ms. yates sent a letter to wlous council specifically stating that if they did not receive a response by march 27 at 10:00 a.m. they would quote conclude the white house would not assert executive privilege over these matters. the white house did not respond and took no thaks prevent ms. yates from testifying. that's the story. that's what documents show. >> i hope she testifies. i look forward to it. let's be honest. the hearing was never -- was actually never notified. if she choose to move forward, great. we have no problem with her testifying plain and simple. >> but the question here is executive privilege here and now the issue we're talking about, wolf, is the investigation into michael flynn and contacts he had with russian operatives. sally yates is in final weeks of the obama administration so she has a perspective on this that she wanted to share with the hearing today with the house intelligence hearing which is abruptly cancelled wolf. so even though the white house is saying they

wass was right -- ms. yates right. she stood for principle. when multiple courts blocked that order, we appreciated that she appreciated the law. unlike those who crafted this horrible order. the trump administration is trying to update legal challenges by issuing a new version with some tweaks. the original executive order that travelers in the united states from seven muslim majority countries. deeply about her this ban on muslim travelers, he issued a new order today. ban travelers from seven muslim majority countries, only six. it is alienating hundred of across the muslims road. our focus should be on people with suspected links to terrorism. there will be no support in congress on either side of the aisle if he goes after suspects of terrorism. if this order, the new one still blocks refugees from coming to the united states for at least 120 days, with cuts within 50%. turning away innocent people who are fleeing persecution, genocide and care is not the american way. it will not keep a safer. -- us safer. of americaan image totally inco

. >> on the 24th, ms. yates attorney sent a letter to the white house counsel requesting that consent saying if they did not receive a response by march 27th at 10:00 a.m., they would conclude that white house does not assert executive privilege over these matters. the white house took no action that prevented ms. yates from testifying. that's the story, that's what the documents show. the report in the washington post is 100% false. >> so he's right in a sense but context is everything because here's the thing. the hearing was canceled on friday so there was no need for them to reply. >> if you have a game rained out, you don't expect the refs to show up. there's one point i completely agree with. a lot of this russian reporting is based on sourcing. ours is based on a series of letters among lawyers. they should read the letters that are published with our story and makeup their own minds. the reality is what happens was there was this back and forth that was somewhat contentious and when it seemed to be comin

also on the 24th ms. yates attorney sent a letter to the white house counsel requesting that consent specifically stating if they did not receive a response by march 27th at 10:00 they would conclude that the white house does not assert executive privilege over these matters. the white house did not respond and took no action that prevented ms. yates from testifying. that's the story. that's what the documents show. with that i'm glad to take some questions. >> i'd like to follow on that. there are reports that even though the hearing that was set for the 27th was not scheduled, it was canceled by devin nunes to prevent this white house from publicly invoking a claim of executive privilege. could you speak to that. >> i hope she testifies. i look forward to it. let's be honest. the hearing was never -- was actually never notified. if they choose to move forward, great. we have no problem with her testifying. plain and simple. the report in "the washington post" is 100% false. the letters that they frankly publi

the white house did not respond and took no action that prevented ms. yates from testifying. that's the story. that's with the documents show, and without i'm glad to take some questions. >> i'd like to follow on that because there are reports that even though they hearing that was set for the 27th was not scheduled, it was canceled by devin nunes to prevent this white house from publicly invoking or claiming executive privilege. can you speak about? mr. spicer: i hope she testifies. i look forward to it. let's be honest. the hearing was never, was actually never notified. if they choose to move forward great. we have no problem with her testifying. plain and simple. the report in the "washington post" is 100% false. the letters that they frankly published on the website all back up everything i just read. all of the letters are available on their website. i hate to give them the traffic but the route is that they specifically say if you don't respond we're going to go ahead. we didn't respond if we encouraged them to go ahead. which is suggesting any way, shape, or form that

warner: i'd like to see ms. yates at one point. i saw comments yesterday that the white house press secretary said he'd be happy to have her testify. that's something we have to schedule. reporter: do they block her from giving -- enabling her to come up before your committee or to talk to you? burr no. -- mr. burr: no. reporter: i think a lot of americans want to know if the president himself had anything to do with it. we have a government with a trust issue right now. a lot of americans. is there anything you've seen, either of you or your staff, that would raise any direct links to the president himself about what happened last year? mr. burr: we won't take a snapshot in time and make any observations on it. but we know that our challenge is to answer that question for the american people. in our conclusions to this investigation. reporter: any circumstance in which you wouldn't share with mr. warner one of your sources of intelligence on this investigation? mr. burr: he usually knows my sources before i do. mr. warner: i've al

