The only problem was, Yates' testimony added little to the public's knowledge about Trump, Russia, Michael Flynn, or the travel ban executive order. On a number of occasions, Yates refused to answer questions, explaining that to do so would reveal classified information. But on other occasions, senators just didn't ask, or didn't allow Yates to fully answer questions. The bottom line was that many of the things we didn't know before the hearing, we still didn't know after. Here are five:
Byron York: 5 big things we still don't know after Sally Yates' testimony
1) What did Michael Flynn do? Yates told the subcommittee about her January 26 visit to the White House to tell White House counsel Don McGahn of serious concerns about Flynn, the newly-installed national security adviser. Flynn's transition conversation(s) with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak had been wiretapped, and Yates had read the transcripts. In addition, Yates, along with a Justice Department associate who went with her to the White House, knew what Flynn had told the FBI when agents questioned him on January 24.
"The first thing we did was to explain to Mr. McGahn that the underlying conduct that General Flynn had engaged in was problematic in and of itself," Yates told the subcommittee.
But what was the underlying conduct? Was it the very fact that the incoming national security adviser talked to the Russian ambassador during the transition? Was it that they had discussed U.S. sanctions on Russia? Was it Flynn not telling Vice President Mike Pence the truth about those conversations? Whatever it was, it left Flynn "compromised" and vulnerable to "blackmail" by the Russians, Yates testified.
[clip]
2) Why did Yates deem the Trump travel ban executive order unconstitutional? As acting attorney general, Yates ordered the Justice Department not to defend the president's executive order temporarily halting admissions of some travelers from a few countries that have extensive records of terrorism. Before the Senate Monday, Yates said — with some prodding — that she believed the order was both unlawful and unconstitutional. But she left unanswered questions when she was asked why she overruled the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which had ruled the executive order lawful.
Although no senator gave her the chance to explain in depth, Yates seemed to suggest that the plain black-and-white text of the order might have been lawful and constitutional, but that it was not when viewed in the context of President Trump's campaign statements about Muslims. (That is a position taken by the various federal judges who have so far ruled against the order.)
The Office of Legal Counsel lawyers "do not look beyond the face of the executive order, for example, [to] statements that are made contemporaneously or prior to the execution of the E.O. that may bear on its intent and purpose," Yates said. "That office does not look at those factors, and in determining the constitutionality of this executive order, that was an important analysis to engage in, and one that I did."
"The first thing we did was to explain to Mr. McGahn that the underlying conduct that General Flynn had engaged in was problematic in and of itself," Yates told the subcommittee.
But what was the underlying conduct? Was it the very fact that the incoming national security adviser talked to the Russian ambassador during the transition? Was it that they had discussed U.S. sanctions on Russia? Was it Flynn not telling Vice President Mike Pence the truth about those conversations? Whatever it was, it left Flynn "compromised" and vulnerable to "blackmail" by the Russians, Yates testified.
[clip]
2) Why did Yates deem the Trump travel ban executive order unconstitutional? As acting attorney general, Yates ordered the Justice Department not to defend the president's executive order temporarily halting admissions of some travelers from a few countries that have extensive records of terrorism. Before the Senate Monday, Yates said — with some prodding — that she believed the order was both unlawful and unconstitutional. But she left unanswered questions when she was asked why she overruled the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which had ruled the executive order lawful.
Although no senator gave her the chance to explain in depth, Yates seemed to suggest that the plain black-and-white text of the order might have been lawful and constitutional, but that it was not when viewed in the context of President Trump's campaign statements about Muslims. (That is a position taken by the various federal judges who have so far ruled against the order.)
The Office of Legal Counsel lawyers "do not look beyond the face of the executive order, for example, [to] statements that are made contemporaneously or prior to the execution of the E.O. that may bear on its intent and purpose," Yates said. "That office does not look at those factors, and in determining the constitutionality of this executive order, that was an important analysis to engage in, and one that I did."
Byron York: 5 big things we still don't know after Sally Yates' testimony
Last edited: