YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → FULL HEARING: Sally Yates, James Clapper Testify About Flynn/Russia & Interference in Election FNN

FULL HEARING: Sally Yates, James Clapper Testify About Flynn/Russia & Interference in Election FNN — Transcript

by LiveNOW from FOX · 29,029 words · 4,435 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:19they actually succeeded my personal
0:22opinion is they didn't I think that the
0:25election was determined by a lot of
0:27factors more important more significant
0:29than then whether whether the Russians
0:33were some of their their dirty tricks
0:35but but the issues out there we got to
0:37get to the bottom of it because frankly
0:39I think I'm like a lot of other people
0:41I'm tired of hearing about it let's just
0:43get the facts less and and don't just
0:45issue a result of the investigation well
0:49we investigating there's nothing there
0:50no no the FBI and the attorney general's
0:53all they got a call a press conference
0:55explain to the American people what they
0:58found who if anyone is culpable what if
1:01anything we're going to do about it let
1:04the American people know what happened
1:06and then let the chips fall where they
1:07may and let's go talk about things that
1:09are other things that are aborted - like
1:11health care and tax reform and infrared
1:15receivers for the White House maybe get
1:18having to hire Michael and Harry Michael
1:20Flint look
1:32shut the guard and give them some piece
1:38and back in your cages oh my gosh take
1:46this free pest thing too but here we've
1:51come to order thank you all for coming
1:52here sword the order of the day I'll
1:54give a brief opening statement alone
1:56with Senator Whitehouse then we'll have
1:58senator Grassley and Feinstein follow us
2:01in questioning and be seven minute
2:04rounds initially and we'll try to do a
2:06second round of five minutes to both of
2:08the witnesses thank you for coming
2:10try to make this as reasonably short as
2:13possible and if you need a break please
2:15let us know so people under what are we
2:19doing and what are we trying to
2:20accomplish in January the intelligence
2:23community unanimously said that the
2:26Russians through their intelligence
2:27services tried to interfere in the 2016
2:30American presidential election that it
2:33was the Russians who hacked Podesta's
2:35emails it was the Russians who broke
2:38into the Democratic National Committee
2:39and was Russians who helped empower
2:42WikiLeaks no evidence that the Russians
2:45change voting tallies how people were
2:48influenced by what happened only they
2:51know and God knows but I think every
2:53American should be concerned about what
2:55the Russians did from my point of view
2:58there's no doubt in my mind it was the
3:00Russians involved in all the things I
3:02just described not some 400-pound guys
3:05sitting on her bed or any other country
3:08Russia is up to no good when it comes to
3:11democracies all over the world
3:13dismembering the Ukraine the Baltics are
3:16always under siege by Russian
3:18interference so why we want to learn
3:22what the Russians did we want to find a
3:24way to stop them because they're
3:25apparently not going to stop until
3:27somebody makes them the hearing that was
3:30held last week with director Comey asked
3:34a question is it fair to say the Russian
3:36government still involved in American
3:38politics and he said yes so I want House
3:41members and Senators to know is the
3:43presidential campaign at 20
3:45sixteen it could be our campaigns next I
3:47don't know what happened in France but
3:49somebody hacked into mr. mcrawlins
3:53account and we'll see who that may have
3:56been but this is sort of what Russia
3:58does to try to undermine democracy so
4:02what are we trying to accomplish here to
4:03validate the findings of the
4:05Intelligence Committee as much as
4:06possible and to come up with a course of
4:09action as a nation bipartisan in nature
4:11because it was the democratic party of
4:142016 where the victims could be the
4:17Republican party of the future when one
4:19parties attacked all of us should feel
4:22an attack should be an article v
4:25agreement between both major parties all
4:27major parties that when a foreign power
4:29interferes in our election doesn't
4:32matter who they targeted and we're all
4:34in the same boat secondly the unmasking
4:38the 702 program quite frankly when I got
4:41involved this investigation I didn't
4:43know much about it director Comey said
4:46the 702 program which allows warrants
4:50for intelligence gathering and vital
4:52intelligence tool I learned a bit about
4:55unmasking and what I've learned is
4:57disturbing so I don't know exactly all
5:00the details what goes into unmasking a
5:02an American citizen being incidentally
5:05surveilled when they are involved with a
5:07foreign agent I'd like to know more and
5:10I want to make sure that that unmasking
5:11can never be used as a political weapon
5:13in our democracy so I'm all for hitting
5:18the enemy before they hit us
5:19intelligence gathering is essential but
5:22I do believe we need to take a look at
5:24the procedures involved in 702
5:26particularly how in masking is requested
5:29who can request it and what can what
5:32what limitations exist if any on how the
5:35information can be used so that's why
5:37we're here we're here to find out all
5:39things Russia and the witnesses are
5:42determined by the evidence and nothing
5:44else and the 702 area reauthorization
5:47will come for the Congress fairly soon
5:49and I for one have a lot of questions I
5:52didn't have before I've enjoyed doing
5:54this with Senator Whitehouse senator
5:55finds Feinstein and Grassley have been
5:58too
5:58let it be said that the Chairman and
6:01ranking member of the subcommittee have
6:02allowed us to do our job have empowered
6:05us and have been hands on and it's much
6:07appreciated with that I would recognize
6:09senator Whitehouse Thank You chairman
6:12graham for the important work the
6:14subcommittee is doing under your
6:15leadership investigating the threat of
6:16Russian interference in our elections in
6:19January America's intelligence community
6:21disclosed that the Russian government on
6:23the orders of Vladimir Putin engaged in
6:25an election influence campaign
6:26throughout 2016
6:29in March FBI director Comey confirmed
6:31that and I quote him here the FBI as
6:33part of its counterintelligence mission
6:35is investigating the Russian
6:36government's efforts to interfere in the
6:382016 election and that includes
6:41investigating the nature of any links
6:43between individuals associated with a
6:44Trump campaign and the Russian
6:46government and whether there is any
6:48coordination between the campaign and
6:50Russia's efforts the FBI and the
6:53intelligence community's work is
6:55appropriately taking place outside the
6:57public eye our inquiry serves broader
7:00aims to give a thorough public
7:02accounting of the known facts to pose
7:05the questions that still need answers
7:06and help us determine how best to
7:08protect the integrity and proper
7:10functioning of our government at the
7:12subcommittee's first hearing on March
7:1315th we heard from expert witnesses
7:15about the Russian toolbox for
7:18interfering in the politics of other
7:20countries now we can ask which of these
7:23tools were used against us by the
7:25Russians in 2016 here is a checklist
7:29propaganda fake news trolls and BOTS as
7:33Clint Watts told the Senate Select
7:35Committee on Intelligence in March
7:37russian state-sponsored media outlets RT
7:39and Sputnik in the lead-up to the
7:41election quote turned out manipulated
7:43truths false news stories and
7:45conspiracies end quote providing a
7:48weaponized fake news effort openly
7:51supporting Donald Trump's candidacy
7:52quoting again while consistently
7:55offering negative coverage of Secretary
7:57Clinton this was to again quote Watts a
7:59deliberate well organized well resourced
8:02well-funded wide-ranging effort and
8:04quote by Russia using trolls and BOTS to
8:08amplify its messages particularly across
8:10social media these facts are
8:12not disputed by any serious person so
8:14this is a YES on the checklist hacking
8:18and theft of political information
8:19throughout 2015 and 2016 Russian
8:23intelligence services and
8:24state-sponsored hackers conducted cyber
8:26operations against us political targets
8:29including state and local election
8:31boards penetrating networks probing for
8:33vulnerabilities and stealing private
8:35information and emails attribution of
8:37these crimes to Russian actors was
8:39confirmed in our last hearing and by
8:42many other sources so this is another
8:44yes timed leaks of damaging material
8:48Russian intelligence fronts cut outs and
8:50sympathetic organizations like Gooch
8:5242.0 DC leaks comm and WikiLeaks then
8:56time the release of stolen victim data
8:58to maximize its political effect
9:01manipulate public opinion and thereby
9:03influence the outcome of an election
9:06longtime trump associate Roger Stone
9:08admits to having interacted with Gooch
9:1042.0 and he foreshadowed releases of
9:12stolen data on Twitter in August and
9:15October 2016 timing can matter on
9:18October 7th just hours after the
9:21damaging Access Hollywood tapes of
9:23Donald Trump were made public WikiLeaks
9:25began publishing emails stolen from
9:27Clinton campaign manager John Podesta so
9:30yes again assassination and political
9:33violence last October Russian military
9:36intelligence reportedly conspired to
9:38assassinate the then prime minister of
9:39Montenegro as part of a coup attempt in
9:422004 former Ukrainian Prime Minister
9:44Viktor Yushchenko was disfigured when he
9:48was poisoned in a suspected
9:49assassination attempt by Russian agents
9:51Russian opposition figures are routinely
9:53the targets of state-directed political
9:55violence vladimir Karamu osa has
9:58survived two recent poisonings while
10:00boris nemtsov was brazenly murdered near
10:02the kremlin in 2015
10:04thankfully we have no evidence of that
10:07happening here investment control and
10:10key economic sectors we learned from
10:12heather Connolly's testimony in our last
10:14hearing that the kremlin playbook is to
10:15manipulate other countries through
10:17economic penetration heavily investing
10:20in critical sectors of the target
10:21country's economy to create political
10:23leverage putin's petro politics
10:27uses Russia's control of natural gas to
10:29create political pressure but no as to
10:32that tactic here so far shady business
10:37and financial ties Russia exploits the
10:39dark shadows of economic and political
10:42systems FBI director Comey testified
10:45last week that the United States is
10:46becoming the last big haven for shell
10:49corporations where the opacity of the
10:51corporate form allows the concealment of
10:53criminal funds and can allow foreign
10:56money to directly and indirectly
10:57influence our political system since the
11:00Citizens United decision we've seen
11:02unprecedented dark money flow in our
11:04elections from 501 C 4 organizations we
11:07don't know who's behind that dark money
11:09or what they're demanding in return
11:12using shell corporations and other
11:14devices Russia establishes illicit
11:16financial relationships to develop
11:19leverage against prominent figures
11:21through the carrot of continued bribery
11:24or the stick of threatened disclosure
11:27how about here
11:29well we know that President Trump has
11:31long pursued business deals in Russia
11:33he's reported to have done or sought to
11:35do business there since the mid-1990s as
11:37he chased deals in Russia throughout the
11:402000s he deputized a colorful character
11:42named Felix Seder to develop real estate
11:45projects there under the Trump name
11:47Saders family has links to Russian
11:49organized crime and Felix himself has
11:51had difficulties with the law sader said
11:53in a 2008 deposition that he would pitch
11:55business ideas directly to trump and his
11:57team on a constant basis as recently as
12:002010 stater had a Trump Organization
12:02business card in an office and Trump
12:05Tower Donald Trump jr. said in September
12:082008 that he made half a dozen trips to
12:10Russia in the preceding 18 months noting
12:13that Russian investors were heavily
12:14involved in Trump's New York real estate
12:16projects we see a lot of money pouring
12:18in from Russia
12:19he said one Trump property in midtown
12:22Manhattan had become within a few years
12:24of opening a prominent depository of
12:26Russian money according to a report in
12:28Bloomberg Businessweek so here there are
12:31still big questions of course President
12:34Trump could clarify these questions by
12:36releasing his business and personal tax
12:38returns
12:40corrupting and compromising politicians
12:42in testimony before the Judiciary
12:45Committee last Wednesday director Comey
12:47acknowledged that financial leverage has
12:48been exploited by Russian intelligence
12:50over many decades back to the days of
12:53days of Joseph Allsop they used
12:55complement or compromising material to
12:58pressure and manipulate targeted
13:00individuals with the prospect of
13:02damaging disclosures has Russia
13:04compromised corrupted cultivated or
13:06exerted improper influence on
13:08individuals associated with President
13:10Trump his administration his transition
13:12team his campaign or his businesses
13:15another big question mark we know that
13:19President Trump has had in his orbit a
13:21number of very Russia friendly figures
13:22in August 2015
13:25Trump first met informally with Michael
13:26Flynn who was director of the Defense
13:28Intelligence Agency had developed strong
13:30professional relationships with Russian
13:32military intelligence in December of
13:35that year Flynn travelled to Moscow for
13:36a paid speaking appearance at an
13:38anniversary gala for RT where he was
13:41briefly seated next to Vladimir Putin
13:43quite a seat for a retired American
13:46general two months after that trip Flynn
13:49was reportedly serving as an informal
13:51national security adviser to Trump Trump
13:55identified a little-known energy
13:56investor named Carter Paige as one of
13:58his foreign policy advisers in late
14:00March 2016 Paige told Bloomberg politics
14:03that friends and associates had been
14:05hurt by US sanctions against Russia and
14:08that there's a lot of excitement in
14:10terms of the possibilities for creating
14:11a better situation end quote
14:13on April 27 2016 Trump and several of
14:17his advisers including Jeff Sessions met
14:19Sergei keylock Russia's ambassador to
14:21the United States before a campaign
14:23speech the speech which was hosted by
14:25the center for the national interest had
14:27been arranged by Trump son-in-law Jared
14:29Kushner gifts lyac attended the Trump
14:32Republican convention and he told The
14:34Washington Post that he had multiple
14:35contacts with the Trump campaign both
14:37before and after the election in the
14:40days after the November election
14:41Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister
14:43confirmed that his government had
14:44communicated with the Trump team during
14:46the campaign and we know Michael Flynn
14:49spoke with Ambassador kisses Leah on
14:51December 29th the same day President
14:54Obama announced punitive sanctions
14:55against Russia for its interference in
14:57the 2016 election Trump transition and
15:00administration officials thereafter made
15:03false statements to the media and the
15:05public about the content of Flynn's
15:07conversations with kiss lyac apparently
15:10as a result of Flynn having misled them
15:12this eventually led President Trump to
15:14ask for Flynn's resignation something
15:16I'm hoping miss Yates can shed some
15:18light on in her testimony today the
15:21president and his administration have
15:22yet to take responsibility for or
15:24explain these and other troubling Russia
15:26links dismissing facts as fake news and
15:29downplaying the significance of
15:31individuals involved more than a hundred
15:34days into the Trump administration and
15:35newly nearly two years since he declared
15:38his candidacy for president only one
15:40person has been held accountable for
15:41improper contacts with Russia Michael
15:44Flynn even then the Trump administration
15:46has maintained that Flynn's
15:48communications with the Ambassador were
15:49not in fact improper he simply lost the
15:52confidence of the president we need a
15:55more thorough accounting of the facts
15:56many years ago an 18-minute gap
16:00transfixed the country and got
16:02everybody's attention in another
16:04investigation in this case we have an
16:0718-day gap between the notification of
16:09the White House that a senior official
16:11had potentially been compromised and
16:14action taken against that senior
16:17officials role at best the Trump
16:20administration has displayed serious
16:22errors of judgment at worst these
16:24irregularities may reflect efforts that
16:26compromise or corruption at the hands of
16:28Russian intelligence my sincere hope is
16:30that this hearing and those to come will
16:32help us find out Thank You chairman our
16:36two witnesses are well known and I will
16:41be sworn in but mr. clapper the former
16:45Director of National Intelligence has
16:47served his country for decades in
16:48uniform and out and dedicated his life
16:51to intelligence gathering and we
16:53appreciate that
16:54miss Shay's was the former Deputy
16:56Attorney General was well respected by
16:58people in the legal profession thank you
17:00both for coming if you'll please rise
17:05raise your hand please you affirmed that
17:08testimony about to give the subcommittee
17:10is the truth the whole truth and nothing
17:12but the truth so help you god mr.
