mr. mcgann. we met in his office at the white house, which was a skiff, so we could discuss classified information in his off. we began our meeting telling him that there had been press accounts of statements from the vice president and others that related conduct that mr. flynn had been involved in that we knew not to be the truth. as i tell you what happened here, i'm going to be very careful not to reveal -- >> the reason it wasn't true is because you collected intelligence from an incidental collection system is. that fair to say? >> i can't answer that. that would call for me to reveal classified information. >> let me ask you this. did anybody make a request to unclassified the russian information and mr. flynn -- >> i can't answer that question -- >> there clapper, do you know if that is the case? >> i don't. >> is there a way to find that out? >> in another setting it can be discussed. >> but there's a record somewhere that would make a request to unmask the conversation with general flyn

mr. mcgann. we met with his office at the white house so we could discuss classified information in his office. we began our meeting telling him that there had been press accounts of statements from the vice president and others that related conduct that mr. flynn had been involved in, that we knew not to be the truth. and as i tell you what happened here, again i'm going to be very careful not to reveal classified information. >> the reason you knew it was true because you had collected some intelligence from an incidental collection system, is that fair to say? >> i can't answer that because that again would call for me to reveal classified information. >> did anyone ever make a theest to unmask relationship between national and mr. clapper do you know if that was the case? >> i don't. >> is there a way to find that out? >> well, in another setting it could be discussed. >> but there is a record somewhere of who would make a request to unmask the conversation with general flynn and the russian

mr. mcgann that the underlying conduct was problemate it in and of itself. secondly, we told him we felt like the vice president and others were entitled to know that the information that they were conveying to the american people wasn't true. and additionally, that we weren't the only ones that knew all of this. that the russians also knew about what general flynn had done, and the russians also knew that general flynn had misled the vice president and others. and that created a compromise situation a situation where the national security adviser essentially could be blackmailed by the russians. >> sally yates was also questioned several times today about the reactions she got from all of this from white house counse veteran.c. lawyeron mcgahn. >> i have a question that keeps annoying me that mr. mcgann asked of you, is there wrong with one white house official lying to ather whi hou official? >> to be fair to mr. mcgann, i wouldn't say he said is there anything wrong, his question was more what's it to the justice department if one official is lying to ano

mr. mcgann in all of american history. she goes to the white house, new president in office, and says your national security adviser can be black mailed by the russians. the next day she goes back and says it again. and what happens after that? >> load hon. >> nothing. >> hold hon one second. hold that thought. lindsey graham is speaking with our own manu raju. >> i want to know who requested the unmasking. i can't give that information to the press because you want a particular outcome. i want to know about the russian involvement in 2016 and what kind of system do we have when it comes to following people because i think it is right for abuse that a political person, if they are in the right situation, ask for an unmasking of intelligence gathering and use that information politically. i think that's clear to me that russia tried to undermine our election, so there's two fronts for me. what did russia do? was there any conclusion between the trump campaign and russians, and i want to know anything and everything about th

mr. mcgann. we met at his office in the white house so we could discuss classified information in his office. we began our meeting telling him there had been press accounts of statements from the vice president and others that related conduct that mr. flynn had been involved in that we knew not to be the truth. as i tell you what happened, i'm going to be very careful not to reveal -- >> the reason you knew wasn't true is because you had collected some jernls if an incidenceal collection system? >> i can't answer that. that would call fore to reveal classified information. >> did anyone ever make request to unnascar conversation between russian ambassador and mr. flynn? >> again, senator. i can't answer a question like that. it calls for classified information. >> do you know that that's the case? >> i don't. >> is there a way to find out? >> well, in another setting it could be discussed. >> there is a record somewhere of who would make request to unmask the conversation with general flynn and t

mr. mcgann. he said his question what is it to the justice department if one white house official is lying to another white house official? why is that something the department of justice would be lying about and we went back through the reasons why it was important to us. >> do you think there was reason to be concerned if one white house official was lying to another official? >> to the extent that you may be talking about 1001 violation that's not something we were alluding to or discussing with mr. mcgann. i think his point when he 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 the

