Russian Interference in the U.S. Election: Yates and Clapper Finally Testify

Senators heard the the long awaited testimony of former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates and former Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper on Monday. The hearing, entitled "Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. Election," was before the Senate Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism. But its focus was largely uncovering the details and timing of Yates’ conversations with administration officials about former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.

In his opening statements, Committee Chair Lindsey Graham (R-SC) set the stage for the hearing about "all things Russia." He declared that “Every American should be concerned about what the Russians did [to interfere with the 2016 election]...there’s no doubt in my mind it was the Russians involved...not some 400 lb guy on a bed or any other country.”

Yates testified in detail about her conversations in late January with White House Counsel Donald McGahn. In two meetings, on January 26 and 27, she and a senior career official from the Justice Department's National Security Division met with McGahn and an unidentified staffer to inform them of Department of Justice concerns about then-National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. They outlined how Flynn had lied to the administration about his conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, and that the Russians likely had proof. Therefore, Flynn was "compromised" and in a position to be blackmailed.

Yates stated clearly that Vice President Pence did not, they believed, knowingly misrepresent Flynn’s actions, but that Flynn had lied to the vice president. In fact, in their opinion, it was his lying that "compromised" him and made him vulnerable to blackmail by the Russian government.

Yates’ told senators about that first meeting:

"We...walked through with Mr. McGahn essentially why we were telling [the administration] about this. The first thing..was that the underlying conduct that General Flynn had engaged in was problematic in and of itself...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… We were concerned that the American people had been misled…[and] that we weren’t the only ones that knew all of this. The Russians also knew what Gen. Flynn had done and...knew that the general had misled the vice-president and others...This was a problem because not only did the Russians know this but that they likely had proof of this information and that created a compromise situation, a situation where the National Security Advisor could essentially be blackmailed."

Former DNI Clapper also testified at length, though his testimony wasn't as electrifying. Clapper talked about "unmasking": revealing the identities of U.S. citizens who are caught on tape during their conversations with other foreign nationals under legal surveillance. He also testified about Russian interference in prior elections, and investigations into it while Clapper was the head of national intelligence, as well as the importance of section 702 of the Patriot Act. Section 702 allows for surveillance of non-U.S. persons outside of the United States.

Senators repeatedly questioned both Yates and Clapper about whether they leaked, or ordered the leak, of classified material. Both responded that they had not.

Throughout the early part of the hearing, Yates asserted repeatedly that she would not disclose information that was classified or would affect an ongoing investigation. Some hoped that she would disclose information not previously known about conversations between herself and McGahn. She did not disclose unknown or explosive information, but Yates did assert that the administration knew the seriousness of Gen. Flynn’s potential threat to national security for 18 days before he was removed from his position.

What classified information and meetings Flynn was privy to during those 18 days is still unknown.

Yates was fired from her position as the Acting Attorney General on January 30. The Trump administration says it fired her because she instructed Justice Department staff to not defend the president’s first travel ban executive order. Democratic senators called into question the timing of Yates’ firing so soon after she brought to the administration’s attention the security issues with Flynn.

Republican senators focused instead on Yates’ choice not to defend the travel ban. Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) asserted that Yates’ perspective that the executive order was unconstitutional was beyond her authority. "Who appointed you to the United States Supreme Court?" he asked.

Sen. Cornyn (R-TX) expressed ‘disappointment,' having voted for her confirmation previously. He also stated that she had overstepped her authority. Yates responded:

"I remember my confirmation hearing and an exchange that I had with you and others of your colleagues where you specifically asked me…’If the President asked me to do something that was unlawful or unconstitutional’, and one of your colleagues said, ‘or just that would reflect poorly on the Department of Justice...would I say no’. And I looked at this, I made a determination that I believed it was unlawful. I also thought it was inconsistent with the principles of the Department of Justice and I said no. That’s what I promised you I would do and that’s what I did."

What are your questions about Russian interference in American politics following yesterday’s hearing? Use the "Take Action" button to tell your reps what you think!

Take Action

— Asha Sanaker

(Photo Credit: Wikimedia / Creative Commons)