo customization wikileaks as a nonnationstate Intelligence Service. Unpack that a little more. If thats the case then youre saying Julian Assange is not a journalist. Youre asking the wrong guy a question like that. Absolutely not. Reasonable people in the american debate are worried when their people in the ic talk about something sounds like its just information. I am always a high skeptical of mr. Assange and i been pushing the Justice Department asked why we have not been taking step to prosecute them for particular kinds that of endangered american intelligence assets. Across the continuum of journalists who are legitimate journalists who are trying to get information to help the American People under our First Amendment before informed about the operations of the government, there are people in the Journalistic Community who will eat on icy resources to say we want to know all that youre able to tell us. Who will lean on ic. The burden is not on the journalists. To not a thats actually correct. Its use over the americany people here you explain why easy something other than just anli american journalist asking hard questions . I think, theres obviously judgment here, and when a journalist does harm to the country, harms our National Security, compromises sensitive sources and methods and a tradecraft, and puts the country deliberately puts the country in jeopardy, i think thats, the line is crossed. Thats a redline, to use a phrase. That i think is unacceptable. H at any unauthorizedrized disclosure from mr. Assange and wikileaks directly endangered americans and americas interests . In the past, yes, absolutely. Thank you. Ms. Yates, im almost at the end of my thoughts i will limit it and you physically bigger credit process in which concerning information about political appointees would be brought to the attention of the attorney general works just given a few steps on how the process would happen . When you say concerning information an what do you mean . Im trying to listen an answer for me that doesnt require you to say the related to flynn particularly cant disclose how this happened. I think would be useful for the public to understand morein generally how information about a political appointee would be brought to the attorney general from the fbi and other aspects of Intelligence Community. I generally, if we discovered information can let sit and basket agency like fbi, discovered information about a political appointee, it would first get in contact with the relevant division of the department of justice dont have jurisdiction over it. Whether its the criminal division, nasa scooted vision, miatever, it would report that information and depend on the seriousness, it would probably make its way to me when as Deputy Attorney general ogden acting attorney general. L thank you. Thank you, senator graham. I like to thank both of you for your decades of dedicated service in intelligence and Law Enforcement. And for your testimony today. T the question before us is one of really great consequence, as you suggested in Opening Statements. Really an axis into threat to our democracy which is not faced a properly will simplyd encourage, increased aggressive actions. The rally is a foreign adversary intentionally influenced our 2016 president ial election and a president may may not want to interont this but it is a reality in one that i use Intelligence Community agreed about with very high confidence. I greatly appreciate senator graham and senator whitehouse and convening this hearing and are treating this very real threat to our democracy with the seriousness that it deserves. Former director clapper come in your Opening Statement you suggested that the russians should be celebrating and that they are likely embolden because he succeeded beyond the wildesto dreams and at minimal cost and are likely to continue. In the French National elections which just concluded yesterday, there was a stunning dump of hacked emails at the last moment in an attempt, i have always believed, to influence the outcome of that election in a way designed to help advance a candidate favored by the kremlin. In that instance it was a significant amount of fake news, manufactured articles mixed in with seemingly actual emails es that have been hacked. There are allegations that there was coronation between albright news sites trying to for this information and to get it out around france and run the world. Is that your understanding of whats just happened in france . And more importantly, was any evidence you saw of comparable coordination between all to write new sites and release information in the attempts to influence the 2016 american president ial election . The 20 honestly all i know is what im reading in the media, and sa i dont have access to anyuld he intelligence information that would help the cast any light or could authoritatively answer your question at all i know is whats in the media. But during the period when you did have regular access to intelligence, did you see any evidence to suggest that the longstanding russian practice of spreading misinformation and fake news was being amplified by new sites in the United States and any reasonably that might have been coordinated or intentional . I dont know about theonow latter, and i think some news outlets were probably unwitting of that pick it certainly went on but i cant say to what extent that was coordinated intentionally with certain news outlets. Again, thats kind in the domestic realm. Use of the russians will continue this behavior into when post some significant cost. Could you speak briefly to whatf sort of actions you think we might take that would deter them . Thats a little over my labor grade as intelligence guy. I thought the sanctions that we get impose, and i was part of that, part of the formerni administration, were a great first step. I will solicit i agree and a bipartisan bill led by my colleague senator graham and cosponsored by 20 senators, republican democrat would be terrific. Ms. Yates, weve established in the course of his questions on december 27 and 29th foreman ashes could advisor general flynn discussed sanctions with the Russian Ambassador. So when the Trump Transition Team told the Washington Post in january 13 that sanctions were not discussed, was a false . I understand that the news reports to that account but ibe cant confirm whether in fact, this conversation regarding sanctions occurred. That would require me to do classified information. Understood. I have a holsters of questions about things that wouldve been untrue or that the case will not be able to answer any of those. Not to the extent that it goes to general flynns underlying conduct. I cant address a. Let me move to that if i might. On january 24 you just testifief that nash is good advisor flynn was a needed by the about his underlying conduct and thatd underlying conduct was w problematic because a led to the conclusion the Vice President was relying on falsehood. What was that underlying conduct, and are you convinced that the former National Security advisor was truthful in his testimony to the fbi in january 24 . Again, i hate to frustrate you begin but i think think well have to because my knowledge of his underlying