I EXECUTIVE SESSION PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. INTERVIEW OF: SALLY YATES Friday, November 3, 2017 Washington, D.C. The interview in the above matter was held in Room HVC-304, the Capitol, commencing at 10:07 a.m. Present: Representatives Conaway, LoBiondo, Ros-Lehtinen, Turner, I 1 Gowdy, Stefanik, Schiff, Sewell. Speier, Quigley. Swalwell, and Heck. I Appearances: For the PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE: FoT SALLY YATES: DAVID A, O'NEIL DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON 801 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C.20004 ALICIA C. O'BRIEN VENABLE LLP 600 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. I 3 Washington. DC. 20001 I 5 Good morning, this is a transcribed interview of the Deputy Attorney General, Sally Yates. Thank you for speaking with us today For the record, t ,rI, here at the House Permanent Select Committee on lntelligence for the majority. There are also a number of other members and staff present who will introduce themselves as the proceedings go on. But before we begin, I wanted to state a few things for the record. The questioning willbe conducted by members and staff that are present. During the course of this interview, members and staff may ask questions during their allotted time period. Some questions may seem basic, but that is because we need to clearly establish facts and understand the situation. Please do not assume we know any facts you have previously disclosed as part of any other investigation or review. This interview will be conducted at the Top SecreUSCl level. During the course of this interview, we willtake any breaks that you desire. We ask that you give complete and fulsome replies to questions based on your best recollections. lf a question is unclear or you're uncertain in your response, please let us know. And if you do not know the answer to a question or cannot remember, simply just say so. You're entitled to have counsel present for this interview, and I see that you've brought two. At this time, if counsel could please state their names for the record? MR. O'NEIL: David O'Neil. MS. O'BRIEN: Alicia O'Brien. Thank you. The interview will be transcribed. There is a reporter making a record of these proceedings so we can easily consult a written I I 6 compilation of your answers. Because the reporter cannot record gestures, we ask that you answer verbally. lf you forget to do this, you might be reminded to do so. You may also be asked to spellcertain terms or unusual phrases. Consistent with the committee's rules of procedure, you and your counsel, upon request, will have a reasonable opportunity to inspect the transcript of this interview in order to determine whether your answers were conectly transcribed. The transcript will remain in the committee's custody and the committee also reserves the right to request your return for additionalquestions should the need arise. The process for the interview will be as follows: The majority will be given 45 minutes to ask questions, and the minority will be given 45 minutes to ask questions. We will take a S-minute break thereafter if you wish. After which time, we will proceed in the following fashion: The majority will be given 15 minutes to ask questions, and the minority will be given 15 minutes to ask questions. These 1S-minute rounds will continue untilthe questioning is complete. These time limits willbe adhered to by all sides. Time will be kept for each portion of the interview with warnings given at the 5- and 1-minute mark, respectively. I apologize in advance if I interrupt you during an answer, but we are just trying to stay track. To ensure confidentiality, we ask that you do not discuss the interview with anyone other than your attorneys. And you're reminded that it is unlawful to deliberately provide false information to Members of Congress or staff. Lastly, the record will reflect that you are voluntarily participating in this interview, which will be under oath. Ma'am, il you could raise your right hand to be swom at this time. I I 7 Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? MS. YATES: Yes, I do. I Thankyou. And just a reminder to all folks, please make sure that your microphone is on and the green light on. Over to you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CONAWAY: Ms. Yates, thank you for coming in this morning, appreciate that. I We willstart the interview shortly. We have a vote series as early as 10:15, and to be respectful of your time, we prefer to let the staff continue with the conversation orthe interview just so that we can keep moving. I would ask my colleagues that, when we get back, if a question has already been asked, that we work hard not to reask it ourselves so we don't plow ground that has already been plowed, so we willbe respectful in