17:18clapper German Graham ranking member
17:27White House and members of subcommittee
17:29certainly didn't expect to be before
17:31this committee or any other committee to
17:33Congress against assumed since I thought
17:36I was all done with this when I left the
17:37government and this is only my first two
17:40hearings this week but understandably
17:43concerned about the egregious Russian
17:45interference in our election process is
17:47so critically serious as to merit focus
17:50hopefully bipartisan focus by the
17:52Congress and the American people last
17:55year the intelligence community
17:57conducted an exhaustive review of
17:58Russian interference into our
18:00presidential election process resulting
18:03in a special intelligence community
18:05assessment or ICA as we call it I'm here
18:09today to provide whatever information I
18:10can now as a private citizen on how the
18:13intelligence community conducted its
18:15analysis came up with its findings and
18:17communicated them to the Obama
18:19administration to the Trump transition
18:21team to the Congress and an unclassified
18:23forum to the American public
18:26additionally I'll briefly address four
18:28related topics that have emerged since
18:30the ICA was produced because of both
18:34classification and some executive
18:36privilege strictures requested by the
18:38White House there are limits to what I
18:40can discuss and of course my direct
18:43official knowledge of any of this
18:45stopped on 20 January when my term of
18:47office was happily over as you know the
18:50IC was a coordinated product from three
18:53agencies CIA NSA and the FBI not all 17
18:57components the intelligence community
18:58those three under the aegis of my former
19:02office following extensive intelligence
19:05reporting about many Russian efforts to
19:07collect on and influence the outcome of
19:09the presidential election President
19:11Obama asked us to do this in early
19:13December and have it completed before
19:15the end of his term the two
19:18dozen or so analysts for this task were
19:20hand-picked seasoned experts from each
19:23of the contributing agencies they were
19:26given complete unfettered mutual access
19:29to all sensitive raw intelligence data
19:31and importantly complete independence to
19:34reach their findings they found that the
19:37russian government pursued a
19:38multi-faceted influencer campaign and
19:40the run-up to the election including
19:42aggressive use of cyber capabilities the
19:45russians used cyber operations against
19:47both political parties including hacking
19:49into servers used by the Democratic
19:51National Committee and releasing stolen
19:53data to WikiLeaks and other media
19:56outlets Russia also collected on certain
19:59Republican party affiliated targets but
20:01did not release any Republican related
20:03data the tozi community assessment
20:06concluded first that President Putin
20:08directed an influencer campaign to erode
20:10the faith and confidence the American
20:13people in our presidential election
20:14process second that he did so to demean
20:17Secretary Clinton and third that he
20:20sought to advantage mr. Trump these
20:23conclusions were reached based on the
20:24richness of the information gathered and
20:26analyzed and were thoroughly vetted and
20:28then approved by the directors of the
20:29three agencies and me these Russian
20:34activities and the resulting assessment
20:36were brief first to President Obama on
20:37the 5th of January then to
20:39president-elect Trump at Trump Tower on
20:41the 6th and to the Congress via a series
20:44of five briefings from the 6th through
20:45the 13th of January the classified
20:48version was profusely annotated with
20:50footnotes drawn from thousands of pages
20:52of supporting material the key judgments
20:55in the unclassified version published on
20:57the 6th of January were identical to the
21:00classified version well it's been over
21:03four months since the issuance of this
21:05assessment as director Comey and Rogers
21:07testified before the House Intelligence
21:09Committee on the 20th of March the
21:11conclusions and confidence levels
21:13reached at the time still stand I think
21:16that's a statement to the quality and
21:17professional of the ice of the
21:19intelligence community people who
21:20produce such a compelling intelligence
21:23report during a tumultuous convert
21:26controversial time under intense
21:28scrutiny and with a very tight deadline
21:32throughout the public dialogue about the
21:34issue of the past few months four
21:36related topics have been raised that
21:38could use some clarification I'd like to
21:40take a few moments to provide attempt to
21:42provide that clarification first I want
21:45to address the meaning of quote
21:47unmasking which is an unofficial term
21:49that's appeared frequently in the media
21:51in recent months and often I think
21:52misused and misunderstood so what
21:56frequently happens that in the course of
21:58conducting lawfully authorized
22:00electronic surveillance on validated
22:02foreign intelligence targets the
22:04collecting agency picks up
22:06communications involving US persons
22:08either their direct interface with a
22:11validated foreign intelligence target or
22:13where there is discussion about those
22:15u.s. persons by validated foreign
22:18intelligence targets under intelligence
22:20community minimization procedures the
22:22identities of these u.s. persons are
22:25typically masked and reports that go out
22:28to intelligence consumers and they're
22:30referred to each report at a time as
22:32u.s. person one u.s. person two etc
22:36however there are cases when to fully
22:39understand the context of the
22:41communication that has been obtained or
22:43the threat that is posed the consumer of
22:46that collected intelligence may ask the
22:48identity of the u.s. person be revealed
22:51such requests explain why the unmasking
22:54is necessary and that explanation is
22:56conveyed back to the agency that
22:59collected the information it is then up
23:01to that agency whether to approve the
23:03request and to provide the identity and
23:06of u.s. person's identity is revealed
23:08that identity is provided only to the
23:11person who properly requested it not to
23:14a broader audience this process is
23:17subject to oversight and reporting and
23:19an interest of transparency my former
23:21office publishes a report on the
23:22statistics of how many US persons
23:25identities are on mass based on a
23:27collection that occurred under section
23:29702 of the FISA Amendment Act which I
23:31will speak to in a moment and in 2016
23:33that number was 1934 on several
23:37occasions during my six and a half years
23:39of DNI I requested the identity of US
23:42persons to be revealed and each such
23:46I made these requests so I could fully
23:47understand the context of the
23:50communication and a potential threat
23:52being posed at no time did I ever submit
23:55a request for personal or political
23:57purposes or to voyeuristically look at
24:00raw intelligence nor am i aware of any
24:02instance of such abuse by anyone else
24:05second is the issue of leaks leaks have
24:09been conflated with unmasking x' in some
24:11of the public discourse but they are two
24:13very different things an unmasking is a
24:16legitimate process that consists of a
24:17request and approval by proper
24:19authorities as I've just briefly
24:20described a leak is an unauthorized
24:23disclosure of classified or sensitive
24:24information that is improper under any
24:27circumstance
24:28I've long maintained during my 50 plus
24:31year career in intelligence that leaks
24:33endanger national security they
24:35compromised sources methods and
24:36tradecraft and they can put assets lives
24:38at risk and for the record in my long
24:42career I've never knowingly exposed
24:43classified information in an
24:45inappropriate manner third is the issue
24:48of counterintelligence investigations
24:50conducted by the Federal Bureau of
24:51Investigation well I can't won't commit
24:54comment in this setting on any
24:56particular counterintelligence
24:57investigation it's important to
24:59understand how such investigations fit
25:01into and relate to the intelligence
25:03community and at least the general
25:06practice I follow during my time as DNI
25:08with respect to FBI counterintelligence
25:10investigations when the intelligence
25:13community obtains information suggesting
25:15that a u.s. person is acting on behalf
25:18of a foreign power the standard
25:20procedure is to share that information
25:22with the lead investigator a body which
25:25of course is the FBI the bureau then
25:28decides whether to look into that
25:29information and handles any ensuing
25:32investigation if there is one given its
25:35sensitivity even the existence of a
25:38counterintelligence Investigations
25:39closely held including at the highest
25:41levels during my tenure as DNI it was my
25:44practice to defer to the FBI director
25:47both director Muller and then
25:49subsequently director Comey on whether
25:51when and to what extent they would
25:54inform me about such investigations this
25:57stems from the unique position of the
25:59FBI which straddles both intelligence
26:01and law enforcement and as a consequence
26:04I was not aware of the
26:05counterintelligence investigation
26:07director Comey first referred to during
26:09his testimony before the house permanent
26:11Select Committee for intelligence on the
26:1220th of March and that comports with my
26:15public statements finally I'd like to
26:17comment on section 702 of the Foreign
26:19Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments
26:21Act as it's called what it governs and
26:24why it's vital this provision authorizes
26:27the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
26:28Court to approve electronic surveillance
26:30of non-us person let me repeat that
26:34non-us person foreign intelligence
26:36targets outside the United States
26:39section 702 has been a tremendously
26:42effective tool in identifying terrorists
26:44and other threats to us but at the same
26:47time protecting the privacy and civil
26:49liberties of US persons and as the
26:52Chairman as chairman graham indicated
26:54section 702 is do it for reauthorization
26:57by Congress this year it was renewed in
27:002012 for five years and expires on 31
27:03December of this year with so many
27:05misconceptions flying around it would be
27:07tragic for section 702 to become a
27:10casualty of misinformation and for us to
27:12lose a tool that is so vital to the
27:14safety of this nation
27:17in conclusion Russia's influence
27:19activities in the run-up to the 2016
27:22election constituted the high-water mark
27:24of their long-running efforts since the
27:261960s
27:27to disrupt and influence our elections
27:29they must be congratulating themselves
27:32for having exceeded their wildest
27:34expectations with a minimal expenditure
27:36of resource and I believe they are now
27:39emboldened to continue such activities
27:42in the future both here and around the
27:44world and to do so even more intensely
27:46if there has ever been a clarion call
27:49for vigilance and action against a
27:52threat to the very foundation of our
27:54democratic political system this episode
27:57is it I hope the American people
28:00recognize the severity of this threat
28:02and then we collectively counter it
28:04before it further erodes the fabric of
28:06our democracy I'll now turn to my former
28:08colleague acting Attorney General Sally
28:10Yates for any remarks that she has to
28:12make
28:17microphone Thank You chairman Graham
28:21ranking member Whitehouse and
28:22distinguished members of the
28:24subcommittee I'm pleased to appear
28:26before you this afternoon on this
28:27critically important topic of Russian
28:30interference in our last presidential
28:31election and the related topics that
28:33this subcommittee is investigating for
28:3627 years I was honored to represent the
28:40people of the United States with the
28:42Department of Justice I began as an
28:46assistant United States attorney in
28:47Atlanta in the fall of 1989 and like all
28:51prosecutors I investigated and tried
28:53cases and worked hard to try to ensure
28:56the safety of our communities and that
28:58those who violated our laws were held
29:00accountable over time through five
29:03Republican and Democratic
29:04administrations I assumed greater
29:07leadership positions within the
29:08department in the US Attorney's Office
29:10in Atlanta I served as chief of the
29:12fraud in public corruption section as
29:14first Assistant United States Attorney
29:16and then was appointed United States
29:18Attorney and then I had the privilege of
29:20serving its Deputy Attorney General for
29:22a little over two years and finally the
29:25current administration asked me to stay
29:26on as Acting Attorney General throughout
29:30my time at the department I was
29:32incredibly fortunate to be able to work
29:34with the talented career men and women
29:37at the Department of Justice who
29:39followed the facts and applied the law
29:41with tremendous care and dedication and
29:44who are in fact the backbone of the
29:47Department of Justice and in every step
29:50in every position from AUSA to acting
29:56Attorney General I always tried to carry
29:59out my responsibility to seek justice in
30:01a way that would engender the trust and
30:04the confidence of the people whom I
30:07served I want to thank this subcommittee
30:10for conducting an impartial and thorough
30:12investigation of this vitally important
30:15topic the efforts by a foreign adversary
30:18to interfere and undermine our
30:19democratic processes and and those of
30:22our allies pose a serious threat to all
30:25Americans
30:27this hearing and others this
30:28subcommittee has conducted and will be
30:30conducting the future or an important
30:32bipartisan step and understanding the
30:34threat and the best ways to confront it
30:37going forward as the intelligence
30:40community assessed in its January of
30:412017 report Russia will continue to
30:45develop capabilities to use against the
30:47United States and we need to be ready to
30:49meet those threats I sincerely
30:51appreciate the opportunity to take part
30:54in today's discussion now I want to note
30:57that in my answers today I intend to be
31:00as fulsome and as comprehensive
31:02comprehensive as possible while
31:04respecting my legal and ethical
31:06boundaries as the subcommittee
31:09understands many of the topics of
31:10interest today concern classified
31:13information that I cannot address in
31:15this public setting my duty to protect
31:18classified information applies just as
31:21much as a former official as it did when
31:24I led the department in addition I'm
31:26obviously no longer with the Department
31:28of Justice and I am not authorized to
31:31generally discuss deliberations within
31:33DOJ or more broadly within the executive
31:37branch particularly on matters that may
31:39be the subject of ongoing investigations
31:41I take those obligations very seriously
31:45and I appreciate the subcommittee's
31:47shared interest in protecting classified
31:49information and preserving the integrity
31:51of any investigations that the
31:53Department of Justice may now be
31:55conducting I look forward to answering
31:57your questions thank you Sam Grassley
32:01would you like to make a statement
32:06okay okay all right you'll get to ask
32:11him senator Feinstein thank you very
32:16much mr. chairman and I'll be very brief
32:19we have prepared for the committee and
32:22I'd like to ask the staff to distribute
32:26it a background and timeline on
32:28Lieutenant General Michael Flynn and
32:32some of the key dates involved which may
32:36be of help to the subcommittee and I
32:38would just like to take this opportunity
32:41to thank the subcommittee chairman
32:44Graham and VY and ranking member
32:47Whitehouse I think you've done a good
32:49job in your hope subcommittee has and so
32:52thank you very very much I just like to
32:56make a few comments if I might and put
32:59all the remarks in the record I think it
33:05is a foregone conclusion about Russia's
33:09involvement and we see it replicated
33:12even in the French election perhaps not
33:15to the extent or in the way but
33:17certainly replicated on February 9th
33:312017 the Washington Post reported that
33:36either Flynn had misled the vice
33:38president or that pence had misspoken
33:41Lieutenant General Flynn resigned his
33:44post on February 13th four days after
33:46the Post broke this story there are
33:49still many unanswered questions about
33:53general Flynn including who know what
33:56who knew what and when for example the
34:00press is now reporting that in addition
34:02to the warning from Sally Yates concerns
34:05were raised by former President Obama
34:07directly to then president-elect Trump
34:1195 days before Flynn resigned so the
34:15question what role did Flynn play and
34:19come
34:19eunuch ations with the Russians both
34:21after the first warning by President
34:24Obama and then after the warning by
34:27Sally Yates and I hope to ask that today
34:30what role did Flynn play in high-level
34:33national security decisions again both
34:37during the 95 days and the 18 days when
34:41the White House was on notice so I look
34:44forward to hearing more about this from
34:50you
34:51acting Attorney General Yates you have
34:54stated that you warned the White House
34:56on January 26 nearly three weeks before
35:00Flynn resigned that he had not been
35:02truthful and might be vulnerable to
35:05Russian blackmail and finally there are
35:10other troubling questions regarding
35:13Russia's relationships and connections
35:15with Trump advisers and associates and
35:18there are questions about whether anyone
35:21was the target of Russian intelligence
35:23either to be exploited or cultivated so
35:29I will put my whole remarks in the
35:32record mr. chairman and I hope to ask
35:35some questions around these few comments
35:38thank you very much for this opportunity
35:40yes ma'am without objections mr.
35:43chairman may also put into the record a
35:46letter dated November 18 2016 from the
35:51ranking member on the House Committee on
35:52Oversight Government Reform
35:53representative Elijah Cummings giving
35:56then vice president-elect pence notice
36:00about certain what he called apparent
36:02conflicts of interest regarding general
36:06Flynn without objection
36:08and general clapper on March the 5th
36:112017 you said the following to a
36:14question here's the question does
36:16intelligence exist that can definitely
36:18answer the following question where
36:21there were improper contacts between the
36:23Trump campaign and Russian officials you
36:25said we did not include any evidence in
36:28our report and I say our that's the NSA
36:31the
36:31FBI the CIA with my office the Director
36:34of National Intelligence that had
36:36anything that had any reflection of
36:39collude collusion between members of the
36:42Trump campaign and the Russians there
36:44was no evidence of that included in our
36:47report Chuck Todd then asked I
36:49understand that but does it exist
36:52you say no not to my knowledge is that
36:54still accurate
36:55those machines do you have any evidence
36:59are you aware of any evidence that would
37:02suggest that in the 2016 campaign
37:05anybody in the Trump campaign included
37:08colluded with the Russian government or
37:10intelligence services and in a proper
37:13fashion and Senator my answer to that
37:16question would require me to reveal
37:18classified information and so I can't
37:20answer that well and I don't get that
37:24because he just said he issued the
37:26report and he said he doesn't know of
37:29any so what would you know that's not in
37:31the report if I may
37:33ause meet her well I think the director
37:37clapper also said that he was unaware of
37:39the FBI counterintelligence investigate
37:42would it be fair to say that the
37:43counterintelligence investigation was
37:45not mature enough to come to his to get
37:48in the report is that fair mister mr.
37:50clapper all right that's when this
37:53that's a possibility what I don't get is
37:56how the FBI can have a
37:57counterintelligence investigation
37:59suggesting collusion and you as Director
38:02of National Intelligence not know about
38:03it and the FBI sign on to a report that
38:07basically said there was no collusion I
38:10can only speculate
38:11well why that so there wasn't the
38:17evidence if there was any it didn't read
38:20it didn't reach the evidentiary bar in
38:22terms of the level of confidence that we
38:23were striving for in that intelligence
38:25community assessment okay that makes
38:27perfect sense to me follow up on that
38:29are you familiar with the dossier about
38:32mr. Trump compiled while some guy in
38:35England I am did you find that to be a
38:38credible report well we didn't make a
38:41judgment on that and that's well that's
38:44one reason why we did not include it in
38:47the body of our intelligence community
38:48assessment he didn't find it credible
38:50enough to be included we couldn't
38:51corroborate the sourcing particularly
38:54the second third order sources mesh
38:56eighths are you familiar with dicey a
39:00microphone mic if I could try to clarify
39:02one answer before as well because I
39:04think Senator Graham you may have
39:06misunderstood me you asked me whether I
39:08was aware of any evidence of collusion
39:11and I declined to answer because
39:12answering would reveal classified
39:14information I believe that that's the
39:16same answer that director Comey gave to
39:19this committee when he was asked this
39:20question as well and he made clear and
39:22I'd like to make clear that just because
39:24I say I can't answer it you should not
39:26draw from that and assumption that that
39:29means that the answer is yes okay fair
39:31enough
39:31also think if I may sir that this
39:33illustrates what I was trying to get at
39:35in my statement about the unique
39:37position that the FBI's FBI straddles
39:40between intelligence and law enforcement
39:42I just want the touchiered you know that
39:45whatever they're doing on the
39:46counterintelligence side mr. clapper
39:49didn't know about it didn't make it in
39:50the report and we'll see what comes from
39:53it
39:53miss shades what did you tell the White
39:56House about mr. Flynn I had two
40:02in-person meetings and one phone call
40:04with the White House Counsel about mr.
40:07Flint the first meeting occurred on
40:10January 26 I called Don Magan first
40:13thing that morning and told him that I
40:15had a very sensitive matter that I
40:18needed to discuss with him that I
40:19couldn't talk about it on the phone and
40:21that I needed to come see him and he
40:23agreed to meet with me later that
40:25afternoon I took a senior member of the
40:29National Security Division who was
40:31overseeing this matter with me to meet
40:34with mr. McGann we met in his office at
40:36the White House which is asked if so we
40:38could discuss classified information in
40:40his office we began our meeting telling
40:45him that there had been press accounts
40:48of statements from the vice president
40:51and others that related conduct that mr.
40:55Flynn had been involved in that we knew
40:57not to be the truth
40:59and as I as I tell you what happened
41:01here again I'm going to be very careful
41:03not to reveal classified the reason you
41:05it wasn't true is because she had
41:06collected some intelligence from an
41:09incidental collection system is that
41:11fair to say and I can't answer that
41:13because that again would call me for me
41:15to reveal classified let me ask you this
41:16did anybody ever make a request to
41:19unmask the conversation between the
41:21Russian ambassador and mr. Flynn and
41:23again senator I can't answer a question
41:26like that well you know about
41:28information the case I don't know a way
41:32to find that out uh well in another
41:34setting it could be disclosed that there
41:36is a record somewhere it would make a
41:39request to unmask the conversation with
41:41general Flynn in the Russian desert well
41:43I'm sure if one was made they'd be a
41:45record of it I I can't speak to this
41:48specific case but I can generally
41:51comment that in the case of 702 requests
41:53yes those are all documented okay and I
41:56don't mean to interrupt you but this is
41:58important to me how did the conversation
42:01between the Russian ambassador and mr.