conduct is based on classified information. I cant reveal what that underlying conduct is. Thats why had to do sort of an artificial description here of events without revealing that contact. I understand that. On january 27, you just testified you discuss with white House Counsel again for different topics. One of them included the possibility of criminal prosecution of the foreman ashes could advisor and what with applicable statutes be. What applicable statutes did you discuss, and in your conclusion should the National Security advisor face criminal prosecution . Im going to strike at it because if identified the statute, then that would be insight into what the conduct was. Look, im not trying to be hypertechnical here. Im trying to be really careful that i observe mys to responsibilities to protect classified information, and so i cant identify the statute. Okay. Do you believe the administration took yourerious warnings seriously when you make this extraordinary effort to go to the white house and come in person briefed the White House Council on the 26th and 27t 27th . Do you think they took appropriate steps with the guards to general plan as an could advisor given that he remain a frequent participant in very high level nationalin ver Security Matters for two weeks . Certainly in the course of the meetings both on the 26th and 27th mr. Mcgahn certainly demonstrated that he understood that this was that as serious. I doe did seem to be taking it seriously. I dont have any way of knowing what, if anything, they did. If nothing was done, then certainly that would be concerning. So you dont know whether they took any steps to restrict his access to classified t information, to investigatingg further, up until the Washington Post publish information that made it clear that he been lying to the vice . President . No. Again i was gone after the 30th so i would know if any steps have been communicated to the department of justice but ie was not aware of any. Had you not been summarily fired would you have recommended to the white House Counsel that they began further investigations into the nationa good advisor, or that they restrict his access to sensitivi and classified information . Its a bit of a hypothetical. Had i remained at the department of justice and if i were under the impression that nothing had been done, then yes, i would have raised it with the white house. Thank you, ms. Yates. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you both for years of service to the American People. Ms. Yates, them want to start with you. You declined the support toto defend President Trumps executive order because you thought it was unconstitutional, correct . Se thats correct, yes. And you believe, you believe no reasonable argument could be made in its defense, correct . I dont know that i would put it in that way, senator. This was the analysis that we went through. Spirit let me stop you because i have a whole bunch of questions. I just want to understand your thinking for my perspective. Did you believe then there wered reasonable arguments that could be made in its defense . I believed that any argument that we would have to make in its defense would not be grounded in the truth, because to make an argument in its defense would have to argue that the executive order had nothing to do with religion, that it was not done with an intent to discriminate against muslims. And based on you are looking at intent . Yes and i believe thats the appropriate analysis. And, in fact, thats been borne out in several Court Decision since that time, but that is the appropriate analysis when you drink the constitution analysis is to look to see what are you trying to accomplish. Al okay. T suppose instead of an executive order this event an act of congress. Would you have refused to defend . If you want the same act, yes. S and, in fact, the department of justice is done in the past. For example, with the dome of the defense of marriage act, when the department of justice refuse to defend doma. But that was it a legal decision . I was at manchester at the times i cant speak to that but those another example of when doj did not defend the constitutionality of a statute. But in your opinion executive order is constitutional . I were stuck convinced it constitutional, given that it wasnt in the import of this i couldnt in good conscience send Department Justice lawyers into defendant. I want to be sure i understand. Do you believe its constitutional ortution unconstitutional . I believed, i was not convinced that it was constitutional. I believe that it was unconstitutional in the sense that there was no way in the world i could send folks in there to argue something that wi didnt believe to be the trip. You believe its unconstitutional . Yes. I dont mean to wax to speed his if i can say come i can understand why you might be frustrated with the language spirit are not trusted. Im happy as a clam spirit let me give you an idea of the timing. Py let me stop you because i dont have much time. I have a lot of ground to cover. I dont mean to wax at what point does an act of congress or an executive order become unconstitutional . It all depends on what the act does. Bubut, i mean, at what pointi can look at a statute and say i think thats unconstitutional to does that make it unconstitutional . I think the issue we face at the department of justice is to defend this executive order would require lawyers to go in and argue that this has nothing to do with religion. Has but at what point does a statute or an executive order become sta unconstitutional . Is i is it some determination . Let me tell you what im getting at, and i dont mean any disrespect. Who appointed you to the United States Supreme Court . I was not that determines them isnt i a court of final jurisdiction of the site was not . In fact, are most acts of constitution their prism but not always constitutional. Of course i was not on the Supreme Court, and i can tell you, look, we really wrestled over this decision. I personally wrestled over this decision. It was not one that i took lightly at all. But it was because i took my responsibility seriously i understand that the i believe you believe what you are saying. I find it hard to understand this is likely to come up in the future. At what point does an executivec order or statute become unconstitutional . When i think it is unconstitutional argue think it is unconstitutional, or a court of final jurisdiction says its unconstitutional . I believe it is the responsibility of the attorney general, is the president asked him or her to do something, that he or she believes is unlawful or unconstitutional to say no. Thats what i did. I did it. Let me ask you both a couple of questions. Can we agree, director and counselor, that the russians attempted to influence the outcome of the election . Yes, sir, actually. Yes. Do you believe the russians did, in fact, influence the outcome of the election, director . In our Intelligence Committee assessment would make the point that we could not make thatgence call. The Intelligence Community has neither the authority, the expertise or the resources to make that judgment to do a thing we said was we saw no evidence of influencing voter tallies at