Former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday that former FBI Director James Comey &#8220;acted unilaterally&#8221; in investigating former White House national security advisor Michael Flynn, <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sally-yates-james-comey-rogue-flynn-interview">per Fox News</a>, and that she and others were upset when told Comey had initiated a probe into Flynn&#8217;s potential interactions with Russian officials.
The bombshell came as Senate Republicans undertake a probe into how the FBI came to investigate Flynn and others affiliated with the Trump 2016 presidential campaign and the Trump transition team in connection with a possible Russian plot to subvert the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.
Although Connecticut’s U.S. Attorney John Durham is already looking into the origins of the so-called &#8220;Russian collusion&#8221; investigation, Senate Republicans have launched their own investigation, determined to discover whether the Obama administration targeted Trump-aligned officials without evidence of potential wrongdoing.
In her testimony Tuesday, Yates seemed to place the blame on former FBI director Comey, whom she said went &#8220;rogue&#8221; in investigating Michael Flynn.
&#8220;Former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that when the FBI interviewed then-incoming national security adviser Michael Flynn in January 2017, it was done without her authorization, and that she was upset when she found out about it,&#8221; <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sally-yates-james-comey-rogue-flynn-interview">Fox News reported</a>.
<blockquote>&#8220;I was upset that Director Comey didn&#8217;t coordinate that with us and acted unilaterally,&#8221; Yates said.
&#8220;Did Comey go rogue?&#8221; Graham asked.
&#8220;You could use that term, yes,&#8221; Yates agreed.</blockquote>
Yates, Fox News said, learned about Comey&#8217;s investigation into Flynn&#8217;s discussions with a Russian ambassador in an Oval Office meeting with then-President Barack Obama.
&#8220;That meeting, which took place on Jan. 5, 2017, was of great interest to Graham, who wanted to know why Obama knew about Flynn&#8217;s conversations before she did. Graham and other Republicans have speculated that Obama wanted Flynn investigated for nefarious purposes,&#8221; Fox News noted. &#8220;Yates claimed that this was not the case, and explained why Obama was aware of the calls at the time.&#8221;
&#8220;The purpose of this meeting was for the president to find out whether – based on the calls between Ambassador Kislyak and Gen. Flynn – the transition team needed to be careful about what it was sharing with Gen. Flynn,&#8221; Yates told Graham.
The Obama-era FBI has long contended that Flynn improperly engaged with Sergey Kislyak before President Trump took up residence in the White House. Flynn and the Trump administration say that, as a key member of Trump&#8217;s transition team, Flynn was simply collaborating with a key foreign policy official whose government would be impacted by the changeover in power.
Flynn, for his part, is embroiled in an appeals process. Although the Department of Justice has demanded perjury charges be dropped against the former national security official after information came to light suggesting that FBI agents hoodwinked Flynn in a White House interview, courts have disagreed as to how to proceed with the case, and Flynn is currently appealing a decision to maintain his charges to a higher court.
Yates will testify much of the day on Wednesday.

sally yates

Sally Yates Tells Congress That Comey Went ‘Rogue’ On Flynn Investigation, Hid Probe From Colleagues

Donald Trump

James Comey

Michael Flynn

Sally Yates

Senate Republicans will investigate the Obama administration&#8217;s decision to target national security adviser Michael Flynn following the 2016 presidential election, but they do not intend to subpoena former President Barack Obama or require him to testify in front of a panel, <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/11/senate-republicans-trump-obamagate-249734">Politico reports</a>.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told media Tuesday that his committee is prepared to investigate former Obama administration officials, particularly officials affiliated with the Department of Justice, and the FBI over their targeting of Flynn in light of Attorney General William Barr&#8217;s decision to drop perjury charges against the former national security advisor. Barack Obama will likely be left off the list of those asked to testify.
“I’m not anticipating calling President Obama,” Graham said, adding that it was likely the panel will question FBI Director James Comey and former acting Attorney General Sally Yates.
President Donald Trump was direct in his criticism of Obama, tweeting Monday that he believed Obama committed the &#8220;biggest political crime in American history, by far!&#8221; He also cited conservative radio and television host Buck Sexton, who noted that it appears Obama “used his last weeks in office to target incoming officials and sabotage the new administration.&#8221;
“Hope you had fun investigating me. Now it’s my turn.” the president warned.
Senate Republicans, however, want to leave investigating Obama up to U.S. Attorney John Durham, who, at the direction of Attorney General Barr, is still investigating the origins of the FBI investigation into &#8220;Russian collusion&#8221; &#8212; an investigation that turned up next to no evidence that the Trump administration in any way coordinated with Russian officials to impact the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.
“That’s already being looked at, and we’ve got relevant committees up here that are talking a look at some of those issues too. I always think that at the end, eventually the truth comes out, and I’m sure it will here too,” Sen. John Thune (R-SD) told Politico.
&#8220;[Trump] was accused of being a stooge for Putin and then subject to the appointment of a special counsel,” added Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX). &#8220;I understand why the president feels like he’s under assault. But I think we need to do our own independent investigation. Obviously, Mr. Durham is doing his. We’ll hear from them. But I think we have an important role to play in terms of congressional oversight.&#8221;
Last week&#8217;s revelations about Michael Flynn drew a number of Obama administration officials into the spotlight. The plan to target Flynn appears to have included everyone from Comey and Yates, to former U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and then-Vice President Joe Biden who, according to Rice&#8217;s notes, was present at a meeting where Comey briefed top Obama administration members &#8212; and the president &#8212; about the ongoing investigation.
Biden, Tuesday, initially denied knowing about the Flynn case but then later admitted he was &#8220;aware&#8221; of the probe.
<div>
<div class="kix-page docs-page kix-page-paginated">
<div class="kix-page-content-wrapper">
<div class="kix-page-column">
<div id="" class="kix-paragraphrenderer">
<div class="kix-lineview">
<div class="kix-lineview-content">The‌ ‌Daily‌ ‌Wire,‌ ‌headed‌ ‌by‌ ‌bestselling‌ ‌author‌ ‌and‌ ‌popular‌ ‌podcast‌ ‌host‌ ‌Ben‌ ‌Shapiro,‌ ‌is‌ ‌a‌ ‌ leading‌ ‌provider‌ ‌of‌ ‌conservative‌ ‌news,‌ ‌cutting‌ ‌through‌ ‌the‌ ‌mainstream‌ ‌media’s‌ ‌rhetoric‌ ‌to‌ ‌ provide‌ ‌readers‌ ‌the‌ ‌most‌ ‌important,‌ ‌relevant,‌ ‌and‌ ‌engaging‌ ‌stories‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌day.‌ ‌Get‌ ‌inside‌ ‌access‌ ‌to‌ ‌The‌ ‌Daily‌ ‌Wire‌ ‌by‌ ‌becoming‌ ‌a‌ ‌‌<a class="kix-link" href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">member‌</a>.‌ </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Barack Obama

