Yates Goes On CNN To Declare That Russians Had “Real Leverage” Over Flynn

sally_q-_yatesI have previously been critical of the stance taken by former acting Attorney General Sally Yates.  I remained unconvinced that Yates had the ethical basis to order for the entire Justice Department to stand down and not to assist the president in the defense of his first executive order on immigration. I also questioned Yates’ decision to voluntarily testify before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.  She was testifying as someone who was recently in a prosecutorial position about subjects related to an ongoing investigation where no one has yet to be indicted.  Now those concerns have been magnified by Yates’ appearance in the media to talk about matters center to the ongoing investigation at the Justice Department and other related subjects.

In an interview with Anderson Cooper on CNN, Yates discussed how  former national security adviser Michael Flynn was in a “serious compromise situation, that the Russians had real leverage.” Such statements are unfair to someone like Flynn who is the target of a federal investigation but not indicted on any crime.  Ironically, many criticized Trump for allegedly asking former FBI Director James Comey about the pending investigation of Flynn.  Additionally, many criticized Comey for discussing the details of alleged violations by Hillary Clinton despite her not being indicted. Yates’ discussion of matters related to the investigation raise equal concerns.  This type of public commentary can also hurt Yates’ colleagues who are still working the case.  She can indicate the perceived strength or interpretation of evidence. That can affect the willingness of witnesses to cooperate with the investigators.  Finally, it can discourage targets from speaking with prosecutors if they fear that they can go public at any time and comment on their presumed guilt or vulnerability.

Yates also told Anderson that Flynn lied to Vice President Mike Pence and there was “certainly a criminal statute that was implicated by his conduct.” She added “Whether he is fired or not is a decision by the President of the United States to make, but it doesn’t seem like that’s a person who should be sitting in the national security adviser position.”

Relying on her knowledge from the open investigation, Yates declared on television that the Russian had “real leverage” over Flynn.

Once again, this is someone who is actively being investigated by Yates’ former colleagues but not indicted. I find the statements in public interview to be deeply troubling.
What do you think?

193 thoughts on “Yates Goes On CNN To Declare That Russians Had “Real Leverage” Over Flynn”

    1. Well that about sums it up Autumn. We obviously have been listening to the wrong EXPERTS!

      Nicely done!

      1. Thanks Olly! I think we need to stop listening to the sanctioned “experts” – MSM and partisan pols and think for ourselves — like most of us try to do in this community blog. Seriously, I think it will take a revolution to save this nation.

          1. and pseudo revolutions led by Robert Reich, HRC and the rest of the DNC apparatchiks.

        1. True, but Americans aren’t going to revolt unless they are starving, homeless, and have nothing to lose. Sooo, the best bet for change is a major disaster of some sort. Nuclear war, asteroid strike, super-volcano, total financial meltdown, pandemic. Something along those lines. More likely we will just stratify into a Venezuela type country, and there will be bastions of wealthy and their retainers walled off from the starving masses.

          Whichever, then we will get a Fascist to come in and take out the trash that has accumulated in the country.

          Or, we could turn into a nation of Muzzies, and start killing off the liberals.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

          1. Squeek! You have been on quite a roll lately!
            Your vision is very astute in your own way.
            I love how consistent you are.
            You have been channeling the great Teddy Roosevelt


            1. Don’t low if you can see the file I tried to paste with TR’s quote
              Here it is:
              “Americans learn only from catastrophe not from experience”.

          2. Or….I believe if ‘The Resistance’ is able to topple Trump, then look out….the country will eventually be taken over by the totalitarian left and that will be the end of America as we know it. Obama’s doing a lot of ‘organizing’ and training his OFA ground troops and other operatives, so I’m praying for Trump. Or else I fear it’s Bye bye Miss American Pie.

            1. TBob – you do realize that a lot of neo con Republicans are gunning for Trump too – McCain, Graham, etc. not just the Dems. I’m an independent and will not get on board with the Dem “resistance” -indies did not vote for HRC as we were not happy with Obama.

              1. I realize it. I include those Republicans in with ‘the Resistance’. I’m also an indie voter. Can’t stand HRC and can’t stand all that Obama got away with for 8 years only to end up on the cover of People Magazine this week looking like an A list celebrity. He sickens me probably more than Trump sickens those like Natacha or Isaac on this blog. Every day without HRC in the WH is a good day.

                1. Tbob, I hear ya — and I think this is something the Dems fail to understand: indies are probably even angrier about Obama’s actions/inactions than most Republicans. All this hero worship is truly sickening. The country is seriously growing even more divided. I can barely even talk to my Hilbot friends anymore.

