mr. mcgahn. i think his point when he made that -- made that point to me was that he wasn't sure why the department of justice would care about one lying to another. not to be discussing whether that was, in fact, a crime. >> and the reason you told him was what? >> was that, again, it was a whole lot more than one white house official lying to another. first of all, it was the vice president of the united states, and the vice president had then gone out and provided that information to the american people who had then been misled and the russians knew all of this, making mike flynn compromised now. >> you said it earlier, i believe, that mr. mcgahn asked you if they thought they should fire general flynn with that point. >> right. >> and what was your response? >> told him it was not our call as to whether general flynn was fired, that we were giving them this information so that they could take action. the action that they believed was appropriate. >> on february 14th after general flynn resign

mr. mcgahn, you said there were four topics he wanted to discuss. would you list those four topics. >> sure, the first topic in the second meeting was essentially why does it matter to doj if one white house official lies to another. the second topic related to the applicability of criminal statutes and the likelihood that the department of justice would pursue a criminal case. the third topic was his concern that they are taking action might interfere with an investigation of mr. flynn. and the fourth topic was his request to see the underlying evidence. >> were all those topics satisfied with respect to your impression after the second meeting? >> yes, the only thing that was really left open there was the logistics for us to be able to make arrange thes for us to look at the underlying evidence. >> you did make those arrangements. >> we did. but again, i don't know whether that ever happened. whether they looked at that evidence or not. >> fair enough. apparently, lieutenant general flynn remain national security adviser for 18 days. after you ra

mr. mcgahn asked of you. is there anything wrong with one white house official lying to another white house official? >> to be fair to mr. mcgahn here, i wouldn't say he said is there anything wrong. his question was more what's it to the justice department department if one official is lying to another official. in other words, why is this something that d.o.j. would be concerned about. that's when we went back through the list of issues and things that were troubling to us. >> the white house counsel did not understand why the department of justice was concerned. >> to be fair to mr. mcgahn, i think the issue he raised, that he wasn't clear on was why we cared that michael flynn had lied to the vice president and others. why that was a matter essentially -- >> i think that's clear. >> within d.o.j. jurisdiction. >> i think that's so clear. and we have mcgahn doesn't understand what's wrong with this? >> yates was also asked about any evidence she may have seen that the trump campaign was colluding with russ

mr. mcgahn certainly demonstrated that he understood this was serious. so he did seem to be taking it seriously. i don't have any way of knowing what if anything they did. if nothing was done, then certainly that would be concerning. >> so you don't know whether they took any steps to restrict his access to classified information to investigate him further? >> again, i was gone after the 30th. i wouldn't know if any steps has been communicated to the department of justice, but i was not aware of any, no. >> had you not been fired, would you have recommended to the white house counsel that they begin further investigations into the national security adviser or that they restrict his access to sensitive and classified information? >> it's a bit of a hypothetical. had i remained at the justice department, and if i were under the impression that nothing had been done, then yes, i would have raised it again with the white house. >> had i still been there and they done nothing to act on this i gave them, i would have raised it. if nothing was done, certainly t

mr. mcgahn and we met at a consecutive to discuss classified information. we began our meeting telling him there had been press accounts of statements from the vice president and others that related to conduct that mr. flynn had been involved in that we knew not to be truth. i'm going to be very careful not to dr senator graham: you had collected intelligence from a intelligence -- let me ask you this. did anybody make a request to unmask the conversation between the russian ambassador and from flynn. do you know if that was the case? mr. clapper: i don't. senator graham: is there a way to find that out. but there is a record somewhere that would make a request to unmask the conversation between general flynn ap the russian ambassador? mr. clapper: i can comment in the case of 02 requests, yes, those are documented . senator graham: this is important to me. how did the conversation between the russian ambassador and mr. flynn make it to the "washington post"? mr. clapper: that's a great question. i would like to know that and i on't know the answer that. se