that regard. With that, Trey, we'll start our 45 minutes. MR. GOWDY: Her counsel may want to say something for the record. MR. O'NEIL: Thank you, Representative Gowdy. My name is David O'Neil. As I noted, I'm one of Ms. Yates'attorneys, along with Alicia O'Brien. I just wanted to make a few comments at the outset. Ms. Yates is happy to be here and to answer whatever questions she can in order to assist with the committee's work. ljust want to reiterate a few points made a number of times with staff, .ndI me at this I is probably sick of hearing from point. The first is that, because Ms. Yates was mostly a consumer of intelligence concerning Russian interference, her knowledge in most instances is derived from that of the officials who were focusing on this full time and thal were I I 8 developing the intelligence that Ms. Yates reviewed. So I expect that, on many of your questions, the best answer Ms. Yates will be able to provide is to direct you to who could give you the firsthand information. The second is the committee has not provided Ms. Yates any documents to review. She no longer has'access to the documents that the Department of Justice possesses. So she's going to be talking today based on the best - based on her best recolbction of events that happened many months, in some cases more than a year, ago. So she can't really speak to the specifics of documents in these circumstances. Third and probably I think most critacal, Ms. Yates is not an employee at the Departnent of Justice anymore. So she does not speak for the Department. She wants to be very careful, and I know that all of you share this goal as well, that nothing she says here or any,vhere else interferes with any ongoing investigations that the Department of Justice may be conducting. And since she doesn't know exactly what the focus is of any ongoing investigation, Alicia and I have advised her to stay far away from answering anything that might touch on those topics, that includes, just for example, what the Department's views were on factualand legal issues, what investigative steps were taken while Ms. Yates was in office, what evirJence had been developed at that time, and whal conversations were had among various officials. Obviously, current Department officials would be in a good position to speak to those topics, and so we'll direct you to them when we get close to any potential investQative issues. And then, finally, I note that we're in a classified setting, and we know that everyone here will handle the information that we discuss appropriately. But just I I 9 as a caveat, if there is discussion outside of this room about what takes place here, the witness would then be free to provide context to those discussions. Again, we don't expect that to happen. And, of course, we have no intention of saying anything ortside the fourwalls of this room. MR. GOWDY: Good rnorning, Ms. Yates. My name is Trey Gowdy, and I'm from South Carolina. MS. YATES: Good morning. MR. GOWDY: Could you begin by giving us the benefit of your professional background? MS. YATES: Sure. Well, I graduated from law school in 1986 from the University of Georgia. I was in private practice for about 3 years at King & Spalding in Atlanta. And then, in 1989, I joined the United States Attomey's Office in Atlanta as an AUSA. lwas there until lwas - well, while lwas an AUSA, I was a line AUSA, became chief of the Fraud and Public Corruption Section, and then first assistant for two U.S. attomeys during the Bush administration. And then - the first assistant is the highest career at AUSA in the office. And then, when President Obama was elected, I was nominated and confirmed as United States attomey in Atlanta where I remained for close to 6 years until the last 2 years of the administration when I served as Deputy Attomey General and then 10 dates as Acting Attorney General during the Trump administration. MR. GOWDY: And when your service as Acting Attorney General ended, where did you begin working? MS. YATES: Well, right now, I'm visiting at Georgetown Law Center. r I 10 MR. GOWDY: I'm going to ask you some background questions just for the benefit of, not iust the record, but also the members on how counterintelligence investigations begin and how criminal -- without specific reference to any facl pattern. For those who have not worked at Main Justice, which includes almost all of us, how are those investigations initiated, and by whom, counterintelligence, and then what I call criminal but other people might call something else? MS. YATES: Well, you know, they can start different ways. And I can speak from my experience. I would expect the folks at the FB! could give you a more fulsome description since they are the ones who deal inilially with beginnings of those, particularly counterintelligence invesligations. But on the Cl side, on