42:04Flynn make it to the Washington Post
42:06well which one of us are you asking miss
42:10Shay yeah that's a great question yeah
42:12all this I also would like to know that
42:15I don't I don't know the answer to that
42:16yeah
42:17nor do I know the answer to that is it
42:19fair to say that if somebody did make an
42:22unmasking request we would know who they
42:25were and we could find out from them who
42:29they shared the information with is that
42:31fair to say the system would allow us to
42:33do what I've just described well I'm
42:35asking requests are not made to the
42:37department of judgment to the agency who
42:39does the collection that's my
42:41understanding as there should be a
42:43record somewhere in our system whether
42:45or not an unmasking request was made for
42:48the conversation between mr. Flynn and
42:50the Russian ambassador we should be able
42:53to determine if it did if it was made
42:55who made it then we can ask what did
42:57they do with the information is that a
42:59fair statement mr. clapper yes okay now
43:03what did you finish would you tell the
43:05White House right so I told them again
43:08that there were a number of press
43:10accounts of statements that have been
43:12made by the
43:12president and other high-ranking White
43:15House officials about general Flint's
43:17conduct that we knew to be untrue and we
43:20told them how we knew that this how we
43:23had this information how we had acquired
43:25it and how we knew that it was untrue
43:27and we walked the White House Counsel
43:30who also had an associate there with him
43:32through general Flynn's underlying
43:35conduct the contents of which I
43:37obviously cannot go through with you
43:38today because it's classified
43:40but we took them through in a fair
43:42amount of detail of the underlying
43:44conduct what general Flynn had done and
43:46then we walked through the various press
43:47accounts and how it had been falsely
43:49reported we also told the White House
43:52Counsel that general Flynn had been
43:53interviewed by the FBI on February 24th
43:57mr. McGann asked me how he did and I
44:00declined to give him an answer to that
44:02and we then walked through with history
44:05McGann essentially why we were telling
44:07them about this and the first thing we
44:10did was to explain to mr. McGann that
44:12the underlying conduct that general
44:15Flynn had engaged in was problematic in
44:17and of itself
44:19secondly we told him we felt like the
44:22vice president and others were entitled
44:24to know that the information that they
44:27were conveying to the American people
44:28wasn't true and we wanted to make it
44:31really clear right out of the gate that
44:33we were not accusing vice president
44:35pence of knowingly providing false
44:38information to the American people and
44:40in fact mr. McGann responded back to me
44:42to let me know that anything that
44:44general Flynn would have said would have
44:47been based excuse me anything that
44:48vice-president pence would have said
44:49would have been based on what general
44:51Flynn had told him we told him the third
44:55reason was is because we were concerned
44:57that the American people had been misled
44:59about the underlying conduct and what
45:02general Flynn had done and additionally
45:05that we weren't the only ones that knew
45:07all of this that the Russians also knew
45:10about what general Flynn had done and
45:12the Russians also knew that general
45:16Flynn had misled the vice president and
45:18others because in the media accounts it
45:20was clear from the vice president and
45:22others that they were repeating what
45:24general Flynn had told them
45:26and that this was a problem because not
45:29only did we believe that the Russians
45:31knew this but that they likely had proof
45:33of this information and that created a
45:37compromised situation a situation where
45:39the National Security Adviser
45:41essentially could be blackmailed by the
45:43Russians finally we told them that we
45:47were giving them all of this information
45:49so that they could take action the
45:52action they deemed appropriate i
45:55remember that mr. McGann asked me
45:57whether or not general Flint should be
45:58fired and I told him that that really
46:00wasn't our call that was up to them but
46:02that we were giving them this
46:04information so that they could take
46:05action and that was the first meeting
46:07thank you and I love go to survivin very
46:10quick question was or either one of you
46:13aware of incidental collection by our
46:16intelligence community of any
46:19presidential candidate staff or campaign
46:23during the 2016 election cycle
46:27[Music]
46:32was there any incidental collection
46:35where our intelligence community
46:37collects information involving a
46:40presidential candidate on either side of
46:42the aisle during 2015 or 2016 well not
46:47to my knowledge
46:48I believe director Comey was also asked
46:52this question and declined to answer it
46:54so I need to follow the same lines the
46:56DOJ has drawn again you should not draw
46:59from that that my answer is yes but
47:02rather that the answer would require me
47:03to reveal classified information Thank
47:05You Sara Maya my response is always
47:13exactly following the Comey line the
47:20director testified a few days ago in the
47:22full committee that the FBI had
47:26interviewed mr. Flynn a day before or
47:31two days before your meeting at the
47:33White House and you just testified that
47:37you had told the White House Counsel
47:39that the FBI had interviewed Flynn and
47:41he'd asked McGann had asked how'd he do
47:44right did you have the 302 with you when
47:49you were in the White House did you show
47:51it to White House Counsel and had you
47:53seen it at the time you went up to the
47:55White House no on the FBI had conducted
47:58the interview on the 24th
48:00we got a readout from the FBI on the
48:0225th a detailed readout specifically
48:05from the agents that had conducted the
48:06interview but we didn't want to wait for
48:09the 302 because we felt that it was
48:11important to get this information to the
48:12White House as quickly as possible
48:14so we had folks from the National
48:16Security Division who spent a lot of
48:17time with the agents not only finding
48:20out exactly how the interview went but
48:21how this impacted their investigation so
48:26did you take that summary with you do
48:29you have any document with you that
48:30described the FBI interview of general
48:35Flynn
48:36at the time that I was there I had notes
48:39that described that interview as well as
48:41the individual that was with me the
48:44senior career
48:44official from the National Security
48:45Division had been part of all of those
48:48discussions with the FBI did you discuss
48:51criminal prosecution of mr. Flynn
48:55general Flynn my recollection is that
48:58did not really come up much in the first
49:00meeting it did come up in the second
49:02meeting when mr. McGann called me back
49:04the next morning and asked this the
49:07morning after this is the morning of the
49:0927th now and asked me if I could come
49:10back to his office and so I went back
49:12with the NSD official and there were
49:15essentially four topics that he wanted
49:17to discuss there and one of those topics
49:18was precisely that he asked about the
49:21applicability of certain statutes some
49:23certain criminal statutes and more
49:25specifically about second meeting at the
49:28White House the White House office in
49:30his office again in his office again
49:32with the same two individuals exactly on
49:35the following day right and you went
49:37back pursuant to a phone call request or
49:40was yes the more the morning of the 27th
49:44after our meeting had occurred on the
49:45afternoon of the 26 the morning of the
49:4827th mr. McGann called me and asked if I
49:51could come back to the White House to
49:53discuss this further and we said of a
49:56time and I went over there that
49:57afternoon bringing again the same career
49:59official with me for National Security
50:01Division who was overseeing this
50:03investigation he had the same associate
50:05from the White House counsel's office
50:06and we talked through four to five more
50:09issues you could perhaps have waited
50:14until you actually had seen the agents
50:16302 from the interview of general Flynn
50:19why go ahead of that why not wait well
50:24because this was a matter of some
50:26urgency we described in making the
50:29determination about notification here we
50:31had to balance a variety of interest for
50:34the reasons that I just described a few
50:36minutes ago we felt like it was critical
50:38that we get this information to the
50:39White House because in part because the
50:43Vice President was unknowingly making
50:44false statements to the public and
50:46because we believed that general Flynn
50:48was compromised with respect to the
50:50Russians
50:51we were balancing this though against
50:53the FBI's investigation as you would
50:55always do and take into account the
50:58investigating
50:58agency's desires and concerns about how
51:01a notification might impact that ongoing
51:04investigation but once general Flynn was
51:07interviewed there was no longer a
51:08concern about an impact on an
51:10investigation do you know where that
51:11interview took place or under what
51:13circumstances I believe it took place at
51:15the White House the Flynn interview yes
51:18okay do you know if Flynn was
51:20represented by counsel at the time I
51:22don't believe he was okay and the
51:25scenario that you were concerned about
51:27was that you were seeing all these
51:28statements coming from the White House
51:30that were inconsistent with what you
51:32knew you presumed that the White House
51:34was being truthful which meant that
51:36Flynn was misleading them right which
51:39meant that he was vulnerable to
51:41manipulation by the Russians who knowing
51:43what had actually taken place could call
51:46up the national security adviser to the
51:48president and say you got to do this for
51:50us or we're going to out you with all
51:51your folks and your career is done
51:53that's right because one of the
51:55questions that mr. McCain asked me when
51:57I went back over the second day was
51:59essentially why does it matter to DOJ if
52:02one White House official lies to another
52:04White House official and so we explained
52:07to him it was a whole lot more than that
52:10and went back over the same concerns
52:12that we had raised with them the prior
52:14day that the concern first about the
52:16underlying conduct itself that he had
52:18lied to the vice president and others
52:20the American public had been misled and
52:22then importantly that every time this
52:25lie was repeated and the
52:28misrepresentations were getting more and
52:29more specific as they were coming out
52:32every time that happened it increased
52:35the compromise and you know to state the
52:37obvious you don't want your national
52:39security adviser compromised with the
52:41Russians were there any takeaways from
52:46the first meeting or action items that
52:48you left with well there was an action
52:51item in the second meeting because there
52:54I got we talked about several issues but
52:56to get the order right you said earlier
52:58that there were two meetings and a phone
53:00call right was the phone call the phone
53:02call to set up the second meeting or was
53:04there a third there was a third set to
53:06phone call there was a go ahead about
53:08collar-cam yeah sorry about that
53:12one of the issues that mr. McGann raised
53:14with me in this second meeting that
53:16again was on the 27th the day after the
53:18first meeting was his concern because we
53:21had told him before that we were giving
53:23in this information so that they could
53:25take action and he said that they were
53:27concerned that taking action might
53:29interfere with the FBI investigation and
53:31we told him both the senior career
53:35official and I that he should not be
53:37concerned with it that general Flynn had
53:40been interviewed that their action would
53:43not interfere with any investigation and
53:45in fact I remember specifically saying
53:48you know it wouldn't really be fair of
53:49us to tell you this and then expect you
53:52to sit on your hands was the interview
53:54of general Flynn accelerated once you
53:57became aware of this information and
53:59felt you needed to get his statement
54:01quickly well we had wanted to tell the
54:04White House as quickly as possible and
54:06we're working with the FBI and in the
54:08course of the investigation but
54:09certainly we did as the Mississippian
54:11you know is that you have information
54:14that one thing was said and the White
54:17House is saying something different and
54:20you know that that information a
54:22respective of who is involved needs to
54:24get up to the White House quickly and so
54:27at that point the decision was made to
54:30do the interview so that that was locked
54:33down before you went up to White House
54:35Counsel right so that that would not
54:36have a negative impact on the FBI
54:38investigation at that point and there
54:42was a request made by mr. McGann in the
54:44second meeting as to whether or not they
54:46would be able to look at the underlying
54:48evidence that we had that we had
54:50described for him of general Flynn's
54:52conduct and we told him that we were
54:55inclined to allow them to look at that
54:57underlying evidence that we wanted to go
54:59back to DOJ and be able to make the
55:01logistical arrangements for that this
55:03second meeting on the 27th occurred late
55:06in the afternoon this is Friday the 27th
55:08so we told him that we would work with
55:10the FBI over the weekend on this issue
55:12and get back with him on Monday morning
55:15and I called him first thing Monday
55:17morning to let him know that we would
55:20allow them to come over and to review
55:22the underlying evidence and was that the
55:24phone call or is there
55:25a separate phone call there was the
55:27phone call initially to let him know I
55:29needed to come see him no to meetings
55:31and then a phone call at the end to let
55:34him know on the material that the
55:36material was available yeah he had to
55:38call me back he was not available then
55:39and I did not hear back from him until
55:41that afternoon of Monday the 30th and
55:44that was the end of this episode nobody
55:47came over to look at the material I
55:48don't know what happened after that
55:49because that was my last day with DOJ
55:51got it okay yeah
55:55Sante grassland yeah mr. clapper you
56:00said that you've never exposed
56:02classified information in an
56:04inappropriate manner
56:05I asked director Comey these questions
56:08last week so for both of you yes or no
56:11as far as you know has any classified
56:15information relating to Mr Trumper
56:18or his associates been Declassified and
56:21shared with the media not to my
56:25knowledge
56:26miss gates not to my knowledge either us
56:30next question
56:32have either of you ever been an
56:35anonymous source in a news report about
56:38matters relating to mr. Trump his
56:40associates or Russians attempt to meddle
56:43in the election no absolutely not okay
56:47third question did either of you ever
56:51authorize someone else at your
56:55respective organizations to be an
56:57anonymous source in a news report about
56:59mr. Trump or his associates no nothing
57:05as far as either of you know have any
57:10government agencies referred any of the
57:13leaks over the past several months to
57:16the Justice Department for potential
57:18criminal investigation
57:22I don't know as you know senator there
57:25is a process for that for doing that I
57:27don't know that that's happened me Shh
57:32I'm not a DOJ any more so I don't know
57:34what's been referred
57:39so then I I guess kind of sum up neither
57:43one of you know whether the Department
57:45authorized a criminal investigation of
57:47the leaks I do not sir
57:51yes again have any of you been
57:55questioned by the FBI about any leaks I
58:00have not been no ok I want to discuss
58:06unmasking
58:08mr. clapper initiates did either of you
58:11ever requests the unmasking of mr. Trump
58:15his associates or any member of Congress
58:24yes and in one case I did call but I
58:30can't discuss it any further than that
58:32you can't so if I asked you for details
58:34you said you can't discuss that is that
58:36what you said not not here okay vishay
58:40vitiates can you answer that equation
58:42did you ever request unmasking of mr.
58:45Trump his associates or any member of
58:47Congress no our question - did either of
58:51you ever review classified documents in
58:54which mr. Trump his associates or
58:57members of Congress had been on masked
59:01no yes you have can you give us details
59:05here and there's no I can't
59:07Mich aides have you yes I have and no I
59:11can't give you details okay did either
59:14of you ever share information about
59:17unmask Trump associates or members of
59:20Congress with anyone else
59:28well I'm thinking back over six and a
59:30half years I could have discussed it
59:34with either my deputy or my general
59:36counsel okay initiate in the course of
59:43the Flynn matter I had discussions with
59:45other members of the Intel community I'm
59:47not sure if that's responsive to your
59:48question
59:51and in both cases you can't give details
59:53here no no the if the FBI notified the
1:00:07Democratic National Committee of the
1:00:09Russians intrusion into their systems in
1:00:12August of 2015 but the DNC turned down
1:00:16the FBI's offered to get the Russians
1:00:19out and refused the FBI access to their
1:00:23servers instead it evidently eventually
1:00:27hired a private firm in the spring of
1:00:292016
1:00:30WikiLeaks began releasing the hacked DNC
1:00:34emails last July it took roughly 27,000
1:00:39of the 27,500 DNC emails it released
1:00:45were emails sent after the FBI notified
1:00:49the DNC of the breach mr. clapper would
1:00:53you agree that one of the lessons of
1:00:55this episode is that people should
1:00:57cooperate with the FBI when notified of
1:01:00foreign hacks instead of stonewalling
1:01:03yes sir I generally think that's a very
1:01:06good idea mr. clapper you sent the
1:01:12Russians or you said the Russians did
1:01:15not release any negative information on
1:01:18Republican candidates I believe that
1:01:23that's not quite right on June the 15th
1:01:252016 lucifer 2.0 released the to Gawker
1:01:31and The Smoking Gun more than 200 pages
1:01:33of the DNC s opposition research on mr.
1:01:37Trump's hundreds of pages of what I
1:01:39would call dirt this happened just two
1:01:42days after The Wall Street Journal
1:01:44published a plan for Republican
1:01:46convention delegates to revolt to
1:01:49prevent mr. Trump from securing the
1:01:51nomination
1:01:52why wasn't why wasn't the Russian
1:01:55release of harmful information about mr.
1:01:58Trump addressed in the ratio report and
1:02:01was this even evaluated during the
1:02:05review I would have to consult with the
1:02:10analysts that were involved in the
1:02:13report to definitively answer that I
1:02:16don't know personally whether they
1:02:18considered that or not can you submit
1:02:21that as an answer in writing well I'm a
1:02:27private citizen now sir I don't know
1:02:29what what the rules are on getting my
1:02:33obtaining classified information
1:02:35classified information so I will look
1:02:37into it okay
1:02:39mr. clapper you testified that the
1:02:42intelligence community conducted an
1:02:44exhaustive review of Russian
1:02:46interference in an analysts involved had
1:02:49complete unfettered access to all
1:02:52sensitive raw intelligence data do you
1:02:55have any reason to believe that any
1:02:57agency will withheld any relevant
1:02:59information I don't believe so with one
1:03:04potential caveat which is that there is
1:03:07the possibility again acknowledging this
1:03:10role that the FBI plays in straddling
1:03:13both intelligence and law enforcement
1:03:15that for whatever reason they may have
1:03:18chosen to withhold investigatory
1:03:19sensitive information from the report I
1:03:22don't know that to be a fact I was not a
1:03:25prize of that I'm just suggesting out as
1:03:26a possibility a my time's up mr.
1:03:29chairman thank you thank you senator
1:03:31Feinstein thank thanks very much mr.
1:03:35chairman
1:03:36this eh I'm not going to ask you
1:03:37anything that deserves a confidential or
1:03:41secure answer but after your second
1:03:46in-person meeting with mr. McGann you
1:03:49said there were four topics he wanted to
1:03:51discuss would you list those four topics
1:03:54sure the first topic in the second
1:03:57meeting was essentially why does it
1:03:58matter to DOJ if one White House
1:04:00official lies to another the second
1:04:03topic related to the applicability of
1:04:06criminal statutes and the likelihood
1:04:08that the Department of Justice would
1:04:10pursue a criminal case the third topic
1:04:13was
1:04:15his concern that they're taking action
1:04:18might interfere with an investigation of
1:04:21mr. Flynn and the fourth topic was his
1:04:24request to see the underlying evidence
1:04:27we're all those topics satisfied with
1:04:32respect to your impression after the
1:04:34second meeting yes the only thing that
1:04:37was really left open there was the
1:04:39logistics for us to be able to make
1:04:41arrangements for them to look at the
1:04:43underlying evidence and you did make
1:04:45those arrangements we did make those
1:04:47arrangements but again I don't know
1:04:49whether that ever happened whether they
1:04:51ever looked at that evidence or not fair
1:04:53enough
1:04:56apparently lieutenant general Flynn
1:05:00remain NS National Security Advisor for
1:05:0418 days after you raise the Justice
1:05:07Department's concern in your view during
1:05:10those 18 days did the risk that Flynn
1:05:13had been or could be compromised
1:05:16diminish at all you know I don't know
1:05:19that I'm in a position to really have an
1:05:22answer for that I know that we were
1:05:23really concerned about the compromise
1:05:26here and that was the reason why we were
1:05:28encouraging them to act I don't know
1:05:31what steps they may have taken if any
1:05:33during that 18 days to minimize unless
1:05:36did you discuss this with other DOJ
1:05:39career professionals certainly leading
1:05:42up to our notification on the 26 it was
1:05:44a topic of a whole lot of discussion in
1:05:47DOJ and with other members of the Intel
1:05:50community and we discussed it at great
1:05:52length but after the 30th again I wasn't
1:05:55at DOJ anymore so I didn't have any
1:05:57further discussions after that point
1:05:59about what was being done with respect
1:06:01to that did you consult with other
1:06:03career prosecutors oh absolutely we had
1:06:06really the experts within the National
1:06:08Security Division as we were navigating
1:06:11this situation they were working with
1:06:13the FBI on the investigation and we were
1:06:16trying to make a determination about how
1:06:18best to make this notification so that
1:06:20we could get the information to the
1:06:22White House that they needed to be able
1:06:24to act so was the point that you were
1:06:27trying to make yes or no will be
1:06:29fine that general Flynn had seriously
1:06:33compromised the security of the United
1:06:36States and possibly the government by
1:06:42what he had done whatever that was well
1:06:46our point was is that logic would tell
1:06:49you that you don't want the National
1:06:52Security Adviser to be in a position
1:06:54where the Russians have leverage over
1:06:55him now in terms of what impact that may
1:06:59have had or could have had I can't speak
1:07:01to that but we knew that that was not a
1:07:03good situation which is why we wanted to
1:07:05let the White House know about it The
1:07:10Guardian has reported that Britain's
1:07:12intelligence service first became aware
1:07:15in late 2015 of suspicious interactions
1:07:19between Trump advisors and Russian
1:07:22intelligence agents this information was
1:07:25passed on to US intelligence agencies
1:07:28over the spring of 2016 multiple
1:07:32European allies passed on additional
1:07:35information to the United States about
1:07:38contacts between the Trump campaign and
1:07:41Russians is this accurate I can't answer
1:07:45that general clapper is that accurate uh
1:07:52yes it is and it's also quite sensitive
1:07:56okay let me ask you this the specifics
1:07:59are quite sensitive
1:08:01when did components of the intelligence
1:08:05community open investigations into the
1:08:08interactions between Trump advisors and
1:08:11Russians
1:08:17what was the question again I'm sorry
1:08:19when did components of the intelligence
1:08:22community open investigations into the
1:08:26interactions between Trump advisers and
1:08:29Russians well I can I referred to
1:08:35director Comey's statement before the
1:08:39House Intelligence Committee on the 20th
1:08:40of March is when he advised that they'd
1:08:46open an investigation in July of 16 and
1:08:51what was the reaction when you advised
1:08:55that the investigation be opened as
1:08:58early as July 15th I'm sorry I thought
1:09:05you said that you advised on July
1:09:08director Comey did before the House
1:09:10Intelligence Committee I see
1:09:12announced that the FBI to initiate
1:09:15investigation in July of 2016
1:09:17well what did the intelligence agencies
1:09:20do with the findings that I just spoke
1:09:24about that The Guardian wrote about well
1:09:28I'm not sure about the accuracy of that
1:09:29article so clearly over actually going
1:09:36back to 2015 there was evidence of
1:09:39Soviet Russian excuse me Friday and slip
1:09:42Russian activity mainly in an
1:09:47information gathering or reconnoitering
1:09:48mode where they were investigating voter
1:09:53registration rolls and the like and that
1:09:55that activity started early and so we
1:10:00were monitoring this as as it progressed
1:10:04and certainly as it picked up
1:10:06accelerated in the summer spring summer
1:10:09and fall of 2016
1:10:12okay so let me go back to you miss Yates
1:10:20I take it you were very concerned
1:10:24what was your prime worry during all of
1:10:27this now you were worried that
1:10:30but yeah general Flynn would be
1:10:34compromised what did you think would
1:10:37happen if he were and how do you believe
1:10:41he would have been compromised well we
1:10:43had two concerns compromise was
1:10:45certainly the number one concern and now
1:10:48the Russians can use compromised
1:10:50material information in a variety of
1:10:53ways sometimes overtly and sometimes
1:10:56subtly and again our concern was is that
1:10:58you have a very sensitive position like
1:11:01the National Security Adviser and you
1:11:03don't want that person to be in a
1:11:05position where again the Russians have
1:11:07leverage over him but I will also say we
1:11:10another motivating factor is that we
1:11:12felt like the vice-president was
1:11:14entitled to know that the information he
1:11:17had been given and that he was relying
1:11:19to the American public wasn't true so
1:11:22what you're saying is that general Flynn
1:11:27lied to the vice president that's that's
1:11:31certainly how it appeared yes because
1:11:33the vice president went out and made
1:11:34statements about general Flynn's conduct
1:11:37that he said were based on what general
1:11:38Flynn had told him and we knew that that
1:11:41just flat wasn't true well as the days
1:11:45went on what was your view of the
1:11:48situation because there were I guess two
1:11:50weeks before was it 18 days before he
1:11:56director Flynn was dismissed well again
1:11:59that was no longer with DOJ after the
1:12:0130th and so I wasn't having interaction
1:12:03or any any involvement in this issue
1:12:06after that day Thank You mr. chairman
1:12:09senator Cornyn Thank You chairman Graham
1:12:14and Senator Whitehouse for this today's
1:12:17hearing this is important the American
1:12:20people have every right to know as much
1:12:23as possible about Russian interference
1:12:24in our elections but as I think as the
1:12:27director has told us before many times
1:12:29this is not anything new although
1:12:31perhaps the level and intensity and the
1:12:34sophistication of both Russian overt and
1:12:37covert operations is really
1:12:40unprecedented and I thank the
1:12:42intelligence community for their
1:12:43assessed
1:12:44I do regret that these while these two
1:12:47witnesses are certainly welcome and
1:12:50we're glad to have them here that former
1:12:53National Security Advisor Susan Rice is
1:12:55refused to testify in front of the
1:12:57committee it seems to me there are a lot
1:12:59of questions that need that she needs to
1:13:01answer I would point out though that mr.
1:13:05chairman that both senator Feinstein and
1:13:07I are fortunate enough to be on the
1:13:09Senate Intelligence Committee which is
1:13:12also conducting a bipartisan
1:13:14investigation under the leadership of
1:13:16Chairman buran vice chairman Warner one
1:13:20of the benefits of that additional
1:13:22investigation is that we have been given
1:13:23access to the raw intelligence collected
1:13:27by the intelligence community which I
1:13:29think completes what understandably is
1:13:33an incomplete picture when you can only
1:13:34talk in a public setting about part of
1:13:37the evidence but it is important for the
1:13:41American people to understand what
1:13:42what's happening I think this
1:13:44subcommittee hearing is playing an
1:13:47important role in that I want to ask
1:13:51director clapper because I think
1:13:53unfortunately some of the discussion
1:13:57about unmasking is casting suspicion on
1:14:01the intelligence community in a way that
1:14:03I think is frankly concerning
1:14:07particularly when we're looking at
1:14:08reauthorizing section 702 of the Patriot
1:14:11Act by the end of the next year because
1:14:13as many have said I can't recall your
1:14:17specific words but I know director Comey
1:14:20is called that the crown jewels of the
1:14:23intelligence community and I am very
1:14:25concerned that some of the information
1:14:27that's been discussed about unmasking
1:14:30for example might cause some people to
1:14:33worry about their pledge it omit privacy
1:14:36concerns so when it comes to incidental
1:14:40collection on an American person and
1:14:43that is unmasked at the request of some
1:14:46appropriate Authority can you describe
1:14:50briefly the paper trail and the series
1:14:54and the approval process that is
1:14:56required in order to
1:14:58allow that to happen that's not a
1:14:59trivial matter is it Oh at the end of
1:15:02the process is that first of all the
1:15:04judgment as to whether or not to unmask
1:15:08or reveal the identity is rendered by
1:15:11the original collection agency so
1:15:13normally that's going to be in case 702
1:15:17are going to be NSA and I know from my
1:15:21part because as I indicated my statement
1:15:24or my six and half years is DNI I
1:15:26occasionally asked for identities to be
1:15:30unmasked to understand the context what
1:15:33I was concerned about and those of us
1:15:36the intelligently are concerned about is
1:15:38the behavior of the validated foreign
1:15:41intelligence target is that target
1:15:44trying to co-opt recruit bribe penetrate
1:15:48or what and it's very difficult to
1:15:51understand that context by the labels us
1:15:54person one us person two and as well I
1:15:58should point out doing that on a
1:16:00anecdotal basis on one SIGINT report at
1:16:03a time and which you need to look at is
1:16:07Arab is there a pattern here and so I
1:16:11tried on my part to be very very
1:16:14judicious about that it's a very
1:16:16sensitive thing but I did feel an
1:16:18obligation as DNI that I should attempt
1:16:22to understand the context and who this
1:16:26person was because that had a huge
1:16:28bearing on how important or critical it
1:16:29was at what threat might be posed by
1:16:34virtue of the again the behavior of the
1:16:37fort validated foreign intelligence
1:16:39targets so our focus was on the target
1:16:42not it's not as much as the the u.s.