Senate Republicans Will NOT Question Barack Obama Over Michael Flynn, Despite Trump Request

Lindsey Graham

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee want top Obama officials to testify as part of its own investigation into the origins of the Russia-collusion probe that dominated the headlines until it was determined there was no collusion.
Fox News <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senate-judiciary-to-request-obama-officials-related-to-russia-probe-testify-could-subpoena-testimony">reported</a> that the Senate Judiciary Committee, whose investigation is separate from <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/investigation-into-origins-of-russia-probe-going-full-throttle">the one</a> being conducted by U.S. Attorney for Connecticut John Durham for the Department of Justice, may issue subpoenas for the Obama officials to get to the bottom of how the narrative started that President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign colluded with Russia to steal the election. A source told the outlet that the committee wants “former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former CIA Director John Brennan to testify before the committee.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who chairs the committee, said last week that he wants former FBI Director James Comey and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe to testify this summer.
Fox’s source told the outlet that it would subpoena the officials if they refused to appear and that Senate investigators were looking at “various piece” from “various sources” for their investigation.
“This is a multilevel puzzle,” the source told Fox. “They are looking at layer upon layer, and you have to be able to tell the story of exactly what was going on, and who was doing what, when, and why.”
More from Fox:
<blockquote>One area Senate investigators are exploring is a Jan. 5, 2017 meeting in the Oval Office involving Yates, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, then-National Security Adviser Susan Rice, and Obama.
A document unsealed last week as part of the DOJ’s motion to dismiss the case against Flynn detailed a special counsel interview of Yates, which indicated Obama was aware of Flynn’s intercepted December 2016 phone calls with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the presidential transition period.
The document revealed Yates learned about the calls during that meeting. At that point, the document said, &#8220;Yates had no idea what the president was talking about, but figured it out based on the conversation. Yates recalled Comey mentioning the Logan Act, but can&#8217;t recall if he specified there was an &#8216;investigation.&#8217; Comey did not talk about prosecution in the meeting.”</blockquote>
The Logan Act, a century old obscure law that has never successfully been enforced, was the supposed basis for the FBI’s interview with former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. The FBI intercepted a phone call between Flynn and then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and interviewed Flynn, claiming agents wanted to know what Flynn and Kislyak spoke about, even though they already knew. They then asked Flynn questions about his phone call, which occurred weeks earlier, without a lawyer present and without Flynn having access to a transcript of the call. Flynn later pleaded guilty to lying to federal agents for misremembering things from the call, a plea he would later try to rescind. Last week, the charges against Flynn were dropped by the Department of Justice.
As Fox reported, Rice would send herself an email on the day Trump was inaugurated to discuss how Obama wanted the investigation into Russian collusion to proceed.
“President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the intelligence and law enforcement communities ‘by the book,’” Rice emailed herself. “The president stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book.”
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Obama