mr. mcgann asked me whether or not mr. flynn should be fired? said that was not my call but thought it was critical we get this information to the white house. in part because the vice president was unknowingly making false statements to the public and because we believed general flynn was compromised with respect to the russians. to state the obvious you don't want your national security advisor compromised with the russians. >> in the hearing, still unanswered including whether there was any evidence the trump campaign actually colluded with the russians. >> miss yates, do you have any evidence, are you aware of any evidence that would suggest in the 2016 campaign anybody in the trump campaign colluded with the russian government or intelligence services in an improper fashion? >> senator, my answer to that question would require me to reveal classified information so i can't answer that. >> well, i don't get that because he just said he issued the report and he said he doesn't know of any. so what would you know that's not in the report? >> i

mr. mcgann demonstrated he understand this was serious. will so he took it seriously. i don't have anyway 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, up until "the washington post" published information that made it clear that he had been lying to the vice president? >> i was gone after the 30th. so i wouldn't know if any steps had been communicated to the department of justice. 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 department of justice and if i was under the impression that nothing was done, yes, i would have raised it with the white house. >> thank you. >> mrs. yates, dr. clapper, thank you for your years of service t

mr. mcgann certainly demonstrated on the 26th and 27th that this was serious so he did seem to be taking this 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 concerning. >> so you don't know whether they took any 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 so i wouldn't know if any steps had been communicated to the department of justice, but i was not aware of any, no. >> had you not been summarily 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. >> well, it's a bit of a hypothetical. had i remained at the department of justice and if i were under the impression that nothing had been done, then, yes, are would i have raised it again with the white h

mr. mcgann here, wouldn't say he said there is anything wrong. his question was more essentially what is it to the justice department if one white house official is lying to another?ho in other words, what is this something that doj would be concern about. and that is why we went back through the list of issues and reasons why this was troubling to us. >> did you think there was legal reason to be concern if one white house official lied to another white house official? >> we didn't go into that, and to the extent you may be talking about, like a 1001 violation that is not something we were we alludedded to or discussing. his point when he made that point to me was that he wasn't sure why the department ofti justice would care about one lying to another. not to be discussing whether that was in fact a crime. >> the reason you told him what what? >> again, it was whole lot more than one white house official lying to another. first of all it was the vice president of the united states.e un and the vice president had been gone out and then provided

mr. mcgann. i think his point when he 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 earlier i believe that mr. mcgann asked you if you thought they should fire general flinn at that point. >> right. >> what was your response? >> i told him it was not our call as to whether general flinn was fired. that we were giving them this information so they could take action. the action they believed was appropriate. senator durbin: on february 14 after general flinn resigned, sean spicer said, and

mr. mcgann asked me whether or not general flynn should be fired and i told him that was in our call.e were giving them this information so they could take action host. host: that was sally yates yesterday in her high-profile hearing. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. post" notes -- both men described the meeting as less of a warning and more of a heads up about an issue involving flynn. yates emphasized how concerned she was about flynn's situation. president trump tweeting out his reaction yesterday to sell units -- to sally yates' testimony. she said nothing but old news. later saying that russia-trump collusion story is a hoax. paul is up first in new york. independent. good morning. caller: good morning. generallye democrats with the accommodation of the news media that are sympathetic to them are just trying to create as much doubt and uncertainty about the trump administration as possible. there's nothing else they can do. they are out of power just about everywhere. program is just to keep stirring the pot and try to convince the p

mr. mcgann was trying get to the bottom of it. i don't know any way of knowing. >> he said he wanted to and you tried set that up. >> that's right. about surveillance. this is very important. an american citizen cannot be surveiled in the united states for colluding with a foreign government unless you have a warrant. is that a true statement. law? >> that's right. >> is it fair to say that incidental collection occurs even in the united states? >> that's correct as well. >> so there are two sbagss we would have found out what general flynn said to the are russian ambassador. if there was a fisa warrant focused on him, was there? >> are you asking -- >> either one of you. >> i'm not going to answerful? f he wasn't talking to the russians, we've had a hearing for no good reason. clearlily he's talking to the russians and we know about it. so if there's to fisa warrant, i'll going to find out about it, by the way. the other way is if he was incidentally surveiled. so those are the two options. do we know who unmasked the conversatio