the counterintelligence side, that almost always begins at the Bureau. I can't remember a time, for example, when something started over on the DOJ side of the house as a counterintelligence investigation. It can come from information that the Bureau acquires from a number of sources. lt can be from their own sources, from their review of documents. lt can be from another intelligence agency. The CIA or NSA may provide information to them that would be relevant to a domestic counterintelligence investigation. And those investigations are run by FB!, sometimes with some involvement of our lawyers at the - I say "our"; l'm not part of DOJ anymore, but it's an old habit to break after a long time - with the NSD lawyers, depending on what the scenario is and whether or not process is being used, specifically FISAs are being used, in the context of the counterintelligence investigation. There are some though that I think iust go on for some period of time almost exclusively within the walls of FBI that don't necessarily involve any lawyers I I 11 from NSD, but certainly, if there's process involved, then they do. Sometimes a counterintelligence investigation can morph into a criminal investigation. lf, in the course of the counterintelligence invesligation, they discover information of a crimina! violation, then they will bring in agents who would also be involved and the lawyers from the NationalSecuri$ Division who would be involved in investigating it potentially for criminal violations as well as. l'm not sure if that answers your question. MR. GOWDY: lt does. ls there any evidentiary burden necessary to be met before either of those investigative tracks are triggered? MS. YATES: Yes, there is. And there are different levels of investigations. And l'm not going to remember the precise lingo that's used here in the FBI parlance, but there are assessments, I believe, that the FBI does that doesn't really require much, because what all an assessment is, is rather than just waiting to be a passive recipient of information where the FBI goes out and tries to identify counterintelligence issues. Then I think there's another level that may be - don't know if that's the full field level or not, but there are different levels where it's an assessment, a full investigation, and then you have investigations - this is as best I recall now -- where they -- I believe they callthem like an enterprise investigation where you might be looking more broadly. Rather than just at a specific individual or set of allegations, you might be looking at an organization that you believe poses either a criminal threat or a counterintelligence threat. And so there are different standards that have to be met for each one of those. And there are different tools that are available to the FBI depending on what levelof investigation it is. I would have to go back and look at the actual -- the di-hoc (ph) to note the specifics of that. I I MR. GOWDY: You made reference to L2 FISA. Can you tell us what FISA is and what the process would be for an application, if thafs the right word, to the FISC? MS. YATES: Well, it's a long process. And a FISA is a Foreign lntelligence Surveillance Act warrant that permits the government to be able to intercept communications. On the criminal side of the house, that's done through what is known as a T-3. That has different standards. The FISA side, it is a counterintelligence toolthat's used. lt begins at the FBlwhere agents lay out in very detailed affidavits the specific facts that they have that would establish that a particular individual is an agent of a foreign power and is engaged in clandestine actMties on behalf of that foreign power. And they lay it out in great specificity. It goes through a lot of levels at FBI before it comes across the street to the Deparfnent of Justice, where it is reviewed again, at lots of different levels. And lawyers in the National Securi$ Division sit down with the FBI agents and actually go through and check the veracity of each of the statements that is made in the FISA. lt goes through the supervisory structure at the National Security Division. Normally, FISAs are signed off by the head of the National Securi$ Division. Only if he or she is not available, is out of town, or if you don't have a confirmed head of the Nationa! Security Division, then the FISA approval will come to either the Deputy Attomey Generalor, if the DAG is out of town, to the Attomey General. MR. GOWDY: Given your role and responsibilities in 2016, could there or would there have been either counterintelligence or criminal investigations with respect to the 2016 election cycle that you did not know about? MS. YATES: Oh, sure there could be things I don't know I - you don't know I 13 what you don't know. MR. GOWDY: Right. But given you would have been the DAG at all relevant