Senate Republicans Want Obama Officials To Testify On Origins Of Russia Probe

Russia

Susan Rice

During Wednesday&#8217;s White House press briefing, Press Secretary Sarah Sanders announced that the White House would be revoking former CIA Director John Brennan&#8217;s security clearance. 
Sanders read a statement that cited Brennan&#8217;s &#8220;erratic conduct and behavior&#8221; and accused him of &#8220;leveraging&#8221; his clearance to make false allegations and engage in &#8220;wild outbursts&#8221; against the Trump administration.
The statement also revealed that several other individuals&#8217; security clearances are under review, including Peter Strzok, Sally Yates, Susan Rice, Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page, and Bruce Ohr. 
Brennan was appointed to his former position by President Barack Obama in January 2013, and replaced by Mike Pompeo in January 2017. 
The announcement comes after weeks of Brennan attacking the President on Twitter, including on Tuesday when he described Trump as &#8220;so dangerous for our Nation.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
It&#8217;s astounding how often you fail to live up to minimum standards of decency, civility, &amp; probity. Seems like you will never understand what it means to be president, nor what it takes to be a good, decent, &amp; honest person. So disheartening, so dangerous for our Nation. <a href="https://t.co/eI9HaCec1m">https://t.co/eI9HaCec1m</a>
&#8212; John O. Brennan (@JohnBrennan) <a href="https://twitter.com/JohnBrennan/status/1029369165843517440?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 14, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
In June, Brennan described Trump&#8217;s press conference with President Vladimir Putin of Russia as &#8220;nothing short of treasonous.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Donald Trump&#8217;s press conference performance in Helsinki rises to &amp; exceeds the threshold of &#8220;high crimes &amp; misdemeanors.&#8221; It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump&#8217;s comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots: Where are you???
&#8212; John O. Brennan (@JohnBrennan) <a href="https://twitter.com/JohnBrennan/status/1018885971104985093?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 16, 201</a></blockquote>
</div>

White House Revokes Former CIA Director John Brennan’s Security Clearance, Several Others Under Review

John Brennan

Mike Pompeo

Peter Strzok

<a href="http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/333558-yates-russia-had-real-leverage-over-flynn">According</a> to former acting Attorney General Sally Yates, who was fired by President Trump on January 30 when she directly disobeyed his executive order barring immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries, Russia had &#8220;real leverage&#8221; over former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who resigned in February.
Leaks of U.S. surveillance<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/acting-attorney-general-sally-yates/story?id=46444595"> revealed</a> that Flynn misled Vice President Pence about the contents of a December phone call to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak; Pence later publicly repeated Flynn&#8217;s version of events. Flynn resigned on February 13.
Speaking to CNN, Yates stated, &#8220;I think that this was a serious compromise situation, that the Russians had real leverage &#8230; Whether he&#8217;s fired or not is a decision for the president of the United States to make, but it doesn&#8217;t seem like that&#8217;s a person who should be sitting in the national security adviser position.&#8221;
Yates denied leaking information to the media, asserting, &#8220;I did not and I would not leak classified information.&#8221;
Yates became acting Attorney General on January 20, the day Trump was inaugurated. When she was fired, the White House said she &#8220;betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States &#8230; Ms. Yates is an Obama Administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration.&#8221;
Yates had stated regarding her position, &#8220;At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the Executive Order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful &#8230; Consequently, for as long as I am the Acting Attorney General, the Department of Justice will not present arguments in defense of the Executive Order, unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so.&#8221;
But before she was fired, Yates informed White House Counsel Don McGahn on <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/timeline-michael-flynns-interactions-russia-cost-job/story?id=45456031">January 26</a> that the White House had been misled by Flynn about the nature of his calls with Kislyak before Trump took office; she warned that he <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/16/politics/sally-yates-anderson-cooper-cnntv/">could be blackmailed</a> based on the answers he gave to the FBI. She reiterated that position earlier this month before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee.

Former Acting Attorney General Yates: Russia Had ‘Real Leverage’ Against National Security Advisor Flynn

Mike Pence

Trump Administration

Monday&#8217;s Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime &amp; Terrorism invited former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former acting Attorney General testify under oath about a myriad of topics, with a particular focus on what <a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?427577-1/white-house-warned-general-flynn-compromised">C-SPAN</a> described as &#8220;Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections.&#8221;

Below are seven takeaways of interest to political and news media observers from yesterday&#8217;s hearing.

1. ZERO EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION BETWEEN TRUMPWORLD AND RUSSIA

When invited to offer evidence of collusion between the Russian government and Donald Trump&#8217;s presidential campaign toward subverting last year&#8217;s presidential election, neither James Clapper nor Sally Yates could provide anything.

Democrats and their news media allies typically refrain from categorically stating they have no evidence to corroborate their narrative of &#8220;<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/26/us/2016-presidential-campaign-hacking-fast-facts/">Election Hacking</a>,&#8221; mostly hedging their statements to claim a good faith pursuit of such evidence is still ongoing and may yet yield what they seek. An example of this trend was illustrated <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/16089/watch-democrat-senator-admits-no-evidence-trump-robert-kraychik">last week</a> during a CNN interview with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) done by Wolf Blitzer, in which the California senator said she had no evidence of &#8220;collusion&#8221; between Donald Trump&#8217;s political team and the Russian government &#8220;at this time,&#8221; as if such evidence may be forthcoming in the future. Blitzer indulged Feinstein&#8217;s innuendo, noting that &#8220;the investigation is continuing.&#8221;

2. DEMOCRATS NEVER ASKED FOR EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION BETWEEN TRUMPWORLD AND RUSSIA

At no point in the hearing did any Democrat senators ask James Clapper or Sally Yates to provide evidence of collusion between Trump&#8217;s political team and the Russian state toward subverting last year&#8217;s presidential election.

