Yates Testimony Creates More Questions And Problems For Trump

As expected, Sally Yates' and James Clapper's testimony yesterday in front of the Intelligence Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee raised more questions than it answered. But the information they provided certainly added additional insight that shows us once again that the default position of Trump and the White House is to lie and obfuscate about anything and everything pertaining to their Russian contacts.

Rather than the simple "heads-up" that Sean Spicer and Reince Priebus characterized Yates' meeting with White House Counsel Don McGahn, Yates had two meetings with McGahn where she laid out in detail her concerns that not only had Flynn engaged in conduct that was "problematic" but had also lied about his contacts with the Russians and was therefore compromised, especially when it appeared that Flynn was lying to administration and specifically Vice President Pence. Yates' visit seemed to be prompted by an FBI interview with Flynn at the White House where it is assumed he lied to those investigators. Yates informed McGahn that Flynn had been interviewed by the FBI but refused to characterize his interview when McGahn asked her how Flynn had done. After the initial meeting, McGahn asked for a follow-up meeting where he inquired what the DOJ interest was if administration officials were simply lying to each other and what the legal ramifications for Flynn might be, an interesting line of questioning considering the information that the holder of the most sensitive national security post is potentially compromised. Yates had to once again explain that Flynn's lies opened him up to blackmail by the Russians. McGahn then asked to see the intelligence behind the DOJ's determination. Yates followed up on that request, informing McGahn that the intelligence was ready for his review but she was fired hours after that so that she was unable to confirm whether or not that review ever took place.

Sean Spicer has already confirmed that McGahn immediately briefed the President on Yates' warning and Priebus claims that McGahn investigated Yates' claims about Flynn and found there was nothing to the allegations. Flynn remained on the NSA for another 18 days, even sitting in on a phone call that Trump had with Putin. Flynn, in fact, was not fired until Yates' warning was revealed by the Washington Post.

We also learned yesterday that President Obama had specifically warned Trump not to keep Flynn on in his administration when Trump and Obama met shortly after the election. The White House says that Trump took that as a kind of joke by Obama because of Flynn's bashing of Obama during the campaign. But, knowing Obama, I think we can be pretty assured that Obama gave Trump more than just a throwaway line but backed it up with some kind of explanation. In addition, we also know that Trump transition officials also were worried about Flynn and warned him that his conversations with the Russians were being monitored.

All of these warnings and the admissions by Spicer and Priebus make it almost impossible for Trump to say that he was unaware that Flynn was compromised. And that makes it extremely difficult to explain why Flynn was not only kept on for another 18 days but was able to sit in on the most important national security meetings the administration and Trump had during that period.

Yates' testimony, of course, puts McGahn in the crosshairs of the investigation as well, specifically what did he tell the President, whether he reviewed the material Yates' prepared for him, and what was the extent of his investigation of the allegations against Flynn. Yates was virtually telling McGahn that Flynn was under FBI investigation and we need to know what he did, if anything, with that information. In addition, it has been reported that McGahn never informed Vice President Pence that Flynn had apparently lied to him. That is an interesting omission for someone who is White House Counsel, as opposed to someone who views himself as the President's personal lawyer.

The obvious question that has been out there for a while and Yates' testimony got us no closer to answering is why Flynn was kept on for nearly three weeks after the White House and Trump himself was made aware of the allegations that Flynn was compromised and a potential Russian blackmail target. The details that Yates provided today make it virtually impossible for the White House to claim that the warnings they got were neither alarming nor detailed.

Senator Blumenthal made the other significant point that it seems quite probable that Flynn would still be working as NSA if not for the fact that Yates' warning became public. There is certainly nothing in the public record that indicates that Flynn was reprimanded in any way or restricted in his duties. And, remember, this is the most important national security officer in the country whom the administration has received credible reports is compromised by a foreign power and is lying to senior administration officials about that. The obvious conclusion is that Trump was comfortable with this situation, which, of course, brings his own motivations into question.

Another indication that Flynn was being treated with abnormal consideration by the Trump administration is that he never received the extra security clearance that is required for officials who work in the White House. That clearance is separate from a normal security clearance that is provided by the Department of Defense and lasts for five years. It is far more extensive and comes from the CIA. Flynn never received that clearance from the CIA and it is unclear whether the Trump administration has eliminated the policy that requires it.

Two other points about today's hearing that again raise more questions and could be concerning for Trump. First, Yates would not respond to Graham's question about whether there was any evidence of collusion between Trump and the Russians during the campaign because that would require her to talk about an ongoing investigation. Of course, the evidence is right there for us all to see as Trump publicly asked the Russians to hack Hillary Clinton's emails. Whether there was any further tactical coordination remains to be seen.

In addition, if I heard what both Clapper and Yates had to say correctly, Trump's name had come up in intelligence reports and possible investigations regarding his financial interests with Russia in the past, before he became a candidate for President. No one in the media seemed to have picked up on this so I will need to check the transcript to see if I am mistaken.

Lastly, I'll reiterate a point that Malcolm Nance has made repeatedly on MSNBC and that is that the flurry of phone calls that Flynn apparently made to Russian Ambassador Kislyak on the day that the Obama administration announced additional sanctions bears all the earmarks of an asset who has been turned. And, as Nance also points out, standard counter-intelligence procedure dictates that whenever a member of a government department is suspected of being compromised or turned, there is an immediate and thorough investigation into the other members of that department to ensure that there are no accomplices. Of course, we will probably never get that thorough investigation in this case but it speaks to the cavalier attitude that Trump and his team had to the Yates' allegations that this procedure clearly was not followed.

As usual, Trump is offering an incoherent and obfuscating defense. He has latched on to Clapper's statement that he saw no evidence of collusion with the Russians by the Trump campaign. First, this provides no defense for how he treated Flynn after learning he was compromised. And Clapper actually expanded on his answer saying that it was quite possible there was some evidence of collusion but it did not meet the threshold to be included in the intelligence report he produced on Russian hacking. But Clapper's focus is on foreign intelligence and is specifically barred from investigating US citizens directly. More damaging to Trump's point that there was no collusion was Yates' response that she would not respond because of an ongoing investigation, hinting quite strongly that there may very well be evidence of collusion. That investigation is the one being conducted by the FBI which is the agency responsible for counter-intelligence investigations against US citizens. And the fact that Flynn's underlying actions were "problematic" and obviously occurred before Trump was officially sworn as President in also hints at possible subversion of US policy during the transition.

The testimony today further reinforced that fact that the Trump administration continually lies about anything and everything that has to do with their dealings with Russia. That alone raises suspicion. But not even Trump himself can now claim that he was unaware of the serious allegations against Flynn and that he still allowed Flynn to stay in the most sensitive national security post in the country and engage with foreign leaders, including Putin, even with that knowledge. The noose is already pretty tight around Flynn at this point. And Trump has also left himself very little room for any kind of plausible deniability as it was clear he was fully informed about Yates' allegations, so the noose around Trump is tighter as well. It remains to be seen if that will make any difference to his base of support in the country and, more importantly, to his Republican enablers in Congress.