any of the 50 states, but weweoe were not in position to judge what actual outcome on the election. How about you, initiate . I dont know the answer. That is part of the problem, we will never know. The russians have been doing this for years, having not . Im not minimizing what they did. I think they did try to influence the election. Its true come as a point out as i mentioned in my Opening Statement, sir, theyve beendo doing this since at least the 60s. Okay. The difference, however, was this is unprecedented in terms of its aggressiveness and the Multifaceted Campaign that they mounted trick thats new. Isnt it a fact that in 1968 the kremlin actually service aide which is part of the hbtt attended to subsidize the campaign of Hubert Humphrey . Idol of the specifics of that. I would want want to research that, but again that certainly comports with what the russiansi tactics would be. Isnt it a fact in 1984 the kremlin tried to stop ronald f reagan from being reelected . Again, id have to do some research to verify that, but again it certainly comports with what, if they chose a candidate, for whatever reason they had an aversion to, they would do that. Okay. General clapper, have you ever leaked information, classified or unclassified to come to a member of the press . Not wittingly or knowingly, as i sent them a statement. Classified or unclassified. Well, unclassified is not leaking. [laughing] unclassified, thats have you ever given information to a reporter that you didnt want, have your name connected with what you want to see it in the paper . I have not. I had many encounters with mediate over my career. Im sorry about that. How about you, initiate . I had been a situation with the department of justice would arrange come for example, for me to talk on back in with reporters about a particular issue to educate them about that. No. I certainly never provided classified information, and i would be the own kind of background information. I mightve done the same thing but certainly not, that doesnt include sharing classified information. Do you know anybody else at justice was ever leaked classified or unclassified information to the press . T no. Okay. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I would over. I apologize. Senator lady. Ee you good to have you back year senator leahy. Emember ms. Yates, i remember so well your confirmation hearing. I remember one senator just bearing in on you, saying what y you stand up to the president od the United States if you thought he was asking you to do something unlawful . He is demanding under oath are you to say yes, you would stand up. And you told then senator jeffof sessions thats what you would do. And it appears to me that you kept your word. Apparently its okay to keep your word, depending upon who the administration is, but im proud of you for keeping your word, and the president tried to set a religious test for entrance into this country, something most for sure Law School Students would say was unconstitutional. You said you were not going to uphold it. Students would say was unconstitutional. I wish that mr. Sessions and others had cap as consistence consistent with this administration as they did with the last. That is my judgment. You wrote to the Justice Department, im responsible for ensuring that the positions retained in court remain consistent with this institution solemn obligation to always pretty sure the positions we take in court remain consistent with the institutions all obligation to seek justice and stand for what is right. I am not convinced executive orders consistent with these responsibilities nor am i convinced the executive order is lawful. You still feel that way today. Yes i do. The white house claims you betrayed the department of justice. Do you feel you betrayed is part of justice . No. I feel i have done anything else would have been a betrayal of my solemn obligation to represent the people and uphold the law and the constitution. Tell the Justice Department how to carry out the executive order. I didnt have a lot of discussion with the white house about this executive order. I dont entirely understand the question. Anybody from the white house try to direct the Justice Department how they should respond to the executive order. There was discussion with the white house about litigation strategy but that occurred to my knowledge over the weekend but after the 30 food when i issued my directive, i dont know what discussions occurred afterward. I applaud you for keeping your word to then senator sessions who apparently has a different standard as attorney general. Fbi director comey testified before this committee, you told why he appointed special counsel to investigate in 2003, definitely attorney general, attorney general ashcroft recused himself, and senior officials, the Trump Campaign and administration are conducting this investigation. Forced to recuse himself. Do you think this is a situation where we should do what comey did in the investigation and appoint a special counsel. My successor does a good job ahead of him and i dont think i will be giving him any advice from the cheap seat about how he needs to do it. Let me ask you this. We know that about general flynns vulnerability to russian black male. Attorney general sessions misled this committee about his contacts and had to change. The Senior Advisor reported failure to disclose contacts on new security clearance. Do you have or did you have any concerns about the attorney general or other Trump Officials vulnerability to blackmail . All of this information came to light after i was no longer with doj. That you have concerns that general flynn light have been vulnerable to blackmail . Yes i did and express those to the white house. And why you feel he may have been vulnerable to blackmail and if somebody else follows the same category. Anytime the russians have compromising information you are certainly vulnerable to blackmail. Let me ask, you looked at a lot of these. The other case, senior government officials if they had hidden financial information, things that are normally disclosed. Is that an area where they can be blackmailed if it is discovered . Yes it is of course. Is it your experience the russians search for that kind of thing. Absolutely. Generally the Intelligence Community, fbi and cia conclude russia interfered in the 2016 election to denigrate secretary clinton to help elect donald trump. Last week donald trump contradicted that consensus, said it could have been china, a lot of different groups. You feel russia was responsible. Absolutely. Although the conclusions we rendered were the same as in the highly classified reported in the unclassified. Lot of the substantiation for that could not be put in the unclassified report because of sensitivity of it. To me the evidence was overwhelming and compelling that the russians did this. Did it serve any purpose for high officials like the president to say it could have been somebody else, could have been china. Does that help us or does that help russia . I guess it could be if you rationalized that helped them by obfuscating who was responsible . Thank you, general, good to have you here. Thank you, mister chairman. I want to thank both you and