times in 2016, other than what you were the Acting Attomey General. MS. YATES: Right. And that was not until 2017. MR. GOWDY: Okay. So, at alltimes in 2016, you would have been the Deputy Attorney General? MS. YATES: That's r(;ht, yeah. MR. GOWDY: Would you have had to review and/or sign off on FISA applications. MS. YATES: Not if John Carlin was there, but there came a point I believe in the fall -- could be wrong; l'm terrible at dates -- and so I think it was in the fall that he left, that then we didn't have a Presidentially confirmed head of the National Security Division, and I signed FlSAs. But prior to that, if there were one, I would have expected John. But I would have expected, if it were a matter of particular significance, I might not have actually reviewed the FISA, but they would have looped me into the process to let me know about it certainly. MR. GOWDY: Do you recall a FISA application with respect to a target named Carter Page? MS. YATES: Yes, I do. MR. GOWDY: What can you tell us about your role or involvement with that? MS. YATES: My recollection is, is that I signed that FISA, that I believe that John Carlin was no longer with - had left DOJ at this point, so Mary McCord was head of the National Security Division but not Presidentially confirmed. So my recollection is that that came to me to sQn to approve for the Department of r I L4 Justice. MR. GOWDY: For those of us who have not been part of that process, does a Bureau agent draft an affidavit and then present it to either someone at the NSD or someone in leadership at Main Justice? How does it come to your attention? MS. YATES: Yeah, well, I .- I never saw them until all of that work had been done back and room in that. forth. But my under - so I was never, like, sitting in the But my understanding is yes, is that it's drafted first by the FBl. And after it goes through all of the approval levels over there, it comes over to DOJ. Now, DOJ oftentimes has input into that, and so it might go back across the street again to FBl. lf, for example, the lawyers in the National Security Divbion have questions or issues about things, that afiidavit may be revived and changed. It's not a rubber stamp process at NSD. They take that very seriously. MR. GOWDY: With respect to the initial FISA application of Carter Page, do you recall having any questions or con@ms about the body of the affidavit? MS. YATES: You mean in terms of facB that were laid out? MR. GOWDY: Right. Whether or not -- well, what's the evidentiary burden that would be necessary to successfully seek a FISA warrant? MR. YATES: lt's probable cause. MR. GOWDY: All right. So, at any point in reading that application, did you have any questions or concerns about whether or not that evidentiary burden had been reached? MS. YATES: No. ! remember having discussions with folks from the National Security division about that- I will confess to you: I don't remember the I r 15 specifics of that discussion now, but I do remember having discussions with them about the facts that were laid out in the affidavit. MR. GOWDY: lf I use the name Christopher Steele, are you familiar with that name? MS. YATES: Uh-huh. MR. GOWDY: And what's later become known as dossier but may not have been known as the dossier at the time. MS. YATES: lt was not. MR. GOWDY: Okay. So, if I confuse the two, I do remember it wasn't always called a dossier, but it atways is now for some reason. Can you tell us what, if anything, you know about how Christopher Steele came in contact with the FBI? MS. YATES: You're right. I don't remember hearing the term "dossiei' until a point much later when there was a defensive briefing of President-elect Trump, at that point, when they provided him some information. So I don't - you know, I don't remernber ever hearing it discussed in that context. What I recall about Christopher Steele and specifically the FISA was that - and, look, I'm trying to give you the best as I recall it; the way I remember it may not be accurate, but this is what I recall. MR. GOWDY: And it is not in front of you. MS. YATES: Yeah. MR. GOWDY: And we don't have it as an you to go based on what you recall. MS. YATES: Right. And that was that I exhibit. I realize we're asking I 16 And as it was described to me, he had a very good track record with them, that they found him to be someone who was credible, he had provided verifiabb information in the past, and that they thought well of him. MR. GOWDY: You mentioned the phrase "verifiable information in the past," which leads me to wonder whether or not the Bureau would have undertaken any steps to verify or corroborate the information in the present thal they would have been provided. ls there an expectation on behalf of Main Justice that the Bureau would try to vet or corroborate or contradict information provided? MS. YATES: Sure, it