                  1. Well said Autumn. Sorry to be so late. Been working a lot. Yep, that’s me. I can’t seem to get off the phone with a hillbot without an argument.

                2. TBob,
                  Your comment reminded me of a joke. It’s been around awhile but then again it makes a valid point:

                  “One sunny day in January, 2017, an old man approaches the White House from across Pennsylvania Avenue where he’d been sitting on a park bench. He speaks to the U.S. Marine standing guard and says, “I would like to go in and meet with President Obama.” The Marine looks at the man and says, “Sir, Mr. Obama is no longer President and no longer resides here. ”The old man says, “Okay,” and walks away.
                  The following day the same man approaches the White House and says to the same Marine, “I would like to go in and meet with President Obama.” The Marine again tells the man, “Sir, as I said yesterday, Mr. Obama is no longer President and no longer resides here.” The man thanks him and again just walks away.
                  The third day the same man approaches the White House and speaks to the very same U.S. Marine, saying, “I would like to go in and meet with President Obama.” The Marine, understandably agitated at this point, looks at the man and says, “Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been here asking to speak to Mr. Obama. I’ve told you already that Mr. Obama is no longer the President and no longer resides here. Don’t you understand?”
                  The old man looks at the Marine and says,“Oh, I understand. I just love hearing it.” The Marine snaps to attention, salutes, and says, “See you tomorrow, Sir!””

                  1. Ha! Exactly right. Obama did NOT run a scandal-free administration -no matter how many times he says it and the media sycophants repeat the lie.

    1. That’s one way to look at it. Another is that Trump just called their bluff. Now Schumer cannot block Trump’s choice for the new FBI director and he probably did not expect Trump’s deputy AG to go ahead and actually appoint a special counsel. Who knows what this investigation will turn up. Maybe now some of the felony leakers that Comey didn’t bother to go after will get prosecuted? Remember how the DNC wouldn’t allow the FBI to examine its server that it says was hacked by Russia? Maybe that hoax will now be exposed? Remember how Trump claimed that Trump Tower was ‘wiretapped’ by Obama? Hmmm….who knows where this leads, but I’d say it may be just as bad – or worse – for the Democrats than for Trump. We’ll see.

    2. anon,

      You are assuming that Trump colluded with Russia. I know that’s been the talking point for months now but there’s never been any evidence. Maybe they’ll find some evidence but I doubt it. However, this is one way to find out.

  1. What do I think ? I think the fact that :
    1-we had clapper lie under oath and nothing happened to him
    2-we had our first biracial president lie openly about Benghazi , Obamacare , and destroyed Libya , yet nothing happened to him for helping the isis
    3- we had a Clinton who laughed about getting free a rapist of a minor and then laughed about it , or laughed about the brutal murder of Qaddafi and one major party still nominated her as its candidate

    I feel pretty disgusted and I think something really bad has happened to our Ivy League institutions that have produced criminals like the clintons , obamas and the media hacks of msm! Any other question for me JT?

    1. Don’t forget to add…..

      How Obama went after conservatives using the IRS, and how he cracked down on whistleblowers. And now it’s patriotic to leak and subvert the government under Trump. Now it’s heroic to defy orders from the President.

      And don’t forget how Obama and Holder went after journalists like James Rosen and hacked reporters like Sharyl Attkisson. Or how Obama attacked and demonized Fox News and talk radio every chance he could. Or how he spied on members of Congress opposed to the Iran deal. How he put conservative film maker Dinesh D’Souza in prison over a minor campaign finance offense because D’Souza made the film ‘Obama’s America 2016’ that exposed Obama’s past that the controlled media never bothered to.

      And let’s talk about how Dems have refused to accept the fair and free election results and have declared Trump’s presidency illegitimate….so now Schumer and Pelosi and “The Resistance” are refusing to allow Trump to even govern. The Dems are obstructing everything for the sake of obstructing. The media is going after Trump. The Deep State is going after Trump. Our streets and college campuses are now filled with Antifa protesters and rioters. There are no facts to support any of the claims or accusations being made by Democrats against Trump. Just resistance, obstruction, media lies, and sabotage. And on and on it goes….

      Trump is not going to be taken down as easily as the Dems think he is….we’ll see how this plays out, but my money is on Trump.

  2. Dear Deep State Sally,

    Put up or shut up. Bring your evidence to the public. Otherwise, you have nothing of value to add to this situation.

    Why not try loving your country more than a paycheck from your masters? You are sowing chaos as part of the well funded billion/trillionaire “resistance”. Stop that, it is evil. You may easily stop this by producing evidence of your claim. Most people who aren’t Democrats, and even some of them are very tired of being lied to by you and your paymasters. Love your country and stop being so freaking evil!