the Ranking Member for this hearing, these hearings and i want to thank general clapper and attorney general yates for appearing today. The Intelligence Community have concluded, all 17 of them that russia interfered with the election and we know that. As i pointed out in my statement, only three agencies directly involved in this assessment. We didnt go through the process, this was a special situation because of the time limits and i knew to be to contribute to this in the sensitivity of information we decided to restrict to those three. Im not aware of anyone who dissented or disagreed when it came out. Anyone, even the unclassified report, this is what happened. One of the questions is why they favor donald trump. There are a number of contacts in communications between Trump Campaign officials and associates and members of the Trump Administration, Jeff Sessions, and senator leahy mentioned, carter page, former campaign advisor, paul manafor it, rex tillerson, secretary of state, friend of russia award, roger stone, and of course jared kushner, white house Senior Advisor, and Michael Flynn. That is a lot in my mind, going to flynn, he appeared during the campaign on russia today, the propaganda arm, one of the propaganda arms, since he retired have you appeared on russia today . No, not willingly, no. In general flynn received 37,000 for sitting next to Vladimir Putin at the 10th anniversary of russia today. It seems all of this seems very odd to me and raises a lot of questions. I was struck that mister mccan did not asked you in the second meeting why doj would have concerns that the National Security adviser had lied to the Vice President. In the first meeting did you mention that, that he might be compromised . We went through all of our concerns in the first meeting and it was in the second meeting that he raised the question of why is this an issue for the department of justice if one white house official lies to another. Okay. I dont understand why he didnt understand that. Not sure i can help you with that. This, general flynn after that for 18 days stayed there and was in one classified thing after another. There are policies to deal with who get security clearance or not. The executive order 12968 outlines rules for security clearances and says when there is credible allegation that raises concern about someones fitness to excise classified information that persons clearance should be suspended pending investigation. Is that right . Executive order states clearance holders must demonstrate, quote, trustworthiness, honesty, reliability, discretion and sound judgment as well as freedom from allegiances and potential for coercion. Is that right . And yet the white House Counsel did not understand why the department of justice was concerned . To be fair to mister mc gand, he wasnt clear on why we care that Michael Flynn had lied to the Vice President. Why that was a matter i think that is clear. The president had told president obama had told the incoming president elect two days after the election dont hire this guy. I dont know anything about that. That is what we heard. And we have mc gand doesnt understand what is wrong with this and then we have spicer, the press secretary saying the president was told about this. The president was told about this in late january according to the press secretary so now he has got a guy who has the former president said dont hire this guy, he is clearly compromised, he had lied to the Vice President and he keeps him on and lets him be in all these lets him talk with Vladimir Putin. The president of the United States and National Security advisor in the oval office discussing this with Vladimir Putin. Is it possible that the reason that he didnt fire him then was if i fire him for talking to the russians about sanctions and if i fire what about all the other people on my team. Who coordinated. Isnt it possible that the reason you ask yourself why wouldnt you fire a guy who did this . All i can think of is that he would say we have got all these other people on the administration who have had contact. All these other people in the administration who coordinated, who are talking. Maybe that. Just trying to put a puzzle together here, everybody. And maybe, just maybe he didnt get rid of a guy who lied to the Vice President , got paid by the russians, went on russia today because there are other people in his administration who met with the russians and didnt reveal it until later, until they were caught. That may be why it took him 18 days until it came became public, to get rid of Michael Flynn who was a danger to this republic. Care to comment . I dont think i am going to touch that, senator. Senator blumenthal thank you, mister chairman and i want to thank senator graham and senator whitehouse for conducting this hearing in a very bipartisan way and prioritizing this issue which is of such gravity to our democracy. I thank each of you not only for your long and distinguished service and for the conscience and conviction you have brought to your jobs whether we agree or disagree, i hope there are young prosecutors throughout the country and young members of our Intelligence Committee who will watch this hearing and say that is the kind of professional i want to be, not just expert but people of deep conviction and consequence and i agree with my colleagues about an independent commission that can have public hearings, produce recommendations and a report but i also believe there has to be a special prosecutor. What i hear from people in connecticut and my colleagues in their town halls and meetings is people want the truth uncovered about how russians sought to interfere and undermine our democracy and electoral system and also want accountability and not only the russians to pay a price, but anybody who colluded with the russians and aided and abetted them to pay a price and there are criminal statutes that prohibit that kind of collusion and impose serious criminal fines for people who might have done that. And we know the fbi is now investigating the potential collusion of Trump Associates and Administration Officials with the russians as director comey told us and made public. There is no classified information. The meeting the fbi conducted on january 24th, preceded by one day your first meeting with donald mcagain. Isnt it a fact that Michael Flynn lied to the fbi . I cant reveal the internal fbi investigation. Even though that part was not technically declassified, it is an Ongoing Investigation and i cant reveal that. Did you tell donald mc can, National Security advisor flynn told the truth to the fbi . He asked me how he had done in the interview and i declined to answer that. Because it was a department of investigation. Was that intended to indicate to him Michael Flynn had a problem in that interview . I was intending to let him know that Michael Flynn had a problem on a lot of levels but it wasnt in with respect to how he performed in the interview. I was intentionally not letting him know how the interview had gone. And lying to the fbi is a crime, correct . Violation of United States code 1001 and it is punishable by five years in prison so if Michael Flynn lied to the fbi he has a ton of legal trouble facing