mr. mcgann asked me whether or not general flynn should be fired and i told him that really wasn't our callem but that we were giving them this information so that they could take action. one of the questions mr. mcgann asked me when i went back over the second day was eentially why does it matter to doj if one white house official lies to another white house official? 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. and, to state the obvious, you don't want your national security adviser compromised with the russians. >> flynn was fired by the white house 18 days later, after media reports emerged about the content of flynn's conversation wts russian amba

mr. mcgann, i think the issue that he raised, that he wasn't clear on why we cared that michael flynn had lied to the vice president and others. >> i think that's so clear. i can't, and the president had told, president obama had told the incoming president-elect two days after the election, don't hire this guy. >> i don't know anything about that. >> what's we've heard. and mcgann doesn't understand what's wrong with this? then we have spicer, the press secretary saying the president was told about this. the president was told about this in late january, according to the press secretary. so now he has a guy, the former president said don't hire this guy. he is clearly compromised. he has lied to the vice president. and he keeps him on. and he lets him be in all these classified phone -- he lets him talk with putin. the president of the united states and the national security adviser sit in the oval office and discuss this with putin. is it possible that the reason that he didn't fire him then was that, well, if i fire him for talking to russians about sanctions, and if i fire, what about

mr. mcgann asked me, why does it matter to d.o.j. if one white house official lies to another white house official. we explained to him it was a 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 pareimportantly, every times lie was repeated and the disrepresentations were getting more and more specific, as they were coming out, every time that happened, it increased the compromise. >> so, according to her, don mcgahn, why would one white house official be concerned if another lied to another. >> he was looking for the underlying crime or activity or interest of the justice department was, in a poorly phrased question, if that's the way it came in. thought being privy to the conversation, we don't really know. that's her best memory of it, the way the conversation started. and it sounds like he was probing to find out how serious the

mr. mcgann asked me whether or not general flynn should be fired and i told him that that really wasn't ourut that we were giving them this information so that they could take action. >> that's not a heads up. a, it's a big deal when the attorney general goes to meet with the white house counsel about somebody on the white house staff who's under fib investigation. that is a big deal in its own right. if you say nothing, just to even -- but the idea that, again, sean spicer is a political appointee, works for the president, but he says a heads up. it wasn't a heads up. this was a warning. >> in a major way her saying that some sort of action needed to be taken, they obviously didn't fire him for 18 days or accept his resignation. unclear of whether or not they did anything. did they bar him from meetings? did they bar him from briefings or anything? everyone talks sort of about loyalty and donald trump being loyal to people around him. he's also loyal to whatever set of information he has. he's not very curious in terms of finding, you know, out other information and processing that informa

mr. mcgann asked me whether or not general flynn should be fired. and i told him that really wasn't our call that was up to them. but that we were giving them this information so they could take action. and that was the first meeting. >> and the only action that the white house took was that the next day don mcgann asked sally yates to come back to the white house to discuss the same subject again. >> 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 their taking action might interfere with an investigation of mr. flynn. and the fourth topic was his request to see the underlying evidence. >> sally yates then recounted each one of those elements of the second meeting in detail. the one that stunned most of the senators was the white house counsel not understanding why it was a problem that the na

mr. mcgann asked me how did he and i declined to give him an answer. >> she said february 24th. she meant january 24th is our understanding. did the president know of the i have the when he asked comey to dinner and he met with comey? is that why he met with comey in the first place? that's one of the unanswered questions. yesterday my colleague lester holt -- >> he wanted to have dinner because he wanted to stay on. i said i'll consider it. we'll see what happens. >> at the same time. he wanted to know what comey might have on him. >> i actually asked him, yes. i said if it is possible, would you let me know, am i under investigation? i said you are not under investigation. >> the president's claim that comey told him he was not under investigation is now being disputed by fbi officials. but folks birgs the president's own he accounts he essentially sent comey two messages. your job isn't safe and what do you have on me? it raises the question, it was president trying to interfere in the investigation or simply intimidate comey or both? i'm joined by kelly o'donnell, pete willi

