Report about matters relating to mr. Trump, his associates or russias attempt to meddle in the election . Melissa more on what yates knew about former National Security adviser Michael Flynn and any connections to Russian Election interference. What warnings she gave to the trump administration, who leaked it all to the media . Were going to take you to that throughout the hour. The other big story in washington, the Senate Taking up the Health Care Reform bill, louisiana senator john kennedy, if theres truth to any that they may tear up the house bill and start from scratch . Senator kennedy also in the yates hearing right now, were going to talk to him about that. David and we are going to be monitoring the hearing throughout the hour, bringing you highlights from it. When events warrant. Back to the markets, lori rothman on the floor of the stock exchange. Quickly, lori . Reporter lot of action, let me begin in the tv industry, local tv station owner sinclair buying tribune, total station for the companies, 215 all around the country including the three largest markets to give the combined company a little more leverage when it comes to negotiating for content for the tv stations and more clout. Local advertisers. Comcast and charter, this isnt exactly a deal, more agreement obviously the two biggest cable companies, they want a stake in the highly lucrative wireless industry. They have greed. One decides to make it big for tmobile or sprint or verizon that they will tell the other company first, so that agreement will last for one year. So as not toe left behin coach is buying kate spade, the slowing hand bag industry hoping this partnership will give a shot in the arm to the industry. 2. 4 billion deal, that is the value there. And i want to show you apple. Apple shares were up today. Look at final price, hopefully see that quickly. Up 2. 75 of one percent. No company has breached the 800 billion market. Apple did that. Warren buffett revealed his stake in the tech giant, and, of course, a chinese Economic Daily blog reported we will see the new version of the iphone in september to be released in october. Back to you. David thank you very much. Melissa . Melissa liz claman sat down with Warren Buffett moments ago and reveals what he thinks the biggest risk to the stock market is. A public that gets overexcited about stocks at some point becomes the biggest risk to the stock market. Liz do you see that now . I dont think so. You never know when its going to happen. You know it will happen periodically, except it isnt periodically exactly, radically is the word. It will happen. It will happen. Melissa dan heninger of the wall street journal is here, steve cortes, former Trump Campaign adviser, dan, what did you think of what you just heard . Well, i was fascinated by it. God knows im going to defer to Warren Buffett. He says were not yet overexcited about stocks, looks as though were excited about the stocks for the last two or three years. I dont know how much more excitement is left in the market. Melissa yeah, steve, what do you think . I think frankly there is more excitement left if we can grow the way were supposed to. Whats been missing from the American Economy is productity growth. What we have n seen in the century, in the 2000s is the productivity growth in the 1980s and 90s. The reason is we havent seen enough capex spending, investing in people, plants, technology, the tax proposals that President Trump has put forward can excite that investment and that kind of growth. I think the stock market is properly pricing that in. Melissa gentlemen, thank you, breaking news, former acting attorney general sally yates testifying before the Senate Subcommittee investigating russian interference in the president ial election. Senator ted cruz is asking the questions, lets listen. You also testified you are not aware of any intercepted communications of any president ial candidates or campaigns other than the Trump Campaign thats been discussed here, is that correct . Yes, but thats to my knowledge, but, you know, prior administrations, prior campaigns wouldnt have been visible to me, so i cant say. But in 2016, youre not aware of any other campaigns or candidates . No. And ms. Yates, same question to you. Im not aware of any interceptions of the Trump Campaign. Are and you aware of any intercepted communications of any other candidates or campaigns . No. Okay, because earlier when chairman graham asked you, that i thought you declined to answer. Perhaps i misunderstood. And i may have misunderstood the question. I thought the question i declined to answer is a different one that. Th glad i got to clear it up. You have no information of interceptions of the Bernie Sanders campaign, the Hillary Clinton campaign or any other candidate or campaigns . No. Okay. Lets revisit the topic, ms. Yates that and you senator cornyn were talking about. Okay. Is it correct that the constitution vests the executive authority in the president . Yes. 