sally yates the acting attorney general. james clapper, the former director of national intelligence. john brennan, the former cia director both of whom served during the obama administration. we are anticipating that hearing today, but you're absolutely right, it was canceled. the other hearing was canceled, that of mike rogers and james comey. we'll see if they are rescheduled. jeff, let me get back to you because we're standing by for this press briefing. sean spicer getting ready to answer reporters questions. i assume a lot of the focus will be on russia, the investigation. other issues coming up as well. stand by. i think spice ser about to start. >> are you done? okay. thank you. i appreciate that. i know the pool is gathering at 1:30 so i'm going to try to keep this on the shortened. this morning there was a listening session with the attorney general to discuss law enforcement issues related to violence. the fraternal order of police is the larger organization of law enforcement officers. they represent those who de

let's start with sally yates. you have the top democrat on intel raising questions about what went on there, because she sought permission, could she not have gotten it? difference of opinion of what she should or shouldn't have discussed, we'll leave that to jeffrey toobin. looking at the timeline, what is devin nunes as the chairman's role in all of this? >> again, totally unclear right now because he hasn't been very open about what he learned and where he's going to go with it. in fact, we talk about how a lot of democrats are upset with devin nunes, but here are quotes from three republicans this morning. john mccain, speaking of chairman nunes -- "he has a lot of explaining to do." susan collins, another republican senator -- "i believe our senate investigation has more credibility than the house." senator lindsey graham on another network says "i think he has to repair the damage. my belief is that the house is off track and probably can't get back on track." so, when you talk about sally yates, the idea th

sally yates to testify. i think that starts pealing the onion away from why devin nunes didn't want her to appear. i've been told from multiple sources that she did not go to see the white house counsel just to give him a heads up about flynn's communications as had been said by reince priebus and sean spicer. but in fact she went over to say she had significant concerned about an issue of compromised and that he may have been compromised and then we have to ask the question about after she went to the white house why did it take so long for them to finally decide they were going to fire general flynn only after the washington post had revealed in a story about his communication only after it became public. >> see in real time a house intelligence committee essentially break down. even their regular meetings have stopped. >> it's amazing. and we've heard the same thing and that sally was going to get up there. sally was going to get up there and talk about conversations they had in the white house about flyn

topping our agenda right now, sally yates. >> i hope she testifies. i look forward to it. >> the former acting attorney general was supposed to testify today in an investigation into russia's meddling in the election until her hearing was canceled. we will take you through what we know at this hour. also on the agenda, the status of chairman devin nunez. >> he has to step down. even if it were only the appearance of what he has done. >> it's not just the issue of sally yates. every hearing of the house intelligence committee this week on russian meddling has been canceled as chairman devin nunez faces calls from democrats and even some concerns from republicans now to step down about his leadership of that committee. can he survive? also this hour, debate and switch. >> we've never had anything like this happen in any of our elections before. >> that was a great pivot off the fact that she wants open boarders. >> we never had anything like this happen in any of our elections before. >> ta was a great pivot off the fact that he wants open boarders. >>

you know sally yates.elieve would have happened today if that hearing had happened as it was supposed to? >> don, i don't think there is any question at all that the white house does not want sally yates to testify. they may say they do. i heard spicer today say they would be happy to testify. there's no credibility coming out of the executive branch right now. i think also when you think about it you're likely to hear that president trump's vindication has turned into implication. the worst thing that can happen from a lawyer's point of view is for your client to get caught up in somebody else's wiretap. that's what it sounds like has happened here. somebody in the trump team either in the transition team or the executive branch now is probably caught up in a tap. i don't think there's any question they did not want her to testify. i'm not surprised to hear him say, oh, we're all for it. i think probably a week or so now when the hearing gets rescheduled you'll start to hear things from white house lawyer

