very, very unfair what s happened to general flynn. mr. clapper, is this the kind of statement that would be made by a president aware of serious security concerns about his former national security advisor? well, i am loath to comment on the tweets. i suppose an honest expression of how he felt. does it sound like someone who knew there were serious security concerns? that he would say it s very, very unfair and that mr. flynn is a wonderful man. maybe i should people can draw their own conclusions. i don t know what information was conveyed to the president. i have no insight. to which he had an understanding the acting internal attorney g.
it s it s a concern i would have. sounds like perhaps the president was not aware. in march, the president tweeted flynn should be given immunity. and that the fbi s investigation is a witch hunt. i would like to ask both of you, should these tweets and other similar assertions by the president have any influence at all on the fbi s ongoing investigation into russian interference in our elections and team trump s connections to the efforts? it shouldn t, and i m confident it won t. i hope so. i have a question about the foreign agents registration act. a number of trump administration officials are belatedly disclosing and registering their work on behalf of foreign governments under the foreign agents registration act.
are the central focus of a lot of this internal investigation. she is the appropriate entity that would warn the president s council about this potential violation. that s why she did it. she was attorney general. for eight days. not very long. eric: when an acting attorney general thinks she needs to know more information than the fbi? i think it was a little bit politicized but i wish susan rice had testified. i think there is fear with a lot of individuals in america who think you have this apparatus created to follow people to protect against domestic terror. here you have perhaps a good example of how it was used to go after individuals that were politically dissenting or maybe were going to destroy some politicians legacy after he left the white house. it s very concerning. the fbi is under the department of justice.
with our 2016 election and the trumpeting connections to the efforts, we need to get to the bottom of this, and so i think chair graham for these hearings. i had a number of town hall meetings in hawaii this past weekend and hundreds of people came. believe me, they care that we get to the bottom of this. the trump administration lames president obama for failing to to general flynn s clearance. today, sean spicer said everyone in the government goes through the same process. he also said there s no difference of a security clearance once it s issued. and as far as this administration is concerned, nothing more needed to be done by them regarding general flynn s clearance. isn t it true the cia has a separate vetting process for national security appointees.
again, under what circumstances was the department of justice deciding to bring charges against someone? you said it would depend on the fact of the situation. if the president or someone close to him knew that a white house official failed to disclose work on behalf of a foreign government and chose to cover it up, again, can you reiterate the possible repercussions? to the individual? s to go to the individual. let s say the allegations are proven true. figure that they failed to disclose their activity and that the president covered it up or the individual? let s say the president knew or the administration knew and then individuals. coverups are bad. that is usually evidence of intent. it is something we look at and making determinations about whether something should be criminally prosecuted. it s going to be fact specific. it s hard to give you a hard,