them. He could face criminal prosecution if he lied to the fbi. Yes. If he became a Foreign Agent . For another country . For turkey . Which he was a Foreign Agent for, without getting permission from the affirmative defense, face criminal penalties and still faces them, correct . It is a violation and can become a prosecutor. It is a violation of 18 United States code 219 and that is punishable by two years in prison, correct . And his failure to disclose payment from foreign sources which he had done before he went to donald mc gand is criminally funded. Not something i can discuss today. But it is in fact from your knowledge a violation. I am not speaking to his specific conduct just generally. If Michael Flynn is prosecuted for these crimes, wanting to be a witness . It would depend on the crime. A false statement to the fbi about his conversations with the russians . Wouldnt the Vice President potentially be called as a witness to corroborate that false statement . Certainly that is possible but i would be speculating how such criminal prosecution would come together. Where im going is the need for a special prosecutor is because officials at the highest level who are responsible for appointing the Deputy Attorney general, United States attorney general are all potentially witnesses and they are even targets, correct . Potentially. Special counsel in order to hold those government officials or others responsible really has to be independence, correct . Department of justice pride themselves in being independent regardless whether they are appointed as special counsel. But the ultimate decision whether or not to prosecute for the sake of appearance as well is in reality should be made by someone who is unquestionably independent, objective and impartial . I absolutely understand your concerns here but the fact of the matter is, someone who just the parted from the department of justice im not going to wade into whether or not they should have special counsel or independent counsel in this matter. I dont think they need me to tell them how to do their job. Im going to be very unfair to you and ask as a private citizen wouldnt you like to see a special counsel appointed under these circumstances . Not going to go there. As an Expert Witness on this committee i will qualify you as an expert if senator graham allows me to do it. You will have to pay her. Let me just close by asking you, my colleagues senator franken made reference to warning given by given by president obama to then president elect trump about hiring Michael Flynn. That is a public report from the New York Times of today which i ask be entered into the record and i also ask be entered into the record the february 9th report from the Washington Post, there has been a reference to it, without the free press telling us a lot of what went on, Michael Flynn might be sitting in the white house as National Security advisor because by january 30th, you were forced to resign, you were fired. I was fired. Nobody was around to tell the white house that our National Security was danger. There were career officials in the National Security division who had been working with me on this matter. They were conversant in the facts. The ultimate decision to go to the white house with yours. Yes it was. Thank you, mister chairman. Thank you, mister chairman. In spite of the Trump Administrations ongoing efforts to convince all of us that there is nothing to see here with regard to russian interference with our 2016 election and the trump teams connections to these efforts, we need to get to the bottom of this so i think chair graham and Ranking Member whitehouse for these hearings and i just had a number of town Hall Meetings in hawaii this past weekend and hundreds of people came and believe me, they care that we get to the bottom of this. The Trump Administration blames president obama for failing to suspend General Finance clearance and in a press Conference Today sean spicer said, quote, everyone in the government goes through the same process and also said there is no difference of security clearance once it is issued and basically as far as this administration is concerned nothing more needed to be done by them regarding general flynns clearance. Isnt it true the cia has a separate vetting process for National Security Council Appointees and in fact the press is reporting today the general flynn never completed that process. Can you enlighten us . I cant speak to specifics of how it was done was general flynn. I know what i went through as a political appointee twice in republican and democratic administrations and the vetting process for either a political appointee or someone working in the white house is far far more invasive than a standard ts sci clearance process. But i dont know what process was used in general flynns case, nor did i have access to his complete investigatory files so it is difficult for me to speculate what was in it and what action if any was taken by the white house. According to sean spicer, a clearance from the Obama Administration and that was it and this administration had no further responsibilities so let me go on. Other colleagues have mentioned and you your self said rt is to spread propaganda and we know general flynn attended a gala hosted by definition december 2015 where he sat next to Vladimir Putin and got paid 33,000 for that which given the information provided to the white house regarding, this is during the january 26, 27th timeframe regarding general flynn should have sat in on the following discussions, on january 28th he participated in an hour long call along with donald trump to Vladimir Putin and on february 11th he participated in a discussion with Prime Minister a but and the president of mara logo to discuss missile tests. Should he, given that the information that had already been provided should he have participated in these specific instances . I cant difficult for me to answer because i was out at that point. Lets say you were in. A standard comment, general comment i dont think it was i dont think it was good practice, put it that way. I think this comports with some of the concerns raised about the appropriateness or adequacy of the Trump Administrations vetting process with regard to various disclosures by other members of the administration and as i mentioned the measures of continuing efforts to downplay russias interference in our elections. After general flynn resigned in february, on february 15th donald trump tweeted the that flynn is, quote, a wonderful man and very unfair what happened to general flynn. Esther clapper, is this the kind of statement that would be made by a president aware of serious concerns about his former National Security advisor . I am loath to comment on the tweets. That was i suppose an honest expression of how he felt. Does it sound like somebody who knew there were serious security concerns, that he would say it is very very unfair and flynn is a wonderful man, maybe i should people can draw their own conclusions. I dont know what information was conveyed to the president. I have no insight. I dont know the extent to which he had an understanding of what the acting attorney general conveyed. I dont know how much made its way to the