spicer toward the beginning of the debrief saying he hopes that sally yates does, in fact, testify and also saying that it was 100% false that we stood in the way of ex-acting attorney general yates. rick tyler, political analyst, going to get hooked up and talk to us as well. ari, start with you, we probably need to sift through a little bit of what we're talking about here and go back to friday when reportedly it was sail sally yates' attorney who sent the letter saying she would be testifying about, you know, general flynn and russia but would not be revealing any sort of state secrets so to speak. that same day, congress nan nunez, who runs the intel committee, cancels her hearing. >> that's correct, craig, and raised a lot of questions. there was a lot in this press conference on russia. two points jumped out. number one the point you raised of sean spicer saying the president uses russian salad dressing and people call for a russian connection. perhaps a light hearthed point convinces someone of what the white house feels they're asked about this, point two, questions being raise

published, there secretary, the justice department wrote to the law firm rep zebti representing sally yates. let me read a couple sentences from that letter. ms. yates seeks authorization to testify about communications she and a senior department official had with the office of the counsel to the president. such communications are likely covered by the presidential communications privilege and possibly the deliberative process privilege. the president owns those prif lemgs. therefore, to the extent ms. yates needs consent to disclose details of those communications to hpsci, she needs to consult with the white house. the whus did not exert executive privilege and would have let her testify. her testimony, had the hearing not been cancelled. explain the idea of executive privilege to viewers. what's at issue here? >> well with be there is something called executive privilege where communications between members of an administration and the president are protected under this executive privilege rule. it seems clear that somebody raised the issue of executive privilege. however, the press sec

people feel sally yates will testify under some arrangement. right now, it feels like sand bagging both ways. it looks like the republicans can't get their gist at the white house. they can't get their stories straight. >> devlin, what could sally yates say? >> i have been told that sally yates is obviously key point of interest. what was the conversation with the white house when she warned them about the issue of possible bla blackmail of michael flynn because his statements regarding his contact was the russian ambassador did not match up with what was picked up about the conversations. i'm told that some of the what she would say and as patrick pointed out, what will be said some way. some of the white house statements of the conversation are not correct. >> that sounds important. that sounds like something would be helpful to hear if it hasn't been cancelled. >> thes white hou white house t frame sally yates, not the white house, but republicans as barack obama holdover. she will be able to go to the hill and say this is what we saw. >> le

we moved off of sally yates' testimony.were talking about concern that some in the legal community and department of justice that sally yates -- >> you should understand, that is very uncommon. the trump administration, the bush administration, going back to the clinton administration, they hold these privileges jealously. >> for people that don't follow this closely, that's conversations that are taking place in the white house, the president has to be able to feel that conversations he's been having with people. >> ever since george washington and the jay treaty, the president has said we need some confidentiality. and nixon supreme court, really recognized that in a substantive way, and say, yes, there's this executive privilege not in the constitution, there's a lot of am bbiguit ambiguity. and the precise thing that yates was doing is investigating. when you have a prosecutor, which she was, talks about an ongoing investigation, it raises a question about fairness. for civil attorneys like myself, we tend to fall in th

there was talk about sally yates. you mentioned this at the top. story was this morning that the white house was trying to block sally yates from testifying before the house intelligence committee and revealing some privileged information. that would be information that went back and forth between the white house, specifically information about deliberations. well, when you take a look at the letters that were sent between attorneys for sally yates, the department of justice, attorneys for sally yates and the white house, it tells a different story. i managed to obtain these letters. there's a specific clause in these letters at the end where sally yates attorney has been asking about whether or not they can get permission to put out this privileged information in the intelligence committee. the attorney writes, quote, if we do not receive a response by monday, march 27th at 10 a.m. i will conclude the white house does not assert executive privilege over these matters. well, the white house didn't respond, so the attorneys did not hear back, theref

sally yates can shed important light on that. i think for that reason the white house does not want her to testify. let's bring her in. let's hear what she has to say. >> today's open hearing was postponed by chairman nunes along with a closed hearing with fbi director comey, nsa director rogers. and today the "washington post" reported that the trump administration was in fact seeking to block sally yates from testifying on russia at all. the post report details the back and forth through both letters and meetings between the justice department and yates' own attorneys. the doj reportedly considers, quote, her public testimony including on the firing of former national security adviser michael flynn for his contacts with the russian ambassador to be offlimits in a congressional hearing because the topics are covered by attorney-client privilege or the presidential communication privilege. critical wording there. yates and her attorneys argue that the administration waved any privilege because of past white house statements and p