1:16:47person only to understand the context
1:16:49well the fact that some appropriate
1:16:52authority might request and receive the
1:16:54unmasking of the name of the u.s. person
1:16:56does not then authorize the release of
1:16:59that information that classified
1:17:01information into the public domain that
1:17:03remains a crime does it not yes
1:17:09again that's why I attempted to make to
1:17:11clarify in my state machine that was
1:17:13unleashed goodbye that's why in my
1:17:16statement I tempted to make that
1:17:18distinction between unmasking an
1:17:21authorized legitimate process with
1:17:24approval by the appropriate authorities
1:17:26and leaking which is an unauthorized
1:17:29process under any circumstance mr.
1:17:31Chairman I think it's really important
1:17:33that in order to determine who actually
1:17:36requested the unmasking and in order to
1:17:39establish whether appropriate procedures
1:17:41were undertaken under both legislative
1:17:44oversight and judicial oversight that we
1:17:48determine what that paper trail is and
1:17:50follow it or according if I may I just
1:17:53and I have to be very careful here about
1:17:55how i phrase this but I would just
1:17:58repeat to you the definition of what 702
1:18:01is used for for in his collection
1:18:03against a non-us person overseas I don't
1:18:09think you could say that enough director
1:18:10clapper it's important because people
1:18:12need to understand that happy to say it
1:18:14again we are both getting a Norn
1:18:17intelligence to keep the American people
1:18:19safe but also respecting the privacy
1:18:21rights and the constitutional rights of
1:18:23American citizens absolutely miss Yeates
1:18:27this is the first time that you've
1:18:30appeared before Congress since you left
1:18:33the Department of Justice and I just
1:18:36wanted to ask you a question about the
1:18:39your decision to refuse to defend the
1:18:41president's executive order in the
1:18:44letter that you sent to Congress you
1:18:46point out that the executive order
1:18:47itself was drafted in consultation with
1:18:51the Office of Legal Counsel and you
1:18:54point out that the office of legal
1:18:56counsel
1:18:57reviewed it to determine whether in its
1:19:00view the proposed executive order was
1:19:02lawful on its face and properly drafted
1:19:06is it true that the office of legal
1:19:09counsel didn't conclude that it was
1:19:11lawful on its face and properly drafted
1:19:13yes they did the office who overruled
1:19:16them I did the office of law what what
1:19:19is your authority to
1:19:21to overrule the office of legal counsel
1:19:23when it comes to a legal determination
1:19:24the office of legal counsel has a narrow
1:19:27function and that is to look at the face
1:19:30of an executive order and to determine
1:19:32purely on its face whether there is some
1:19:35set of circumstances under which at
1:19:38least some part of the executive order
1:19:40may be lawful and importantly they do
1:19:42not look beyond the face of the
1:19:44executive order for example its
1:19:46statements that are made
1:19:47contemporaneously or prior to the
1:19:49execution of the EO that may bear on its
1:19:52intent and purpose the that office does
1:19:55not look at those factors and in
1:19:57determining the constitutionality of
1:19:59this executive order that was an
1:20:01important analysis to engage in and one
1:20:03that I did well as Yates I thought the
1:20:06Department of Justice had a
1:20:08long-standing tradition of defending a
1:20:10presidential action in court if there
1:20:12are reasonable arguments in its favor
1:20:14regardless of whether those arguments
1:20:16might prove to be ultimately persuasive
1:20:18which of course is up to the courts to
1:20:20decide and not you correct it is correct
1:20:25that often times but not always the
1:20:27Civil Division of the Department of
1:20:28Justice will defend an action of the
1:20:31President or inaction of Congress if
1:20:33there is a reasonable argument to be
1:20:35made but in this instance all all
1:20:39arguments have to be based on truth
1:20:42because where the Department of Justice
1:20:44were not just a law firm where the
1:20:46Department of Justice and the
1:20:47distinguish truth from lawful yes
1:20:52because in this instance in looking at
1:20:55what the intent was of the executive
1:20:56order which was derived in part from an
1:20:59analysis of facts outside the face of
1:21:02the order that that is part of what led
1:21:05to our conclusion that it was not lawful
1:21:07yes miss Yates you had a distinguished
1:21:09career for 27 years of the Department of
1:21:11Justice and I I voted for your
1:21:16confirmation because I believed that you
1:21:18had a distinguished career but I have to
1:21:20tell you that I find it enormously
1:21:22disappointing that you somehow veto the
1:21:25decision of the Office of Legal Counsel
1:21:27with regard to the lawfulness of the
1:21:29president's order and decided instead
1:21:31that you would counterman the executive
1:21:34order the president
1:21:35States because you happen to disagree
1:21:36with it as a policy matter
1:21:38well it wasn't works I just have to say
1:21:40that I appreciate that Senator and let
1:21:44me make one thing clear it was not
1:21:45purely as a policy matter and in fact
1:21:47I'll remember my confirmation hearing in
1:21:50an exchange that I had with you and and
1:21:52others of your colleagues where you
1:21:55specifically asked me and in that
1:21:57hearing that if the president asked me
1:22:00to do something that was unlawful or
1:22:02unconstitutional and one of your
1:22:04colleagues said or even just that would
1:22:05reflect poorly on the Department of
1:22:08Justice would I say no and I looked at
1:22:12this I made a determination that I
1:22:14believed that it was unlawful I also
1:22:16thought that it was inconsistent with
1:22:18the principles of the Department of
1:22:19Justice and I said no and that's what I
1:22:22promised you I would do and that's what
1:22:24I did I don't know how you can say that
1:22:25it was lawful and say that it was within
1:22:28your prerogative to refuse to defend it
1:22:30in a court of law to leave it for the
1:22:32court to decide senator I did not say it
1:22:34was lawful I said it was unlawful
1:22:38senator Durbin's next but I have one
1:22:40quick if you don't mind sitting
1:22:42government about how 702 works
1:22:45you said something general clapper I
1:22:47don't quite understand is it unlawful to
1:22:51surveil with a FISA warrant a foreign
1:22:54agent in the United States no it's not
1:22:58but that's another provision I was
1:22:59saying what several make sure there is a
1:23:02procedure to do there is okay senator
1:23:05but what just to your point you said the
1:23:09word overseas ambassador kit slack was
1:23:12not overseas on December 29th let's
1:23:14correct thank you
1:23:17Thank You mr. chairman let me say at the
1:23:19outset in response to Senator Cornyn and
1:23:22your conclusion about the unlawful
1:23:24nature of the Muslim travel ban was of
1:23:27course a position which was supported by
1:23:29three different federal courts that
1:23:32stopped the enforcement of that ban and
1:23:34ultimately led to the president
1:23:36withdrawing that particular travel ban
1:23:38is that not true that's correct
1:23:40thank you I want to mention at the
1:23:41outset here that this is a critically
1:23:43important hearing I want to thank
1:23:45Senator Graham and Senator Whitehouse
1:23:46for the bipartisan nature and the
1:23:48cooperate
1:23:48in this hearing I think the testimony we
1:23:51received from these witnesses in the and
1:23:53the presence of so many other my
1:23:54colleagues is an indication of how we
1:23:57view the severity and gravity of the
1:23:59issue before us I am troubled that this
1:24:02great committee with its great chairman
1:24:05and all its members does not have
1:24:07professional staff assigned to this
1:24:09investigation it's the ordinary staff of
1:24:11the subcommittee who are working it I
1:24:13think what we have seen with this
1:24:16situation calls for the appointment of
1:24:21an independent commission Presidential
1:24:24Commission or congressional action one
1:24:26that is clearly independent transparent
1:24:28and can get to the bottom of the Russian
1:24:30involvement in our last election process
1:24:33and the threat that faces we face in the
1:24:35future because of it short of that we'll
1:24:37continue to do our best on a committee
1:24:39level with meager resources and both the
1:24:41Intelligence Committee and here and this
1:24:44is I think an issue that begs for so
1:24:46much more I might also say that I'm
1:24:48starting to hear from the Republican
1:24:49side of the table some real concern
1:24:52about section 702 which senator Lee
1:24:54Republican member the committee and
1:24:56myself have been calling for reform on
1:24:58for several years unfortunately we
1:25:01didn't have the support from the other
1:25:02side of the table when we did I hope
1:25:04that we can get it now when we talk
1:25:05about real reform the 702 and protecting
1:25:08the rights of individuals in America
1:25:10miss Yeates let me ask you about this
1:25:12meeting on January 26 with white House
1:25:17Counsel down Magan you shared the
1:25:19Justice Department's concern about his
1:25:21communications with Russia his apparent
1:25:23dishonesty about those communications
1:25:25and his vulnerability to blackmail is
1:25:27that correct that's right was there
1:25:29anything else about the relationship of
1:25:31general Flynn and the Russians other
1:25:33than his representations that he had no
1:25:35conversations that you warned on began
1:25:37about no so it didn't go back to his
1:25:41trip to Moscow money received and so
1:25:43forth no it did not it was strictly on
1:25:45that question yes and then you had a
1:25:49second meeting the next day
1:25:50that's right correct in January the 27th
1:25:52at his request yes mr. McGann's request
1:25:55and at that second meeting did mr.
1:25:57McGann say anything about whether he had
1:25:59taken the infirm
1:26:01you'd given him the previous date to the
1:26:02president no he didn't tell us are you
1:26:05aware of the fact that mr. Spicer the
1:26:07White House press secretary on February
1:26:1014 said and I quote immediately after
1:26:12the Department of Justice notified the
1:26:14White House Council of the situation the
1:26:16White House Counsel briefed the
1:26:17president and a small group of senior
1:26:19advisors I've seen media reports to that
1:26:22effect but that's all I know is from the
1:26:23media so there was no statement by mr.
1:26:25McGann that he had either spoken to the
1:26:27president about your concerns with his
1:26:29national security adviser or with any
1:26:33other members of the White House no he
1:26:35didn't advise us in the second meeting
1:26:36anyone he may have discussed this with
1:26:38on the prior evening I guess I won't
1:26:41also go to the question which I keep
1:26:43smiling at me here that mr. McGann asked
1:26:45of you is there anything wrong with one
1:26:47White House official lying to another
1:26:49White House official well I to be fair
1:26:52to mr. McGann here I wouldn't say that
1:26:54he said is there anything wrong his
1:26:57question was more essentially what's it
1:26:59to the Justice Department
1:27:00if one White House official is lying to
1:27:02another in other words why is this
1:27:04something that DOJ would be concerned
1:27:06about and that's why we went back
1:27:08through the list of issues and reasons
1:27:10why this was troubling to us did you
1:27:12think there was a legal reason to be
1:27:14concerned if one White House official
1:27:16lied to another White House official we
1:27:18didn't go in to that and to the extent
1:27:21that you may be talking about like a
1:27:22thousand and one violation that was not
1:27:24something that we were alluding to or
1:27:26discussing with mr. McGann I think his
1:27:28point when he made that made that point
1:27:32to me was that he wasn't sure why the
1:27:34Department of Justice would care about
1:27:36one line to another not not to be
1:27:39discussing whether that was in fact a
1:27:41crime and the reason you told him was
1:27:43what was that again it was a whole lot
1:27:46more than one White House official lying
1:27:48to another first of all it was the vice
1:27:51president of the United States and the
1:27:53vice president had then gone out and
1:27:55provided that information to the
1:27:56American people who had then been misled
1:27:59and the Russians knew all of this making
1:28:02Mike Flynn compromised too now you said
1:28:05it earlier I believe that mr. began
1:28:07asked you if you thought they should
1:28:09fire general flame at that point right
1:28:13and what was your response
1:28:14it was not our call as to whether
1:28:16general Flynn was fired that we were
1:28:18giving them this information so that
1:28:20they could take action the action that
1:28:21they believed was appropriate on
1:28:24February 14th after general Flynn
1:28:27resigned Sean Spicer said and I quote
1:28:29there was nothing in what general Flynn
1:28:32did in terms of conducting himself that
1:28:34was an issue do you have any idea what
1:28:36he meant by those words no I'm not - all
1:28:40I can say is he didn't reach that
1:28:41conclusion from his conversation with us
1:28:43I can't speak to how he how he arrived
1:28:46at that let me ask you there was a
1:28:49period of time 18 days that we've
1:28:51referred to during the course of this
1:28:54and during a period of 18 days a number
1:28:56of things occurred general Flynn
1:28:58continued to serve as the national
1:29:00security adviser for 18 days after you
1:29:04had briefed the White House about the
1:29:06counterintelligence risk that he posed
1:29:07and during those 18 days general Flynn
1:29:11continued to hire key senior staff on
1:29:13the National Security Council announced
1:29:16new sanctions on Iran's ballistic
1:29:17missile program met with Japanese Prime
1:29:21Minister Shinzo Abe a along with
1:29:22President trumpet mar-a-lago and
1:29:24participated in discussions about
1:29:26responding to a North Korean missile
1:29:28launch and spoke repeatedly to depressed
1:29:30about his communications with Russian
1:29:32ambassador his leg miss shades in your
1:29:36view were their national security
1:29:39concerns and these decisions being made
1:29:40after the information you shared with
1:29:42the White House I was no longer with DOJ
1:29:45after January 30th so I wasn't aware of
1:29:47any actions that the general Flynn was
1:29:50taking so I couldn't really opine on
1:29:51that general clapper would you comment
1:29:54if you had the warning from the White
1:29:56House apart me from the Department of
1:29:58Justice to the White House about general
1:30:01Flynn possibly being compromised here
1:30:03and then these important national
1:30:05security decisions that followed would
1:30:07you have concern about that well I would
1:30:11hypothetically yes I mean again I was
1:30:14gone from the government as well listen
1:30:17up you've had quite a career in
1:30:19intelligence and national security and
1:30:21here you have a man that's been told the
1:30:24White House has been told his
1:30:27he could be compromised in blackmailed
1:30:29by the Russians continuing to make the
1:30:30highest level decisions of our
1:30:32government well that's it is certainly a
1:30:36potential vulnerability there's no
1:30:37question about it I would say so thank
1:30:39you very much thanks mr. chairman Thank
1:30:44You mr. chairman thank you to the
1:30:46witnesses for being here today mr.
1:30:48clapper you you testified as to the
1:30:50harms that come from leaks the harms
1:30:54that can come to our national security
1:30:55and you also testified about the
1:30:57importance of protecting classified
1:30:59information and keeping it classified
1:31:01during your many years in intelligence
1:31:05and at the DNI have you ever knowingly
1:31:08forwarded classified information to a
1:31:12non-government employee on a
1:31:14non-government computer who did not have
1:31:16authorization to receive that
1:31:18information not to my not to my
1:31:23recollection no sir and director clapper
1:31:26what would you do at the DNI if you
1:31:30discovered that an employee of yours had
1:31:32forwarded hundreds or even thousands of
1:31:35emails to a non-government individual
1:31:38their spouse on a non-government
1:31:41computer well you know I'm not a Press
1:31:48Kotori or prosecutorial element but if I
1:31:51were aware of it I would certainly make
1:31:53known to the appropriate officials that
1:31:56that was going on would that strike you
1:31:58as anything ordinary hopefully not what
1:32:03concerns would that raise for you well
1:32:05it raises all kinds of potential
1:32:09security concerns again depending on on
1:32:12the the content of the email what the
1:32:16intent was there's a whole bunch of
1:32:18variables here it would have to be
1:32:20considered but you know potentially
1:32:23again this is a hypothetical scenario to
1:32:27be quite concerning what would you
1:32:30expect to happen if you made a referral
1:32:32of an individual who had forwarded
1:32:34hundreds or even thousands of classified
1:32:36information on government employee on a
1:32:38computer whatever the transgression
1:32:41potential transgression was if there
1:32:46were sufficient evidence of a compromise
1:32:50we would file a crimes report that's a
1:32:53standard procedure
1:32:54that we use when there's the potential
1:32:58for investigating and prosecuting
1:32:59someone last week I asked similar
1:33:02questions to FBI director Comey and and
1:33:05he said an individual who did that would
1:33:07be subject quote significant
1:33:09administrative discipline but that he
1:33:11was highly confident they wouldn't be
1:33:13prosecuted do you share that assessment
1:33:16well I don't know I don't know I think
1:33:19the the track record is at the prior
1:33:22administration I think prosecuted more
1:33:24people for leaking and anyone in any any
1:33:27other administration in the past so it's
1:33:30difficult to do that and there are many
1:33:34cases we could not prosecute or even
1:33:39seek a crimes report because the
1:33:41potential audience of people that could
1:33:43have been a perpetrator of these
1:33:46insecurities could not be identified it
1:33:49is true that other individuals who were
1:33:51not in the direct employ of the
1:33:53Democratic nominee for president were
1:33:55prosecuted for that conduct let me let
1:33:57me shift to a different topic director
1:34:01clapper you also testified that you're
1:34:04not aware of any intercepted
1:34:06communications of any presidential
1:34:08candidates or campaigns other than the
1:34:10Trump campaign that's been discussed
1:34:11here is that correct uh yes but that's
1:34:17to my knowledge but you know prior
1:34:21administrations prior campaigns that
1:34:24wouldn't have been visible to me so I
1:34:26can't I can't say but in 2016
1:34:28you're not aware of any other campaigns
1:34:30or candidates no and miss Yates same
1:34:33question to you I'm not aware of any
1:34:37interceptions of the Trump campaign and
1:34:41are you aware of any intercepted
1:34:43communications of any other candidates
1:34:45or campaigns no okay because earlier
1:34:48when Chairman Graham Graham had asked
1:34:50you that I thought you'd decline to
1:34:51answer sir perhaps I misunderstood that
1:34:53and I may have misunderstood the
1:34:55question I thought the question I
1:34:56declined to answer was a different one
1:34:58than that so I'm glad I got a chance to
1:35:00clear it out okay so you have no
1:35:01information of any interceptions of the
1:35:03Bernie Sanders campaign Hillary Clinton
1:35:05campaign or any other candidates you
1:35:08have 2016 or campaigns
1:35:09no okay let's revisit the topic miss
1:35:18AIT's that you and Senator Cornyn were
1:35:20talking about okay is it correct that
1:35:23the Constitution vests the executive
1:35:25authority in the president yes and if an
1:35:29attorney general disagrees with a policy
1:35:32decision of the president a policy
1:35:34decision that is lawful does the
1:35:36Attorney General have the authority to
1:35:38direct the Department of Justice to defy
1:35:40the president's order I don't know
1:35:42whether the Attorney General has the
1:35:44authority to do that or not but I don't
1:35:45think it would be a good idea and that's
1:35:47not what I did in this case well are you
1:35:51familiar with 8 USC Section 1182 not off
1:35:55the top of my head no well it is the
1:35:58binding statutory authority for the
1:36:00executive order that you refuse to
1:36:02implement and that led to your
1:36:03termination so it certainly is
1:36:05irrelevant and not a terribly obscure
1:36:07statute by this express text of the
1:36:10statute it says quote whenever the
1:36:12president finds that the entry of any
1:36:13alien or eventing class of aliens into
1:36:15the United States would be detrimental
1:36:17to the interest of the United States he
1:36:19may by Proclamation and for such period
1:36:21as he shall deem necessary suspend the
1:36:24entry of all aliens or any class of
1:36:26aliens as immigrants or non immigrants
1:36:29or impose on the entry of aliens any
1:36:31restrictions he may deem appropriate
1:36:33would you agree that that is broad
1:36:35statutory authorization I would and I am
1:36:38familiar with that and I'm also familiar
1:36:40with an additional provision of the
1:36:42that says no person shall receive
1:36:44preference or be discriminated against
1:36:46an issuance of a visa because of race
1:36:49nationality or place of birth that I
1:36:52believe was promulgated after the
1:36:54statute that you just quoted and that's
1:36:56been part of the discussion with the
1:36:58courts with respect to the ia is whether
1:37:00this more specific statute Trump's the
1:37:03first one that you just described my
1:37:05concern was not an I a concern here it
1:37:08rather was a constitutional concern
1:37:11whether or not this the executive order
1:37:14here violated the Constitution
1:37:16specifically with the Establishment
1:37:18Clause an equal protection and due
1:37:21process there is no doubt the arguments
1:37:24you laid out or arguments that we can
1:37:26expect litigants to bring partisan
1:37:28litigants who disagree with the policy
1:37:30decision of the president I would note
1:37:32on January 27 2017 the Department of
1:37:35Justice issued an official legal
1:37:36decision a determination by the office
1:37:39of legal counsel that the executive
1:37:41order and I'll quote from the opinion
1:37:43the proposed order is approved with
1:37:46respect to form and legality that's a
1:37:49determination from OLC on January 27th
1:37:53that it was legal three days later you
1:37:54determined using your own words that
1:37:58although LLC had had opined on legality
1:38:00it had not addressed whether it was
1:38:02quote wise or just and I also in that
1:38:06same directive senator said that I was
1:38:08not convinced it was lawful I also made
1:38:10the point that the office of OLC looks
1:38:13purely at the face of the document and
1:38:16again makes a determination as to
1:38:18whether there is some set of
1:38:19circumstances under which some portion
1:38:21of that AO would be enforceable would be
1:38:24lawful they importantly do not look
1:38:27outside the face of the document and in
1:38:29this particular instance particularly
1:38:31where we were talking about a
1:38:33fundamental issue of religious freedom
1:38:35not the interpretation of some arcane
1:38:38statute but religious freedom it was
1:38:41appropriate for us to look at the intent
1:38:43behind the president's actions in the
1:38:45intent is laid out in a very very brief
1:38:48question in the over 200 years of the
1:38:51Department of Justice history are you
1:38:53aware of any and
1:38:55in which the Department of Justice has
1:38:57formally approved the legality of a
1:38:59policy in three days later the Attorney
1:39:01General has directed the department not
1:39:03to follow that policy and to defy that
1:39:05policy I'm not but I'm also not aware of
1:39:08a situation where the office of legal
1:39:09counsel was advised not to tell the
1:39:12Attorney General about it until after it
1:39:14was over
1:39:15Thank You mr. Yates III I would note
1:39:18that might be the case if there's reason
1:39:20to suspect partisanship sentence senator
1:39:24Klobuchar thank you um I want to thank
1:39:28you very much for your service miss
1:39:32Yates from beginning to end your
1:39:34distinguished career as a prosecutor and
1:39:37I just was putting this time table
1:39:39together and I realize that your second
1:39:41meeting when you went over to the White
1:39:42House to warn them of general Flynn's
1:39:44line and his connections with Russia was
1:39:49the same day that this refugee order
1:39:51came out and it was the same day that
1:39:53you had to leave the Justice Department
1:39:56so you when did you meet with the White
1:39:59House Council on that day I met with
1:40:01white House Counsel best I can recall
1:40:03about 3 o'clock in the afternoon and on
1:40:05the 30th there and during that meeting
1:40:08did they mention anyone mention that
1:40:11this refugee order was about to come out
1:40:13- no acting Attorney General of the
1:40:15United States no and that was one thing
1:40:17that was of concern to us is that not
