committed crimes and whether in her view she would issue a recommendation on terminating him. she cited all the reasons would you relieve him of duty. the white house has a decision to make. jeremy, same question. what did you learn? three conversations between them. wasn t a mere heads up as was stated from the podium it was. three subsequent conversations. on the 26th of january, the 27th of janel and a phone call on the 28th sheflt laid out in granular detail, his lie, the fact the russians knew about it, that the vice president was misleading the that be. she said i m telling you so you can remove this clear and treatment dags. and within statement by jim clapper if ever there was a clarion call for vigilance, this
ultimately, that is a concern of the american people. that was not addressed in the testimony. what the underlying evidence was. sally yates said she was compiling that over the weekend before she was abruptly fired that following monday. to your point, one, why would it be of interest to the department of justice if one white house employee lied to another. look who these employees are, the national security advisor and the vice president. the vice president then by extension went on sunday morning television and assured people that after his conversation with mike flynn, x had happened or not happened. ultimately, it is important to remember those in the white house work for the american public. if vice president pence is saying one thing on television that it s not true, mike flynn by extension is not just lying to him, he is lying to the
knowledge, a violation of criminal law. to not disclose payment, yes, but i m not speaking to his specific conduct. just generally. if michael flynn is prosecuted for any of these crimes, isn t it possible that the vice president of the united states might be a witness? it would depend on the crime. if it were a full statement to the fbi about his conversations with the russians, wouldn t the vice president potentially be called as a witness to corroborate the full statement? certainly that s possible but i would be speculating how such criminal prosecution would come together. where i m going is the need for a special prosecutor is because officials of the highest level, who are responsible for appointing the deputy attorney general, united states attorney general, are all potentially witnesses, and they are even
violation of criminal law. to not disclose payment, yes. but i m not speaking to his specific conduct. just generally that it is, yes. if michael flynn is prosecuted for any of these crimes, isn t it possible the united states might be a witness? i guess it would depend on the crime. if writ a false statement to the fbi about his conversations with the russians, wouldn t the vice president potentially be called as a witness to corroborate that false statement? certainly that s possible with you i would be speculating how such criminal prosecution would come together. where i m going is the need for a special prosecutor, they are responsible for appointing the united states attorney general, they re all potentially witnesses and even targets.