sort of again, speaking hypothetically here, it - depends on the information. You certainly want to corroborate it as best you can And so, as I recall that, the FBI was involved and trying to corroborate as best they could - and I don't remember the specffics of what that was - information from the sources and subsources that Mr. Steele had provided to them. MR. GOWDY: Now, I know FISA applications are not like the courtroom where you might not be allowed to rely on an unnamed source. lt sometimes is referred to as hearsay, and then, if that unnamed source has a source, that might be hearsay once removed and on we go. Are there evidentiary rules that apply to FISA applications where the reliance on hearsay or double or triple hearsay would I t7 I not be warranted or appropriate? MS. YATES: I don't know if there's a specific rule that governs that. I think that you would want to make sure that you were accurate in your description in the affidavit of what the source of that information is such that if it's hearsay, that it's identified as such, not as something known personally by the individual. don't know if l'm making sense there, but I - MR. GOWDY: When you were a trial lawyer, you had an obligation to turn over either Brady material, Giglio material, anything that might be exculpatory, anything that could be used to cross examine or contradict what a witness was going to say. Do you know whether there is a corresponding responsibility in a FISA application to put information in that application that might impeach the credibility of a source or subsource? MS. YATES: Again, I don't know specifically what the rule is there, but the practice would certainty be to do that. MR. GOWDY: So the best - MS. YATES: Particularly if it's something that's material. Now that doesn't mean that you would necessarily go through and put every liftle fact in there, but if it's something that's significant and materialthat you would want the FISA court to consider in determining whether to approve the warrant, yes. MR. GOWDY: ln the FISA process, is it a prosecutor alone that makes the presentation to the FISC, or is there opposing counsel, like there typically is in adversarial hearings? MS. YATES: No. No, it's the same as like when you get a T-3 for a criminalcase, there is no opposing counsel there for that either. MR. GOWDY: So it's the responsibility of the U.S. Government to present I I 18 the information to the FISC. MS. YATES: Right. MR. GOWDY: All right. Do you recallthe evidentiary basis for the FISA application for Carter Page? MS. YATES: I don't. I recallgenerally that it related to interaclions that he had had with Russians. But to get -- I haven't seen that affidavit in a very long time, and I don't recallthe specifics of it sitting here today. MR. GOWDY: Do you know whether or not applications were made formally or informally to the FISC that were rejected initially and the affidavit was somehow amended? MS. YATES: No, I'm not aware that. I remember reading about that in the media, and I'm not aware of that happening. MR. GOWDY: Okay. I'm going to dance around, but that's not to confuse you or me. lt's more a reflection that they are about to call votes. The jurisdictional parameters of our committee, as I understand it: What did Russia do in the 2016 election cycle? With whom, if anyone, did they do it? The U.S. Government's response, and then the fourth category is generally masking and unmasking and dissemination of classified material. l'm going to use words - and I hate to use words like this with lawyers because we could spend the rest of the day defining the differences between these three words - but I'm going to ask you the same question I ask every witness. MS. YATES: Okay. MR. GOWDY: Collusion, conspiracy, coordination, do they have appreciably different meanings to you? I I 19 MS. YATES: I've never been entirely sure what collusion is to be honest with you. MR. GOWDY: Me either. MS. YATES: When I hear that term, I think one of the dangerous things is it means different things to different people. So that's not really a term of art that we normally used or that is used, you know, certainly in the criminal process. There's conspirary, which certainly you're familiar with from your time as a prosecutor, and I would expect others are mean - too. But I think collusion has come to and some of this is from, you know, what I read about now as well. I'm trying really hard here today to distinguish between what I knew at the time versus what l've read about since then in trying to make sure that things don't sort of meld together, but particularly since I've left, there's lots of discussion about collusion. And as I said, I think that means different things to different people. So I think we have to be carefulwhen with define that, what il means. MR. GOWDY: I do earlier 2016. too. I