mr. mcgahn. i think his point when he made that point to me was that he wasn't sure why the departmentio of justice would care about one line to another, not to be discussing whether that was, in fact, a crime. >> the reason you told it was i what? >> was that, again it was a whole lot more than one white house official line to another. personal it was the vice president of the united states and the vice president have been gone out and provide that information to the american people who had then been misledn and the russians knew all of this, making mike flynn compromised now. m >> you said it earlier i believe that mr. mcgahn asked you if you thought they should fire general flynn at that point. what was your response? >> told it was not our call as to whether general flynn was fired. that we were giving them this information so they could take action, the action they believee was appropriate. >> on federal 14th after general flynn resigned, seanas spicer said, quote, there was nothing in what

mr. mcgahn asked me when i went back over the second day was essentially why does it matter to doj if one white house official lies to another white house official? and so we explained it was a whole lot more than that. there was a request made by mr. mcgahn in the second meeting as to whether or not they would be able to look at the underlying evidence that we had. i called him first thing monday morning to let him know that we would allow them to come over and review the underlying evidence. he had to call me back, he was not available then and i do not hear back until that afternoon of monday the 30th. >> and that was the end of this episode? nobody came over to look at the material? >> i don't know what happened after that because that was my last day with doj. >> dana, what do you make of the white house responses to this controversy so far? >> it's impossible, craig. to know what the response was. sally yates was saying she didn't see any response that she could speak of during the time she was there but she was fired four days later in the whole travel ban imbroglio. it's been note

mr. mcgahn asked me when i went back over the second day was essentially, why does it matter to doj if one white house official lies to another white house official? and so we explained to him it was a whole lot more than that and went back over the same concerns that we had raised with them the prior day, that the concern first about the underlying conduct, itself, that he had lied to the vice president and others, the american public had been misled and then importantly that every time this lie was repeated, and the misrepresentations were getting more and more specific as they were coming out, every time that happened, it increased the compromise. >> okay. so, according to her, white house cgahn, asked why would the doj be concerned if one white house official lied to another? is that the right question to be asking? >> well, it's an odd question. looks like he was searching for what the underlying crime or activity or interest of the justice department was in a poorly phrased question. if it's the way it came in. but not being privy to the conversation we don't really know. that's her

mr. mcgahn called me back and asked me if i could come back to his office. so i went back with the official and there were four topics he wanted to discuss and one was precisely that. he asked about the applicability of criminal statutes -- >> this is the second meeting at the white house counsel's office in his office again? >> in his office again. >> with the same two individuals. >> exactly. >> on the following day. >> right. >> and you went back pursuant to a phone call request or a -- was -- >> yes, the morning of the 27th after our meeting occurred on the afternoon of the 26th, the morning of the 27th mr. mcgahn called me and asked me if i could come back to the white house to discuss this further and we set up a time and i went over there that afternoon bringing the same career official with me from the national security division who was overseeing this investigation. he had the same associate from the white house counsel's office and we talked through four to five more issues. >> you could perhaps have waited until you actually had seen the agents 30

mr. mcgahn got it. he knew it was serious and importance. >> just last week, president trump continued to insist he didn't believe sally yates had been informing them of an emergency. >> you made the decision -- >> this is an interview he gave to nbc news. >> my white house counsel came back to me and did not sound like an emergency of -- didn't make it sound like he was -- she actually didn't make it sound that way either in the hearings the other day. like it had to be done immediately. this man has served for many years. he is a general. in my opinion, a very good person. i believe that it would be very unfair to hear from somebody who we don't even know and immediately run out and fire a general. >> she's the acting attorney general at the time. >> president trump said about your meeting with the white house counsel, he said my white house counsel came back to me and did not sound like an emergency. he also said, she actually didn't make it -- meaning you. she didn't make it sound that way either in

mr. mcgahn is the president -- mr. macron is the president-elect. we don't have a pyramid to help out. washington has some fairly impressive monuments. >> you do not have a pyramid, we can work on that. macron will be speaking very, very shortly. it was quite somber, and sort of -- >> stoic. guest andour esteemed important question. can i mention multiculturalism? president not reach out to this or that community, but can there be a whole fan -- france? i ask this particularly for disaffected youth of the country. >> what emmanuelle macron tells members of the minority -- members macron tells of the is that france can win, they can also be winners. they want to integrate into french society, and they want to start their own business, and what to be part of this segment of society. he says we are a country in europe with the biggest number that we areo say slowly dying, and he is the candidate of the other part of the country who says no, and there are some very, very fine people in france, exporting aods and i think that is significant part of voter