Democrats and their news media allies are invested in preserving their narrative of a compromised 2016 presidential election and its concurrent ostensible congressional &#8220;investigation.&#8221;

3. DEMOCRATS ARE COMMITTED TO THE <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23trumprussia&amp;src=typd">#TRUMPRUSSIA</a> NARRATIVE

Without exception, every attending Democrat senator did his or her part to push forward a narrative of last year&#8217;s presidential election having been compromised by Russian state interference. No inquiries were made of either James Clapper or Sally Yates regarding the Obama administration&#8217;s federal surveillance of Donald Trump or his political associates during last year&#8217;s presidential election season or during the post-election transition phase.

Also ignored by all Democrats were any inquiries into selective leaks to left-wing and Democrat-aligned news media outlets such as The New York Times, CNN, and The Washington Post to politically damage the Trump administration.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) suggested that Donald Trump is either financially beholden to or &#8220;compromised [and] corrupted&#8221; by Russian state and oligarchical interests. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) suggested that the Russian government was purchasing influence within the Trump administration via the acquisition of real estate with &#8220;shell corporations.&#8221; Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) described alleged Russian interference attempts as &#8220;an existential threat to [American] democracy.&#8221;

<div class="image"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" alt height="478" src="https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2019/09/lindsey_graham_sheldon_whitehouse.jpg" width="780" /></div>
UNITED STATES &#8211; MAY 8: Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., left, listens as Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., questions former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former acting Attorney General Sally Yates during the Senate Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism hearing on Russian Interference in the 2016 United States Election on Monday, May 8, 2017.

4. SUSAN RICE IS AWOL

Former National Security Adviser Susan Rice refused a Senate invitation to testify alongside her fellow Obama administration alumni James Clapper and Sally Yates. 

Rice&#8217;s lawyer, Kathryn H. Ruemmler, shared the <a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3699576/Susan-Rice-Letter.pdf">letter of refusal</a> with <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/03/politics/susan-rice-refuses-graham-russia-hearing/">CNN</a>, a news media ally complicit in advancing the Democrats&#8217; narrative of a comprised 2016 presidential election. She wrote that her client would be willing to participate with congressional inquiries in a &#8220;classified session.&#8221;

In recent interviews with her news media allies at MSNBC/NBC, Rice has offered conflicting statements regarding the &#8220;unmasking&#8221; of &#8220;U.S. persons&#8221; whose communications were &#8220;incidentally intercepted&#8221; by the NSA in the context of federal surveillance of Donald Trump and his campaign-turned-transition team.

5. YATES IS BOOSTING HER &#8216;RESISTANCE&#8217; PROFILE AMONG LEFTISTS AND DEMOCRATS

In her former capacity as acting Attorney General, Obama administration holdover Sally Yates refused to implement an <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states">executive order</a> issued by Donald Trump restricting the admission of any foreign person who had recently been in seven Muslim-majority failed states designated as high-risk with respect to Islamic terrorism (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen).

Yates also directed the Department of Justice to ignore Trump&#8217;s executive order. Hours later, she was terminated by Trump.

During her Monday testimony, Yates framed her decision as rooted in adherence to the Constitution, alleging that the First Amendment restricted presidential authority over the calibration of immigration policy with respect to classes of aliens defined by nationality.

Left-wing news media Democrats including Matthew Dowd were quick to frame Yates as a political martyr:

<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Sign me up for whatever Sally Yates wants to do or run for ahead in life. Impressive woman with integrity. Bravo.
&#8212; Matthew Dowd (@matthewjdowd) <a href="https://twitter.com/matthewjdowd/status/861710774510735361">May 8, 2017</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
He means Sally Damn Yates, and he&#8217;s Spot On. <a href="https://t.co/svJbl6g2GK">https://t.co/svJbl6g2GK</a>
&#8212; Eric Garland (@ericgarland) <a href="https://twitter.com/ericgarland/status/861763849241993216">May 9, 2017</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Can&#8217;t remember when there&#8217;s been this much hype around a public figure&#8217;s debut &amp; they actually delivered. Quite a job by Sally Yates today.
&#8212; Matthew Miller (@matthewamiller) <a href="https://twitter.com/matthewamiller/status/861715029959348224">May 8, 2017</a></blockquote>
</div>
6. THE MEDIA IS MORE POWERFUL THAN YOU THINK

Both James Clapper and Sally Yates repeatedly claimed to have learned about perceived national security threats in news media reports. Both also claimed to have had their conduct shaped by information they obtained via their news media diets.

Although Monday&#8217;s hearing only saw two news media outlet specifically referred to (The Washington Post and The Guardian) previous congressional hearings ostensibly investigating alleged Russian political &#8220;interference&#8221; have seen regular references to The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other left-wing and Democrat-aligned news media outlets as starting points of analysis and investigation.