1:40:19only was Department leadership not
1:40:21consulted here and beyond Department
1:40:23leadership really the subject matter
1:40:25experts the national security experts
1:40:27not only was the department not
1:40:29consulted
1:40:30we weren't even told about it and I
1:40:33learned about this for radio reports so
1:40:36you learned about it after the meeting
1:40:38at the White House Council from the
1:40:39media right and then it's true that
1:40:41during your hearing then senator
1:40:44sessions now the Attorney General
1:40:46actually asked you if the views the
1:40:49president wants to execute our unlawful
1:40:51should the Attorney General or Deputy
1:40:53Attorney General say no and what did you
1:40:56say and I said yes the Attorney General
1:40:58should okay and then moving forward here
1:41:01as was mentioned by Senator Durbin
1:41:04this order was was after a lawsuit from
1:41:08the
1:41:09state of Washington and Minnesota the
1:41:12court basically challenged that the
1:41:15constitutionality the order the order is
1:41:17not taken effect but what I want to get
1:41:18to right now is the fact that the
1:41:21administration then withdrew its request
1:41:23for an appeal of the court ruling
1:41:26blocking implementation of the same
1:41:28order and then they changed the order
1:41:30that you would not implement this light
1:41:32and there were a number of important
1:41:34distinctions between travel ban 1 and
1:41:36travel ban two at the time I had to make
1:41:39my decision for example the executive
1:41:41orders still applied to green card
1:41:44holders lawful permanent residents and
1:41:46those who had visas there were a number
1:41:47of other distinctions as well and
1:41:49looking thank you they one thing that I
1:41:51know I want to get on okay sorry go
1:41:53ahead very quickly look I understand
1:41:55that you know people of goodwill and who
1:42:01are good folks can make different
1:42:02decisions about this I understand that
1:42:05but all I can say is that I did my job
1:42:08the best way I knew how I looked at this
1:42:11I oh I looked at the law I talked with
1:42:13the folks at the Department of Justice
1:42:14gathered them all to get their views and
1:42:17their input and I did my job okay I
1:42:22appreciate that
1:42:23let's go to Russia December 29th this is
1:42:27the date that actually senator Graham
1:42:30and I were with Senator McCain hearing
1:42:32about Russian interference meeting with
1:42:34leaders in the Baltics Georgia and
1:42:35Ukraine this is the date that the
1:42:37president expanded the sanctions against
1:42:40Russia and this is a date that Michael
1:42:43Flynn reportedly talked to the Russians
1:42:46perhaps several times about sanctions he
1:42:48then went on to not tell the truth to
1:42:50the vice president and one of the White
1:42:53House officials has described the
1:42:54notification that you provided warning
1:42:56them of this as a heads-up how would you
1:42:59describe a heads-up well at the risk of
1:43:04trying to characterize I mean we were
1:43:05there to tell the White House about
1:43:07something we were very concerned about
1:43:08and emphasized to them repeatedly it was
1:43:11so that they could take action that was
1:43:12much more formal than just a simple hey
1:43:15this is happening Michael Flynn did not
1:43:18resign his position as national security
1:43:20adviser until February 13
1:43:22that is 18 days after you went over
1:43:25there with the formal warning and in
1:43:28particular after they knew about this on
1:43:31january 28th Flynn was allowed to join
1:43:33President Trump on an hour-long
1:43:35telephone call with Russian President
1:43:38Vladimir Putin
1:43:39do you have any doubt that the
1:43:41information that you conveyed to the
1:43:43White House on January 26 should have
1:43:45been made clear that Flynn had been
1:43:47potentially compromised by Russia that
1:43:50this information was clear well the
1:43:53purpose in our telling them again was so
1:43:55that they could act and so that they
1:43:56could convey that information so I would
1:43:58hope that they did um if a high-ranking
1:44:01national security official is caught on
1:44:03tape with a foreign officials saying one
1:44:05thing in private and then caught in
1:44:08public saying another thing to the vice
1:44:11president is that material for blackmail
1:44:13certainly do you want to add anything to
1:44:17that director clapper no okay I think
1:44:22it's pretty clear and I think it's
1:44:24pretty clear why we've had this hearing
1:44:25today I wanted to ask you director
1:44:27clapper a few things about just in
1:44:29general this Russian influence when
1:44:33director Comey was here last week he
1:44:35said I think that one of the lessons
1:44:37that the Russians may have drawn from
1:44:40this he's talking about the election the
1:44:42influence is that this works
1:44:45those were commis words do you agree
1:44:47absolutely and as I said in my statement
1:44:50the Russians have to be celebrating the
1:44:53success of what they for what they set
1:44:56out to do with rather minimal resource
1:44:58expenditure and the first objective was
1:45:00to sow discord and dissension which they
1:45:03certainly did and when you look at this
1:45:07in addition to the hacking into the DNC
1:45:09and Podesta's emails all those things we
1:45:11also had the fake news propaganda which
1:45:13is referenced in the report I believe
1:45:15it's 200 million dollars is that all
1:45:17they spent in the scheme of things some
1:45:19if that which doesn't include government
1:45:23support to subsidies to RT and and how
1:45:28does RT work when you look at the
1:45:30parties essentially a propaganda
1:45:32mouthpiece for the government since the
1:45:34predominance of its funding
1:45:36comes from from the government the
1:45:38management is close to Putin so it's
1:45:40it's a as I say I think a governmental
1:45:44Russian governmental mouthpiece I'm
1:45:46Mitch I'm asking you in your capacity as
1:45:49a former attorney general and Deputy
1:45:52Attorney General might ask this of
1:45:54director Comey about the use of shell
1:45:56corporations now something like 50% of
1:45:59real estate deals over five million
1:46:01dollars are now done with shell
1:46:03corporations we're trying to push so
1:46:06that the Treasury Department puts more
1:46:08transparency this is something that the
1:46:10European countries are working on right
1:46:12now and I'm very concerned that this is
1:46:14another vehicle where money is laundered
1:46:16I'm concerned about loopholes in our
1:46:18campaign finance laws as well but could
1:46:20you address this just from your
1:46:22experience as a criminal prosecutor sure
1:46:24and those are all valid concerns we're
1:46:26actually lagging behind other countries
1:46:28in the world and we don't want to become
1:46:30a haven then where you can have shell
1:46:33corporations that can be used for all
1:46:35sorts of nefarious purposes they can
1:46:37have national security implications as
1:46:38well as criminal implications director
1:46:40cooperated you want to add anything to
1:46:42that and again this is why I believe an
1:46:45independent commission in addition to
1:46:48the great work that's being done by this
1:46:49subcommittee and the Senate Intelligence
1:46:51Committee which is so important as well
1:46:54as the investigation and independent
1:46:55commission would allow a panel of
1:46:58experts to go into the next election go
1:47:01into 2020 where director Comey had said
1:47:05I expect to see them back in 2018 and
1:47:09especially 2020 those are his words do
1:47:11you agree with that right absolutely and
1:47:14that is why an independent commission
1:47:15would allow us to come up with some
1:47:17ideas and how we can stop this from
1:47:19happening again whether it is how the
1:47:21media handled these things how campaigns
1:47:23handle these things our intelligence
1:47:25agencies when they find out handle these
1:47:27things because we cannot allow foreign
1:47:31countries to influence our democracies
1:47:33do you agree director clapper I
1:47:36certainly do and I understand how
1:47:39critical leaks are and
1:47:42unmasking and all these ancillary issues
1:47:45but to me that the transcended issue
1:47:47here is the Russian interference in our
1:47:50election process and what that means to
1:47:54the erosion of the fundamental fabric of
1:47:57our democracy and that to me is a huge
1:48:00deal and they're going to continue to do
1:48:02it and why not
1:48:02it proved successful thank you until
1:48:06they pay a price
1:48:07I hope which they will soon pay senator
1:48:11sass Thank You mr. chairman thank you
1:48:13both for being here director clapper how
1:48:15likely do you think it is that foreign
1:48:17intelligence services are trying to
1:48:19compromise congressional IT systems well
1:48:23I think that's the congressional IT
1:48:25systems are a target and have been and
1:48:28certainly I saw examples of that
1:48:30during my time my time is DNI and then
1:48:33the this is one case where we
1:48:36expeditiously informed the Congress when
1:48:38we saw evidence of that and again that's
1:48:40not just Russians there are others out
1:48:44there doing the same thing and what
1:48:46Intel value would it provide to them
1:48:49well depending on the nature of the
1:48:51material that they pro owned it could be
1:48:54quite sensitive that hard to make a
1:48:58general statement about it but just as a
1:48:59general rule it could be quite damaging
1:49:01and could you talk a little bit about
1:49:03the relationship between that particular
1:49:06Intel gathering on legislators and the
1:49:09interface with propaganda campaigns such
1:49:11as you say Russia I've heard you testify
1:49:13in other places about Russia's activity
1:49:15among their near neighbors what's the
1:49:17relationship between propaganda and
1:49:19direct Intel gathering I mean on the
1:49:22part of the Russians yeah well their
1:49:24neighbors it would certainly use that as
1:49:26as they have and examples of that in
1:49:29places like Georgia and the Baltics
1:49:31where they will turn evidence that or
1:49:35what they've gathered and use that as as
1:49:39leverage or if they can to use
1:49:44complement to the the Russian acronym
1:49:47for compromising material whether real
1:49:49or contrived so there's all kinds of
1:49:50nefarious things they can potentially do
1:49:52if they gather information
1:49:54one of the unhelpful ways that we talk
1:49:57about this issue in the present context
1:49:59in DC's polarized context is it's almost
1:50:03always retrospective about our election
1:50:05in 2016 and so it devolves into a shirts
1:50:08and skins exercise about what candidate
1:50:10you allegedly supported director Comey
1:50:12last week said that he expects as
1:50:14senator Klobuchar just quoted him he
1:50:16expects the Russians to be back in 2018
1:50:18and back with a vengeance in 2020 I
1:50:21think would be helpful for the American
1:50:22people to understand what Russia does
1:50:24among its near neighbors now so could
1:50:26you unpack a little bit more of how that
1:50:28were all there of anything in many ways
1:50:30particularly those countries that were
1:50:32in the former Soviet orbit which they
1:50:35still feel shall I say paternal about
1:50:39and so places like Moldova or the
1:50:42Baltics Georgia they are very aggressive
1:50:47in using all the multitude of tools that
1:50:49were on senator Whitehouse's checklist
1:50:51wherever they can however they however
1:50:54they can to influence the outcome of
1:50:59elections towards candidates or whatever
1:51:02office whom they think will be more
1:51:04pliant with them and and of course what
1:51:09was new and different here is that that
1:51:12aggressiveness is spreading into Western
1:51:14Europe
1:51:14as we've seen I believe in France and
1:51:19will and Germany and and their relatives
1:51:23there's in their mind success at doing
1:51:25this is simply going to reinforce so all
1:51:29the tools they available to them active
1:51:31propaganda financing a candidate
1:51:35sympathetic to their cause
1:51:38trolls hacking revelations of
1:51:44confidential emails whatever it is
1:51:46they'll use that to affair they will and
1:51:49could you give us some sense of that
1:51:50without revealing classified information
1:51:52the order of magnitude of their
1:51:54financial investment in these kinds of
1:51:56efforts if you're a near neighbor of
1:51:58Russia and you've got your Army Navy Air
1:52:00Force Marines and you might have a
1:52:02little bit of a an Intel community and a
1:52:04little bit of a sort of Intel ops info
1:52:07ops campaign going how does what is the
1:52:09Russian investment so I can't I can't
1:52:12give you a figure I will say though that
1:52:15in comparison to classical military
1:52:20expenditures it's it's a bargain for
1:52:23them and of course what they're looking
1:52:26for particularly in Europe is so
1:52:29dissension a split unity and of course n
1:52:34sanctions and if they can drive wedges
1:52:37between and among the European nations
1:52:39by and particularly by they're
1:52:41manipulating and influencing elections
1:52:43they're going to do it director do you
1:52:45stand by the I seize January assessment
1:52:47that WikiLeaks is a known propaganda
1:52:49platform for Russia absolutely and I am
1:52:53an agreement with director Pompey owes
1:52:56characterization of WikiLeaks as a non
1:52:58nation state intelligence service unpack
1:53:02that a little bit more if that's the
1:53:04case then you're saying that join
1:53:05Assange is not a journalist you're
1:53:11asking the wrong guy a question like
1:53:12that absolutely not
1:53:14I mean reasonable people in the American
1:53:17debate are worried when they hear people
1:53:19in the IC talk about something that
1:53:21sounds like it's just information
1:53:23I'm obviously highly skeptical of mr.
1:53:26Assange and I've been pushing the
1:53:28Justice Department to ask why we have
1:53:29not been taking steps to prosecute him
1:53:32for particular crimes that have
1:53:33endangered American intelligence assets
1:53:36but across the continuum of journalists
1:53:39who are legitimate journalists who are
1:53:42trying to get information to help the
1:53:44American people under our First
1:53:45Amendment be fully informed about the
1:53:47operations of their government there are
1:53:49people in the journalistic community who
1:53:51will lean on IC resources to say we want
1:53:53to know all that you're able to tell us
1:53:55and the burden of proof the burden is on
1:53:57the intelligence official not to leak
1:53:59classified information the burden is not
1:54:02on the journalists does not ask hard
1:54:03questions though so it's useful for the
1:54:05American people to hear you explain why
1:54:07is Assange something other than just an
1:54:09American journalist asking hard
1:54:11questions well I think in there there's
1:54:15there's obviously judgment here and when
1:54:18a journalist does
1:54:21does harm to the country harms our
1:54:24national security compromises senses
1:54:27sources and methods and tradecraft and
1:54:31puts the company the country
1:54:33deliberately puts the cut the country in
1:54:35jeopardy I think that that's the line is
1:54:39is craw thats a red line to use it use a
1:54:41phrase that I think is unacceptable have
1:54:46any unauthorized disclosures from
1:54:48massage and WikiLeaks directly
1:54:50endangered Americans and American
1:54:52interests in the pet yes absolutely
1:54:55thank you Miss yet I wanted to ask you a
1:54:58couple of questions but I'm almost at my
1:55:00time so I'll limit it to one could you
1:55:02please explain the bureaucratic process
1:55:04in which concerning information about
1:55:06political appointees would be brought to
1:55:08the attention of the Attorney General
1:55:10just give us a few steps and how that
1:55:11process would happen when you say
1:55:14concerning information what do you mean
1:55:16if I'm trying to elicit an answer from
1:55:18you that doesn't require you to say that
1:55:21related to Flint particularly you can't
1:55:23disclose how this happened I think it
1:55:24would be useful for the public to
1:55:25understand more generally how
1:55:27information about a political appointee
1:55:30would be brought to the Attorney General
1:55:32from the FBI and other aspects of the
1:55:35intelligence community generally if we
1:55:38discovered information let's say an
1:55:40investigative agency like FBI discovered
1:55:43information about a political appointee
1:55:45they would first get in contact with the
1:55:48relevant division of the Department of
1:55:49Justice that would have jurisdiction
1:55:50over it whether it's the Criminal
1:55:52Division the National Security Division
1:55:54whatever it might be
1:55:55they would report that information there
1:55:57and then depending on the seriousness of
1:55:59that information it would probably make
1:56:01its way to me when I was Deputy Attorney
1:56:03General or then acting Attorney General
1:56:05thank you thank you senator Graham I
1:56:09want to thank both of you for your
1:56:11decades of dedicated service and
1:56:13intelligence and law enforcement and for
1:56:15your testimony here today the question
1:56:17before us is one of really grave
1:56:20consequence as you suggested in your
1:56:22opening statements a really an
1:56:24existential threat to our democracy
1:56:25which if not faced appropriately will
1:56:28simply encourage increased aggressive
1:56:31actions the reality is that a foreign
1:56:33adversary in
1:56:34functionally influenced our 2016
1:56:36presidential election and our president
1:56:39may not want to confront this but it is
1:56:40a reality and one that our US
1:56:43intelligence community agreed about with
1:56:45very high confidence I greatly
1:56:47appreciate senators Graham and
1:56:49Whitehouse in convening this hearing and
1:56:50in treating this very real threat to our
1:56:53democracy with the seriousness that it
1:56:55deserves a former director clapper in
1:56:57your opening statement you suggested
1:56:58that the Russians should be celebrating
1:57:01and that they are likely emboldened
1:57:02because they succeeded beyond their
1:57:04wildest dreams and at minimal cost and
1:57:07they are likely to continue in the
1:57:09French national elections which just
1:57:11concluded yesterday there was a stunning
1:57:14dump of hacked emails at the last moment
1:57:18in an attempt at least believed to
1:57:20influence the outcome of that election
1:57:22in a way designed to help advance a
1:57:25candidate favored by the Kremlin and in
1:57:28that instance there was a significant
1:57:30amount of fake news of manufactured
1:57:32articles mixed in with seemingly actual
1:57:36emails that had been hacked and there
1:57:38are allegations that there was
1:57:39coordination between all right news
1:57:41sites trying to forward this information
1:57:45and to get it out around France and
1:57:47around the world is that your
1:57:49understanding of what's just happened in
1:57:51France and more importantly was there
1:57:53any evidence that you saw of comparable
1:57:55coordination between alt-right news
1:57:57sites and released information in the
1:58:01attempts to influence the 2016 American
1:58:03presidential election sir Kunis T all he
1:58:08knows when I'm reading in the media and
1:58:10so I don't have access to any
1:58:15intelligence information that would help
1:58:18me cast any light it could tour
1:58:20attentively answer your question all I
1:58:21know is it's what's what's in the media
1:58:24during the period when you did have
1:58:26regular access to intelligence did you
1:58:29see any evidence to suggest that the
1:58:31long-standing Russian practice of
1:58:33spreading misinformation in fake news
1:58:35was being amplified by new sites in the
1:58:39United States and any reason to believe
1:58:41that might have been coordinated or
1:58:42intentional well I don't know about the
1:58:45latter but I and I think
1:58:48some news outlets were probably probably
1:58:53unwitting of that it's certainly one on
1:58:56but I can't say to what extent that was
1:58:59coordinated intentionally with with
1:59:02certain news outlets and you can that's
1:59:04a kind of in the domestic Rome you said
1:59:07that the Russians will continue this
1:59:09behavior until we impose some
1:59:11significant costs could you speak
1:59:13briefly to what sort of actions you
1:59:14think we might take that would deter
1:59:16them
1:59:17well let's assume this action that's a
1:59:19little over my labor grade as
1:59:20intelligence guy
1:59:21I thought the sanctions that we did
1:59:24impose and I was part of that as part of
1:59:29the foreign the former administration
1:59:31were a great first step well simply say
1:59:35that I agree with you and a bipartisan
1:59:37bill led by my colleague senator Graham
1:59:39and co-sponsored by 20 senators
1:59:41Republican and Democrat would be a
1:59:42terrific next step miss Yates we've
1:59:45established in the course of these
1:59:46questions that on December 27th and 29th
1:59:49former National Security Advisor general
1:59:52Flynn discussed sanctions with the
1:59:53Russian ambassador so when the Trump
1:59:56transition team told The Washington Post
1:59:57in January 13th that sanctions were not
2:00:00discussed was that false I understand
2:00:03that there have been news reports to
2:00:05that account but I can't confirm whether
2:00:07in fact those conversations regarding
2:00:09sanctions occurred because that would
2:00:11require me to reveal classified
2:00:12information understood so I have a whole
2:00:14series of questions about things that
2:00:16would have been untrue without the case
2:00:19you're not going to be able to answer
2:00:20any of those not to the extent that it
2:00:22goes to general Flint's underlying
2:00:24conduct I can't address that well then
2:00:26let me move to that if I might sure on
2:00:28January 24th you just testified that
2:00:30National Security Advisor Flint was
2:00:32interviewed by the FBI about his
2:00:34underlying conduct and that that
2:00:36underlying conduct was problematic
2:00:38because it led to the conclusion the
2:00:40vice president was relying on falsehoods
2:00:42what was that underlying conduct and are
2:00:45you convinced that the former national
2:00:48security adviser was truthful in his
2:00:50testimony to the FBI in January 24 again
2:00:53I hate to frustrate you again but I
2:00:55think we're going to have to because my
2:00:57knowledge of his underlying conduct is
2:00:59based on classified
2:01:01information and so I can't reveal what
2:01:03that underlying conduct is it's why I
2:01:05had to do sort of an artificial
2:01:06description here of events without
2:01:09revealing that conduct I understand that
2:01:11on January 27th you just testified that
2:01:14you discussed with wite-out at White
2:01:16House Counsel McGann four different
2:01:18topics
2:01:18and one of them included the possibility
2:01:21of criminal prosecution of the former
2:01:23national security adviser and what would
2:01:25the applicable statutes be what
2:01:28applicable statutes did you discuss and
2:01:30in your conclusion should the national
2:01:32security adviser face criminal
2:01:33prosecution senator Coons I'm going to
2:01:36strike out here because if I identify
2:01:38the statute then that would be insight
2:01:40into what the conduct was and look I'm
2:01:43not trying to be hyper technical here
2:01:44I'm trying to be really careful that I
2:01:47observe my responsibilities to protect
2:01:50classified information and so I can't
2:01:53identify the statute right do you
2:01:55believe the administration took your
2:01:57warnings seriously when you made this
2:02:00extraordinary effort to go to the White
2:02:02House and in person briefed the White
2:02:05House Council on the 26th and 27th do
2:02:08you think they took appropriate steps
2:02:09with regards to general Flynn as the
2:02:11national security adviser given that he
2:02:14remained a frequent participant in very
2:02:17high-level national security matters for
2:02:19two weeks well certainly in the course
2:02:21of the meetings both on the 26 and 27
2:02:24mr. McGann certainly demonstrated that
2:02:27he understood that this was serious so
2:02:29he did seem to be taking it seriously
2:02:31you know I don't have any way of knowing
2:02:34what if anything they did if nothing was
2:02:37done then certainly that would be
2:02:39concerning so you don't know whether
2:02:42they took any steps to restrict his
2:02:44access to classified information to
2:02:45investigate him further up and until the
2:02:48white the Washington Post published
2:02:50information that made it clear that he
2:02:53had been lying to the vice president no
2:02:54again I was gone after the 30th and so
2:02:56it's I wouldn't know if any steps had
2:02:59been communicated to the Department of
2:03:01Justice but I was not aware of any No
2:03:02had you not been summarily fired would
2:03:04you have recommended to the White House
2:03:06Counsel that they begin further
2:03:09investigations into the National
2:03:11Security Adviser or that they restrict
2:03:13his access to Sen
2:03:14different classified information well
2:03:16it's a bit of a hypothetical head out
2:03:17remained at the Department of Justice
2:03:19and if I were under the impression that
2:03:22nothing had been done then yes I would
2:03:24have raised it again with the white
2:03:25house thank you miss age Thank You mr.