mr. mcgahn, that the underlying conduct that mr. flynn ebb gaungaged in was problematic in itself.felt that the vice president and others needed to know that the information they were conveying to the american people wasn't true. we wanted to make it really clear right out of the gate, we were not accusing vice president pence of knowingly providing false information to the american people. >> susan, when sally yates testified that the underlying conduct -- that's in quotes. underlying conduct of michael flynn was problematic, was more than just him lying to the vice president, that's key, right? >> this seems like an old story at this point. but we forget this actually -- president trump wasn't president yet. this is in the transition period. in this period of time, we have a one president at a time rule. it's considered highly inappropriate, if not a te technical valation of the logan act, to have the communications with a foreign government. that's one element of why the underlying contact is problematic. the other piece is, the substantive offer, right? why was the trump admini

mr. mcgahn had additional issues he wanted to discuss. but there was nothing unclear about the first meeting. >> can you tell us what they are? >> there were three or four things he raised. why does t.o.j. care if one white house lies to another white house dolph. we walked through that it was really a whole lot more than just one white house official lying to other another. >> this is the vice president being lied to, who toll the american people. >> exactly. and we explained the compromise this created again. we walked back through all of those things. that's why the department of justice was involved. it was a national security threat? >> absolutely. >> the seriousness of her warning isn't the only significant discrepancy between yates and the white house. she says she made the evidence, investigators gathered on flynn, available to the white house, january 30th. that's not what the white house daze. >> the white house didn't get k access until the 22nd. >> you wanted the white house to act? >> yes. we expected the white house to act.

mr. mcgahn that the underlying conduct that general flynn had engaged in was problematic in and of itself>> on january 24th, you just testified that national security adviser flynn was interviewed by the fbi about his underlying conduct and that the underlying conduct was problematic because it led to the collusion the vice president was relying on falsehoods. what was that underlying conduct? >> again, i hate to frustrate you again, but i think i'm going to have to because my knowledge of his underlying conduct is based on classified information, and so i can't reveal what that underlying conduct is. >> she will not reveal what the underlying conduct with, but she says that she explained to the white house that aside from separate apart from him lying to other white house officials and the vice president, the underlying conduct of general flynn was itself problematic. do we know what this is? dune of do you know what this is and we're not allowed to know? >> i'm under the same limitation that sally yates is. it stood out to me because most people i think viewing this have taken a certain

mr. mcgahn certainly demonstrated that he understood that this was serious. so he did seem to be taking it seriously. you know, i don't have any way of knowing what, if anything, they did. if nothing was done, then certainly that would be concernconcern concernsconcern concerning. >> so you don't know whether they took steps to restrict his access to classified information, to investigate him further up and until the "washington post" published information that made it clear that he had been lying to the vice president? >> no. again, i was gone after the 30th. >> further investigations into the national security adviser or that they restrict his access to sensitive and classified information. >> well, it's a bit of a hypothetical. had i remained at the department of justice and if i were under the impression tha nothing has ben done, yes, i would have raised it again with the white house. >> thank you, miss yates. thank you. >> miss yates, director clapper, thank you both for your years of service to the american people. miss yates, i want to start with you.

mr. mcgahn asked me if general flynn should be fired in a said that wasn't our call. >> reporter: republicans on the committee expressed concern to yates and james clapper former director of national intelligence under president obama that private data about campaign officials was swept up. >> did either of you request the unmasking of mr. trump, his associates or any member of congress? >> yes. in one case i did. >> reporter: clapper admitted he asked to unmask or reveal the identities of campaign associates in classified documents, but insisted trump's team was not the target. >> my target and the foreign targets blafr in relation to the u.s. person. >> reporter: lindsey graham left with unanswered questions. >> i want to know who was surveilled in this country as a presidential campaign. i want to know how incidental surveillance works. i want to know who was unmasked if there was an unmasking of general flynn. >> reporter: graham praised yates for her actions but she was fired by the white house when she refused to defend the president's travel ban, for you days after she warned them abou