adam schiff is talking about the cancelation of the hearing and sally yates' testimony. f saying today's meeting would have provided the opportunity for sal ly yates to testify. congressman schiff says we're aware she intended to speak on these matters. he says whether the white house' desire to avoid a public claim of executive privilege contributed to the cancelation of the hearing we don't know. he wants it to be rescheduled and for yates to testify. >> that's the talking point they were looking for. they were handed a giant golden package. >> we'll take a quick break. we're waiting for house speaker paul ryan. we are told any second. we're hoping that's good information because there are a lot of questions for him. we'll be back right after this break. card from capital one. with it, i earn unlimited 2% cash back on all of my purchasing. and that unlimited 2% cash back from spark means thousands of dollars each year going back into my business... which adds fuel to my bottom line. what's in your wallet? >>> breaking news. house speaker paul ryan addressing reporters.

it is sort of in that temperature that he was answering this other question about sally yates. yes, "the washington post" did publish some letters that it published from yates attorney, from the justice department to yates attorney. it does state in regard to her testimony that she would need to consult with the white house. when asked about this, when pressed on this, white house press secretary, sean spicer, denied this was any attempt by the white house to try to block sally yates from testifying before the house intelligence committee. you heard him say they welcome this testimony. if that hearing ever comes back to life, and we do expect it will, she will be testifying. the white house said they are not going to stand in the way. >> on the senate side, just to get this in for everyone watching, we heard from senator mark warner, a ranking chair on the senate side. she will testify there but no word to your point as far as the house intel committee is concerned. let me move on, because on top of all of this today, you have the republican in charge of the house intelligence c

did they try to block sally yates to testifying before the panel? the white house flatly denied seeking to block her testimony, but when pressed nunes would not discuss the administration's role. >> did the trump administration seek to have sally yates not testify before your committee? >> look, you guys are just speculating. i'm sorry, wherever there's time we'll do a presser. >> did they ask you to cancel the hearing today? >> come on, guys. i mean, why did you cancel the hearinging? >> nothing has been cancelled. >> now, on the senate side, mark warner, the top democrat wants to hear from sally yates and i asked the fame question. he did not want to discuss any witness, likely testifying under oat in a private setting and no death yet set for that very important private interview. >> manu rajjo joining us from capitol hill. joining us now, democratic congressman from california. thanks for joining us. >> good evening, wolf. >> earlier today referring to the behavior of your chairman devin nunes and you said and i'm quoting you now. this is what a

yesterday we learned that the trump administration tried to limit former deputy attorney general sally yates testimony on russian interference in the 2016 election. as reported in "the washington post," sally made threer their testimony would contradict statements made by officials at the white house. the hearing which they were to testify has now been canceled and all of us have a responsibility to ask why. if there is nothing to hide about his ties to putin's russia, then why doesn't president trump want sally yates to testify? if there is nothing to hide why does president trump continue to withhold his tks returns? if there is nothing to hide why won't president trump make public the visitors logs at mar-a-lago. we're now in day 68 of the trump administration. each day more and more information emerges about ties between putin's regime and trump's inner circle and campaign officials. each day the white house scrambles to contain the damage. it's time for the president to come clean with the american

you know sally yates.elieve would have happened today if that hearing had happened as it was supposed to? >> it's getting to the point where they told you the sun rose in the east you better go check because there's no credibility coming out of the executive branch right now. think also when you think about it you're likely to hear that president trump's vindication has turned into implication. the worst thing that can happen if you think about it from a lawyer's point of view and i've both prosecuted these cases and defended them, the worst thing is for your client to get caught up in somebody else's wiretap and that's what it sounds like has happened here. somebody in the trump team is probably caught up in a tap and i think that was set to come out. so i don't think there's any question they did not want her to testify. i'm not surprised to hear them say that oh, we're all forit. i think probably a week or so when the hearing gets rescheduled you'll start to hear things from white house lawyers say ther