president. That is a concern i would have, but it sounds perhaps the president was not aware. Going on in march the president tweeted flynn should be given immunity, flynn resigned in february and the fbi investigation is, quote, a witch hunt. I would like to ask both of you should these tweets, these kind of tweets and other similar assertions by the president have any influence at all on the fbis Ongoing Investigations russian interference in our elections and team trumps connections to these efforts . It shouldnt and im confident it wont. The question about the Foreign Agents registration act, violations, a number of trump Administration Officials are belatedly registering their work on behalf of Foreign Governments under the Foreign Agents registration act some of which raise serious counterintelligence concerns. I asked derek jacoby about these concerns last week. What are the consequences for a white house staffers who failed to disclose their foreign contacts on their security clearance forms . There can be a variety of ramifications. You can lose your security clearance, you can lose your job or in certain circumstances you can be commonly prosecuted. Is it up to the department of justice or the fbi to pursue these kinds of allegations against staffers who do not disclose appropriately . It would depend on circumstances of the nondisclosure whether the circumstances were, the conduct underlying that. Fact specific. I agree that it should be back specific. Considering the allegations, i hope that the fbi or department of justice is pursuing an investigation into these matters. Under what circumstances with the the rauner just as being charges to somebody . Ms. Yates, you said it would depend on the situation. If a president or somebody close to him nude that a white house official failed to disclose work on behalf of a Foreign Government and chose to cover reiterate theou possible repercussions to this person . To the individual . Lets say that the allegations are proven true. Did the president covered up or the individual . Lets say the president and administration knew, and the person covered it up. Coverups are bad. Usually it is evidence of intent. That is what we look at when it but again, its going to be very fact specific. It is hard to give you a hard fast and there. Senator im sorry. Thank you very much. We are going to iran but we are going to do it quickly appeared fourminute round spirit theres light at the end of the tunnel. We are going to vote at 5 30. I know senators have questions starting with me. I will enforce the four minutes for myself. General clapper, during your investigation of all things russia, did you ever find a situation where trump business interests in russia gave you concerned . Not in the course of the appropriations of the Intelligence Community assessment. Nt. I cant comment on non because that is the investigation. It was enough to put into the report. The rule of law come you cannot allow the leak classified information because he won an outcome. E. Thats not the rule of law. Is that correct . Absolutely. You both agree with that concept. Did he ask reasonable questions about your concern . A judgment about whether they were reasonable or in race bowl. I do think he was trying to get to the bottom in our discussion of what happened. Did you actually see the information of what youre talking about . He said he wanted to try to set that up. Thats right. About surveillance, this is very important. An american citizen cannot be surveilled in the united state for colluding with a Foreign Government unless you have a warrant. Is that a true statement of the law . Thats right. Is it fair to say incidental elections occurred even in occurred even a benighted states . Correct as well. Is to situation away general flynn sent to the Russian Ambassador that there is a fisa warrant focused on hand. Was there a question dark yes. Either one of you. I think you know im not quite as to whether as a fisa warrant a rather general flynn was talking to the russians. Obviously im going to go on. If he wasnt talking to the russians, without a hearing for no good reason. Clearly hes talking to the russians that we know about it. Im going to find out about this by the way. The other way talking about the russians he was impotently surveilled. Those are the two options. Do we know who unmask the conversation between the Russian Ambassador and general flynn . Are you looking at me . I dont know. I cant speak to the specific situation. Si can i clarify one point . Very quickly. Is a consumer of intelligence, i would receive Intelligence Reports from various ages. Often times the names are already en masse intelligent agents be. The bottom line here is i want to know how it got to the Washington Post. Somebody had to have access to the information and they gave ii to the Washington Post. Is that a fair statement russian mark thats right. Thats what it looks like to me. Neither one of you did it. How many people can request unmasking of american citizensma and our government . How many . I dont have an exact number. It is they think fairly limited because it normally is rarely highlevel officials. How did you know general flynn was talking to the russians . I cant reveal that in an open setting. What i was trying to say is often times we receive Intelligence Reports with the name of the american citizen is already unmasked by the intel agency because not based on is t annuities request him up at the name of the citizen. M thats the situation here. My four minutes is a good thank you, both. I want to know the answer to these questions. Another white house bid ranks again, chairman. Two things. One, there are multiple levels of security clearance is and theyre issued by different agencies, correct . So having one from dod doesnt make it good for all locations in places and the idea operates clearance is a multiple levels. Right. The key point here as i indicated earlier, requirements for ts si versus requirement foi occupying a sensitive position in the white house as part of the National Security council. As i can, much more invasive and aggressive than a standard. In terms of compromise tradecraft, if you have somebody can you have them compromised, is pretty standard compromise tradecraft who asked them to do some little thing for you under the threat of having to compromise in informatione disclosed. And if you succeed, you now have two things on them in the work could not wait to get somebody more in or enmeshed in compromise until they are more or less owned by the intelligence agency. Is that a fair description of how you can develop compromises . Just want to make sureis because we talk a lot about it here. Last thing, my lists. I went through the list, looked at propaganda, fake news, trolls and bought spirit we can all agree those were in fact are in fact using a 2016 election. Hacking and theft of political information that hacked into the ds be, we can all agree that its a guess. Time to make a damaging materials appears very strongly to be yes because of the timing of the release after the access hollywood release. I believe that the answers were correct that was to entrench her assassination of violence by the russians. The United States. Did you