What the late Andrew Breitbart described as the &#8220;Democrat Media Complex&#8221; exerts great influence on shaping the federal government&#8217;s agenda and perceptions in addition to public opinion.

7. THE IRONY IS THICK
Without any sense of irony or any provision of evidence, James Clapper described Russian propaganda as having effectively &#8220;directed an influence campaign to erode the faith and confidence of the American people in our presidential election process &#8230; The Russians have to be celebrating the success of what they set out to do, with rather minimal resource expenditure. And the first objective was to sow discord and dissension, which they certainly did.&#8221;

No comments were offered by either Democrats or Republicans on the undermining of Americans&#8217; confidence in their own political institutions via narratives pushed by Democrats and their allies in the news media and administrative bureaucratic state.
<div class="image"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" alt height="583" src="https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2019/09/james_clapper.jpg" width="780" /></div>
WASHINGTON, DC &#8211; MAY 8: Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, listens to a Senators question during his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee subcommittee hearing on Russian interference in the 2016 election, on May, 08, 2017 in Washington, DC. 

Follow Robert Kraychik on <a href="https://twitter.com/kr3ch3k">Twitter</a>.

lindsey_graham_sheldon_whitehouse

7 Most Important Pieces Of News From Clapper/Yates Hearing

Democratic Party

Dianne Feinstein

Hillary Clinton

James Clapper

Media

Media Bias

On Monday, neither James Clapper nor Sally Yates could provide any evidence of &#8220;collusion&#8221; between President Donald Trump&#8217;s political team and the Russian government when invited to do so by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

Both Clapper and Yates, former Director of National Intelligence and former acting Attorney General, respectively, were <a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?427577-1/white-house-warned-general-flynn-compromised">invited to testify</a> before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime &amp; Terrorism, ostensibly to examine allegations of &#8220;Russian interference&#8221; in 2016&#8217;s presidential election.

Asked by Graham to offer evidence of &#8220;improper contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials,&#8221; both Clapper and Yates provided nothing.

In a <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/14102/obamas-former-dni-clapper-no-wiretapping-trump-robert-kraychik">March interview</a> on NBC&#8217;s Meet the Press, Clapper could not provide any evidence of &#8220;collusion&#8221; between Trump&#8217;s presidential campaign and the Russian state when invited to do so by Chuck Todd:

<blockquote>
There was no evidence [of] collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians.
</blockquote>
Since October of 2016, Democrats and their news media allies (CNN, The New York Times, MNSBC, The Washington Post, NPR, et al) have pushed an innuendo-laden narrative of 2016&#8217;s presidential election having been compromised by foreign interference. Without evidence, the narrative&#8217;s proponents advance several interconnected assertions: (1) Americans were duped by &#8220;fake news&#8221; produced by the Russian state and spread across networks such as Facebook and Twitter for the purpose of politically damaging Hilary Clinton; (2) The Russian state directed illegal seizure of email records from the Democratic National Committee and Clinton loyalist John Podesta, subsequently releasing the stolen emails via WikiLeaks to politically damage Hillary Clinton; (3) Donald Trump and his political associates likely conspired with the Russian state during last year&#8217;s presidential election season in order to defeat Hillary Clinton.

<div class="image"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" alt height="607" src="https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2019/09/james_clapper_sally_yates_1.jpg" width="780" /></div>
WASHINGTON, DC &#8211; MAY 8: Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates , right, and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, left, listen to opening statements before their testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee subcommittee hearing on Russian interference in the 2016 election, on May, 08, 2017 in Washington, DC.

Follow Robert Kraychik on <a href="https://twitter.com/kr3ch3k">Twitter</a>.
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe loading="lazy" width="480" height="270" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/uU9a9-w2vjk?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>

james_clapper_sally_yates_1

WATCH: Clapper/Yates Have ZERO Evidence Of  Trump-Russia ‘Collusion’

Democratic National Committee

Fake News

John Podesta

President Donald Trump changed his <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump">Twitter profile</a>&#8216;s banner graphic following Monday&#8217;s Senate hearing with former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former acting Attorney General Sally Yates.

The new banner includes text from a recent tweet, published on both Trump&#8217;s <a href="http://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/861712617299210240">personal</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/861733889173336064">governmental</a> Twitter profiles: &#8220;Director Clapper reiterated what everybody, including the fake media already knows &#8211; there is &#8220;no evidence&#8221; of collusion w/ Russia and Trump.&#8221;

<div class="image"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" alt height="260" src="https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2019/09/donald_trump_sally_yates_james_clapper_twitter_banner.jpg" width="780" /></div>

Monday saw the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime &amp; Terrorism hold a hearing with Clapper and Yates offering testimony under oath. The hearing touched on a variety of subjects, including intelligence leaks to left-wing and Democrat-aligned news media outlets to push a narrative of <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/news-event/russian-election-hacking">Russian Hacking in the U.S. Election</a>. <a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?427577-1/white-house-warned-general-flynn-compromised">C-SPAN</a> described its focus as &#8220;Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections.&#8221;

No evidence was provided by either Clapper or Yates to corroborate innuendo-laden claims of 2016&#8217;s presidential election having been compromised by Russian state interference. Both Clapper and Yates were repeatedly offered opportunities by both Democrat and Republican senators to do so.