mr. mcgann that the underlying conduct that general flynn had engaged in was problematic in and of itself. the russians also knew about what general flynn had done. and the russians also knew that general flynn had misled the vice president and others. that created a compromise situation. a situation where the national security adviser essentially could be blackmailed by the russians. >> so she said she was very direct about it. why do you think, senator, that president trump did not fire flynn when the white house learned of this concern? >> well, you probably if you're in the white house want to do a little bit of due diligence before you instantly fire someone over a report like this, but there's no indication, because of sally yates herself having been fired, that the white house ever went to the department of justice and actually did any of that due diligence. and moreover, while you're doing your due diligence, presumably, you want to take precautions about a potentially turned and compromised national security adviser by restricting his access to classified information and very sen

mr. mcgann that the underlying conduct that general flynn had engaged in was problematic in and of itself. >> what was that underlying conduct? we do not know what mike flynn's underlying conduct was that led to this urgent concern by the department. a trip to the white house to say you've got a problem here. we do not know what his underlying conduct was according to the justice department but we know the justice department has it. they've got it. whatever it is. at that same hearing yesterday, the former director of national intelligence also said a couple of things that could have made the white house shiver its timbers over the last 24 hours. james clapper testified that when he previously asserted that he had seen no evidence of collusion between the trump campaign and russia, he says he was saying -- he wasn't saying there was no such evidence, that there was no evidence of collusion, said he was speaking from ignorance. he'd been wald off from. he didn't know about the ongoing i counterintelligence investigation of that matter when he made that previous statement. to the extent the

i remember that mr mcgann asked me whether or not general flynn should be fired and i told him that reallyhite house on monday confirmed that president obama also warned donald trump about general flynn shortly after the election, although that advice appears to have been ignored. president obama made it known that it wasn't exactly a fan of general flynn's, which frankly shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, given the general flynn had worked for president obama, was an outspoken critic of president obama's shortcomings. on twitter, president trump was defensive, writing... thank you both, hearing is adjourned. after three hours, sally yates‘ testimony raised as many questions as answers. among them, why did president trump continue to protect general flynn, despite high—level warnings national security could be at risk? we are going to take you live now to york, because the prime minister theresa may is campaigning there today. as we now put the local elections behind us and focus on what patrick has rightly said is a crucial general election in just 30 days' time. and we must take abs

mr. mcgann asked me when i went over the second day was essentially why does it matter to doj if one white white house official? so we explained to him it was a whole lot more than that and went back over the same concerns that we 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 plic had been misled, and 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. to state the obvious, you don't want your national security advisor compromised with the russians. >> joining us, member of the foreign relations committee democratic senator chris murphy of connecticut. here onset, former chief justice department spokesperson, now an msnbc justice and security analyst matthew miller. >> let's start with chris murphy. chris, has there ever been a president from the state of connecticut? >> stop it. leave him alone. >> that's a great intro. no, i don't think ther

don mcgann 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 warning. 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 late sharing the transition team, 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 cross hairs of multiple investigation, flynn's lawyers yet to see russia's interference in the 2016 campaign. >> we'll figure out on general flynn what the next step is. president trump is de

mcgann. >> i think that's right, yes. >> thank you. onto the 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 before wlom 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 and there's nothing there. do i have the order correctly there. >> right, they came to me, briefed me on what they could see from the metadata. why it was significant. they thought they ought to seek a search warrant. wanted my an probable to do that. i agreed, authorized it, so did the department of justice. making sure i get the numbers right. during data following week, they reviewed 40,000 e-mails. i understated how many they reviewed and found 3,000 of them were work related and came from blackberry backups and a bunch of other things.

mr. flynn had been involved in that we knew not to be the truth. >> but more than the question of lying and what was the truth and what was not the truth, yates said to don mcgann that was she concerned about potential of compromise with the russians. that is if he had not been telling the truth inside the white house the russians would know that and could potentially use it against him. here's how she explained that piece of it. >> compromise was certainly the number one concern. and the russians can use compromise material, information, in a variety of ways. sometimes overtly, sometimes subtly. again, our concern was that you have a very sensitive position, like the national security adviser, you don't want that person to be in a position where again the russians have leverage over him. >> in many ways this was a tale of two hearing hearings. for democrats, the focus was on the 18-day gap between that meeting and when general flynn was ultimately fired by the trump white house avenfter deta leaked out to the media. democrats want to know why did it take so long for donald trump to fire him after lying to the president and potentially compromised for the russi