2:03:28clip misshapes
2:03:33dr. Klapper thank you both for you years
2:03:35of service to the American people
2:03:37Monsieur I want to start with you you
2:03:39declined to support to defend president
2:03:42Trump's executive order because you
2:03:43thought it was unconstitutional is that
2:03:45correct that's correct yes okay um and
2:03:50you believe there was note that you
2:03:53believe that no reasonable argument
2:03:54could be made in its defense is that
2:03:56correct well I don't know that I would
2:03:59put it in that in that way senator I
2:04:03visit was the analysis that we went
2:04:05through good let me stop you because
2:04:07I've got a whole bunch of questions okay
2:04:10um I just want to understand your
2:04:13thinking from my perspective sure
2:04:14did you believe then that there were
2:04:16reasonable arguments that could be made
2:04:18in its defense
2:04:19I believed that any argument that we
2:04:21would have to make in its defense would
2:04:24not be grounded in the truth because to
2:04:26make an argument in its defense we would
2:04:28have to argue that the executive order
2:04:31had nothing to do with religion that it
2:04:34was not done with an intent to
2:04:37discriminate against Muslims and based
2:04:39on a variety of you're looking at intent
2:04:41yes and I believe that that's the
2:04:43appropriate analysis and in fact that's
2:04:45been borne out in several Court
2:04:47decisions since that time that that's
2:04:49the appropriate analysis when you're
2:04:51doing a constitutional analysis it's to
2:04:53look to see what are you trying to
2:04:54accomplish here okay suppose instead of
2:04:57an executive order this had been an act
2:04:58of Congress would you have refused to
2:05:00defend it if it were the same Act yes
2:05:05and in fact the Department of Justice
2:05:07has done that in the past for example
2:05:08with DOMA Defense of Marriage Act when
2:05:10the Department of Justice refused to
2:05:13defend DOMA but that was a political
2:05:14decision was it not well I wasn't at
2:05:17main justice at that time so I can't
2:05:18speak to that but that was another
2:05:20example of when DOJ did not defend the
2:05:22constitutionality of a statute in that
2:05:24sense but in your opinion the executive
2:05:26order is
2:05:27Constitution I certainly was not
2:05:28convinced that it was constitutional and
2:05:30given that I wasn't and the import of
2:05:32this I couldn't in good conscience send
2:05:35Department of Justice lawyers in to
2:05:36defend it well I want to be sure I
2:05:37understand you believe it was cut its
2:05:39constitutional run Constitution
2:05:41I believed I was not convinced that it
2:05:44was constitutional I believed that it
2:05:46was unconstitutional in the sense that I
2:05:49there was no way in the world I could
2:05:50send folks in there to argue something
2:05:52that that we didn't believe to be the
2:05:54truth so you believe it's
2:05:55unconstitutional
2:05:56okay I don't mean to wax to medicate and
2:06:00if I can say I can understand why you
2:06:02might be a little frustrated with the
2:06:03language first right and a P as a clam
2:06:05no and here's here's the reason let me
2:06:07give you a little idea of the timetable
2:06:09of limits let me stop you because I
2:06:10don't have much time I got a lot of
2:06:13ground to cut okay um I don't mean to
2:06:17whack student metaphysical here but but
2:06:20at what point does an act of Congress or
2:06:23an executive order become
2:06:24unconstitutional well it all depends on
2:06:28what the Act does no but I mean at what
2:06:31point is it become I can look at the
2:06:34statutes I think that's unconstitutional
2:06:35does that make it unconstitutional I
2:06:38think the issue that we faced at the
2:06:40Department of Justice is to defend this
2:06:42executive order would require lawyers to
2:06:45go in and argue that this has nothing to
2:06:47do with religion
2:06:48suddenly what point does a statute or an
2:06:51executive order become unconstitutional
2:06:55is it some a priori determination it
2:07:00becomes only what I'm telling you what
2:07:02I'm getting at not only in this respect
2:07:04who appointed you to the United States
2:07:06Supreme Court I was I was at that
2:07:10determine didn't it
2:07:11a court of final jurisdiction decides
2:07:13what's constitutionally not in fact
2:07:15aren't most acts of Congress presumed to
2:07:18be constitutional they are presumed but
2:07:20they're not always constitutional and
2:07:22now of course I was not on the Supreme
2:07:24Court and and I can tell you Senator
2:07:27look we really wrestled over this
2:07:29decision I personally wrestled over this
2:07:31decision and it was not one that I took
2:07:34lightly at all but it was because I took
2:07:37my responsibilities seriously
2:07:40I believe you I believe you believe what
2:07:41you're saying yes I just want it on
2:07:44understand this is likely to come up in
2:07:46the future well at what point there's an
2:07:49executive order or statute become
2:07:51unconstitutional when I think it's
2:07:53unconstitutional or you think it's
2:07:55unconstitutional or quarter-final
2:07:57jurisdictions says it's unconstitutional
2:07:59I believe that it is the responsibility
2:08:01of the Attorney General if the president
2:08:04asks camera her to do something that he
2:08:07or she believes is unlawful or
2:08:09unconstitutional to say no and that's
2:08:11what I did okay I get it all right let
2:08:14me ask you both a couple questions can
2:08:16we vote can we agree a director and
2:08:22counselor that the Russians attempted to
2:08:26influence the outcome of the election
2:08:28yes sir absolutely
2:08:30yes did do you believe that the Russians
2:08:32did in fact influence the outcome of the
2:08:34election director in our intelligent
2:08:37assessment we made the point that we
2:08:39could not make that call we the
2:08:41intelligence community has neither the
2:08:42authority the expertise or the resources
2:08:45to make that judgment the only thing we
2:08:47said was there was we saw no evidence of
2:08:49influencing voter tallies in any of the
2:08:5150 states but we were not in a position
2:08:54to judge whether what actual outcome on
2:08:56the election how about you measure I
2:08:58don't know the answer to I think that's
2:08:59part of the problem is we'll never know
2:09:01okay have you ever heard the Russians
2:09:03have been doing this for years had they
2:09:05not I'm not minimizing what they did I
2:09:07think they did try to influence the
2:09:09election it's absolutely true they and
2:09:11as I pointed out as I mentioned in my
2:09:13opening statements or the they've been
2:09:16doing this since at least the 60s okay
2:09:18the difference however was this is
2:09:22unprecedented in terms of its
2:09:24aggressiveness and the most multifaceted
2:09:26campaign that they mounted that's new in
2:09:30to the fact that in 1968 the Kremlin
2:09:34actually serviced a which was part of
2:09:37the AGB attempted to subsidize the
2:09:38campaign of Hubert Humphrey I don't know
2:09:41the specifics of that I didn't want to
2:09:44research that but again at that
2:09:47certainly comports with what Russian
2:09:50tactics would be okay into the fact that
2:09:52in 1984 the
2:09:54emmalin tried to stop Ronald Reagan from
2:09:57being reelected um again I'd have to do
2:10:01some research to verify that but again
2:10:04it certainly comports with what if they
2:10:07chose the a candidate for whatever
2:10:11reason they had an aversion to they
2:10:12would do that okay
2:10:14um general clapper have you ever leaked
2:10:19information classified or unclassified
2:10:20to a member of the press ma not
2:10:24wittingly or knowingly as I said my
2:10:26statement
2:10:26classified or unclassified well
2:10:29unclassified is not is not leaking but
2:10:36unclassified uh that's that's not little
2:10:38no that's somewhat of an on second have
2:10:40you ever given information to a reporter
2:10:44that you didn't want to have your name
2:10:46connected with but you wanted to sit in
2:10:48the paper I have not ii-i've had many
2:10:53encounters with media over my career I'm
2:10:55sorry about that
2:10:57how about you miss Yeates other than
2:11:00situations where the Department of
2:11:01Justice would arrange for example for me
2:11:04to talk on background with reporters
2:11:05about a particular issue to educate them
2:11:09about that no I've certainly never
2:11:10provided classified information and that
2:11:13would be the only kind of background
2:11:15different each do you know I've done the
2:11:16same thing but but certainly not that
2:11:19doesn't it doesn't include sharing
2:11:22classified information do you know
2:11:24anybody else's justice who has ever
2:11:26leaked classified or unclassified
2:11:27information to to the press no jokes no
2:11:31okay thank you mr. chairman I've went
2:11:34over a pop case in LA thank you for
2:11:37Sherman uh general clapper machines good
2:11:39to see you again good to have you back
2:11:41here I shades I I remember so well your
2:11:48your confirmation just like it for and I
2:11:51remember one Saturday sparing it on you
2:11:55tensely burying on you saying would you
2:11:58stand up to the President of the United
2:12:01States if you thought he was as you do
2:12:04something unlawful he's demanding under
2:12:07oath
2:12:07for you to say yes you would stand up
2:12:10and you told then Senator Jeff Sessions
2:12:13of Alabama that's what you would do and
2:12:18appears to me that's that you've kept
2:12:20your word
2:12:24apparently it's okay to keep your word
2:12:26if depend upon who the administration is
2:12:32but I'm proud of you for keeping your
2:12:34word when the president tried to set a
2:12:38religious test for her entrance into
2:12:40this the countries of the most
2:12:44first-year law students would say it was
2:12:46unconstitutional you said you are going
2:12:48to uphold it I wish that mr. sessions
2:12:53and others and kept it as consistent in
2:12:56this administration as they did in the
2:12:58last
2:12:59that's my editorial judgment now you
2:13:06wrote to the Justice Department I am
2:13:10responsible for ensuring that the
2:13:12positions we take in court remain
2:13:14consistent with this institution solemn
2:13:16obligation to always seek justice and
2:13:18stand for what is right that president
2:13:22not convinced that the defense of the
2:13:24executive orders consistent with these
2:13:26responsibilities now my convinced that
2:13:29executive order is lawful that an
2:13:31accurate statement of what you said yes
2:13:33it is senator mm-hmm and you still feel
2:13:35that way today
2:13:36yes I did ah the White House claims that
2:13:40you betrayed the Department of Justice
2:13:42do you feel you betrayed the Department
2:13:43of Justice no senator I feel to have
2:13:46done anything else would have been a
2:13:47betrayal of my solemn obligation to
2:13:50represent the people and to uphold the
2:13:53law in the Constitution was the White
2:13:54House so trying to tell the Justice
2:13:56Department how to carry out that
2:13:58executive order well I didn't have a lot
2:14:01of discussion with the White House about
2:14:02this executive order they I'm sorry said
2:14:09I don't entirely understand the question
2:14:10no but I mean did anybody on the White
2:14:14House try to direct the Justice
2:14:16Department how they should respond on
2:14:18eggs
2:14:19to the border well certainly there was
2:14:21discussion with the White House about
2:14:23litigation strategy but that occurred to
2:14:27my knowledge over the weekend but after
2:14:28the 30th when I issued my directive I
2:14:31was I was gone then that evening around
2:14:339 o'clock so I don't know what other
2:14:35discussions occurred after that well
2:14:37when I pause you for keeping your word
2:14:40to then senator sessions who apparently
2:14:44has a different standard is Attorney
2:14:46General FBI director Comey testified
2:14:51before this committee he was told what
2:14:56he appointed special counsel to
2:14:58investigate the Valerie Plame leak back
2:15:01in 2003 he would definitely attorney
2:15:02general attorney general Ashcroft has
2:15:07recused himself the several senior
2:15:14officials in Trump campaign
2:15:16administration connected to this Russia
2:15:18investigation the Attorney General I was
2:15:22forced to recuse himself do you think
2:15:25this is the kind of situation where we
2:15:28could should do what then Deputy
2:15:30Attorney General called me as Acting
2:15:33Attorney General did in the plane
2:15:35investigation and appoint a special
2:15:39counsel well senator I think that my
2:15:43successor rod Rosenstein has a big job
2:15:45ahead of him and I don't think I'm going
2:15:48to be giving him any advice from the
2:15:49cheap seats about how he needs to do it
2:15:52let me ask you this
2:15:57we know that about general Clinton's
2:16:02vulnerability to Russian blackmail
2:16:06attorney General Sessions misled this
2:16:10committee about his contacts and had to
2:16:13change his testimony the president's
2:16:17son-in-law and senior advisor also
2:16:19reportedly failed to disclose current
2:16:21contacts on their security clearance
2:16:23forms do you have or did you have any
2:16:27concerns about the attorney general
2:16:30about mr. Koester or other Trump
2:16:32officials vulnerability to blackmail
2:16:34this all of this information came to
2:16:37light after I was no longer with DOJ did
2:16:40you have concerns or why you were a DOJ
2:16:43that general Flynn might have been gone
2:16:45about to blackmail yes I did and express
2:16:48those to the White House you say why you
2:16:51feel he may have been vulnerable to
2:16:54blackmail and if somebody else fell into
2:17:00that same category
2:17:01my debut vulnerable to blackmail well
2:17:04certainly anytime the Russians have
2:17:06compromising information on you then you
2:17:08are certainly vulnerable to blackmail
2:17:10let me ask general clapper this you've
2:17:12looked at a lot of these the other cases
2:17:16senior government officials that they
2:17:19have hidden financial information things
2:17:23that normally disclose was it take a
2:17:25senior official position is that an area
2:17:31where they could be blackmailed if it's
2:17:33if it's discovered oh yes it is of
2:17:36course and is it your experience that
2:17:43the Russians search for that kind of
2:17:45thing absolutely we do
2:17:52January the intelligence community the
2:17:55FBI CIA NSA concluded high confidence of
2:17:58Russia interfered in the 2016 election
2:18:01to denigrate Secretary Clinton helped
2:18:03elect Donald Trump last week President
2:18:08Trump contradicted that consensus he
2:18:12said well it could have been China could
2:18:13be a lot of different groups you feel
2:18:17Russia was responsible absolutely
2:18:21regrettably similarly he although the
2:18:25conclusions that we rendered were the
2:18:28same as in the highly classified report
2:18:30as in the unclassified unfortunately the
2:18:33lot of the substantiation for that could
2:18:36not be put in the unclassified report
2:18:38because of the sensitivity of it to me
2:18:41the evidence was overwhelming
2:18:43and very compelling that the Russian
2:18:46where did this does it serve any purpose
2:18:49for high officials like the president to
2:18:54say what could have been somebody else
2:18:55it could have been China even does that
2:18:57really does that help us or is that help
2:19:01Russia well uh I guess it could be you
2:19:10could you could rationalize that that
2:19:12helps the Russians by obfuscating who
2:19:15was actually responsible thank you thank
2:19:18you very much general thank you
2:19:20mâche it's good to have you both here
2:19:22senator frank Thank You mr. chairman I
2:19:27want to thank both you and the ranking
2:19:30member for for the this hearing and
2:19:34these hearings and I want to thank
2:19:37general clapper and Attorney General
2:19:41Yates for for appearing today we have
2:19:48the intelligence communities have
2:19:52concluded all 17 of them that Russia
2:19:56interfere with this election and we all
2:19:59know how that's right similar as I
2:20:03pointed out in my statement senator
2:20:05Franken was there were only three
2:20:08agencies that directly involved in this
2:20:11assessment plus smile at all 17 signed
2:20:13on to that well we didn't go through
2:20:16that that process this was a special
2:20:18situation because of the time limits and
2:20:21my that what I need to be to who could
2:20:24really contribute to this and the
2:20:26sensitivity of the information we
2:20:27decided it was a conscious judgment to
2:20:29restrict it to those three I'm not aware
2:20:32of anyone who descended toward it or
2:20:34disagreed when it came out okay and I
2:20:37think anyone who's looked at even the
2:20:40unclassified report is pretty convinced
2:20:42that this is what happened and one of
2:20:47the questions is why they favor Donald
2:20:49Trump there are a number of contacts and
2:20:57communications that
2:20:59between Trump campaign officials and
2:21:01associates members of the Trump
2:21:04administration Jeff Sessions as Senator
2:21:08Leahy mentioned Carter Paige a former
2:21:12campaign adviser Paul Manafort was a
2:21:14former campaign manager and chief
2:21:16strategist Rex Tillerson Secretary of
2:21:19State a friend of Russia award Roger
2:21:23stone and of course the Jared Kushner
2:21:30White House senior advisor son-in-law
2:21:33and Michael Flynn all that is that's a
2:21:38lot in my mind now going to Flynn
2:21:43he appeared during the campaign on
2:21:47Russia today Russia today is the
2:21:51propaganda arm one of the propagandas
2:21:54arm of a now you generals since you've
2:21:57retired have you appeared on Russia
2:21:58today no not wittingly no no okay
2:22:05and and general Flynn received $37,000
2:22:14for sitting next to Putin at the 10th
2:22:17anniversary of Russia today it seems all
2:22:26this seemed very odd to me and raised a
2:22:28lot of questions I was struck that mr.