rosenstein, knowing what we know now, do you think ms. yates was right to be concerned? mr. rosenstein: senator, i hope i have been clear on my point throughout this testimony. i appreciate opportunity to clarify t i believe as a lawyer and justice department official currently and potentially in the future, it's important for me to limit my testimony to matters which i know both the facts and the law and where i have consulted with the department of justice professionals who are engaged in handling the matter. on issues like that one, i appreciate senator whitehouse's sharing his perspective earlier, you need to note facts and relevant information. you can't prejudge matters. there's currently an acting attorney general, dana, who is in that position with regard to many investigation that nay may be occurring. with regard to your specific question my answer is, senator, i do not know the details of what the basis was for that. and i wouldn't reach any opinion about it just based upon what i read in the newspaper. senator grassley: senator from hi hifment senator hirono: the

rosenstein, knowing what we know now, do you think ms. yates was right to be concerned? >> senator, i hope i've been clear on this point throughout my testimony. i appreciate the opportunity to clarify it. at this point, i believe as a lawyer, and as a justice department official currently and potentially in the future, it's important for me to limit my testimony to matters of which i know both the facts and the law, and where i've consulted with the department of justice professionals who are engaged in handling the matter, so on issues like that one i appreciate senate whitehouse sharing his perspective earlier that you need to know the facts and the relevant information. you can't prejudge matters. there's currently an acting attorney general dana boente in that position with regard to any investigation that may be occurring. with regard to yr specific question, my answer is, senator, that i do not know the details of what the basis was for that, and i wouldn't reach any opinion about it just based on what i read in the newspaper. >> senator from hawaii? >> thank you,

clapper, ms. yates nothing to do with them, as far as i know they're still going to come forward and we encourage others to come forward freely. i have to run up and vote. thank you. >> all right. there you have it. the chair of the house intelligence committee, devin nunes, taking -- let's keep listening. >> mr. manafort agreed to come in voluntarily. thank you. >> all right. take two. a lot of headlines out of the house intel chair, devin nunes there. four major headlines for you. he said that they have asked the committee, the intel committee, in a closed session, for the head of the fbi, director comey, and nsa director admiral mike rogers, to come back and to speak with them next tuesday, they're hoping, to answer some questions. such important questions, they say, to be answered before they can move on with other folks. the second headline of this is that paul manafort, the former campaign chairman for president trump's campaign, his lawyer reached out to the committee yesterday, has offered for h

. >> the white house did not respond and took no action that prevented ms. yatesifying. >> the american people should be hearing from sally yates. >> reporter: derek swalwell is a member of t >> this is what cover-up behavior looks like. >> that'sinalling for nunes to step aside. today i newsroom. thanks. >>> today, president trump made good on a campaign promise and nullified a series of obama administration rules that limit greenhouse gases. his order would allow coal mining on federal lands, permit the oil tree industry to release metha methane. methane and carbon are leading to climate warming. all this is intended to put mineac and major garrett is at the government intrusion and to cancel job-killing f the obama administration's efforts to curb greenhouse gases t. mr. trump took the first step towards erasing rules to limit carbon monoxide emissions. coal mining accounts for 50,000 jobs in america. down from its peak of nearly 180,000 in 1985. automation and the ability of hydraulic gas has made coal production less competitive. single-most important step li

clapper, ms. yates still committed to appearing. >> it has nothing to do with them.urage others to come forward. i have to go vote. stuart: that was devin nunes, the republican chair of the house intelligence committee. my reading of that press conference that he added more vindication for president trump who has alleged that it trump tower was bugged after the election. i think that news conference backed up that vindication of president trump. mr. nunes went on to say that the fbi director, james comey, will be testifying before the full committee. now liz has some reasons to why that is important. liz: let's be clear. fbi director james comey testified there was no evidence to support donald trump's tweet that obama tapped his phone. what comey did not say was basically, was there surveillance, was there surveillance on the trump team done about it obama administration? he did not answer that question. that is why they want, it seems talk to comey now. what is happening, this is about the transition team being surveiled, the donald trump transition team surveiled

we know that over time ms. yates was right. she stood for principle. and when multiple federal courts blocked that executive order, we understood that she appreciated the law, unlike those who crafted this terrible order. but rather than repeal the executive order or defend it in court, the trump administration is trying to evade these legal challenges by issuing a new version with some tweaks. the original executive order banned travelers to the united states from seven muslim-majority countries. the president heard the plea about this ban on muslim travelers. he issued a new order today which doesn't ban travelers from seven muslim-majority countries, but only six. this is still, nevertheless, an attack on religious freedom that risks alienating hundreds of millions of muslims across the world. our focus should be on people with suspected links to terrorism. the president will have no resistance from this congress from either side of the aisle if he goes after actual suspects of terrorism. but this should be done regardless of the suspect's religion.