solve that. but i think it is very important in this area and i wanted to flag it and express to chairman grassley. and of course, my appreciation to chairman graham for his work to make this hearing a success. so interesting and meaningful. thank you. thank you both. the hearing is adjourned. apparently the senate has to go vote. we went 3:10, or thereabouts. the hearing that featured the former head of national intelligence, the hearing that featured the former acting attorney general, sally yates. sally yates started the story by saying, we went to the white house to tell the white house they mayave a problem. the national security adviser may be subject to blackmail.
breitbart there and enfoe news. do you have knowledge of that investigation? i don t. if i did, i couldn t tell you about it. i thought that mean your answer. finally, miss yates, you said we won t prosecute out of the russian continued attack on this country. but putting americans in prison if they cooperate, collude, aid and abet, or otherwise assist in that ill legality. yes. and there are criminal penalties existing on the books. we don t need new laws, which involve criminality and potential criminal prosecution for those acts, correct?
we have a member of congress standing by. jeremy bash, since your name was invoke invoked, it s fair question, if you want to call it a heads-up or warning from the acting attorney general to the new white house counsel, why then do 18 days to go by before the national security advisor was told his services are no longer needed. why didhe president decide the warning from sally yates was insufficient to fir mik flynn? was he freelancing, clearly. and was he authorized to have the conversations with the russians and not the clearance sally yates had and why did the president have that view and what does that tell us about the long arc of russian interest interference and possible connection between the trump white house and russian federation. from the house intel committee, congressman, thank
assessment from the white house whether mike flynn was fit to continue serving or would he have continued to serve if those news reports did not shed light on the conversation between the former acting attorney general, samly yates and don mcgann. also at question, sean spicer, as sally noted, calling the question betweeniates and mcgann nothing more than a heads-up. we now know as was shown us to in that testimony that sally yates had three separate meetings, two of them in person and one over the phone. the second one she said she laid out four different topics with don mcgann. they discussed, number one, why it mattered to the doj, don mcgann asked, why one white house official was lying to another white house official. sally yates said that s essentially because he became a security risk, he could have been compromised, subject to blackmail by the russians.
well, someone that we can message or counter message. and our efforts to counter violent extremist ideology. particularly that from isis. we were very skilled at this. and i don t think we do as a nation, we do a good enough job. i think counter menning the russians, giving them their own medicine. and that should not be tagged on to the intelligence community. something i see would support but should be separate from that. one last question. miss yates, you brought a lawyer with you, a career lawyer to the meeting at the white house? is that right? yes. about when you were given these barngs the knowledge you had on general flynn? is that normal practice? why did you do that?