closed hearing with dren director comey and the trump administration was in fact seeking to block sally yates from testifying at all. the post report details the back and forth through both letters and meetings between the justice department and yates' own attorneys. the doj considers quote her possible testimony including on the firing of national security advisor michael flynn to be off limits in a congressional hearing because the topics are covered by attorney-client privilege or the presidential privilege. key wording there. they waved any privilege because of past white house statements and she would testify unless they heard back from the white house. yates wanted to know if the white house was bluffing or serious. sean spicer responded. >> i hope she testifies. i look forward to it. the hearing was never -- was actually never notified. if they choose to move forward, great. the report in the washington post is 100% false but to suggest that we stood in the way of that is 100% false. >> this is where it comes back to chairman nunes. he is the one that canceld the hearing where we would

you have the whole sally yates part of this playing into it. where are we with this? >> we're on the verge of a constitutional crisis. why i say that is why do we let in our government people do secret things, the intelligence agencies? it's a democracy and republic and they're supposed to answer to the public, but they do many things we don't know about. the reason we let them do that is because people we elect in the legislative branch oversee these people. that's the only reason why we let them do secret things. what we see now thanks to nunes he is destroying the congressional oversight president over whether putin meddled in our election and we know he did and to see if there was any degree of encouragement between the trump campaign and moscow. you have the president tweeting out this is a hoax. i hope sean spicer gets a lot of questions about that today. it's not a hoax. why does he keep insisting this is made up? you have nunes twice running to the president's aide la last we with his bizarre press conference and then now cancelling the sally yates hearing whi

lastly, i want to make a comment on a false report regarding former acting attorney sally yates. as a matter of fact, i would like to walk you through the sequence of events to make sure everyone is abundantly clear on what happened. march 14th, chairman nunes and reiki membership invited sally yates to testify on march 28th it on march 23rd, sally yates attorney sent a letter to the department of justice asking for their consent to testify without restraint peer march 24th, the department of justice said they could only discuss those issues they were authorized to talk about and referred them to the white house but also on the 20th, the lawyer sent a letter to the white house counsel requesting that consent specifically saying if they did not receive a response by march 27th at 10:00 a.m. they would "conclude that the white house does not exert executive privilege over these matters" p the white house did not respond and took no action that prevented miss sally yates from testifying peer that is the story peer that is with the documents show. with that, i'm glad to take some que

two days later in response to a request from sally yates the justice department told her lawyer that consult with the white house about testifying. now, the day she got that letter, yates reached out to the white house were permission to testify. the white house never responded, and that very same day, nunes canceled her scheduled hearing. press secretary sean spicer said lack of evidence of a response to the letter is evidence that the white house didn't stop her testimony that to suggest in any way, shape, or form that we stood in the way of that is 100% false. >> this morning the ranking democrat on the house intelligence committee adam schiff told us he wants to hear from yates about the events that led to general flynn's removal. >>> he tweeted yesterday, car companies coming back to the u.s. jobs, jobs, jobs, extra maegs poi exclamation point. last night on the cbs evening nurs, they said it would only bring about 30% of u.s. jobs. >> job support. you saw what happened with exxon where they just announced a massive jobs program. charter communications has just committed to inve

the white house has made clear now they want sally yates to testify. we want sally yates to testify and she is fully prepared to testify, so the only obstacle is the signature of the chairman and we hope we get that. reporter: you wrote a letter first? mr. schiff: white house counsel wrote a letter to us, i think 's press secretary referred to, we received that effectively at the same time with him announcing it during the press conference and that letter invited the chair and i, in response to questions i had raised, to review these materials. but again, we have accepted. i'll go read them. i look forward to it. it is ultimately going to be necessary if the white house really wants us to answer the questions they have raised, with the full committee to look at this, not just the ranking and chair, and we need support of the agencies, because they will be the depository information about how the materials were gathered and what procedures were followed. reporter: if you do it in the same format as the chairman -- would you do it in the same format? mr.