both agree with that . I dont think we turned up any evidence of that. S controlling investment in key economic sectors for leverage. It seems our economy is a little too big for that and theres no evidence of that in the report either. Thats correct. A question of financial ties that not only start out as burglary perhaps it is highly favorable come in secret deals with russian, but that in turn can then turning to compromise. It could. Its not just the carrier to bribe you. Im going to have to deal that we have unless you do this. That is classic compromise. We do not yet know the extent to which that has played a role in the Russian Election hack. Correct . I dont. In terms of corrupting uncompromising politician saying we dont know the full extent of whether or not politicians have been corrupted. I did not intel. To go down this coming yes, yes im in no, no . Would be retaliate the end. Have we agreed on that . I y yes. Anything else . Not for me. Yield back my nine seconds. Youre a trendsetter. Senator grassley. Mr. Clapper, you said yes when i asked you if you ever unmask a trump associate or a member of congress. But i forgot to ask was at a trump associate, member of congress or both . Over my time as dni, i think the answer was on rare occasions both. And again senator, just make a point here, my focus is on thehe foreign target and if the foreign targets behavior in relation to the u. S. Person. Okay. How many instances were there or was there just one . I can only recall one. It could have been more in the best accounting of days in accordance with her seizure the collecting agency. That would be a better source of records on top of my head. Could you provide us more details in a classified setting . I could. The same question where you said i dont know what you said to answer my question if you are involved in any unmasking. Were you involved . D . No, ive never asked anyone to be en masse. Both you and i have said many of the classified setting to see the answers, i assume youre going to pursue that. Yes, sir. Lets see. Time for a couple more questions. Regardless of any disagreement that we have about allegations of collusion, the fact that they tried to mandolin our democracy is obviously afraid of all americans. We have to punish russia can deter all nations from thegovere shenanigans. Do you to believe that the governments response so far has been enough to deter future attacks of this kind end if not, what else would she think we should be doing . Would you start out, please . They are starting back to harden our election system, state election systems to ensure that folks out there know when theyre looking at new seeds that it may not be real news they are reading. I think that we have to do moret to deter the russian. It wouldnt hurt to prosecute a few folks. I dont think we should kid ourselves that for them to prosecute her way out of this problem. Mr. Clapper. As much as i love congressional hearings, there is a useful purpose because they think the most important thing that needs to be done here is to educate the electorate as to let the russians object it is in the tactics and techniques and procedures they have employed and will continue to employ. I predict there will be against all parties. I think education of the public is the most important thing we can do in this hearing though i admit it serves that purpose to the extent that this can be shared openly. I do think as well there needs to be more done in a way ofn sanction to the russians or any other government that attempts to interfere in our election process. Senator klobuchar. Thank you greatly thank you for being here again. I asked if he would want to come back again. We are very glad that you aret here. When i asked the question before, i asked about this highranking National Security official, tape with a foreign official saying one in private and then said something inat public thats different and if thats material for blackmail can be both said that it was. Could you give me some examples from your experience, director clapper, when russians have used sex, lies and videotape againstt people as bok bill . I dont have a lot of direct knowledge external to russia. This is a classical technique that goes back to the soviet era that they would use to coopt compromise political opponent and of course the currentcurren administration is even moreve aggressive than that to just block out people for being opposition. There are examples of that. Th i have read and seen a particularly during the soviet era internal to the soviet union that this is a common base. What about her election infrastructure as we movefferen forward. Di one major thing we need to do is educate the public and im very concerned we had stayed with election equipment on the ranking on google is working on a bill on this. How important is that to proteco the integrity of our election . Its quite important. Speaking as a private citizen in my former capacity, and i do think that her election apparatus should be Critical Infrastructure and should have protections that are attendant to that. A lot of states push back when jeh johnson, secretary of Homeland Security engages Election Officials about having that designation and having the federal government in her fear in their election process. As a citizen, i because earned with doing all we can to secure the apparatus. Attended to the Intelligence Community assessment we put out, dhs put out a paper on best practices estimate is three and how to secure election apparatus is in state and local level. Very good. Do you think we are doing a good enough job now back to the propaganda issue in educating their citizens about this . No we are not. S the other thing we dont do is a common messaging. How do you suggest we could do that . Ive been a not a kit for usia on steroids. I thought that way in terms of countering the message from cases were very sophisticated at conveying messages and proselytizing and recruiting people. Our efforts to counter message or too fragmented in my own opinion. That is all im saying here. I would seriously consider the notion of the u. S. I steroids. What would that mean exactly . Someone that we could message or counter message. Iraq for two counter violent extremist ideology, particularla that for iss. We are very skilled at this. I dont think as a nation we do a good enough job getting the russians about their medicine . Presently than we have done now. I would hasten to add that should not be tagged onto the Intelligence Community has needs to be a separate entity from the Intelligence Community. Support should be separate from that he had one last question. Youve got a lawyer with you, a career lawyer meeting at the white house. Is that right, when you are giving warnings about thet knowledge you had a general plan. Instead, cracked this . Why did you do that . Ledge re this was the clear lawyer who was supervising this matter. First of all, she had bugged one who is most intimately familiar. Secondly, we knew my tenure was going to be short and make sure there was continuity there. You just didnt know its going to be that short. I didnt know. I hate to change, lets to three minutes. I can be very quick. Mr. Clapper, does mr. Putin have any asset