    1. Jill, you know that HRC has joined the “resistance” what a joke – these so-called enlightened ones who read the NYT and WashPost will never learn. I’m sure they are opening up their check books right now.

      1. Thanks Autumn,

        That was funny!

        Yes, Yes, give, for the children!!!!!

  3. Do you really think, that in this current climate, the Trump could have simply pardoned Flynn? You don’t think that wouldn’t be kinda like bringing a spoon to a Mortar fight?

  4. This is a very reasoned and objective analysis:

    “There is no question that obstruction of justice is an impeachable offense. But media hyperventilating notwithstanding, the basis for claiming at this point that President Trump obstructed justice is not there . . . unless you also think President Obama obstructed justice last April.”


    1. Great link! I am taking the liberty of excerpting this portion, for all the people who are not partisan shills, and actually care about things making sense:

      On April 10, 2016, President Obama publicly stated that Hillary Clinton had shown “carelessness” in using a private e-mail server to handle classified information, but he insisted that she had not intended to endanger national security (which is not an element of the relevant criminal statute). The president acknowledged that classified information had been transmitted via Secretary Clinton’s server, but he suggested that, in the greater scheme of things, its importance had been vastly overstated.

      On July 5, 2016, FBI director James Comey publicly stated that Clinton had been “extremely careless” in using a private email server to handle classified information, but he insisted that she had not intended to endanger national security (which is not an element of the relevant criminal statute). The director acknowledged that classified information had been transmitted via Secretary Clinton’s server, but he suggested that, in the greater scheme of things, it was just a small percentage of the emails involved. Case dismissed. Could there be more striking parallels?

      A cynic might say that Obama had clearly signaled to the FBI and the Justice Department that he did not want Mrs. Clinton to be charged with a crime, and that, with this not-so-subtle pressure in the air, the president’s subordinates dropped the case — exactly what Obama wanted, relying precisely on Obama’s stated rationale.

      Yet the media yawned.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      1. But, but Andrew McCarthy is a *fill in the blank* and that makes whatever he says invalid.

        What this country needs is some Trivium. Maybe Betsy DeVos can get working on that.

      2. But he did not pull someone into a private room, dismissing others present, and press that point did he?

        The imbalance of power is either respected or exploited….these are perfect examples of those dynamics.

        1. To justify your partisanship, you would find the fact that Trump was eating a drumstick, while Obama was eating a pork chop, to be a sufficient difference.

          If you would only admit that you have double standards, then you could learn to work on the cognitive dissonance problem that is behind all this. The Washington Post picture above, says it all.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

          1. I am not being partisan to see and say that they behaved differently using an example presented on this blog. You have no knowledge of my party affiliation, if indeed I have one….but your only battlecry when people do not agree with you is that they must be ‘partisan’ ie; on the other team. Remove the log from your own eye and then you can accuse me of having a splinter…(it’s a freckle ;P

          1. whatcha got behind all those names you throw at other people? I don’t have to agree with a faceless opinion on a blog but apparently being here is like walking into a toxic swamp. It is not an argument to call names and project opinion like it is fact. It is a demonstration of stupidity. Grow out of it.

            1. What I got, is what you do. And what you say. And the fact that when Trump does something that Obama also did, and some goobers get mad at Trump, but not Obama, then the faux outrage is apparent. Those kind of people, get mad at the right side of the picture, but are mum on the left side of the picture.

              Sorry, but that kind of tells it all. The fact that The Washington Post doesn’t even have to be subtle about, or try to sneak it past those kind of people, also tells volumes – – – that those people are the dimmest bulbs in the pickle jar. The dullest knives in the bags of hammers. Schmucks. Putzes. Marks. Maroons.

              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter

          1. “He clearly wanted no witnesses.”

            That’s what you’re going with? Don’t forget he still had one remaining witness in the room with him. As for Obama’s turn in the barrel, he could broadcast what he said on the network news knowing full well nothing would be done about it.

        2. Doesn’t it trouble you in the least that of the two instances where Comey received the same message that the only one that resulted in ending an investigation was the one done publicly? There could be no clearer exploitation of the imbalance of power than with Obama’s exercise of it.

          1. I disagree. There was no threat imposed by Obama speaking out in a time period prior to the election which gave rise to questioning motives on Comey’s part. The action by Trump, OTOH, was oppressive, to say the least and then ultimately, furthered by his firing of Mr. Comey. Obama was exercising freedom of speech while allowing the process to unfold….Trump pulled the trigger under pressure. Not cool headed, not accepting of process….not cool.

