mr. mcgann asked me how we did and i declined to give him an answer. we walked through with mr. mcagain why we were telling them about this. the first thing we did was to explain to mr. mcgann the underlying conduct that general flynn engaged in was problematic itself. secondly, we told them we felt like the vice president and others were entitled to november that the information that they were conveying to the american people wasn't true. we wanted to make it really clear right out of the gate that we were not accusing vice president pence of knowingly providing false information to the american people. in fact, mr. mcgann responded me back to let me know that anything general flynn would have side -- excuse me. anything vice president pence would have been said would have been based on what general flynn told him. we told him the third reason was is because we were concerned that the american people had been mislead about the underlying conduct and what general flynn had done. additionally, that we weren't the only ones that knew all of this. that the russians also knew about

not walk through with mr. mcgann while we were told them about this. the first thing we did was to explain that the underlying conduct that general flynn had engaged in was problematic in and of itself. we felt we told him like the vice president and others were entitled to know that the information that they were conveying for the american people was not true. we wanted to make it really clear right out of the gate that we were not accusing vice president pence of knowingly providing false information to the american people. tofact, mr. mcgann responded let me know that anything that general flynn have said would have been -- excuse me, anything vice president pence said would have been based on what general flynn told him. we told him the third reason was we were concerned that the american people had been misled about the underlying conduct and what general flynn had done. nottionally that we were the only ones the new on this. that the russians also knew about what general flynn had done and the russians also knew that general flynn had misled the

>> at his request, yes. >> as mr. mcgann's request. and at that second meeting, did mr. mcgann say anything about whether or not he had taken the information you had given him the previous day to the president? >> no. he didn't tell us. >> are you aware of the fact that mr. spicer, the white house press secretary, on february 14th said, "immediately after the department of justice notified the white house counsel of the situation, the white house counsel briefed the president and a small group of senior advisors." >> i've seen media reports to that effect but that's all i know is from the media. >> so there is no statement from mr. mcgann had a he spoke to the president about your concerns with his national security adviser or with any other membersst white house? >> he didn't advice us in the second meeting anyone he may have discussed this with at the prior evening. >> i also want to go to the question which keeps nahhing at me here that he xfd you. is anything wrong with one white house official lying to another white house official? >> well, to be fair to mr. gik man

>> 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 another? 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. mcgann, i think the issue that he raised, 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 mcgann 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 russia. >> miss yates, do you have any evidence, are you aware of any evidence that would subject that in the 2016 campaign anybody in the tru

did mr. mcgann ask reasonable questions about your concerns? >> i didn't really have a judgment about whether they were reasonable or unreasonable, but i do think mr. mcgann was trying to get to the bottom in our discussions whatever had happened. >> and he wanted to actually seat information that you were talking about in a. >> >> he indicated he did. i don't have any way of knowing. >> and he said he wanted to and you tried to set that up. >> that's correct. >> now about surveillance. this is very important, an american citizen cannot be sf d surveilled in the united states for colluding with a northern government unless you have a warrant. is that a true statement of the law? >> that's right. >> is it fair to say incidental collection occurs even in the united states? >> that's correct as well. >> so there's two situations that we would have found out what general flynn said to the russian ambassador. if there was a fisa warrant focused on him, was there? >> was there, either one of you? >> i'm not going to answer whether there was a nisa wa

and the first thing we did was to explain to mr. mcgann that the underlying conduct that mr. flynn had engage in the was problematic in and of itself. slicked we told them 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 we wanted to make it really clear right out of the gate that we were not accusing vice president pence of knowingly providing false information to the american people. in fact, mr. mcgab responded to me to say anything that general flynn -- excuse me, anything vice president pence would have said would have been based on what general flynn had told him. we said the first reason was we believe the american people had been misled about what general flynn had done. and 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. because in the media accounts it was clear from the vice president and others that they were r

>> to be fair to 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

>> 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 another? 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. mcgann, i think the issue that he raised, 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 mcgann doesn't understand what's wrong with this? >> yates was also asked about any evidence she may have seen that the trump campaign was clu colluding with russia. >> miss yates, do you have any evidence, are you aware of any evidence that would subject that in the 2016 campaign anybody in the

i remember mr. mcgann asked me whether or not mr. flynn should be fired? i 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? >>

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

o >> to be fair to 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 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 th

yates: to be fair to mr. mcgann i wouldn't say that he said is there anything wrong. his question was more essentially, what is it to the justice department if one white house official is lying to another? in other words, why is this something d.o.j. would be concerned about? that's why we went back through the list of issues and reasons why this was troubling to us. >> did you think there was a legal reason to be concerned 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 was 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 gon

mr. mcgann asked me whether or not general flynn should be fired and i told him that was in our call. we 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 ou

but i do think 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

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 ambassador. >> ask sally yates under oath if she knows how classified information got into the newspapers soo

i was struck that mr. mcgann did not and you in the second meeting why doj, general yates, would have concerns that the national security adviser had lied to the vice president. first meeting, did you mention? >> we went through all of our kernels in the first meeting. it was in the second meeting that he raised the question of why is this an issue in the department of justice if one official lies to another? >> i don't understand why he didn't understand that. on. >> i'm not sure i can help you with that. >> general flynn stayed and was in one meeting after another. there was a question of who gets security clearance and not. executive order 12968 outlines security clearances and says when there's a credible allegation that raise concern about someone's fitness to access classified information, that person's clearance should be suspended pending investigation. is that right? the executive arm states that clearance holders should always demonstrate trust worthiness, honesty, reliability, discretion, and so

. >> one of the questions that 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

i remember that 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

i remember that mr. mcgann asked me whether or not general flynn should be fired and i told him that that really wasn't our call, that was up to them, but 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 whate

. >> the first thing we did is explain to 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

. >> the first thing we did was to explain to 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 fbi

. >> the first thing we did was to explain to 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 co

i remember that 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. sally yates was herself fired a few days later for refusing to defend president trump‘s travel ban in court. but it took the white house over two weeks from her warnings to force general flynn‘s resignation. the former army lieutenant has become a central figure in allegations of russian interference in the 2016 us election and possible collusion between the trump campaign and moscow. the white 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 bo

. >>> one of the questions that mr. mcgann asked me when i went over the second day was essentially 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 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 t

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 def

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.

there had been press accounts, statements from vice president and others, that related conduct that 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