not just sally yates, her testimony, but also john brennan.m him as well as another intelligence official at this hearing. john bren onan former obama intelligence official. that not happening. but they wanted to hear in a private briefing from james comey the fbi director and mike rogers the nsa director. also that private classified briefing will cancel today as

executive privilege, attorney/client privilege, sally yates called their bluff. put it on 3rd ro, say, you will have to send me a letter to the white house, we want a letter from you that says you can't testify. obviously, that's an uncomfortable thing for the white house to do. it looks nasty, i think that's why chairman nunes cancelled the haemplth they didn't want her to testify. >> the idea if you could send a warning letter, get them to back away, without them actually asserting executive privilege, then you sort of solved your problem without looking like you are getting someone not to testify. she called their bluff. the next thing you know, it gets cancelled. >> that is exactly right. if you look at the chronology in these letters, it is clear, sally yates' lawyer had a conversation, a meeting with the justice department before any of these letters were sent, was told by the justice department there are various privileges you could be violating to go up and talk, to be clear, it's if you go up and talk about this meeting you had where you warned the white

it says it did not stand in the way of sally yates testifying.e you seen any evidence that the white house got involved? >> well, it depends on whether you call the department of justice part of the white house. i believe the department of justice was trying to silence her. >> well, but -- >> they wrote -- they wrote a left saying that you need to check with the white house essentially to see if the white house is going to invoke executive privilege. the white house didn't do that, so as far as i can tell by reading the letters, i'm not sure that anyone tried to actively stop it. >> well, i believe that there probably was an effort that is not reflected in the letters. i don't know that for a fact, but i -- i believe that there probably was an effort to discourage her from participating, but, you've got to the remember, that this was an agreement made by both the republicans and democrats of the committee to have these three parties come before us today, so it was a cooperative effort, and it only changed, i believe, after the hearing that took p

the hearing this week was going to hear from sally yates, the former acting attorney general. and i'm told she had interesting things to tell the committee too, tell the public about when she told white house counsel that mike flynn had in fact been lying to the vice president and she was only going to be able to speak those things in the concept of the congressional hearing. this was an elaborately coriaographed gag order on sally yates. >> this headline from the washington post says the trump administration sought to block sally yates from testifying on behalf of russia. in addition to his work, remembered his former kouns thool house intelligence committee. so i guess the way to get at this again is how, by the treatment of yates, can you discern perhaps what yates has to say or had to say in past tense. >> well, let's break it down. my understanding is that yates' testimony would have differed from the official white house accounts. now we don't know exactly in what way her testimony would have differed from the official white house accounts but we can think about two pote

sally yates and two other former administration officials were due to testify at an open hearing todayin the house intelligence committee investigation of trump and russia. "washington post" reports that thursday of last week, quote, yates and another witness at the planned hear, former cia director john brennan made clear to government officials that their testimony probably would contradict statements that white house officials had made. so sally yates, john brennan communicated that information to the government on thursday, according to "the washington post." then, of course, on friday, following day, this hearing that was supposed to be today got canceled for no apparent reason. they'd said it was so they could hold a closed hearing with other national security officials. there's no closed hearing held. the white house, naturally, is denying there was any effort to shut down sally yates' testimony. no pressure on her whatsoever on what she can say or could not say. no anxiety even at the white house about the prospect that she might testify at a hearing that has now been canceled.