mr. mcgahn, you said there were four topics he wanted to discuss. would you list those four topics? >> sure. the first topic in the second meeting was essentially why doesn't matter to doj if one white house official lies to another? the second topic related to the applicability of criminal statutes and the likelihood that department of justice would pursue a criminal case. the third topic was his concern that they are taking action might interfere with an investigation of mr. flynn. and the fourth topic was hisis request to see the underlying evidence. >> were all those topics satisfied with respect to your t impression after the second meeting? >> yes. it only thing was really left open was the logistics, for us to be able to make arrangements for them to look at the underlying evidence. >> and he did make those arrangements? >> we did, but again i don't know whether that ever happened to them whether ever looked at that evidence were not. >> there enough.idence -- there enough. apparently lieutenant general f flynn remained national security advisor for 18 days come after you rai

in his talk with mcgahn, mr.ould not work in an environment where facts were not accurately reported. well, that's where he is. and forgive me, but, you know, the past couple of days with the chaos going on in washington, d.c., and with republicans caving into this man and not standing up to him, i actually went back and i read -- i'm reading again russell kirk's "the conservative mind." and forgive me again, but it's appropriate. in the foreword russell kirk says it is now an affair of a generation of the future which in its ensemble is incapable of discerning truth from lies, the true from the false, the good from the bad. this is the time of the harvest for the kingdom of man. and that is exactly what russell kirk in 1953 predicted would happen if we moved towards a more secularized autocratic government. and it's happening right now in realtime. >> in realtime. >> 70 years later. >> it really is, on so many levels that it's staggering. and it's beyond troubling. president trump addressed why the letter in whi

don mcgahn weeks before he was under federal investigation for secretly working for a paid lobbyist for turkey during the campaign. the white house says the story is flat wrong. despite the warning, mr. trump named flynn to name the national security team granting him access to the deepest secrets before firing him three weeks later. sharing the transition team, vice president elect mike pence who to this day maintains he was unaware of flynn's ties to turkey. >> let me say, hearing that story today was the first i heard of it. >> reporter: tonight an administration said saying if he knew and didn't tell pence, it's malpractice or intentional and either is unacceptable. and within trump's inner circle, an official says the trump family had a blind spot when it came to flynn, who was rewarded for his loyalty to the president. four law enforcement officials tell nbc news flynn and former campaign chairman paul manafort are key figures with multiple grand jury subpoenas that and requests during the last six months. in the crosshairs of multiple investigations, flynn's lawyers yet to offer documents showing russia's interference in the 2016 campaign. >> we'll figure out on general flynn

mcgahn. that conversation another 12 days later between lawyers shows the trump team knew about the investigation of mrearlier than has been previously reported. march 9 when the story came out, i asked the vice president about it. the story today that former national security advisor michael flynn has filed with the department of justice has a foreign agent for making more than $500,000 as a lobbyist essentially for turkey, your reaction, considering, doesn't that mean, mr. vice president, that even if he didn't lie to you about the russian investors said or didn't say, you what i had to fire him anyway. >> well, let me say, hearing the story today was the first i heard of it. >> bret: you are disappointed by the story? >> the first i heard of it and i think it's an affirmation of the president's decision to ask general flynn to resign. >> bret: the vice president's office says he sticks by that answer. >> information in "the new york times" is coming from somewhere. i don't know who their sources are but i can only assume their sources are general flynn's team. he's in a situation where he is in pote

mcgahn. >> that is right. >> onto the anthony weiner laptop. as i understand it, you were informed by agents in the fbi office that there was potentially related or relevant information in mr. weiner's laptop. on the basis of that information, you then sent a letter to the members of congress before whom you had committed to answer if there were any changes in the status of things. you also then authorized the agents to pursue a search warrant which then gave them access to the content which allowed them to do the search that you then said came up with nothing so that you could then undo the letter and say, actually, we took a look, there is nothing there. do i have the order correctly there? >> right here they came to me and briefed me on what they could see from that metadata, why it wasn't significant. they thought they should seek a search warrant, wanted my approval to do that, i agreed, authorized it, so did the department of justice, then they reviewed, just making sure i get the numbers right. during the following week, they reviewed 40,000 emails. i understated how many they reviewed, and found 3,000 of them were work-related. and came from blackberry backups and