    2. Olly – you have a better case for Loretta Lynch obstructing justice in the Hillary Clinton case than you do with Trump in the Comey affair.

    3. Wait til they get President Pence and he does what he did in Indiana;balance the state budget.
      You think Cheney was ruthless internationally wait til Pence gets the helm with the Freedom Caucus backing him budget wise, not to boot a couple more Supreme court appointees.
      The Republicans that would vote to impeach Trump should probably tell their constituents, especially the older ones concerned about their current and future government subsidized lifestyles, that they should go look up the word austere.
      For the Left they should start watching Father Knows Best to condition them to a return to the 50s.
      Trump’s most brilliant move was nominating Pence.

  5. President Trump has NO need to request favorable treatment by the FBI for Gen. Michael Flynn.

    Were it necessary, President Trump could simply PARDON Gen. Flynn.

      1. That fact proves that Trump’s comments were casual conversation including opinion and distinctly not

        compelling orders with any force constituting obstruction of justice, which Comey and McCabe stated.

        Does the Constitution include the President when it provides freedom of speech?

  6. Acting FBI Director McCabe and ex-FBI Director Comey previously testified to Congress that no interference with the Flynn/Russia investigations has occurred. Neither mentioned interference or obstruction by President Trump. At best, the left is contradicting itself.

  7. Why do I suspect that Judicial Watch has already filed for any and all memoranda generated by James

    Comey since his appointment by Obama in 2013?

  8. I believe Democrats and Republicans have more in common than is demonstrated in negative oratory and written banter. Together we are hard working and care about the economy. We want good health care. We love our children and raise them to be honest. We want to stop terrorism, and we are tired of government inefficiency. Our differences lie in the Democratic and Republican Cultures, where inequalities between race and sex don’t weigh in with the same importance. We are raised differently, so be it!

    However, no-one likes a boss at any level who lies to their workers, pushes their authority around and is never held accountable for actions. It’s hard to work for a boss who is contradictory and has no discipline. It’s like working for the owners son who has never gotten in trouble for anything…..while if any other employee was promoted to “boss” they’d have to walk a super straight line with all actions.

    Loyalty is poignantly important to Democrats and Republicans, and herein lies the single most important divider that must be retro-fitted for all of us to evolve. In other industries, a Code of Conduct is agreed upon with repercussions if not followed. Sports players are banned if they use performance enhancing drugs. Surgeons are sued if they don’t wash their hands before performing surgery. Lawyers are disbarred under Rule 8.4 for dishonesty or breach of trust. CEO’s are fired for causing Internal Crisis within a company. Regardless of our loyalties there are professional rules of conduct which for example in the case of football, a deflated ball breaks the rules of the game and Republican or Democratic fans know its wrong. We might still like the team but we won’t allow them to cheat.

    Honestly, I love that Trump wanted to “drain the swamp” but I wanted him to do it with integrity. Not by appointing folks with no background into positions they know very little about. Would you like the owner of the company where you work to hire his inexperienced nephew to run your department? There are many Republican Professionals who know about Housing, the Environment, Education, and the Judiciary. Why not show loyalty to those Republicans who have worked tirelessly in those areas? Show loyalty to the party.

    I believe all can be solved with Law. There are no rules for the Presidency, just protocol. We never expected our kids to put their fingers in electrical sockets but they did, and now we have socket covers. Now is the time for attorneys and legislators to create “socket covers” for the Presidency. We need Laws, not protocol that call for professional and honorable actions for the most powerful position in the world. No one should be able to ignore and avert; the emoluments clause, divestment of assets, family appointments, collusion with Russia on any level, excessive use of AirForce One to privately held properties, and blatant hypocrisy. Such laws could not get passed under the current administration unless Republicans see that the football is being deflated……but even then, the President has the right to Veto any bill he chooses.

    We are a country of Law and Order. No matter Republican or Democrat, we need new laws for our Presidency. More than what Sally Yates said or did, it is my wish (and probably the wish of the average American) to hear legislators talk to journalist on the air about what I call “The New Frontier of Laws and Diplomacy for the US Presidency”.

    1. It’s difficult to drain the swamp with a leaky administration filling it back up.

      We’ve always been “a nation of laws”, we’ve just not held our own government to them. Adding more layers of laws and bureaucracy to check the President is overkill and it feeds the administrative state.

    2. Mr.A.R. Pashayan, I am in complete agreement with you. But I will be less politically correct. When the unlawful use the law to certify their complete immunity for their wrong doings the integrity of the law disappears and maybe we need new laws that not allow the criminal to remain free.

      The USA authorities have allowed the law to degenerate in a tiered system that punishes the average American and rewards the powerful wealthy criminal. I applaud those involved in applying the law that although very few, have the guts to openly voice the irregularities they observe. That is the only way to clean the disarray we live in today.