in the United States . I dont know the answer to the question. Who would know that russians are well, sound security might know that with the fbi. I dont know. T. Know if any of mr. Putins friends might have accepted the United States that had been held for mr. Putin . Thats a possibility. Who would know that . Same person . T i would suggest fbi. Is the Intelligence Community and the attorney general knew all this information about mr. Flynn, how did he get security clearance . Knew what about mr. Flynn . That he had a conversation about the Russian Ambassador about sanctions. Ellerslie. That was the 29th of december or so as reported in the media when it took place. January 19 sworn in. How did he get a securityy he clearance . He had a security clearanceas that an intelligence officer. I dont know the specifics of when the system is every fiveu years occurs is done are supposed to get a periodic reinvestigation. I dont know the details of that i would probably be done by his old agency, the Defense Intelligence agency. Object to get some additional double secret clearance to serve in the white house . Well, yes you do. The process is i dont know how it done in thision, administration. My own knowledge of how it was done when i served in the Bush Administration and again in the Obama Administration is an extensive vetting process by the fbi. Me stop you because ive only got 50 seconds. There is heat are there any reasonable arguments can be made that mr. Childs executive order . I dont live there reasonable legal argument that are grounde in truth. In d they can be made in defense of his argument that the travel ban was not intended to have an impact a religious impact to disfavor muslims. So, you believe that theligi arguments made by the lawyers who are now defending the executive order or unreasonable . I believe the is has a responsibility to uphold the law in no way speak the truth, particularly about something as fundamental as this executiveme order was. The deals with religious freedom. Let me say this. An i have tremendous respect for the cougar men and women at the department of justice come in enablers in the Civil Division. Their obligation was different than mine. They must make an argument that they can make a reasonable legay argument. As acting attorney general, my responsibility was broader than that in ahead to the llama confines to look at the president s statements and to look at other factors to determine what was the actual intent here. That was the basis for my decision. For the record, different travel ban. The first order was drawn. Theres a second one up there. Senator blumenthal. Mr. Chairman, so far the concerns that the executive orders have been upheld in thems courts, correct . That is right. Second, director clapper, on the issue of possible use of the far right by the russians, you were asked earlier whether you have any knowledge about a potential cooperation or involvement. You have independent knowledge that the use of those far right website . I dont. In at least at the top of my head specific knowledge or in sight into that connection. Couldve been. I just dont know directly. Which he made reference to f published reports. You do about it for what you read in the newspapers. At the specific reference to what happened in france. Correct. The same tactics used most recently in france were also used for this reportedly used in this country. Correct. Elect to put in the record went public report. There were probably others get a mcclatchy report of march 20th , which begins with the lead federal investigators examining whether the far right beside played in a row last year in a cyberoperation that dramatically widens the news story. Some fictional but favorite Donald Trumps president ial bid to people familiar with the inquiry and goes on to mention among those sites, partners and info wars. Mr. Chairman, mr. Park could be entered into the record. Do you have knowledge, ms. Yates of that investigation . I dont. And if i did a good tell you about it. Ou i thought that might be a good finally, you said, ms. Yates we are not going to prosecute our way of other the russian continued attack on this country. That putting americans into prison if they cooperate, collude, aid and abet or otherwise this is in that illegality might send a very strong deterrent message, correct . I expect to play. There are criminal penalties existing on the books. You dont need new laws, which involve criminality and potential criminal prosecution for those acts. Yes, thats right. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, all. Were at the end of the day they been great with the public is better educated at least i hope about pressure day. Bipartisan consensus that russia tried to interfere with the election. Differences in other places, but just some housekeeping here. He will provide us to the committee featured mr. Clapper. I know youre a private citizen now, but if you could determine the pool of people who could have unmasking good appreciate it. But it comes to the 2016 campaigns, im a little confused, though we found at least one occasion where that data have been. He made a request for unmasking there may be a member of congress. Is that right . Yes. To renounce any other set the top of your head if any other candidate on the other side of the aisle . Ha there couldve been other unmasking requests. Theres a way to find that out. En the best way to do it would be the original collection ages me. Finally, the current Deputy Attorney general, just confidence in them . Yes, i did. Thank you, all. Final comment . During the last hearing weok had the author of the kremlin playbook is one of our witnesseu and we had a wellregarded witness is and they both agreed that the United States is leaving itself vulnerable to this kind of influence if we continue to allow Shell Corporations to proliferate without a way for Law Enforcement to figure out who the Beneficial Owners are. Chairman grassley and i are working on a piece of legislation to help solve that. Its very important in this area i want to flag and express to chairman grassley and my appreciation for diapers and cooperation on his front and of course my appreciation to chairman graham for his work to make this hearing a success and so interesting and meaningful. Thank you. Thank you, both. Hearing adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] in 1979 nine tennessee fan is created as a Public Service by americas Cable Television companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. In a moment, well go live to the floor of the u. S. Senate were senators will be considering the nomination. Copy to be commissioner of the food and drug administration. Said that the nomination procedure about yesterday. His final confirmation vote has not yet been scheduled, but were expecting that to take place today. Life to the floor of the u. S. Senate year on cspan2. The president pro tempore the senate will come to order. Todays opening prayer will be offered by reverend harold d. Mathena from oklahoma city, oklahoma. The guest chaplain our father in heaven we bow before you in jesus name to ask your blessing upon this place, to ask your blessing upon his people. What a joy to have access to the