don't ever remember hearing the word until But lets do this, just for purposes of today, if we can, if you're comfortable doing it, conspiracy, let's use that term as if it has a potentially criminal connotation, either 846 conspiracy,3TO - MS. YATES: Yeah. MR. GOWDY: The way that we are used to hearing that and others who did it for a living, conspiracy denotes criminality or potential criminality. Collusion, let's just say that does not involve criminality. lt's conduct. I mean -- MS. YATES: But it can, it. MR. GOWDY: lt can, which is why I also throw in the word coordination. mean, you can collude to go to lunch, but most people callthat coordinating I I I 20 instead of colluding. So the reason Ithrow in allthree words is because ldon't want to miss one of them and have somebody say, '\A/ell, you didn't ask her this," or, "You didn't ask her that." So l'm going to ask them allthree together. And then, if you think they are not appropriately used together, you can tell me othenrise. MS. YATES: Okay. MR. GOWDY: And I want us to focus on kind of three pivot points. The first pivot point is the intrusion in the DNC server and John Podesta's email. MS. YATES: Uh-huh. MR. GOWDY: So that to me is kind of pivot point with the Department one. During your time - and again, l'm going to have to use another word - some of my friends don't like it when I use the word "eviden@." They prefer that I use the word "intelligence." I dOn't know what the word "intelligence" means separate from "evidence," so I'm going to use the word "evidence." Do you recall seeing evidence, regardless of the source and regardless of how it was vetted or not vetted, any evidence of collusion, conspiracy, coordanation between Donald Trump himself and Russian state actors to interfere with or influence the 2016 election cycle? MR. O'NEIL: As I mentioned at the outset, I mean, we have to - that seems to me kind of at the core of what we understand the current DOJ investpation can be looking at or at least one of the areas that it has been reported the investigation is looking General at the time. at. Ms. Yates was the Deputy Attorney She was supervising. To the extent there were or were not investigations, she has supervising them. I think she's about answering these questions. I got to be very careful r 2l MR. GOWDY: Well, I would not expect her to be anything other than careful. lwould note, and I think my colleagues on the other side willagree, try to ask the exact same series of questions of every witness, whether they are current or former DOJ officials, whether they are current or former Bureau agents, whether they are current or former administration members, because if I don't ask the question, then they are going to say, "You didn't ask arguably one of most important witnesses the same question you've asked everyone else." So l, you know, for purposes of this, I -- I think lots of people in the room have read the FISA application, for instance. We ordinarily would not, absent this fact pattern. I'm not interested in things that are being investigated by Mr. Mueller. I'm not interested in things that are being investigated by Main Justice not connected with Mr. Mueller. Just from the time she was there - and she was right, I think you have said in your opening statements, that there would be other sources to either corroborate or contradict what I'm asking her. But if I don't ask this witness, given her title and responsibililies, if she saw evidence of those three while she was there, then I am treating this witness differently than I have the others, MR. O'NEIL: lentirely understand why you're asking the question. I'm just -- she is differently situated from other witnesses in the sense that no one else at the time was supervising the Justice Department and the specific investigations to the extent that they existed. So I think she has to be a bit more careful about answering them. MR. GOWDY: Again, I do want her to be careful, but we also had a witness, last name Lynch, and we -- there are other witnesses that would have been in the know, John Carlin, Mary McCord, and we asked the questions, and I I they answered them as best they 22 can. And if she doesn't know, then she doesn't know. MS. YATES: Yeah. Let me try to approach it this way. And certainly John Carlin and Mary McCord are going to be better sources for you than I am on this because that's allJohn McCord and Mary McCord did every day. I mean, they were in the National Security Division, They were focused just on this. And this was an important topic, but I had the whole Deparfnent of Justice that I'm also trying to be invotved in. So I relied on the National Securi$ Division to be more in the weeds on this. That being said, this was obviously an important topic, though. ' Let me see if I can try to I approach it this way: At the time that ! was