Yates/Clapper Hearing (Part 2)

Continuing on, here are some things that we learned from the testimony yesterday...

James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence, overseeing all intelligence operations in the government, was apparently not aware of the FBI investigation into Russian interference and possible Trump-Russia coordination.

When the intelligence community obtains information suggesting that a U.S. person is acting on behalf of a foreign power, the standard procedure is to share that information with the lead investigatory body, which of course is the FBI. The bureau then decides whether to look into that information and handles any ensuing investigation if there is one. Given its sensitivity, even the existence of a counterintelligence investigation's closely held, including at the highest levels.
During my tenure as DNI, it was my practice to defer to the FBI director, both Director Mueller and then subsequently Director Comey, on whether, when and to what extent they would inform me about such investigations. This stems from the unique position of the FBI, which straddles both intelligence and law enforcement. And as a consequence, I was not aware of the counterintelligence investigation Director Comey first referred to during his testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee for Intelligence on the 20th of March, and that comports with my public statements.

 This is weird, right? The guy who oversees all intelligence operations was not aware of this FBI investigation, which was launched in July 2016. Now, Trump supporters like to point to statements Clapper made in March, like this one:

There was no evidence whatsoever, at the time, of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians,

Here, "at the time" refers to when he left his position on January 20, 2017. But if he wasn't even aware of the FBI counterintelligence investigation, how would he? This whole bit does sound weird to me, though.

I'm not sure how the DNI, after overseeing and issuing a report that Russia interfered in a massive and unprecedented way in the 2016 elections, doesn't open an investigation into that interference or ask around about whether or not one exists. That doesn't make much sense. So I'm not sure what's going on here. If we take Clapper at his word, though, his statement about the lack of evidence of collusion is relatively meaningless. The only way we're probably going to find out is from the conclusion and results of the FBI investigation, and that's ongoing and open-ended.

Here's something else we learned...

The Trump WH has ludicrously been trying to blame the lack of vetting of Michael Flynn on the Obama administration. Sean Spicer has said that they basically relied on Flynn's previous security clearance as the only real vetting they did, which is to say, none at all.

This exchange is interesting:

HIRONO: The Trump administration blames President Obama for failing to suspend General Flynn's clearance. And in fact in a press conference today, Sean Spicer said: "Everyone in the government goes through the same process." 

And he also said: "There's no difference of a security clearance once it's issued. And basically as far as this administration is concerned, nothing more needed to be done" by them regarding General Flynn's clearance. Director Clapper, isn't it true that the CIA has a separate vetting process for National Security Council appointees? And in fact the press is reporting today that General Flynn never completed that process. Can you enlighten us?

CLAPPER: I can't speak to specifics of how it was done with General Flynn. I know what I went through as a political appointee twice in two -- in a Republican and a Democratic administration.

And the vetting process for either a political appointee or someone working in the White House is far, far more invasive and far, far more thorough than a standard TS/SCI clearance process.

But I don't know what process was used in General Flynn's case. And nor did I have access to his complete investigatory file, so it's very difficult for me to speculate on what was in it and what action, if any, was taken by the White House.

HIRONO: Well, according to Sean Spicer, that he had a clearance from the Obama administration, and that was it. And this administration had no further responsibilities.

So it sounds like the Trump WH didn't do this additional, more rigorous security clearance vetting of Michael Flynn, instead relying on his generic renewed clearance from earlier in the year. This should set off alarm bells. The Trump WH, by their own admission and by trying to blame Obama, are admitting they didn't do a single bit of additional scrutiny of Flynn's background. This was the person at the very highest level of government in terms of dealing with intelligence and national security. This is a shocking admission of complete incompetence.

Why does it matter?

Because Michael Flynn clearly wasn't fit to hold the position of National Security Adviser. At the time he was hired, he was an unregistered foreign agent, lobbying on behalf of Turkey. Let that sink in for a second. Our National Security Adviser was a foreign agent.

Besides that, he didn't disclose payments from multiple foreign countries, which he wasn't supposed to even take. All of this nonsense might have been caught if the Trump administration had bothered to vet him at all. Saying they simply relied on his renewed clearance is a horrible excuse, and trying to somehow shift the blame to the previous administration is pathetic.

I'm not sure how his supporters continually justify the way he never accepts an ounce of personal responsibility. It's always someone else's fault. The buck, apparently, stops anywhere but here.