comments that may have seemed in conflict with what the he had sent the vice president out in particular. the white house counsel informed the president immediately. now, the immediately there is important to the question you raised early. the immediately if it s true matters there. again, gave us a heads up. sounds pretty casual. listen to sally yates. i had two in-person meetings and one phone call with the white house counsel about mr. flynn. we told them that we were giving them all of this information so that they could take action. the action that they deemed appropriate. i remember that mr. mcgann asked me whether or not general flynn should be fired and i told him that that really wasn t our call, that was up to them, but that we were giving them this information so that they could take action. that s not a heads up. a, it s a big deal when the attorney general goes to meet with the white house counsel about somebody on the white house staff who s under fib investigatio
both asked if they had seen any indications of collusion between members of the trump team and the russians. director clapper was very succinct. he said no. sally yates, however, then said that in order to answer that, she would have to betray classified equities. and i found that to be a very interesting answer. because typically the lack of information in and of itself is not classified. to me that suggested that she is privy to something that director clapper was not that led her not to answer that single question. i want to listen to something that sean spicer said on february 14th. this is when he made that reference to that all sally yates did was give us a heads up. but he also said something about the underlying conduct. let s listen to this. the acting attorney general informed the white house counsel that they wanted to give, quote, a heads up to us on some comments that may have seemed in conflict with what he had sent the vice president out in
indications of collusion between members of the trump team and the russians. director clapper was very succinct. he said no. sally yates, however, then said that in order to answer that, she would have to betray classified equities. and i found that to be a very interesting answer. because typically the lack of information in and of itself is not classified. to me that suggested that she is privy to something that director clapper was not that led her not to answer that single question. i want to listen to something that sean spicer said on february 14th. this is when he made that reference to that all sally yates did was give us a heads up. but he also said something about the underlying conduct. let s listen to this. the acting attorney general informed the white house counsel that they wanted to give, quote, a heads up to us on some comments that may have seemed in conflict with what he had sent the vice president out in particular. the white house counsel informed the president
take action. the action that they deemed appropriate. yates s testimony contradicting the white house s assertion hat she merely gave a heads-up. the acting attorney general informed the white house counsel that they wanted to give, quote, a heads-up to us on some comments that may have seemed in conflict with what he had sent the vice president out in particular. and sally yates said the third time that she talked to white house counsel don mcgann is when she called him to tell him he could look at the classified information about michael flynn that was causing so much concern for her and other people within the justice department. she did not know if he or anyone else in the white house took her up on that offer because the same day she made it, she was fired by president trump for refusing to back the travel ban. so that is still a looming question, whether anyone from the white house looked at those classified materials. pamela, thank you very much. as i said, president tru