Former Attorney General Sally Yates Says White House Tried Limiting Her Russia Testimony

[kpete]

The Associated Press
Mar 28, 2017

A lawyer for former deputy Attorney General Sally Yates wrote in letters last week that the Trump administration was trying to limit her testimony at congressional hearings focused on Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. The hearing was later canceled by the House intelligence committee chairman.

In the letters, attorney David O'Neil said he understood the Justice Department was invoking "further constraints" on testimony Yates could provide at a committee hearing that had been scheduled for Tuesday. He said the department's position was that all actions she took as deputy attorney general were "client confidences" that could not be disclosed without written approval.

"We believe that the Department's position in this regard is overbroad, incorrect, and inconsistent with the Department's historical approach to the congressional testimony of current and former senior officials," O'Neil wrote in a March 23 letter to Justice Department official Samuel Ramer.


http://fortune.com/2017/03/28/sally-yates-testimony/?xid=time_socialflow_twitter

[C_U_L8R]

1. After 8 years of Republican whining about executive power

it's actually a bit surprising to see them totally roll over.
It's just seems so corrupt and impotent. Smarmy.

[BumRushDaShow]

2. Not surprising at all

They only whine about "powers" that others have that they want. Once they have it, it's not longer an issue.

[dalton99a]

6. +1

[FiveGoodMen]

9. They never mean what they say

When Dubya entered the White House, they immediately started complaining about the executive branch having too LITTLE power.

Looking for consistency in their message is a waste of time.

Pointing out the inconsistency in their message -- to the politicians -- is also a waste of time. They know what they're doing.

Why the PUBLIC doesn't care is another matter.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

12. Obama signed Exec Orders at the lowest rate in 120 years. . . . nt

[bdamomma]

3. how do you say

A MASSIVE COVER UP.


I am too impatient when are heads going to roll? especially Bannon.

[dalton99a]

7. It is a cover-up, and they're scared shitless.

[L. Coyote]

4. "Trump has used Nunes revelations to defend his unproven claim that Barack Obama tapped phones"

The bottom line in Nunes' Dog and Pony Show is Trump's cyber-lynching of Obama:

"Trump has used Nunes’ revelations to defend his unproven claim that Barack Obama tapped phones at Trump Tower."

https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2017/03/28/calls-grow-for-nunes-to-recuse-himself-from-russia-probe

The canceled hearing would have been the first opportunity for the public to hear Yates’ account of her role in the firing of Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn.

The letters from lawyer David O’Neil, published by The Washington Post, appeared to be in response to a meeting O’Neil had at the Justice Department on March 23 in advance of the hearing.

In them, O’Neil pushes back against what he says is Justice Department guidance on what Yates could say about conversations she had with Trump — conversations the department indicated could be covered by executive privilege.

“We believe that the Department’s position in this regard is overbroad, incorrect, and inconsistent with the Department’s historical approach to the congressional testimony of current and former senior officials,” O’Neil wrote in a March 23 letter to Justice Department official Samuel Ramer.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

13. NOT "relevations". Nunes has only made ASSERTIONS. Not provided any facts to back it up. . . nt

[L. Coyote]

16. You are correct. More like vague innuendos and vaporous inferences.

[Gothmog]

5. Trump is scared of Sally Yates

[jmg257]

8. Still not getting the issue - the DOJ said she should check with the WH, and the WH didn't object.

Yates believed that the DOJ was wrong in their position that some of her work was covered under "client confidence", and that she needed WH clearance.

When Yates checked with the WH, they didn't object to her testifying.

What's the issue?

[neohippie]

10. What's the issue?

The WH tried to claim that she couldn't discuss privileged conversations, claiming that she was acting as their counsel.

Doesn't that sound like the WH trying to prevent her from disclosing a conversation that could damage their narrative?

[jmg257]

11. Who said that in the WH? Or was that the DOJ who said she had to check with the WH?

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/read-the-letters-detailing-how-sally-yates-was-blocked-from-testifying-on-russia/2390/

Here's Yates' asking the DOJ to clarify their position:

...
The Department of Justice has advised that it believes there are further
constraints on the testimony Ms. Yates may provide at the HPSCI hearing.
Generally, we understand that the Department takes the position that all information
Ms. Yates received or actions she took in her capacity as Deputy Attorney General
and Acting Attorney General are client confidences that she may not disclose absent
written consent of the Department.

We believe that the Department's position in this regard is overbroad,
incorrect, and inconsistent with the Department's historical approach to the
congressional testimony of current and former senior officials. In particular, we
believe that Ms. Yates should not be obligated to refuse to provide non-classified
facts about the Department's notification to the White House of concerns about the
conduct of a senior official. Requiring Ms. Yates to refuse to provide such
information is particularly untenable given that multiple senior administration
officials have publicly described the same events.

In light of those public statements, it is unclear what confidentiality interests
the Department believes may still exist concerning these events. To the extent the
Department believes that consent is necessary to permit Ms. Yates to testify in the
manner described above, we are hereby requesting it.

Regards,...

Here is the DOJ response:

...
In particular, your letter pertains to Ms. Yates's potential disclosure to HPSCI of non-
classified facts about the Department's notification to the White House of concerns about the
conduct of a senior official. We appreciate your meeting at the Department on March 23, 2017,
to provide additional information about the details of these communications with the White
House that you believe may be responsive to Committee inquiries.

Ms. Yates seeks authorization to testify about communications she and a senior
Department offcial had with the Office of the Counsel to the President. Such communications
are likely covered by the presidential communications privilege and possibly the deliberative
process privilege. The President owns those privileges. Therefore, to the extent Ms. Yates needs
consent to disclose the details of those communications to HPSCI, she needs to consult with the
White House. She need not obtain separate consent from the Department.

Please let me know if you have any additional questions.
...

Yates' request to the WH:

...
The Department of Justice indicated in the attached response that any
confidentiality equity in this information belongs to the President and that Ms. Yates
does not need separate consent from the Department.

It is unclear whether the presidential communications or deliberative process
privileges could apply to the referenced information. In any event, any claim of
privilege has been waived as a result of the multiple public comments of current
senior White House officials describing the January 2017 communications.
Nevertheless, I am advising the White House of Ms. Yates' intention to provide
information in the manner described above.

If I do not receive a response by Monday, March 27, at 10 am EDT, I will
conclude that the White House does not assert executive privilege over these matters
with respect to the hearing or other settings.

There is/was supposedly no White House response to this request.

[neohippie]

15. Your description of events is accurate

But the DOJ, defers to the WH in their letter, citing that it's possible that the conversations she is mostly likely going to be commenting on are likely covered by privilege.

The WH declines to answer and instead Nunes decides to cancel the hearing.

I guess what has people upset is that Nunes and the WH appear to be working together to stall the public investigation into all things Russia and Trump.

And by not responding to the request the WH is stalling the investigation.

However, not to be deterred by the idea that the conversations might be covered by privilege, Yates and her attorney feel that the argument that would say the conversations are privileged doesn't seem to be strong and their decision appears to be that the conversations aren't protected by the privileges described in the DOJ letter.

That still shows obstruction or delay on behalf of the WH in my opinion, they could have responded to give Yates the go ahead but instead they decided to play poker, and Nune's appears to be playing on their team with his behavior regarding his chairmanship of the committee by repeatedly appearing to be working on behalf of the targets of the investigation.

[jmg257]

17. Agreed - you put it very nicely in the last paragraph! THANKS!! nt

[rockfordfile]

14. yes the Trump administration is lying as usual

[jeanmarc]

18. Forget Nunes. Testify to the Senate.