Transcripts For MSNBCW The Last Word With Lawrence ODonnell

Including Intelligence Experts mieke eoyang and ned price. It was a hearing unlike any we have seen before. It was the dramatic story of a woman in the first week of her new big job, biggest job of her life who gets some information that she knows her boss is going to hate. And so she brings that information immediately to her bosss lawyer, who is also in the first week of his new job. As her bosss lawyer. And her boss is in his first week of his new job. As president of the United States. And the only person in this story who does the right thing is that woman in the first week of her new job which would turn out to be the last week of her new job. To state the obvious, you dont want your National Security adviser compromised with the russians. Red flags and warnings sent to the Trump Administration about former National Security adviser Michael Flynn. President obama warned President Trump not to hire mike flynn. Did you not vet him yourselves . Thats where it appears that the trump transition dropphe ball. The underlying conduct that general flynn had engaged in was problematic in and of itself. We heard just how hard she tried to tell the white house. The National Security adviser essentially could be blackmail by the russians. Our Legal Counsel got a headsup from sally yates. They wanted to give, quote, a heads up to us. Three conversations between the acting attorney general and the white House Counsel. It wasnt a mere headsup. We were giving them this information so they could take action. General flynn continued to serve as the National Security adviser for 18 days. And he lets him be in all these classified some urgency. General flynn is a wonderful man. Think about it. Youre in the first week of your new job, the biggest job of your life. And you get this information. And it is stunning information. And it is going to be very, very bad news for the boss. Imagine yourself in that situation. She was actually in her seventh day as acting attorney general of the United States. Thats when sally yates was told a story that no attorney general in history had ever heard. There was no playbook to consult. This had never happened before. She was told that the president s National Security adviser had been lying about his contacts with the russian government and could be blackmailed by the russians. National security adviser Michael Flynn was in his seventh day on the job. The president of the United States was in his seventh day on the job. Sally yates called the white House Counsel, who was in his seventh day on the job. She requested a meeting with the white house connell, don mcgann, and later that same day, the meeting happened. The National Security adviser essentially could be blackmailed by the russians. Finally, we told them that we were giving them all of this information so that they could take action. The action that they deemed appropriate. I remember that mr. Mcgann asked me whether or not general flynn should be fired. And i told him that really wasnt 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 National Security adviser was lying about his contacts with the russians. Well show you some of what senators had to say about that in a moment. The next day, sally yates called the white House Counsel, yes, she decided that the white House Counsel could come to the Justice Department to see the underlying evidence in the flynn case. She doesnt know if the white House Counsel ever did that, because that same night she was fired by the president for refusing to try to defend the president s unconstitutional travel ban in federal court. The president s executive order on banning entrance to the United States buzz blocked by federal judges from boston to seattle and was clearly so desperately unconstitutional that the president eventually completely with drew it. While the president was trying and failing to get his travel ban enforced, he took no action to ban Michael Flynn from access to highly classified material, even though the white house had been warned that Michael Flynn could, quote, be blackmailed by the russians. General flynn continued to hire key senior staff on the National Security council, announce new sanctions on irans Ballistic Missile program, met with japanese Prime Minister shinzo abe along with President Trump at maralago and participated in discussions about a north Korea Missile Launch and spoke repeatedly to the press about his discussions with Russian Ambassador sergey kislyak. Here is Michael Flynn on the job six days after the White House Council was told that he could be blackmailed by the russians. As of today, we are officially putting iran on notice. We dont know if the president was on notice that Michael Flynn could be blackmailed by the russians. We dont yet know who the white house councsel told about this. What we do know is that the white house took no action, no action at all, until the Washington Post ran a story based on a leak from an unknown source saying thatally yates had warned the white house about Michael Flynn. It took 18 days for Michael Flynn to be fired after the white house was warned that he could be blackmailed by the russians. There is no reason to believe that Michael Flynn was ever going to be fired. If the Washington Post had not exposed him. There were some republican senators at todays hearing who care more about the leak to the Washington Post than they appeared to care about Michael Flynn being compromised by the russians. Next question. Have either of you ever been an anonymous source in a news report about matters relating to mr. Trump, his associates, or russias attempt to meddle in the election . No. Absolutely not. We now know according to an nbc news report today that president obama warned donald trump not to hire Michael Flynn when they had a 90minute meeting in the oval office two davis election, and still with a president ial warning not to hire someone, given by the president who fired that person, donald trump hired Michael Flynn. And we have every reason to believe that Michael Flynn would still be the president s National Security adviser if someone inside the government had not done the right thing and leaked the truth about Michael Flynn to the Washington Post this story follows the wellworn path of the previous most importt president ial scandal in history, the watergate scandal the Nixon Administration. The nixon admistration eventually collapsed. The president resigned on the verge of being impeached in part because someone inside the government kept leaking information to the Washington Post, to bob woodward and carl bernstein. 48 members of the Nixon Administration were convicted of crimes. Nixons attorney general went to prison. His white House Counsel went to prison. And leaks to the Washington Post are part of what kept the momentum going in the watergate investigation. And the leak to the Washington Post that was condemned by republican senators today is obviously what got Michael Flynn fired. Sally yates testified under oath today that she was not the source of that leak. So the source of the leak to the Washington Post might on the one hand be guilty of a crime for leaking classified information. And on the other hand, is the anonymous hero who has taken a chance so that america can know the truth. Without the free press telling us a lot of what went on, Michael Flynn might still be sitting in the white house as National Security adviser. Joining us now, tim mak, david corn, Washington Bureau chief for mother jones and an msnbc political analyst. Tim and david were both at that hearing today. Mieke eoyang, former House Intelligence Committee staffer and director of National Security program at the third way. And ned price. Ned is a former senior director and spokesperson for the National Security council and a msnbc contributor. Mieke, i know you have sat in hearing like this, but there has never been a hearing like this. You have certainly sat in hearings behind members urging them to ask certain questions, thinking of certain questions. And you must have had some of that experience today watching this hearing. Was there a question that you wish were asked or if they were asked, what do you think was the most important question . So i think there were a number of really important questions today asked. And sally yates did a wonderful job of answering them. One of the questions that i would have liked to have seen asked is that we had heard from director clap theyre the white house was trying to invoke executive privilege to not get him to testify about certain things. And we assume that they made similar requests to sally yates. So the question then that i would like to know is what is the white house not wanting them to talk about when theyre testifying before congress. Because there is a whole lot of information that they cant share with people. And the American People might want to know where the white house is interested in hiding things. Ned price, what was the high point for you or the point you think people should focus on . And was there something unsaid that you would have liked to have explored at this hearing . Yeah, absolutely, lawrence. For me there were three key takeaways. The second is that sally yates in very short order obliterated this notion, this fiction that all she offered to the white house was a mere heads up that there were some inconsistencies in public statements about general flynns actions. The second was this point about underlying conduct. Underlying conduct, she said, that was problematic in and of itself. Now to me, that smelled like it could be a reference to the logan act, the 1799 statute that makes it a crime to attempt to subvert United States Foreign Policy by a private individual. But it could be something even more sinister. We just dont know. And when sally yates was pressed, she wouldnt go there. But perhaps most interesting, and third for me was the divergence of the answers that we saw between director clapper and sally yates when they were both asked if they had seen any indications of collusion between members of the trump team and the russians. Director clapper was very succinct. He said no. Sally yates, however, then said that in order to answer that, she would have to betray classified equities. And i found that to be a very interesting answer. Because typically the lack of information in and of itself is not classified. To me that suggested that she is privy to something that director clapper was not that led her not to answer that single question. I want to listen to something that sean spicer said on february 14th. This is when he made that reference to that all sally yates did was give us a heads up. But he also said something about the underlying conduct. Lets listen to this. The acting attorney general informed the white House Counsel that they wanted to give, quote, a heads up to us on some comments that may have seemed in conflict with what he had sent the Vice President out in particular. The white House Counsel informed the president immediately. The president asked him to conduct a review of whether there was a legal situation there. That was immediately determined that there wasnt. That was what the president believed at the time from what he had been told. And he was proved to be correct. The issue pure and simple came down to a matter of trust. David corn, its so striking. First of all, we know that its completely false when sean spicer says it was a heads up that there may have that there may have seemed in conflict. Statement might have seemed in conflict. That is not what sally yates said. She said lying. So we know that sean spicer is not telling the truth in the first part of that answer. But he gets into the particulars. He says that don mcgann, the president told don mcgann to find fought there was anything criminal or anything in the underlying conduct that was worthy of review. And sean spicer says that was immediately determined that there wasnt. While the fbi was investigating flynn at the time and might still well be. But the key thing here when he says that, he is not really taking into account not just that sally yates said that flynn had been lying, but that sally yates had said he was susceptible to russian blackmail. I mean, that may not be a crime, but nevertheless, its a serious matter. And so this is not a headsup if the acting attorney general comes to the white house and says your top National Security adviser is vulnerable to russian blackmail. I think you ought to do something about it. So he, you know, spicer this is a coverup. He was covering up the essential message that sally yates was bringing to the white house. And you still had, you know, even after the Washington Post story coming out, donald trump and others saying that he is a good man. There was this one issue of a small lie he told to mike pence. That wasnt the issue. So they been stonewalling, covering up. And i dont know what theyre going to say tomorrow. But will they admit that they were told that flynn was susceptible to blackmail and tell us what they did about it . If this had been a Democratic Administration in a fix like this, there would be 27 congressional investigations b tonight with subpoenas flying in every which direction. I want to listen to something that senator blumenthal said identifying a possible crime that Michael Flynn committed in possibly lying to the fbi. Lets listen to this. Isnt it a fact that Michael Flynn lied to the fbi . And i cant reveal the internal fbi investigation. Senator, even though that part would not technically be classified, its an ongoing investigation, and i cant reveal that. Did you tell Donald Mcgann that then National Security adviser flynn told the truth to the fbi . No. He asked me how he had done in the interview, and i specifically declined to answer that. Because it was part of an investigation . Thats right. Tim mak, i thought that was a particularly dramatic moment there is don mcgann trying to find out how did that fbi interview go. Because he knows lying to the fbi is a crime. He says how did he do in the interview . Sally yates very deliberately refusing to answer. Right. And what does that mean . What could Michael Flynn have been talking about . A couple issues just off the top of your head. If youre thinking about what that could have been. Could it have been whether he properly disclosed the nature of his contacts with the Russian Ambassador . Could it have been whether he properly a truthfully answered questions about his contacts with the russian government prior to speaking to the ambassado