2:22:32McGann did not ask you in the second
2:22:37meeting why do J general gave would have
2:22:42concerns that the deal that the national
2:22:49security adviser had lied to the vice
2:22:51president in the first meeting did you
2:22:54mention that that that was that he might
2:22:56be compromised
2:22:57certainly we went through all of our
2:22:59concerns in the first meeting and it was
2:23:02in the second meeting that he just
2:23:03raised the question of essentially why
2:23:05is this an issue for the Department of
2:23:07Justice if one White House official lies
2:23:09to another okay I don't uh
2:23:13understand why he didn't understand that
2:23:16I'm not sure I can help you with that
2:23:18Cemetery this is general Flynn after
2:23:23that for 18 days stayed there and was in
2:23:26one classified thing after another there
2:23:30are policies to deal with who gets
2:23:33clearance security clearance and not
2:23:37executive order 12 9 6 8 outlines the
2:23:41rules for security clearances and it
2:23:44says that when there is a credible
2:23:46allegation that raises concern about
2:23:48someone's fitness to access classified
2:23:50information that person's cleaner should
2:23:52be suspended pending investigations all
2:23:55right the executive law also order also
2:23:59states that clearance holders must
2:24:00always demonstrate quote trustworthiness
2:24:04honesty reliability discretion and sound
2:24:10judgment as well as freedom from
2:24:13allegiances and potential for coercion
2:24:16is that right and yet the White House
2:24:21Counsel did not understand why the
2:24:27Department of Justice was concerned well
2:24:32to be fair to mr. McGann I think the
2:24:33issue that he raised he wasn't clear on
2:24:36was why we cared that Michael Flynn had
2:24:40lied to the vice president and others
2:24:42why that was a matter of something
2:24:43that's clear within DHS so clear yeah I
2:24:47can't and the President had told the
2:24:51President Obama had told the incoming
2:24:55president elect the two days after the
2:24:57election don't hire this guy I don't
2:25:01know anything about that well that's
2:25:03what we've heard and we have McGann
2:25:12doesn't understand what's wrong with
2:25:14this and then we have Spicer the press
2:25:19secretary saying the president was told
2:25:20about this the president was told about
2:25:24this in late January
2:25:27according to the press secretary so now
2:25:29he's got a guy who has been the the
2:25:36former president said don't hire this
2:25:38guy he's clearly compromised he's lied
2:25:41to the vice president and he keeps him
2:25:44on and he lets him be in all these
2:25:48classified funk or the he lets him talk
2:25:52with Putin president of the United
2:25:56States and the national security adviser
2:25:59sit in the Oval Office and and and
2:26:01discuss this with Putin is it possible
2:26:08that the reason that he didn't fire him
2:26:17then was that well if I fire him for
2:26:27talking to the Russians about sanctions
2:26:30and if I fire what about all the other
2:26:34people on my team who coordinated I mean
2:26:42isn't it possible that the reason
2:26:44because he asked yourself why wouldn't
2:26:46you fire a guy who did this and all I
2:26:52can think of is that he would say well
2:26:57we've got all these other people in the
2:27:01administration who've had contacts we
2:27:04have all these other people in the
2:27:06administration who coordinated who were
2:27:13talking maybe that I'm just trying to
2:27:15put up we're trying to put a puzzle
2:27:17together here everybody and maybe just
2:27:22maybe he didn't get rid of a guy who
2:27:29lied to the vice president who got paid
2:27:32by the Russians who went on Russia today
2:27:36because there are other people
2:27:40in his administration who met secretly
2:27:44with the Russians and didn't reveal it
2:27:47till later until they were caught that
2:27:53may be why it took him 18 days until
2:27:59came public to get rid of Mike Flynn who
2:28:05was a danger to this Republic care to
2:28:09comment I know I don't think I'm gonna
2:28:13touch that senator Blumenthal Thank You
2:28:20mr. chairman and I want to thank you
2:28:24senator Graham and Senator Whitehouse
2:28:25for conducting this hearing in a very
2:28:28bipartisan way and for prioritizing this
2:28:31issue which is a such gravity to our
2:28:34democracy I want to thank each of you
2:28:36not only for your long and distinguished
2:28:38service but also for the conscience and
2:28:42conviction that you have brought to your
2:28:45jobs whether we agree or disagree with
2:28:48you at three P I hope that there are
2:28:51young prosecutors around the country and
2:28:54young members of our intelligence
2:28:56committee who will watch this hearing
2:28:58and say that's the kind of professional
2:29:02I want to be not just expert but also
2:29:05people of deep conviction and conscience
2:29:07and I agree with my colleagues that
2:29:10there ought to be an independent
2:29:11commission that can have public hearings
2:29:16produce recommendations and a report but
2:29:20I also believe that there has to be a
2:29:23special prosecutor because what I hear
2:29:28from people in Connecticut and from my
2:29:30colleagues in their town halls and
2:29:32meetings is that people want the truth
2:29:36uncovered about how the Russians sought
2:29:39to interfere and undermine our democracy
2:29:41in our electoral system and they also
2:29:43want accountability they want not only
2:29:47the Russians to pay a price they want
2:29:50anybody who colluded
2:29:53with the Russians or aided and abetted
2:29:55them to pay a price as well and there
2:29:58are criminal statutes that prohibit that
2:30:02kind of collusion and impose serious
2:30:05criminal fines and imprisonment for
2:30:08people who might have done that and we
2:30:12know that the FBI is now investigating
2:30:18the potential collusion of Trump
2:30:20associates and Trump campaign and
2:30:23administration officials with the
2:30:25Russians as director Comey has told us
2:30:28and made public so there's no classified
2:30:31information there the meeting that the
2:30:37FBI conducted on January 24th preceded
2:30:43by one day approximately your first
2:30:45meeting with Donnell McGann isn't a fact
2:30:49that Michael Flynn lied to the FBI and
2:30:56and I can't reveal the internal FBI
2:30:59investigation senator even though it's
2:31:01not even though that part would not
2:31:03technically be classified it's an
2:31:04ongoing investigation and I can't reveal
2:31:06that
2:31:06did you tell Donal McGann that then
2:31:14National Security Advisor Flynn told the
2:31:16truth to the FBI no he asked me how he
2:31:19had done in the interview and I
2:31:20specifically declined to answer that
2:31:22because it was part of an investigation
2:31:24that's right
2:31:26was that intended to indicate to him
2:31:28that Michael Flynn had a problem in that
2:31:34interview no I was intending to enter to
2:31:38to let him know that Michael Flynn had a
2:31:40problem on a lot of levels but it wasn't
2:31:42necessarily in with respect to how he
2:31:45performed in the interview I was
2:31:46intentionally not letting him know how
2:31:49the interview had gone and lying to the
2:31:51FBI as a crime correct it is yes
2:31:54violation of 18 United States Code 1001
2:31:57that's right and it's punishable by five
2:31:59years in prison yes it is so if Michael
2:32:02Flynn lied to the FBI he had a ton of
2:32:04legal trouble facing him he could face
2:32:06criminal process
2:32:07Kishen if he lied to the FBI yes and if
2:32:10he became a foreign agent for another
2:32:14country for Turkey which he was a
2:32:17foreign agent for without getting
2:32:21permission from the Department of
2:32:23Defense he faced criminal penalties for
2:32:26that and still faces them correct yes
2:32:28it's certainly fair violations can be
2:32:30criminally prosecuted yes in fact it's a
2:32:33violation of 18 United States Code to
2:32:352:19 and that's punishable by two years
2:32:39in prison
2:32:40correct and his failure to disclose
2:32:44payments from foreign sources which also
2:32:47he had done before you went to Donal
2:32:49McGann is also criminally punishable is
2:32:52it not that was not a topic I discussed
2:32:55with mr. McGann and so not something I
2:32:56can discuss here today but it is in fact
2:33:00from your knowledge of violation of
2:33:02formal laws or not to not disclose
2:33:04payments from foreign yes but I'm not
2:33:06I'm not speaking to his specific conduct
2:33:08just generally that it is yes if Michael
2:33:13Flynn is prosecuted for any of these
2:33:15crimes isn't it possible that the Vice
2:33:17President United States might be a
2:33:18witness I guess it would depend on the
2:33:21crime if it were a false statement to
2:33:23the FBI about his conversations with the
2:33:28Russians wouldn't the Vice President
2:33:29potentially be called as a witness to
2:33:33corroborate that false statement you
2:33:36know I would be certainly that's
2:33:37possible but I'd be speculating how such
2:33:39criminal prosecution would come together
2:33:40so where I'm going is the need for a
2:33:44special prosecutor is because officials
2:33:47at the highest level who are responsible
2:33:51for appointing the Deputy Attorney
2:33:53General the United States Attorney
2:33:55General are all potentially witnesses
2:33:59and they are even targets right
2:34:03potentially and so a special counsel in
2:34:08order to hold those government officials
2:34:11or others responsible really has to be
2:34:14independent correct well Department of
2:34:18Justice lawyers pride themselves and
2:34:20being able to be in
2:34:21dependent regardless of whether they're
2:34:22appointed as a special council but the
2:34:25ultimate decision whether or not to
2:34:26prosecute the sake of appearance as well
2:34:30as in reality should be made by someone
2:34:33who is unquestionably independent
2:34:36objective and impartial sooner I
2:34:40absolutely understand your concerns here
2:34:42but the fact of the matter is is that
2:34:44particularly as someone who just
2:34:46departed from the Department of Justice
2:34:47I'm just not going to wade into whether
2:34:49or not they should have a special
2:34:51counsel or an independent counsel in
2:34:53this matter I don't I don't really think
2:34:55they need the former's I'm telling them
2:34:57how to do their jobs well I'm going to
2:35:00be very unfair to you and just ask you
2:35:01as a private citizen wouldn't you like
2:35:03to see a special counsel appointed under
2:35:07these circumstances not going to go
2:35:09there either serve as an expert witness
2:35:12committee I'll qualify you as an expert
2:35:16Graham allows me to do it uh let me
2:35:20we'll have to bear huh let me just close
2:35:27by asking you my colleague senator
2:35:32Franken made reference to warnings given
2:35:35to the Oh
2:35:38given by President Obama to then
2:35:43president elect Trump about hiring
2:35:45Michael Flynn that is a public report
2:35:48from the New York Times in fact of today
2:35:51which I asked be entered into the record
2:35:54and I also ask and be entered in the
2:35:59record the February 9th report from The
2:36:02Washington Post I believe there's been a
2:36:04reference to it without that published
2:36:07report and without the Free Press
2:36:10telling us a lot of what went on Michael
2:36:14Flynn might still be sitting in the
2:36:16White House as National Security Advisor
2:36:18because by January 30th you were forced
2:36:24to resign correct you were fired yes I
2:36:26was fired so nobody was around to tell
2:36:29the White House as you said that our
2:36:31national security was in danger
2:36:33well there were still two career
2:36:35officials in the National Security
2:36:36Division who had been working with me on
2:36:38this matter that were there and were
2:36:40certainly conversing in the facts but
2:36:43the ultimate decision to go to the White
2:36:46House was yours yes it was Thank You mr.
2:36:49senator ah no thank you mr. chairman in
2:36:54spite of the Trump administration's
2:36:56ongoing efforts to convince all of us
2:36:59that there's nothing to see here with
2:37:01regard to Russian interference with our
2:37:032016 election and Trump teams
2:37:06connections to these efforts we need to
2:37:09get to the bottom of this and so I thank
2:37:11chairman and ranking member Whitehouse
2:37:14for these hearings in fact I just had a
2:37:17number of town hall meetings in Hawaii
2:37:19this past weekend and hundreds of people
2:37:21came and believe me they care that we
2:37:23get to the bottom of this the Trump
2:37:26administration blames President Obama
2:37:28for failing to suspend general Flint's
2:37:31clearance and in fact in a press
2:37:32conference today Sean Spicer said quote
2:37:35everyone in the government goes through
2:37:36the same process and quote he also said
2:37:39quote there's no difference of a
2:37:41security clearance once it's issued in
2:37:44quote and basically as far as this
2:37:46administration administration is
2:37:48concerned nothing more needed to be done
2:37:50by them regarding general Flint's
2:37:53clearance director clapper isn't it true
2:37:55that the CIA has a separate vetting
2:37:58process for National Security Council
2:38:00appointees and in fact the press is
2:38:03reporting today that Jennifer and never
2:38:05completed that process can you enlighten
2:38:08us I can't speak to specifics of how it
2:38:10was done with general Flynn I know what
2:38:13what I went through as a political
2:38:16appointee twice in two in a Republican
2:38:19and Democratic administration and the
2:38:21vetting process for either a political
2:38:23appointee or someone working in the
2:38:25White House is far far more invasive and
2:38:28far far more thorough than a standard
2:38:31TSS CI clearance process but I don't
2:38:35know what process was used in in general
2:38:40flynch case and nor did I have access to
2:38:44his complete investigatory file so it's
2:38:47very difficult
2:38:48for me to speculate on what was in it
2:38:50and what action if any was taken by the
2:38:52white house well according to Sean
2:38:54Spicer that he had a clearance from the
2:38:56Obama administration and that was it and
2:38:58this administration had no further
2:39:00responsibilities so let me go on others
2:39:04of my colleagues have mentioned and you
2:39:06yourself mr. clapper said that RT is a
2:39:08Russian mouthpiece to spread propaganda
2:39:10and of course we know that general Flynn
2:39:13attended a gala hosted by or 10th
2:39:17anniversary gala for RT in December 2015
2:39:19where he said sat next to President
2:39:22Putin and got paid over $33,000 for that
2:39:26mr. cupboard given the information that
2:39:29ms aides provided to the White House
2:39:31regarding and this is during the January
2:39:3426 and 27 timeframe regarding general
2:39:37Flynn should he have sat in on the
2:39:39following discussions on January 28 he
2:39:43participated in an hour-long call along
2:39:46with President Trump to President Putin
2:39:48and on February 11th he participated in
2:39:52a discussion with Prime Minister obby
2:39:54and the president amar Lago to discuss
2:39:56North Korea's missile tests should he
2:39:59given the information that had already
2:40:01been provided by message should he have
2:40:04participated in these two very specific
2:40:06instances well you know I can't it's
2:40:12difficult for me to answer because I'm
2:40:15not I was out at that so again it's just
2:40:20a standard comment a general comment I I
2:40:24don't think it was a I don't think it's
2:40:29a good practice does it that way so I
2:40:32think this comports with some other
2:40:35concerns that have been raised about the
2:40:36appropriateness or adequacy of the Trump
2:40:39administration's vetting process with
2:40:41regard to various disclosures by other
2:40:43members of his administration and as I
2:40:46mentioned the administration's
2:40:47continuing efforts to downplay Russia's
2:40:50interference in our elections after a
2:40:54general Flynn resigned in February 13th
2:40:57On February 15th President Trump tweeted
2:41:00that Flynn is
2:41:01a quote wonderful man and quote is very
2:41:04very unfair what happened to general
2:41:06Flynn unquote so mr. clapper is this the
2:41:09kind of statement that would be made by
2:41:11a president aware of serious security
2:41:14concerns about his former national
2:41:16security adviser well I am loathe to
2:41:21comment on the tweets I you know that's
2:41:26that was I suppose honest expression how
2:41:31he felt uh well does it sound like
2:41:34somebody who knew that there were
2:41:35serious security concerns about it that
2:41:37he would say it's very very unfair and
2:41:40that that mr. Flynn is a wonderful man
2:41:43maybe I should just well I don't know
2:41:45people can draw their own conclusions I
2:41:47I don't know what information was that
2:41:50conveyed to the president
2:41:53I had no insight there so I don't know
2:41:55him to the extent to which he had an
2:41:57understanding what the former attorney I
2:42:01think attorneys general conveyed I don't
2:42:04know how much that made its way the
2:42:05president yes precisely that that is a
2:42:08concern that I would have that it sounds
2:42:10like perhaps the president was not aware
2:42:12and in fact going on in March the
2:42:14president tweeted that Flint should be
2:42:16given immunity for them resigned in
2:42:19February 13 and that the FBI's
2:42:21investigation is quote a witch-hunt so
2:42:25I'd like to ask both of you should these
2:42:28tweets these kinds of tweets and other
2:42:30similar assertions by the president have
2:42:32any influence at all on the FBI's
2:42:35ongoing investigation into Russian
2:42:37interference in our elections and team
2:42:40Trump's connections to these efforts
2:42:41well it shouldn't and I'm confident and
2:42:44won't I hope so I have a question about
2:42:49the foreign agents Registration Act
2:42:52violations Farah a number of Trump
2:42:54administration officials are belatedly
2:42:56disclosing and registering their work on
2:42:58behalf of foreign governments under the
2:43:00foreign agents Registration Act some of
2:43:03it raised serious counterintelligence
2:43:05concerns
2:43:06I asked director Comey about these
2:43:09concerns last week miss Lee Yates what
2:43:12are the consequences for a White House
2:43:15staffers who reveal to disclose their
2:43:17foreign contacts on their security
2:43:19clearance forms well there can be a
2:43:22variety of ramifications you can lose
2:43:24your security clearance you can lose
2:43:26your job or in certain circumstances you
2:43:28can be criminally prosecuted is it up to
2:43:30the Department of Justice or the FBI to
2:43:33pursue these kinds of allegations
2:43:35against staffers who do not disclose
2:43:37appropriately again it would all depend
2:43:40on the circumstances of the
2:43:41non-disclosure whether it was willful
2:43:43and what the circumstances were of the
2:43:45conduct underlying that so it would
2:43:47really it's going to be very
2:43:49fact-specific I agree that it should be
2:43:51fact-specific by considering the
2:43:53allegations I hope that either the FBI
2:43:56or the Department of Justice is pursuing
2:43:58an investigation into these matters
2:44:03again under what circumstances with the
2:44:06Department of Justice decide to bring
2:44:08charges against someone for violating
2:44:09for so you said Miss USA would depend on
2:44:12the facts of the situation if the
2:44:16President or someone close to him knew
2:44:18that a White House official failed to
2:44:21disclose a work on behalf of a foreign
2:44:24government and chose to cover that up
2:44:26again can you really read again the
2:44:29possible repercussions to this person to
2:44:31the individual individual again let's
2:44:36say that the allegations are proven true
2:44:37that they fail to disclose their
2:44:40activity and that the president covered
2:44:42it up or the individual did let see them
2:44:45who sent you or the administration you
2:44:47and then the individual also covered it
2:44:48up oh well cover-ups are bad
2:44:51that usually is evidence of intent and
2:44:53so that's something that we look at and
2:44:55making determinations about whether it's
2:44:56something there should be criminally
2:44:58prosecuted but again you know it's going
2:45:00to be very fact-specific it's hard to
2:45:02give you a you know hard fast answer and
2:45:04if the administration then you should
2:45:06have known I'm sorry okay thank you very
2:45:08much check in there Bob we're going to
2:45:11do a second round but we're going to do
2:45:12it quickly and we're going to do four
2:45:14minute rounds and there's light at the
2:45:17end of the tunnel we got to vote at 5:30
2:45:18so I promise you you're going to get out
2:45:20of here pretty quick but I know senators
2:45:22have questions starting with me and I'm
2:45:24going to enforce the for four minutes to
2:45:26myself
2:45:28general clapper during your
2:45:30investigation of all things Russia did
2:45:33you ever find a situation where a Trump
2:45:36business interests in Russia gave you
2:45:38concern not in the course of the
2:45:46preparation of the intelligence
2:45:48community assessment since I'm sorry at
2:45:53all any time um
2:45:57senator Graham I can't comment on that
2:45:59because that impacts investigation it
2:46:04wasn't enough to put into the report
2:46:06that's correct okay miss shakes the rule
2:46:09of law you cannot allow people to leak
2:46:11classified information because they want
2:46:14a particular outcome that's not the rule
2:46:15of law is that correct absolutely and I
2:46:17think you both agree with that concept
2:46:19yes
2:46:19then mr. McCann in your view miss
2:46:21eighths Yates asked reasonable questions
2:46:24about your concerns I didn't really have
2:46:27a judgment about whether they were
2:46:29reasonable or unreasonable but I do
2:46:30think that mr. McGann was trying to get
2:46:32to the bottom in our discussions of what
2:46:34had happened with general and they
2:46:36wanted to actually see the information
2:46:37that you were talking about he indicated
2:46:39he did again I don't have any way of
2:46:41knowing what happened but he said he
2:46:42wanted to and you tried to set that up
2:46:43that's right okay now about surveillance
2:46:47this is very important an American
2:46:50citizen cannot be surveilled in the
2:46:53United States for colluding with a
2:46:57foreign government unless you have a
2:46:58warrant is that a true statement of the
2:47:00law that's right
2:47:01is it fair to say that incidental
2:47:04collection occurs even in the United
2:47:06States that's correct as well yes okay
2:47:09so there's two situations that we would
2:47:11have found out what general Flynn said
2:47:14to the Russian ambassador if there was a
2:47:16FISA warrant focused on him was there
2:47:23was asking yes either one of you again I
2:47:26think you know I'm not going to answer
2:47:27whether there was a FISA warrant nor am
2:47:30I even going to talk about whether
2:47:31general Flynn was talking to the
2:47:32Russians okay well I have to obviously
2:47:35I'm going to go on with him well if you
2:47:38wasn't talking to the Russians we've had
2:47:39a hearing for no good reason
2:47:41so clearly he's talking to the Russians
2:47:43and we know about it so if there is no
2:47:46FISA warrant I'm gonna find out about
2:47:47this by the way the other way that we
2:47:50know what he was talking about the
2:47:51Russian P was incidentally surveilled so
2:47:53those are the two options do we know who
2:47:56unmasked the conversation between the
2:47:59Russian ambassador and general Flint was
2:48:01there I'm asking in this situation are
2:48:06you okay man yes sir
2:48:07I don't know do you miss Yates
2:48:11I can't speak to this specific situation
2:48:13but can I try to clarify on one point on
2:48:15this unmasking thing very quickly okay
2:48:18I'll try to do it quickly
2:48:19as a consumer of intelligence I would
2:48:22for example I would receive intelligence
2:48:24reports from various HIC SM No well
2:48:26oftentimes the names are already
2:48:28unmasked by the intelligence agents
2:48:31above the bottom line here is I want to
2:48:33know how it got to the Washington Post
2:48:36somebody had to have access to the
2:48:39information and they gave it to the
2:48:41Washington Post is that a fair statement
2:48:42that's right that's what it looks like
2:48:44to me is that right general clapper yeah
2:48:47and it was neither one of you did it
2:48:49that's right that's right how many
2:48:51people can request unmasking of American
2:48:54citizen in our government general
2:48:56clapper how many I don't have an exact
2:48:58number it's uh I think fairly limited
2:49:02because it's normally fairly high level
2:49:05officials how did you know that general
2:49:07Flynn was talking to the Russians who
2:49:09told you
2:49:10and I can't reveal that in an open
2:49:12setting but what I was trying to say was
2:49:15is that often times we receive
2:49:17intelligence reports where the name of
2:49:19the American citizen is already unmasked
2:49:22and its unmasked by the Intel agency
2:49:24because not based on anybody's request
2:49:27but because the name of that citizen
2:49:29that's essential situation here I can't
2:49:31you senator I can knock your mouth
2:49:33expenses up thank you both but I want to
2:49:35know the answer to these questions uh
2:49:37senator Whitehouse thanks again chairman
2:49:41at two things one there are multiple
2:49:47levels of security clearances and
2:49:48they're issued by different agencies
2:49:51correct
2:49:52so having one from DoD doesn't
2:49:55necessarily make you good for all
2:49:56positions in all places it does not and
2:49:59indeed DoD operates clearances at
2:50:01multiple levels correct right but I
2:50:04think the key point here is that as I
2:50:07indicated earlier the requirements for a
2:50:11t SSCI versus requirements for occupying
2:50:15a sense of position in the White House
2:50:17as a part of the National Security
2:50:19Council or way higher than what our
2:50:21Italian model and as I can attest much
2:50:24more invasive and aggressive than a
2:50:27standard ts sei
2:50:28now in terms of compromised tradecraft
2:50:31if you have somebody and you have them
2:50:36compromised it's pretty standard
2:50:38compromised tradecraft to ask them to do
2:50:41some little thing for you under the
2:50:44threat of having the compromising
2:50:45information disclosed and if you succeed
2:50:49you now have two things on them and you
2:50:53work it that way to get somebody more
2:50:56and more enmeshed in compromise until
2:50:59they're more or less owned by the
2:51:01intelligence agency is that a fair
2:51:04description of how you can develop
2:51:06compromises regular ed crashes okay just
2:51:09want to make that sure because we're
2:51:10talking a lot about it here now last
2:51:12thing my list so I went through the list
2:51:17looked at like propaganda fake news
2:51:19trolls and BOTS we can all agree from
2:51:21the IC report that those were in fact
2:51:24used in the 2016 election hacking and
2:51:27theft of political information the hack
2:51:29into the DNC into the Podesta emails I
2:51:31think we can all agree that that's a yes
2:51:33timed leaks of damaging material that
2:51:36appears very strongly to be a yes
2:51:39because of the timing of the release
2:51:41smack after the Access Hollywood release
2:51:44I believe that the answers were correct
2:51:47know as to in country assassination and
2:51:51political violence by the Russians here
2:51:54in the United States would you both
2:51:55agree with that I don't think we turned
2:51:58up any other than so that okay and
2:52:01controlling investment in key economic
2:52:04sectors for leave ray
2:52:06it seems that our economy is probably a
2:52:09little too big for that and there was no
2:52:10evidence of that in the IC report either
2:52:12correct that's correct
2:52:13so the question of shady business and
2:52:16financial ties that not only start out
2:52:21as bribery perhaps or as highly
2:52:24favorable deals secret deals with
2:52:26Russians but that in turn can then turn
2:52:28into compromise good it's not just the
2:52:33carrot of I'm continuing to bribe you at
2:52:35some point you have a stick over the
2:52:37individual of I'm going to out the deal
2:52:39that we have unless you do this correct
2:52:42that's a classic compliment and we do
2:52:47not yet know the extent to which that
2:52:49has played a role in the 2016 Russian
2:52:54election hat correct
2:52:56I don't and in terms of corrupting and
2:53:00compromising politicians same we don't
2:53:03know the full extent of whether or not
2:53:07politicians have been corrupted or I
2:53:10served on I did not and don't so if we
2:53:13were to go down this yes yes yes no no
2:53:17question mark question mark would be our
2:53:20our tally at the end do we agreed on
2:53:23that yes
2:53:25okay anything else miss Yeates not for
2:53:28me sir
2:53:29terrific thank you you'll back my 9
2:53:31seconds your trendsetter
2:53:34senator Grassley mr. clapper um you said
2:53:39yes when I asked you if you ever
2:53:43unmasked a trump associate or a member
2:53:46of Congress but I forgot to ask which
2:53:50was it was it a trump associate a member
2:53:53of Congress or both over my time is DNI
2:53:59but I think the answer was rare occasion
2:54:02both okay and again senator just just to
2:54:05make the point here my focus was on the
2:54:07foreign target and at the foreign
2:54:09targets behavior in relation to the u.s.