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 . I dont know whether the attorney general has the authority to do that or not, but i dont think it would be a good idea, and thats not what i did in this case. Well, are you familiar with 8usc section 1182. Not off the top of my head, no. The binding Statutory Authority for the executive heard that you refused to implement and that led to your termination, it is a relevant and not a terribly obscure statute. By the express text of the statute it says whenever the president finds class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation and such period as he shall deem necessary suspend the entry of all aliens or class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants or impose on the entrance of aliens any restrictions he may deem appropriate. Would you agree that is broad statutorythization . I am, i am familiar with additional provision which says no person shall receive preference and issuance of visa because of race, nationality or place of birth. They believe was promulgated after the statute that you just quoted, and thats been part of the discussion with the courts with respect to the ima is whether this more specific statute trumps the first one that you described. My concern was not an ina concern, it was a constitutional concern, whether or not the executive order here violated the constitution specifically with the establishment clause and equal protection and due process. There is no doubt the arguments you laid out are arguments we can expect litigants to bring, partisan litigants who disagree with the partisan decision of the policy of the president. I would note on january 27th, 2017, the department of justice issued a determination by the office of Legal Counsel that the executive order and ill quote from the opinion, the proposed order is approved with respect to form and legality. Thats a determination from llc that it was legal, three days later you determined using your own words that although olc opined on legality it had not addressed whether it was, quote, wise or just. I also in the same directive senator said i was not convinced it was lawful. I also made the point that the office of olc looks purely at the face of the document, and again, makes a determination whether there is a set of circumstances under which some portion of that eo would be enforceable, would be lawful. They importantly do not look outside the face 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 s action from the intent laid out in his statement. A final and brief question. In the over 200 years of the department of justice history, are you aware of any instance in which the department of justice has formally approved the legality of a policy and three days later, the attorney general has directed the department not to follow that policy and defy that policy . Im not, but also not aware of the situation where the office of Legal Counsel was advised not to tell the attorney general about it until after it was over. Thank you, ms. Yates. I would note that might be the se if theres reason to suspect partisanship. Senator . Thank you. I want to thank you very much for your service, ms. Yates. From beginning to end, your distinguished career as a prosecutor, and i was putting this timetable together, and i realize that your second meeting when you went to the white house to warn them of general flynns lying and his connections with russia, was the same day that the refugee order came out and the same day that you had to leave the Justice Department. So when did you meet with the white House Counsel on that day . I met with white House Counsel, best i can recall about 3 00 in the afternoon on the 30th. And during that meeting, did they mention anyone mention that the refugee order was about to come out . No. Did the acting attorney general of the United States. That was one thing that was concern to us not only was Department Leadership not consulted here, and beyond Department Leadership, really the subject matter experts. The National Security experts. Not only was the department not consulted, we werent told about it. I learned about this from media reports. So you learned about it after the meeting at the white House Counsel from the media . Right. Then its true that during your hearing, then senator sessions, now the attorney general, actually asked you if the views the president wants to execute are unlawful, should the attorney general or Deputy Attorney general say no, and what did you say . And i said yes, the attorney general should. Okay, and then moving forward here, as was mentioned by senator then, this order was after a lawsuit from the state of washington and minnesota, the court basically challenged the constitutionality of the order, the order is not taking effect, but what i want to get to right now is the fact that the administration then ew its appeal of the court ruling blocking implementation of the same order, and then they changethe order that you would not implement. Right, and there were a number of important distinctions between travel ban one and travel ban two. At the time i had to make my decision, for example, the executive order still apply to green card holders. Lawful permanent residents and those who had visas. A number of other distinctions as well. Let me say one thing thank you, i want to get onto, but go ahead, quickly. Look, i understand that people of good will and who are are good folks can make different decisions about this. I understand that, but all i can say is that i did my job the best way i knew how. I looked at the eu, followed the law, talked with the folks at the department of justice, gathered them all to get their views and input, and i did my job. Okay, i appreciate that. Lets go to russia. December 29, this is the date that actually senator graham and i were with senator mccain hearing about russian interference, meeting with leaders in the baltics, georgia and ukraine, this is a date the president expanded the sanctions against russia and this is the date that Michael Flynn reportedly talked to the russians, perhaps several times about sanctions. He then went onto not tell the truth to the Vice President , and one of the white house officials has