In the last weeks of Barack Obama&#8217;s presidency, the former president directed the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and National Security Council to produce a report outlining alleged subversion of American democracy at the hands of the Russian state. The report alleged, without evidence, that Russian President Vladimir Putin was the mastermind of an &#8220;influence campaign&#8221; to assist Donald Trump&#8217;s political campaign by politically damaging Hillary Clinton. Also alleged in the report, without evidence, is that the Russian state provided Wikileaks with emails illegally seized from the Democratic National Committee and Clinton loyalist John Podesta.

Trump published several tweets following testimony from Clapper and Yates:

<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Biggest story today between Clapper &amp; Yates is on surveillance. Why doesn&#8217;t the media report on this? <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/FakeNews?src=hash">#FakeNews</a>!
&#8212; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/861715019674910721">May 8, 2017</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
The Russia-Trump collusion story is a total hoax, when will this taxpayer funded charade end?
&#8212; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/861713823505494016">May 8, 2017</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Sally Yates made the fake media extremely unhappy today &#8212; she said nothing but old news!
&#8212; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/861713233786404864">May 8, 2017</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Director Clapper reiterated what everybody, including the fake media already knows- there is &#8220;no evidence&#8221; of collusion w/ Russia and Trump.
&#8212; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/861712617299210240">May 8, 2017</a></blockquote>
</div>

donald_trump_sally_yates_james_clapper_twitter_banner

Trump Changes Twitter Banner After Yates/Clapper Hearing

Twitter

Vladimir Putin

On Monday, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) challenged Sally Yates’ January decision to defy implementation of President Donald Trump’s <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states">executive order</a> entitled, “PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES.”
Partial transcript below.
<blockquote>CRUZ: Is it correct that the Constitution vests the executive authority in the president?
YATES: Yes.
CRUZ: And if an attorney general disagrees with a policy decision of the president, a policy decision that is lawful, does the attorney general have the authority to direct the Department of Justice to defy the president’s order?
YATES: I don’t know whether the attorney general has the authority to do that or not, but I don’t think it’d be a good idea. And that’s not what I did in this case.
CRUZ: Well, are you familiar with <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182">8 USC section 1182</a>?
YATES: Not off the top of my head, no.
CRUZ: Well, it is the binding statutory authority for the executive order that you refused to implement and that led to your termination, so it certainly is a relevant and not a terribly obscure statute. By the express text of the statute, it says, “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” Would you agree that that is broad statutory authority authorization?
YATES: I would, and I am familiar with that, and I am also familiar with an additional provision of the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1152">INA</a> that says, “no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, or place of birth.” That, I believe, was promulgated after the statute that you just quoted, and, that’s been part of the discussion with the courts with respect to the INA, whether this more specific statute trumps the first one that you just described. My concern was not an INA concern, here, it rather was a constitutional concern, whether or not this executive order violated the Constitution, specifically with the Establishment Clause and equal protection and due process.
CRUZ: There is no doubt the arguments you laid are arguments we can expect litigants to bring, partisan litigants who disagree with the policy decision of the president. I would note, on January 27th, 2017, the Department of Justice issued an official legal decision, a determination by the Office of Legal Council (OLC), that the executive order, and I’ll quote from the opinion, “The proposed order is approved with respect to form and legality.” That’s a determination from OLC, on January 27th, that it was legal. Three days later you determined, using your own words, that although OLC had opined on legality, it had not addressed whether it was “wise or just.”
YATES: I also, in that same directive, said that I was not convinced it was lawful. I also made the point that [the OLC] looks purely at the face of the document, and again, makes a determination as to whether there&#8217;s some set of circumstances under which some portion of that [executive order] would be enforceable, would be lawful. They importantly do not look outside the fact of the document, and in this particular instance, particularly where we were talking about a fundamental issue of religious freedom, not the interpretation of some arcane statute, but religious freedom, it was appropriate for us to look at the intent behind the president&#8217;s actions, and the intent is laid out in his statements.</blockquote>
As an Obama administration holdover in her former role as acting Attorney General, Yates refused to implement President Trump&#8217;s executive order, claiming to be personally offended by its instructions. In a statement to Department of Justice employees which found its way to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trump-immigration-ban-memo.html">The New York Times</a> within minutes, she offered her justifications:
<blockquote>“I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right. At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful.”</blockquote>
Follow Robert Kraychik on <a href="https://twitter.com/kr3ch3k">Twitter</a>. 
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe loading="lazy" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/w8vkNLY1I_M?feature=oembed" width="480" height="270" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></div>

WATCH: Cruz Battles Yates Over Trump’s ‘Travel Ban’

Department of Homeland Security

Department of Justice

Illegal Immigration

Immigrants

Immigration

Iraq

Islam

Since January, political and media observers have been inundated with a narrative of consensus across the nation&#8217;s federal intelligence apparatus regarding a storyline of the Russian government&#8217;s <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/news-event/russian-election-hacking">Russian hacking in the U.S. election</a>, essentially undermining the legitimacy of President Donald Trump&#8217;s administration by framing the president as a benefactor of a political subversion operation directed by a foreign adversary. Proponents of the narrative often frame Trump and his political allies as co-conspirators with the Russian state.