2:54:12person okay how many instances were
2:54:15there or was it just
2:54:17on I can only recall one could you
2:54:25provide but it could have been more and
2:54:27and and the best accounting of this
2:54:29would be we didn't know in accordance
2:54:32with a procedure the collecting agency
2:54:34now and that would be a better source of
2:54:37records in the top of my head
2:54:39okay could you provide us more details
2:54:43in a classified setting I could okay
2:54:48vitiates the same question well you said
2:54:53I don't know what you said to answer my
2:54:55question about if you were involved in a
2:54:57neon masking were you involved no I've
2:55:00never asked anyone to be unmasked okay a
2:55:03Senator Gramm both you and I and maybe
2:55:06other people have been said that we need
2:55:09a classified setting to get some answers
2:55:12here I assume you're going to pursue
2:55:13that yes sir okay let's see I got time
2:55:18for a couple more questions I believe
2:55:21regardless of any disagreements that we
2:55:24have about allegations of collusion the
2:55:27fact that Russia tried to meddle in all
2:55:30of in our democracy is obviously an
2:55:33affront to all Americans we have to
2:55:35punish Russia and we have to deter all
2:55:38nations from these shenanigans
2:55:41do you to believe that the government's
2:55:44response so far has been enough to deter
2:55:47future attacks of this kind and if not
2:55:50what else would you think we should be
2:55:52doing miss Yeates would you start out
2:55:54please
2:55:55I think they're coming back senator and
2:55:57I think that we have to do a whole lot
2:55:58more both to harden our election systems
2:56:01our state election systems to ensure
2:56:04that folks out there know when they're
2:56:08looking at news feeds that it may not be
2:56:10real news that they're reading I think
2:56:13that we have to do more to deter the
2:56:16Russians and it wouldn't hurt to
2:56:18prosecute a few folks but I don't think
2:56:20we should kid ourselves that we'll be
2:56:21able to prosecute our way out of this
2:56:23problem
2:56:23okay mr. clapper well as much as I love
2:56:28congressional hearings I think there is
2:56:30a
2:56:31useful purpose sir because I think the
2:56:33most important thing that needs to be
2:56:35done here is to educate the electorate
2:56:37as to what the Russians objective is and
2:56:42the tactics and techniques and
2:56:44procedures that they have have employed
2:56:47and will continue to employ and a nice I
2:56:51predict it will be against all parties
2:56:54and so I think education of the public
2:56:59is the most important thing we can do in
2:57:01this hearing grudgingly though I admit
2:57:04it serves that purpose to extent that
2:57:08this can be shared openly so yeah I do
2:57:10think as well there needs to be more
2:57:14done in a way of sanctions to the
2:57:18Russians or any other government that
2:57:20attempts to interfere in our election
2:57:22process mister I'm done
2:57:26sounds sarin Klobuchar okay thank you
2:57:29and we thank you both for being here
2:57:30again I think Senator Graham then asked
2:57:32if you would want to come back then
2:57:34director clapper and we were very glad
2:57:36that you're here so when I ask my
2:57:39questions before I asked about this
2:57:41general fact if a high-ranking national
2:57:44security official is caught on tape with
2:57:45a foreign official saying one thing in
2:57:47private and then says something in
2:57:49public that's different and if that's
2:57:53material for blackmail and you both said
2:57:55that it was could you give me some
2:57:57examples just from your experience
2:57:59director clapper of when Russians have
2:58:01used for one a better word Sex Lies and
2:58:04videotape against people as blackmail I
2:58:09don't have a lot of direct knowledge
2:58:11external to Russia this is a classical
2:58:15technique that going back to Soviet era
2:58:17that they would use to co-opt
2:58:23compromised political opponents and of
2:58:27course you know the current
2:58:30administration the Russians a lot even
2:58:32more aggressive than that where they
2:58:34just blot out people for being
2:58:38opposition so there
2:58:40there are examples of that I don't have
2:58:43month top my head but I have read and
2:58:45seen it particularly doing during the
2:58:48Soviet era internal to the Soviet Union
2:58:50that this is a common practice what
2:58:53about our election infrastructure as we
2:58:55move forward as you said one major thing
2:58:57we need to do is to educate the public
2:58:59and I'm very concerned while we have
2:59:01different states have different election
2:59:03equipment I'm the ranking on rules and
2:59:05we're working on a bill on this how
2:59:07important is that to protect the
2:59:10integrity of our election it's quite
2:59:11important and speaking now as a private
2:59:16citizen not my former capacity I do
2:59:20think that our election apparatus should
2:59:23be considered critical infrastructure
2:59:24and should have the protections that are
2:59:27attended to that a lot of states push
2:59:31back when Jay Johnson Secretary of
2:59:34Homeland Security engaged with state
2:59:37election officials about having that
2:59:41designation and having the federal
2:59:43government interfere in in their
2:59:47election process but as a citizen I'd be
2:59:49concerned with doing all we can to
2:59:51secure that apparatus a part of the
2:59:56attended to the intelligence community
2:59:59assessment that we put out DHS put out a
3:00:01paper on best practices for as an
3:00:04advisory on how to secure election
3:00:07apparatus is in a state and local level
3:00:10very good do you think we're doing a
3:00:12good enough job now back to the
3:00:14propaganda issue in educating our
3:00:17citizens about this no we're not and the
3:00:20other thing we don't do well enough is a
3:00:22counter messaging and how would you
3:00:23suggest we could improve that I would be
3:00:26for I've been an advocate for a USIA on
3:00:30steroids I felt that way in terms of
3:00:34countering the message from Isis who was
3:00:37very sophisticated at conveying messages
3:00:39and proselytizing and recruiting people
3:00:42and our our efforts to counter message
3:00:45are are too fragmented in my in my own
3:00:48opinion that's all I'm saying here and I
3:00:50would I would seriously consider
3:00:53or the notion of a as I say aus IO and
3:00:56steroids
3:00:57I don't exactly I'm sorry what would
3:00:59that mean exactly
3:01:00well someone that we could we could a
3:01:06message or counter message and and our
3:01:10efforts to counter violent extremist
3:01:14ideology particularly that from Isis who
3:01:18are very skilled at this and we I don't
3:01:21think we do as a nation we do a good
3:01:23enough job
3:01:23I think counter-messaging the Russians
3:01:27given him some of their own medicine
3:01:28much more aggressively than we've done
3:01:30now I and I would hasten to add that is
3:01:34should not be tagged on to the
3:01:36intelligence community it needs to be a
3:01:38separate entity from from the
3:01:39intelligence community something I see
3:01:41with support but should be separate from
3:01:44that mr. chair just one last question
3:01:45miss eight you brought a lawyer with you
3:01:49a career lawyer right to the meeting at
3:01:51the White House that right about when
3:01:53you were giving these warnings about the
3:01:55knowledge you had on general Flynn is
3:01:58that normal practice why did you do that
3:01:59well this was a person who was the
3:02:02career lawyer who was supervising this
3:02:04matter and we thought that it was
3:02:06important first of all she had been the
3:02:08one who was most intimately familiar
3:02:10with it but secondly we knew that my
3:02:12tenure was going to be short and wanted
3:02:14to make sure that there was continuity
3:02:16there and that they just didn't know is
3:02:17going to be that short I didn't know
3:02:19okay yeah thank you
3:02:21I think the vote is on so I hate to
3:02:23change let's do three minutes I can be
3:02:25let me be very quick yes sir mr. clapper
3:02:28there's mr. Putin have any assets in the
3:02:30United States I don't know the answer
3:02:34the question who would know that um well
3:02:38uh some component in the ATO's community
3:02:41might know what hey or the FBI but I
3:02:45don't know do you know if if any of mr.
3:02:48Putin's friends might have assets in the
3:02:51United States that are being held for
3:02:52mr. Putin that's a possibility yes who
3:02:55would know that same person I'm sorry
3:02:58who would know that same person I would
3:03:01guess
3:03:02FBI okay um if the intelligence
3:03:05community and the Attorney General knew
3:03:08all this information about mr. Flynn how
3:03:11did he get a security clearance to Flint
3:03:17well that he had a conversation with the
3:03:19Russian ambassador about sanctions well
3:03:25that was late that was the 29th of
3:03:27December or so whatever that whatever
3:03:30that has reported in the media when that
3:03:32took place January 19th I think the
3:03:34president was sworn in 17 something like
3:03:36that how did he get a security clearance
3:03:38well he had a security clearance it had
3:03:41one for a long time he's a career
3:03:43military intelligence officer I don't
3:03:46know the specifics of when his when his
3:03:51fell do it the system is every five
3:03:53years you get the current system every
3:03:55five years you're supposed to get a
3:03:56periodic reinvestigation and I don't
3:03:59know the details of that it would
3:04:04probably be done by his old agency the
3:04:07Defense Intelligence days but don't you
3:04:09have to get some additional double
3:04:11secret security clearance to serve in
3:04:13the White House well yes you do and no
3:04:15as I indicated before can I ask you how
3:04:18the process is done is I don't know how
3:04:22it's done in this administration okay
3:04:24but my own knowledge of how it was done
3:04:27it when I served in the Bush
3:04:28administration and again in the Obama
3:04:30administration there is an extensive
3:04:31vetting process by the FBI okay let me
3:04:34stop because I've only got 50 seconds
3:04:37machetes were are there any reasonable
3:04:41arguments that can be made in defense of
3:04:45president Trump's executive order I
3:04:50don't believe that there are reasonable
3:04:52legal arguments that are grounded in
3:04:56truth they can be made in defense of his
3:04:59argument that the travel ban was not
3:05:02intended to have an impact a religious
3:05:05impact in to disfavor Muslims so you
3:05:09believe that the arguments made by the
3:05:13lawyers
3:05:14who are now defending the executive
3:05:18order are unreasonable I believe that
3:05:22the Department of Justice has a
3:05:23responsibility to uphold the law and to
3:05:26always speak the truth
3:05:27particularly when it's about something
3:05:29as fundamental as this executive order
3:05:32was that deals with religious freedom
3:05:35but let me say this I have tremendous
3:05:36respect for the career men and women of
3:05:40the Department of Justice including the
3:05:41lawyers in the Civil Division who were
3:05:43handling this but their obligation was
3:05:46different than mine they must make an
3:05:48argument if they can make a reasonable
3:05:50legal argument as Acting Attorney
3:05:52General my responsibility was broader
3:05:54than that and I had to look beyond the
3:05:56confines of the face of the EO to looked
3:05:59at the president's statements and to
3:06:00look at other factors to determine what
3:06:03was the actual intent here and that's
3:06:05that was the basis for my decision for
3:06:07the record different travel ban yeah
3:06:10there's a the first order was withdrawn
3:06:12there's a second one out there senator
3:06:15Blumenthal Thanks mr. chairman a Miss
3:06:18yet so far the concerns you expressed
3:06:21about the constitutionality of these
3:06:22executive orders have been upheld by the
3:06:24courts correct that's right a second
3:06:28director clapper on the issue of
3:06:32possible use of the far right websites
3:06:38by the Russians you were asked earlier
3:06:41whether you have any knowledge about
3:06:43that potential cooperation or
3:06:46involvement do you have independent
3:06:49knowledge of the use of those far-right
3:06:53websites I don't I don't have at least
3:06:58up top my head specific knowledge or
3:07:01insight into that connection could have
3:07:05been I just I just don't know that
3:07:07directly but you made reference to
3:07:10published reports you said I think you
3:07:12knew about it from what you read in the
3:07:14newspapers well that's a specific
3:07:16reference to what happened in occurred
3:07:18in France correct and the same tactics
3:07:21that were used most recently in France
3:07:24we're also used or at least reportedly
3:07:27used in this
3:07:28country clerk and I'd like to put in the
3:07:31record one public report there probably
3:07:33others a McClatchy report of March 20th
3:07:37which begins with the lead federal
3:07:41investigators are examining whether
3:07:43far-right news sites played any role
3:07:46last year in a Russian cyber operation
3:07:48that dramatically widened the reach of
3:07:49news stories some fictional it favored
3:07:52Donald Trump's presidential bid it
3:07:55quotes two people familiar with the
3:07:57inquiry and it goes on to mention as
3:08:00among those sites Breitbart news and
3:08:02info wars if mr. chairman if thought
3:08:05this report could be entered in the
3:08:06record you have knowledge miss of that
3:08:11federal investigation I don't and if I
3:08:14did I couldn't tell you about it I
3:08:16thought that might be right
3:08:19finally you said Missy eighths that
3:08:22we're not going to prosecute our way out
3:08:25of the Russian continued attack on this
3:08:28country but putting Americans in prison
3:08:32if they cooperate collude aid and abet
3:08:36or otherwise assist in that illegality
3:08:40might send a very strong deterrent
3:08:43message correct I expect that it would
3:08:45yes and there are indeed criminal
3:08:48penalties existing on the books we don't
3:08:50need new laws which involve criminality
3:08:57and potential criminal prosecution for
3:08:58those acts correct yes that's right
3:09:00thank you very much mr. chairman thank
3:09:03you all where we're at the end of the
3:09:05day and you've been great I think the
3:09:07public is better educated least I hope
3:09:09about what Russia did seems to be
3:09:11bipartisan consensus that Russia tried
3:09:13to interfere with our election we have
3:09:15some differences in other places but
3:09:16just from some housekeeping here you
3:09:19will provide with a to of the committee
3:09:21if you could mr. clapper I know you're a
3:09:23private citizen now but if you could
3:09:25help us determine the the pool of people
3:09:27that can request unmasking we'd
3:09:29appreciate it in some later date when it
3:09:32comes to instant-on collection on 2016
3:09:34campaigns I'm a little confused but I
3:09:37think we found at least one occasion
3:09:38where that did happen you made a request
3:09:41for
3:09:41and masking on a trump associate and
3:09:43maybe a member of Congress there is that
3:09:45right mr. clapper permit it yes okay do
3:09:49we know of any others off the top of
3:09:51your head of any other candidate on
3:09:53either side the ow oh I don't uh there
3:09:56could have been other requests unmasking
3:09:58requests that I do but there's a way to
3:10:00find that out
3:10:02yes okay good and the best way to do it
3:10:03would be to the original collection
3:10:06agent I you if I can be oil requested
3:10:08what uh finally the current Deputy
3:10:11Attorney General do you know initiates
3:10:12do you have confidence in him yes I do
3:10:15uh thank you all uh final comment
3:10:20absolutely during the last hearing we
3:10:24had the author of the Kremlin playbook
3:10:27as one of our witnesses and we had the
3:10:30very well-regarded
3:10:32Kenneth Weinstein as one of our
3:10:34witnesses and they both agreed that the
3:10:40United States is leaving itself
3:10:41vulnerable to this kind of influence if
3:10:45we continue to allow shell corporations
3:10:48to proliferate without a way for law
3:10:52enforcement to figure out who the
3:10:53beneficial owners are so I mention that
3:10:56because chairman Grassley and I are
3:10:58working on a piece of legislation to
3:10:59help solve that but I think it's very
3:11:02important in this area and I just wanted
3:11:04to flag it and express to chairman
3:11:05Grassley my appreciation for his
3:11:08bipartisan cooperation on that front and
3:11:10of course my appreciation to chairman
3:11:14Graham for his work to make this hearing
3:11:16a success and so interesting and
3:11:19meaningful thank you thank you both
3:11:20hearings adjourned all right well as you
3:11:28can see this highly and

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of FULL HEARING: Sally Yates, James Clapper Testify About Flynn/Russia & Interference in Election FNN by LiveNOW from FOX, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 29,029 words across 4,435 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.