from last month. >> now, the white house denies trying to block former acting attorney general sally yatesm testifying to congress about russia. the president fired yates in january after she told justice department lawyers not to defend the first version of his refugee and travel ban. jeff is on capitol hill with the new controversy over sally yates. jeff, good morning. >> reporter: good morning. the house intelligence investigation has officially stalled, bogged down by finger pointing and accusations. the latest flash point is the testimony of sally yates, who was the official who informed the white house that former national security advisor michael flynns misled the vice president about his contacts with the russian ambassador. >> the white house did not respond and took no action that prevented miss yates from testifying. >> reporter: an exasperated sean spicer dismissed accusations that the white house sought to delay sally yates from testifying. >> we encouraged them to go ahead. but to suggest in any way, shape or form that we stood in the way of that is 100% false. >> reporter: c

on tuesday, the house intelligence committee was scheduled to hear testimony from sally yates, who served as acting attorney general. but nunes cancelled the hearing last week a day after yates and -- had johnad brennan informed the government , they would contradict some statements that white house officials had made. according to the "washington post," the white house then sought to block their testimony but the white house denies this. meanwhile, nunes is also continuing to face criticism over his actions last week when he traveled to the white house to personally brief president trump on allegations that he'd seen evidence e at u.s. intelligence may have incidentally swept up communications by trump's transition team after the november election. nunes, whoho served on trump's transition team, later revealed the evidence he saw was shown to him on the white house grounds the night before by a source he has refused to identify. no democrats on the house intel -- intelligence committee have seen the evidence. meanwhile, the senate intelligence committee is preparing to question jared kus

the white house has made clear yates to ant sally testify. we want sally yates to testify. i think she's fully prepared to testify. so the only obstacle at this point is the signature of the we rman, and we hope that get that. reporter: okay. the rote a letter first or white house council? rep. schiff: the white house wrote a letter to us that i the president's press secretary referred to in his conference. e received that simultaneously announcing during the press conference, in that letter, invited the chair and i to -- in to questions i had raised, to review these materials. we've accepted. i'll go read them. i look forward to it. be s ultimately going to necessary if the white house eally wants us to answer the questions they've raised, with the full committee to look at ranking and t the chair, and we'll need the full support of the agencies, because information d the about how the materials were gathered and what procedures they followed. do this in uld you the same format as the chairman format he saw or what setting the white house saw these, would do you that in th

sean spicer said he wants to see sally yates testify. that's the position of the administration. >> the white house seems like it's in a bunker right now. it feels like sean spicer came out in a very antagonistic way ready to push back forcefully against the press. is that attitude, that emotion coming from on high? >> i think the president certainly is frustrated about the way health care moved, broke apart late last week. i'm at the capitol katy. some of the senators i've spoken with, senator tester, talking about how post health care maybe the white house is going to be able to deal with them. all these din mix that seem set in stone a week ago seem to have been up-ended. that's created a whole new dynamic and environment here at the capitol. >> robby mook, former clinton campaign manager, do the democrats have a real appetite to work for donald trump or just sit out and wait for the 2018 mid-terms? >> i think that's up to donald trump, with frankly. if he comes with some realistic options that are of interest to democrats, maybe ther

now we have the white house saying we would like sally yates to testify. we would like it hear what she would say. there is no obstacle to having her come in except a decision by the chair to not reschedule that hearing. what we have proposed for days, still waiting for a response from the chair. is let's schedule both hearings. >> is there stalemate now? he won't let this open hearing take place with clapper or brendon and yates that was scheduled for tuesday unless you sign a letter inviting comey to come and testify mibehind close doors before the house intelligence committee. is that the stalemate right now? >> that's one of the issues as far as the hearings are concerned. we propose, let's do both. we're more than happy to do both and waiting to hear back on that. where does the committee go from here? not just on the hearings. here is the challenge we face. we have a chairman who got information on the white house grounds that he won't share, not just with democrats, but with his own committee. and i just don't know how to conduct a credible investig

sean spicer was pressed on whether the administration tried to shut down sally yates who was fired by the president and scheduled to testify before the intelligence committee. although the justice department said that yates should consult with the white house before testifying, sieser said earlier today that she is free to appear before that panel. that all built up to this moment, where spicer claimed that the office russian salad dressing would somehow be twisted by the news media to say that trump was colluding with the russians. when it comes to the trump folks colluding with the russians but there are too many questions to take no for an answer. >> there are. the white house still not answering the questions about who let chairman nunes on the white house grounds. are. >> reporter: that's right. >> who was the person and who helped him view the classified documents? why don't we have these answers? >> reporter: spaen sean spicer was asked about how nunes got on to the white house grounds last week. spicer did not answer that question but complained that the media is covering this