      I am not an attorney, just an average American mother that had to find ways to explain to my children the discordance between the written law and the reality of the law as it is applied to Americans of different economic levels The government must be examplary in order our society functions. For a long time now the law and its loopholes has been instrumental for those in power to openly commit crimes.

      We must clean up our Justice System or our country and our society will soon be extinct.

      Whistleblowers are patriots that show the errors in all aspects of our society. We must respect them for their effort by listening to them and correcting those errors. And not sacrificing them in the altar of political correctness that hides the truth. Without the truth humans fail.

      This time the whistleblowing happened at one of the highest level of our Justice System.

      1. Graciela,
        That was extremely well written. I echo your sentiments regarding the tiered system of law. My disagreement with A.R.Pashayan’s comment (also well written) is where he leans to correct the problem. I’m no more surprised a legal professional would advise more laws to fix a problem than an economics professor would advise we get our financial house in order. We don’t have a law or finance problem, we have a rule of law problem. And we have an accountability problem for members of the political establishment. Perhaps the #1 and #2 problem is the American people are ignorant of what this government is supposed to be doing in the first place. And as a result, they are apathetic to hold anyone accountable because they have no idea what the whole thing SHOULD look like in the first place.

        More laws won’t fix that unless a civics literacy test is required to vote. More laws will only be used as ammunition for the weaponized, bureaucratic state.

        1. Olly and Graciela, thank you for your comments. Dialog is the way towards a greater understanding of how to resolve issues.

          Regardless of citizens having full knowledge or no knowledge at all about civics, prosecution can only occur when laws are broken. In the case of the US Presidency there is mostly protocol, not law. Might Law be viewed as ammunition for justice? Constitutional Law is what achieved the halting of Trump’s Travel Ban.
          Congressional Law is what stopped the healthcare bill from passing. Budgetary Law and Land Infringement Law will stop the Wall from being built. Can you imagine if protocol was the only thing in place for the three aforementioned examples?

          Adding more laws to our very bureaucratic state evokes a feeling of overkill, yet I rest in the case of protecting the honor, history, and good name of the US Presidency with real laws, not protocol. If we had them, none of us would be writing about the embarrassing behavior in the White House. In fact, if revealing taxes in order to run for office was a law, then all of this would be moot.

          PS – I’m Ms. A.R.Pashayan 🙂

          1. Ms. Pashayan,
            I do appreciate civil debate rather than the incendiary form this blog has seen lately.

            As eloquent as your comment is, it is apparently partisan in nature. You made the following comment to which I certainly do not agree:

            “Regardless of citizens having full knowledge or no knowledge at all about civics, prosecution can only occur when laws are broken.”

            Civil-asset forfeiture, IRS targeting of conservative groups and other lawfare carried out by virtue of the “powers” vested in the alphabet soup of government agencies impose all manner of penalties for violating regulations under the color of law. The lawfare itself is seldom if ever prosecuted. Given that our lawmakers operate largely above the rule of law, the citizen should have no confidence +/- laws will make any difference until the rule of law is applied equally to all. In other words, we don’t need laws so much as we need the prosecution of just laws.

            Government will not self-correct; at least not towards liberty. Show me a time in history that has ever happened without action by the citizens themselves.

            1. Olly, I respect your views. Partisan slants typically contain phraseology that demeans the stature of a particular economic or racial group. My statement simply encompassed US citizens with knowledge and US Citizens without knowledge of civics – no slant here. There are many well educated US Citizens who get just as confused about our civics as those with little education. On the contrary to your comment, I’m putting us all in the same basket by stating that it does not make a difference if we know civics or not. We’re all in this together.
              I disagree that the prosecution of just law seldom prevails. I agree that injustice does occur in our legal system, but I am specifically writing about laws concerning the Presidency.

              On this narrow focus, do you not agree that having a law requiring mandatory revelation of tax returns for every presidential candidate would be better than simply having protocol?

              1. “do you not agree that having a law requiring mandatory revelation of tax returns for every presidential candidate would be better than simply having protocol?”

                I do not agree. It’s an intellectually lazy method of discriminating the character of the candidates. We managed to elect Presidents (good and bad) before the 16th amendment was passed. How do you explain that being done without analyzing tax returns? We’re $20 trillion in debt, what good has come from analyzing tax returns? I would instead focus on the transformation this country has undergone since the 16th amendment was ratified. In my opinion, there’s a root cause in there: Voter Ignorance, Voter Apathy and Voter Dependence.

                Solve that, and we’ll be on the right track.

Comments are closed.