described the notification that you provided warning them of this as a headsup, how would you describe a headsup . Well, at the risk of trying to characterize, we were there trying to tell the white house about something we were very concerned about and emphasize to them repeatedly so they could take objection. It was much more formal than hey, this isappening . Michael ynn did not resign his position as National Security adviser until february 13th, that is 18 days after you went over there with the formal warning, and in particular, after they knew about this on january 28th, flynn was allowed to join President Trump on an hourlong telephone call with russian president vladimir putin. Do you have any doubt that the information that you conveyed to the white house on january 26 should have been made clear that flynn had been potentially compromised by russia . That this information was clear . Well, the purpose in our telling them, again, was so they could act and convey that information. So i would hope that they did. If a highranking National Security official is caught on tape with a foreign official saying one thing in private and then caught in public saying another thing to the Vice President , is that material for blackmail . Certainly. Do you want to add anything to that, director clapper . No. Okay. [laughter] think its pretty clear and clear why weve had this hearing today. I wanted to ask you, director clapper, a few things in general, the russian influence. When director comey was here last week, he said i think that one of the lessons that the russians may have drawn from this, hes talking about the election influence is that this works. Those were ceys words. Doou agree . Absolutely, and as i said in my statement, the russians have to be celebrating the success of what for what they set out to do with rather minimal resource expenditure, and the first objective is to sow discord and distension, which they certainly did. Looking into the hacking and the dnc and podesta, we had the fake news propaganda, i believe its 200 million is that all they spent in the scheme of things . If that, which doesnt include the Government Support to subsidies to rt. How does rt work . Rt is a propaganda mouthpiece for the government, since the funding comes from the government, the management is close to putin, so its as i say, a governmental russian governmental mouthpiece. Ms. Yates, im asking in your capacity as former attorney general and Deputy Attorney general, id ask this of director comey about the use of shell corporations, 50 of real estate deals over 5 million are done with shell corporations. Were trying to push so the Treasury Department puts more tranparencies, this is something the European Countries are working on right now, and im very concerned this is another vehicle where money is launderred. Im concerned about loopholes in our Campaign Finance laws as well. But could you address this just from your experience as a criminal prosecutor . Sure, those are all valid concerns. Were actually lag behind other countries in the world and dont want to become a haven where can you have shell corporations used for nefarious purposes that can have National Security implications as well as criminal implications. Director clapper, do you want to add anything to that . Again, this is why i believe independent commission in addition to the great work done by this subcommittee and the Senate Intelligence committee, which is so important, as well as the investigation, an independent commission would allow a panel of experts to go into the next election, go into 2020, where director comey had said, i expect to see them back in 2018, and especially 2020. Those are his words. Do you agree with that . Director . Absolutely. That is why an independent commission would allow us to come up with ideas how we can stop this again. Whether it is how the media handles these things, campaigns handle these things, how intelligence agencies when they find out, handle these things, because we cannot allow Foreign Countries to influence our democracies. Do you agree, director clapper . I certainly do, and i understand how critical leaks are and unmasking and all these ancillary issues, but to me, the transcended issue here is the russian interference in our election process, and what that means to the erosion of the fundamental fabric of our democracy, and that to me is a huge deal, and theyre going to continue to do it and why not . It proved successful. Thank you. Until they pay a price. I hope which they will soon pay. Senator . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here, director clapper, how likely do you think it is Foreign Intelligence Services are trying to compromise congressional i. T. Systems . I think congressional i. T. Systems are a target and have been and certainly i saw examples of that during my time as dni, and this is one case where we expeditiously informed the congress when we saw evidence of that, and again, thats not just russians, there are others doing the same thing. And what intel value it would provide to them . Well, depending on the nature of the material, it would be quite sensitive. Hard to make a general statement about it, but just as a general rule, it could be quite damaging. Could you talk a little bit about the relationship between that particular intel gathering on the legislators and propaganda campaigns such as you say russia, ive heard you testify in other places about russias activity among their near neighbors. Whats the relationship between propaganda and direct intel gathering . You mean on the part of the russia