at the Department of Justice, it was at the beginning stages of when the FBI was looking into the issue of, were there any U.S. citizens that were involved with the Russians and the Russians'efforts to impact the election? So it was the very beginning stages. And at that point, they were primarily looking at trying to determine what the relationships were. You know, before you figure out whether there was any illicit agreement, you're trying to figure out who has got a relationship with who? And that was the primary stage that we were in at that point, was determining what indiviriuals associated with you all need to go. ls that what the - and I guess that means - MR. CONAWAY: Not yet. MS. YATES: What individuals associated with the Trump campaign had relationships with individuals in Russia and specifically that were involved in attempts to influence the election. So it was in the early stages of what I would call determining - trying to determine relevant facts, rather than being able to I I 23 reach a conclusion about whether there was any of the three Cs that you've got there: coordination, collusion, or conspiracy. MR. GOWDY: And l've grown to hate words that start with C, and you may too before the end of day, because the other two options are contacl, which could be benign or not benign, and there could be MS. YATES: - there is something called a coincidence in life. So - Right. But I think you need to learn - if you want to get to the bottom line answer of was there collusion, conspiracy or coordination - if I got - then you also need to learn about who had contact, because you can't get to that collusion - the other - the three Cs there, until you figure out the three Cs right who's having contact with who. MR. GOWDY: The way I have kind of tripartited out this question is that Donald Trump himself; members of the official campaign, like official campaign members; and then the third tranche are kind of the hangers on and the wannabes and the people who say they know someone but don't really know kind of divided it out that way. But I like to start with them. So - MS. YATES: I don't know that we divided it that way at that I think we were really just trying to look more very broad DOJ, FBI sense here of whose I time. I mean, broadly. And l'm saying '\ue" in the - what are the facts here? Who's having contact? And then what kind of contact is that? And does it then amount to something nefarious? MR. GOWDY: Carter Page, for instance, whose name has already came up, would be either in category 2, category 3, or both. Either an official member of the campaign or some ad hoc position, but he would not be the candidate himself. I I MS. YATES: Well, no, he's not Donald 24 Trump. Okay. We can agree on that. MR. GOWDY: George Papadopoulos, maybe category 2, maybe category 3. not the candidate himself. So that's why lwanted to start with the candidate himself, and if I need to include all five of the words that start with C, I'm happy to ask the question that way, ljust - MS. YATES: Maybe I can - can I put it this way? MR. GOWDY: Sure. MS. YATES: ls that, again, at the stage when I was involved, the information that we were obtaining at that point was information about contacts and relevant facts with respecl to this issue. We had not reached a conclusion at that point, certainly not that l'm aware of. I don'l believe anybody had reached a conclusion yet as to whether there was a nefarious alliance, for lack of not using your three Cs here, whether there was a nef;arious alliance with the Russians. We were at the factgathering stage here, not the conclusion stage. MR. GOWDY: !'m with you. And lthink we are going to leave in just a second. That first pivot point, I'm not an expert on cybercrimes. l'm assuming that the unauthorized intrusion into someone's server or email is a crime. So l'm just assuming that it is. MS. YATES: lf it's not, we have got a whole division of lawyers at the Department of Justice that need something else to do. MR. GOWDY: Who aren't eaming their paychecks. Wilh respect to that pivot point, did you, while you were at Justice, have any evidence, collusion, conspiracy, coordination, coincidence, contact, any of them, that the candidate himself had any involvement in the intrusion into the DNC I I 25 server and/or the Podesta email? MS. YATES: lf you're asking me, did I reach the conclusion that he had had that, the answer to that would be no. - he lf your question is, urere there facts that would be relevant to whether he had had some involvement in that, that's going to kind of depend on how you define the relevancy there, in terms of were there facts that there were individuals who were -- how would I describe this - well, let me back up. Certainly, there was a conclusion on the part of the lntel Community that the Russian Government at the highest levels had