This narrative and storyline are largely built on a <a href="http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf">declassified report</a> publicly published on January 6, in the Obama administration&#8217;s final days. Entitled, &#8220;Background to &#8216;Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections&#8217;: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution,&#8221; the report was produced by three intelligence bureaucracies. Left-wing and Democrat-aligned news media outlets such as CNN, The New York Times (NYT), and NPR, however, repeatedly and falsely claim the report reflects consensus across the entirety of the federal government&#8217;s &#8220;seventeen intelligence agencies.&#8221;

During a <a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?427577-1/white-house-warned-general-flynn-compromised&amp;live">Sunday hearing</a> held by the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime &amp; Terrorism, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper made a point to correct the false record made ubiquitous by left-wing and Democrat-aligned news media. He specifically stated that the intelligence report was published by three intelligence bureaucracies, not seventeen.

The January report, jointly produced by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the National Intelligence Council (NSC), drew conclusions from intelligence it claimed was provided by the CIA, FBI, and NSA.

Left-wing and Democrat-aligned news media outlets continue to repeat the false claim that the report was a product of consensus across &#8220;all seventeen components of the intelligence community.&#8221;

CNN has repeatedly pushed the false claim that &#8220;seventeen intelligence agencies&#8221; corroborated the narrative. View an example below from a <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/03/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-briefing-russian-hack-delay/">January 4th article</a> composed by four of its reporters, including its two most senior national security correspondents.

<div class="image"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" alt height="111" src="https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2019/09/cnn1-2.jpg" width="706" /></div>

The NYT similarly parroted the falsehood of consensus across the nation&#8217;s &#8220;17 federal intelligence agencies,&#8221; incorrectly framing Clapper&#8217;s statement as reflective of unanimity of perspective across the federal intelligence apparatus. View an example below from <a href="https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/15/opinion/to-understand-trump-learn-russian.html">an article</a> published last December making the false claim.

<div class="image"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" alt height="138" src="https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2019/09/nyt1_0.jpg" width="599" /></div>

NPR similarly repeated the falsehood in <a href="http://www.npr.org/2017/01/05/508355408/intelligence-chiefs-stand-more-resolutely-behind-finding-of-russia-election-hack">an article</a> originally published on January 5 and subsequently updated; claiming that the joint DNI/NSC report was released by &#8220;17 intelligence agencies.&#8221; View its false claim below.

<div class="image"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" alt height="98" src="https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2019/09/npr1.jpg" width="625" /></div>

In October of last year, PolitiFact <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/19/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-blames-russia-putin-wikileaks-rele/">published a false &#8220;fact-check&#8221;</a> of Hillary Clinton&#8217;s repetition of the claim to further the narrative of what the NYT has described as &#8220;Russian Election Hacking.&#8221; View its fraudulent analysis below.

<div class="image"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" alt height="221" src="https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2019/09/politifact.jpg" width="759" /></div>

Reuters deployed nuance in order to maintain technical accuracy while echoing the false narrative via innuendo, noting that the DNI &#8220;oversees&#8221; what it says are the federal government&#8217;s &#8220;17 intelligence agencies;&#8221; view it below.

<div class="image"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" alt height="83" src="https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2019/09/reuters1.jpg" width="703" /></div>

These news media outlets all present themselves as politically objective and non-partisan in their conduct.

Clapper provided no evidence to corroborate his assessments of an &#8220;influence campaign&#8221; directed by the Russian state to subvert last year&#8217;s presidential election, including claims that the Russian government has illegally obtained email records from the Democratic National Committee and Clinton loyalist John Podesta. Wikileaks, he added, obtained the emails from the Russian government.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, said Clapper, &#8220;directed an influence campaign to erode the faith and confidence of the American people in our presidential election process. &#8230; He did so to demean Secretary Clinton [and] sought to advantage Mr. Trump.&#8221; No comments were offered by any Democrat or Republican senators regarding efforts to erode Americans&#8217; faith and confidence in the presidential election process driven by left-wing and Democrat-aligned news media. Similarly ignored by all attendant senators were efforts made by left-wing and Democrat-aligned news media outlets to demean Trump and advantage Clinton.


Follow Robert Kraychik on <a href="https://twitter.com/kr3ch3k">Twitter</a>.
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe loading="lazy" allowfullscreen frameborder="0" height="270" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/NevA1FFfj7s?feature=oembed" width="480"></iframe></div>