they hinted former security advisor michael flynn and sally yates are among those 20 people. they confirmed his son-in-law will be one of the people they speak to. and on the house side the house investigation may or may not be blowing up. we'll hear more on that from congressman schiff. the senate is going ahead, tomorrow, not something you want to miss if you're interested in this issue. one point about that, the last point i want to make. confirming in no uncertain terms, there is one thing the committee will not be looking at, the question of whether or not the russian attack is over, whether russia is still doing their thing, whether they are in fact collecting their payment from the trump administration now in exchange in their part throwing the election trump's way, that the committee is not going be looking at. >> it changes the republican platform convention or the way the president refuses to criticize vladamir putin. is that part of what you are looking at? >> that's not in the scope of the investigation. i'll leave that up to you guys to report. yes, ma'am. >> yes

le begin on march 14 when devin nunes and adam schiff sent a letter to sally yates asking her to appear before a committee hearing which would be tentatively scheduled today to discuss russian cyber activities directed against the u.s. election and leaks classified information. an attorney for yates sent this letter to the department of justice saying that if she does testify, she's going to probably talk about privileged information. the justice department then writes back to that attorney saying that such deliberative -- such communications are covered by the presidential communications privilege, probably the deliberative process privilege. the president owns those privileges and mrs. yates needs to check with the white house. then a letter was sent to the white house. it said "if i do not receive a response by march 27, i will conclude the white house does not exert executive privilege". the white house never responded to the letter. that was de facto. a tacit approval of her going before the committee. and then of course we found out today the hearing was not going to happen. devin

yates. that committee hearing was supposed to be today with a rhered hot spotlight on sally yas. back in january, she refused to defend the president's travel ban. it led to this. >> a major breaking news this evening. attorney general of the united states has been fired. >> after yates was fired, we learned she had told white house con sell she was concerned about then national security adviser, michael flynn's contact with the russian ambassador and believed he was vulnerable to blackmail. today, she would have broken her silence. what does schenn? she know? with me, jeremy bash. nice to see you. first, there's a reference to this "washington post" article. looking at the documents underlying the article, it said yates' lawyer sent a lert to the white house and said he's going to testify unless you object by the certain date. the white house didn't object. so it sounds like the "washington post" article is dead wrong. >> that's incorrect because the nonresponse from the justice department from the white house came on monday. nunes had arranged for the hearing to be canceled last

speak so it's not an issue with sally yates testifying? >> that's correct. >> i don't, if you understand, this is very clearly worded and yet somehow you ask me how to interpret that in any other way than literally reading plain english speaking okay. something else. does the president feel climate change is out? >> you'll hear more today about the climate and what he believes. i think he understands, he does not believe that as i mentioned at the outset that there is a a binary choice between job creation and economic growth and caring about the environment and that's what we should be focusing on. i think at the end of day where we should be focusing on is making sure all americans have clean water, clean. we do begin to preserve and protect our environment. >> sean, don't seem so happy. anyway, with all of these investigations, questions of what is, how does this administration try to revamp its image to a half months in, you have other things going on, russia, wiretapping -- >> no, we don't have that. spin on capitol hill -- >> no no.