cnn1

#FakeNews Exposed: Clapper Undermines ’17 Intelligence Agencies’ Narrative

Defiant to the bitter end, on Monday Democrats in the House <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/318109-house-dem-offers-bill-in-honor-of-sally-yates">brought forth</a> a resolution lauding former acting Attorney General Sally Yates for refusing to defend President Trump&#8217;s executive order restricting immigration. Trump fired Yates for telling the DOJ not to defend Trump&#8217;s order. The White House stated Yates &#8220;betrayed the Department of Justice&#8221; and was &#8220;weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration.&#8221;
Rep. Yvette Clarke&#8217;s (D-N.Y.) bill, House Resolution 94, <a href="https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hres94/text">states</a>:
<blockquote>
Whereas Sally Quillian Yates has served the United States honorably as United States Assistant Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, United States Deputy Attorney General, and United States Acting Attorney General;
Whereas in these capacities, and in private practice, Ms. Yates has maintained the highest standards of professional ethics;
Whereas by refusing to defend the discriminatory Executive Order 13769 (82 Fed. Reg. 8977; relating to &#8220;Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States&#8221;), Ms. Yates faithfully upheld the Constitution and defended American values of tolerance, compassion, and respect for diversity;
Whereas the actions of Ms. Yates fulfill her commitment to the Senate Judiciary Committee to refuse to carry out orders that are unfaithful to the Constitution;
Whereas by standing up to power for the most at risk in our society, Ms. Yates demonstrated moral courage at the highest level; and
Whereas Ms. Yates will stand as a role model of professional ethics for men and women across the Nation for years to come: Now, therefore, be it that the House of Representatives commends Sally Quillian Yates for refusing to enforce Donald Trump&#8217;s discriminatory Executive Order 13769.
</blockquote>
Yates temporarily took over the DOJ after former Attorney General Loretta Lynch stepped down. After Yates was fired, Trump appointed Dana Boente, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, to replace her.
The Senate may consider Senator Jeff Sessions&#8217;s nomination for the post of Attorney General this week.

House Democrats Honor Sally Yates For Defying Trump’s Executive Order

In a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/30/us/document-Letter-From-Sally-Yates.html">letter</a> to top lawyers at the Justice Department, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, who is the acting Attorney General until Jeff Sessions is confirmed by the Senate, gave orders not defend President Trump&#8217;s executive order on immigration. Yates became the acting head of the Justice Department when Loretta Lynch stepped down as attorney general earlier in January.
Yates, who was the lead prosecutor in the prosecution of Olympic Park bomber Eric Rudolph and was later <a href="http://www.ibtimes.com/who-sally-yates-president-barack-obama-appoint-deputy-attorney-general-1764350">appointed</a> to be deputy attorney general by Barack Obama, wrote:
<blockquote>
On January 27, 2017, the President signed an Executive Order regarding immigrants and refugees from certain Muslim-majority countries. The order has now been challenged in a number of jurisdictions. As the Acting Attorney General, it is my ultimate responsibility to determine the position of the Department of Justice in these actions.
My role is different from that of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which, through administrations of both parties, has reviewed Executive Orders for form and legality before they are issued. OLC&#8217;s review is limited to the narrow question of whether, in OLC&#8217;s view, a proposed Executive Order is lawful on its face and properly drafted. Its review does not take account of statements made by an administration or it surrogates close in time to the issuance of an Executive Order that may bear on the order&#8217;s purpose. And importantly, it does not address whether any policy choice embodied in an Executive Order is wise or just.
Similarly, in litigation, DOJ Civil Division lawyers are charged with advancing reasonable legal arguments that can be made supporting an Executive Order. But my role as leader of this institution is different and broader. My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts. In addition, I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution&#8217;s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right. At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the Executive Order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful.
Consequently, for as long as I am the Acting Attorney General, the Department of Justice will not present arguments in defense of the Executive Order, unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so.
</blockquote>
The problem for Trump until Sessions is confirmed is that she is the top Senate-confirmed official at the Justice Department, and thus the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/attorney-general-civil-rights-refugee.html">only person</a> authorized to sign foreign surveillance warrants.
As The Wall Street Journal <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/acting-attorney-general-orders-justice-dept-not-to-defend-trumps-travel-ban-1485819447">reports:</a>
<blockquote>
Ms. Yates&#8217;s decision is based on the series of lawsuits that were <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trumps-immigration-ban-sows-chaos-1485748079">filed in the first 24 hours</a> in which immigration officials began enforcing Mr. Trump&#8217;s order on refugees and immigrants. Civil rights and immigrant advocates sued on behalf of individuals affected by the decision, particularly legal permanent residents who suddenly found themselves in limbo at U.S. airports when the order went into effect. Because of those lawsuits, Justice Department lawyers have begun appearing in court to defend the legality of the order, meaning that Ms. Yates ended up overseeing, albeit temporarily, the legal position of the Trump administration.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
&#8220;For as long as I am the Acting Attorney General, the Department of Justice will not present arguments in defense of the Executive Order, unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so.&#8221;
Acting Attorney General Sally Yates
</blockquote>
The White House is going to issue a response about Yates&#8217; statement tonight, according to The New York Times:
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
&#8230;And just like that, WH pool told to expect statement this evening on <a href="https://twitter.com/SallyQYates">@SallyQYates</a> refusal to defend immigration order per <a href="https://twitter.com/ASimendinger">@ASimendinger</a>
&#8212; Julie Davis (@juliehdavis) <a href="https://twitter.com/juliehdavis/status/826215578977366017">January 30, 2017</a></blockquote>
</div>

SABOTAGE: Obama DOJ Holdover Won’t Defend Trump’s Executive Order

Loretta Lynch

Menu