it is unclear about sally yates. if she was being blocked from giving her testimony by the white house or if they went silent and let her hang out there not knowing if they were giving her approval or needed approval. where are we with this, mark? >> sean spicer said he hopes she testifies. door is open. whether it is before the house or before the senate remains to be seen. with the house in disarray, it looks like the senate will have to step up and very well might and probably will. they will have a news conference later today. to talk about the next steps. >> here is what spicer said about it. >> i hope she testifies. i look forward to it. let's be honest. the hearing was never notified. if they choose to move forward, great. we have most problem with her testifying. >> they have timing issues here. this was a little bit of a convaluted process. yates' attorney went to the white house and there is a question of privileged communication. the attorney informed the white house that some of the testimony would contra

there's no rest why sally yates can't tough in public.ah. >> speaker ryan said the chairman told him that the whistle-blower-type of person did it. [inaudible] >> you know, certainly doesn't sound at all like i would consider a whistle-blower. we have procedures to whistle-blowers to come to the committee. when they come to the committee, they are protested and provide whatever materials and information they have. and they're protected. that procedure wasn't followed here. if we're talking about not people from the agencies and whether the times has it right or has it wrong. if we're talking about national security council staff, they can go to white house council. they're already mechanisms and places that they can go to share this information. if the object here was to give it to somebody to give to it the president, makes it more bewildering that wasn't taken to the president, particularly if one of those individuals is the director of intelligence at the national security council. they have frequent access to the president. they don't

security adviser, michael flynn, his conversations with the russians, sean spicer was asked about sally yates today. here is how he responded in the daley briefing. >> i know this would be a shocker. part of it is that i think we have been very clear. when you actually get to the bottom of the facts, every single person that's been briefed on this, they have been very clear there is no connection between the president or the staff here and anyone doing anything with russia. i think that the view here was great, go share what you know. thelers they published back up exactly what we are saying. she was asked about this information. her attorney asked the doj and they said she had to ask the white house. if you don't do this, we are going to go forward. we had no objection it her going forward. >> let's go to manu raju in washington, our senior congressional correspondent. back up. these ac significanccusations te house wanted to block her testimony, where did that come from? >> it quam in the aftermacame ia surprising decision where sally yates was expected to testify as well as two other forme

just today as "the washington post" obtained a letter regarding former acting attorney general sally yates, who was fired by the president and was scheduled to testify before the house intelligence panel. the letter from the justice department to yates' lawyer appeared to advise that yates would need to consult with the white house before testifying stating, she needs to consult with the white house, she need not obtain separate consent from the department of justice. the white house insisted it would not stand in the way. >> i hope she testifies. i look forward to it. it was never -- let's be honest. the hearing was never -- was never notified if they choose to move forward, great. we have no problem with her testifying. plain and simple. >> jim joins us. is it clear when or if sally yates' testimony is going to be rescheduled on capitol hill? >> reporter: no word yet. sally yates was scheduled to testify before the house intelligence committee, along with the former director of national intelligence, james clap ir, and former cia director john brennan. that hearing as you know is scrappe

the white house has made clear they want sally yates to testify. we want sally yates to testify.ink she's fully prepared to testify. so the only obstacle at this point is the signature of the chairman and we hope that we get that. >> i want to make sure i understand this correctly. you wrote a letter first or they wrote a letter from the white house counsel? >> the white house counsel wrote a letter to us. we received that effectively simultaneously with him during the press conference and it invited the chair and i, in response to questions that i had raised, to review these materials. but again, we've accepted. i'll go read them. i look forward to it. it is ultimately going to be necessary, if the white house really wants us to answer the questions they've raised, for the full committee to look at this, not just the ranking and chair. and we'll need the support of the agencies because they will be the information about how the materials were gathered and what procedures they followed. >> when will you do this and will you view this as the same format as the chairman did and wha

so you said yesterday about sally yates show what you show know. one of these reasons question about chairman nunes he hasn't told his own committee members what he knows, how he learned about it, and what the substantive importance of that is. so we are also curious about that. and among the things that might be or might shed light on that is how he got here and who he met with and what he learned. trying to figure that out as well. >> i understand that. those are questions for him. but i think that, major, there is a slippery slope that we're talking about here. because if we start looking into certain things, and the accusation the next day is going to be we don't -- you looked into this, can you look into that? why didn't you ask this person or not? a couple weeks ago stories about whether or not we called certain people and we didn't. so, we are damned if we do and damned if we don't on this stuff. because, on the other hand you want certain answers on the other hand you want involved. we ask for an investigation. and at the same time, we have