directed that those intrusions - in fact Putin occur. And so then there were facts that were beginning to develop about whether or not there were individuals associated with the campaign that were having communications about the dissemination of that information. That's where I remember the fact pattern being at that point. MR. GOWDY: And that is the second category. The three pivot points to me are intrusion/pre-intrusion. MS. YATES: Uh-huh. MR. GOWDY: Benefitting from the dissemination of information that was gathered as a resuh of the intrusion, and then the third category I have is just broadly efforts to interfere or otherwise influence a 2016 election. MS. YATES: Uh-huh. MR. GOWDY: With respect to the intrusion itself way only hcause we have got to go - I will ask it in a leading vote. So if I ask it wrong, then don't answer at. MS. YATES: Okay. MR. GOWDY: Wilh respect to the intrusion itself, is it fair to say you did not see evidence the candidate himself was involved prior to the intrusion of the I I 26 DNC server and/or Podesta email? MS, YATES: Yeah, l-- I don't recall seeing facts indicating that he had directed that or that he had been involved with the Russians in directing that that intrusion occur. Yes, that's correct. MR. GOWDY: All right. Fair enough. I guess we got to go vote. it. MR. CONAWAY: I appreciate As I said, we'llaskf to continue with our time. MS. YATES: Okay. MR. CONAWAY: We have three votes. The third one is probably not going to happen. Motion to recommit, finalpassage, and then not happen. We'll get back as soon as we can. - that may or may lf our side finishes in 45 minutes, then we willflip to you all, and we'll keep it going. ls that okay with everyone? Do you want to take a S-minute break? [Recess.] EXAMINATION BY O walls of Thanks again for coming DOJ. in. lt's nice to see you again outside the I get the honor of following Mr. Gowdy, so don't hold that against me, but I willjust try to do my best here. A O I'm sure you'lldo just fine. My lines of questioning will be the same in terms of bookending it as your tlme, as just - as Deputy Attorney General at the Department of Justice. Could you just remind me of those exact dates, if you have them? A Sure, it was 2016 and 2017, I started like January Sth of 2016 as I I 27 Acting DAG while I was -- ! had been nominated at that point but was confirmed sometime after that. I started begin January of -- no, l'm sorry. 2015 not '16. I told you I was bad with dates, O No, no. lt's all right. Didn't rnean to put you on the spot. So my question willjust encapsulate that period, nothing before or nothing after. lf that's okay with you. A O lt would be shorter questioning if it was 2016. As your role as Deputy Attorney General, who would you say you had the most contact with or was your counterpart over at the FBI for national security matters? A O A O lt varied. Either Andy McCabe or Jim Comey. So then -- well, still Deputy Director McCabe and Director Comey. Uh-huh. And Mark Giuliano before that when he was - I mean, I remember the tradition being at the Department that the Director of the FBI reports to the Deputy Attorney General. Was that .- is that a consistent when Attorney General Lynch was there and you as Deputy Attorney General? A lt is, but I'm sure you also recallfrom your time that the FBljealously guards sorne level of independence. And so, while that is certainly true, it doesn't operate in the same way that, for example, the other components the Civil Division, Criminal Division, there certainly is more direct interaction and oversight of those components of the Departrnent of Justice than there is of the FBl. O Yeah, lwilltotally agree with that, lt is a tough rub. But I think some of that is where some of my questioning willgo, ma'am. We started talking about what this committee is charged with the I - for lack of a better phraseology the r 28 Russian active measures campaign during the Presidentialelection. Can you tell us when you as Deputy Attorney Generalfirst became aware of this - of this investigation? A O Oh, gosh, no. No, that's fine. I mean, ljust couldn't even begin to put a date on that. Can you direct us to what piece of evidence or meeting or information that you can remember that was first brought to your attention regarding this entire matter? A I mean, ljust don't have like a point in my mind that this is when I first this. lt certainly was something that was, particularly, obviously, in leamed about the last months of the time, was something that there was an intense focus on, but ljust can't O - I don't have a date in my head. Can you - fair enough. Putting the date aside, can you just give us a summary of the information that you best remember that sort of was brought to you? A Yeah, and it was a combination of information that came from the National Security Division. I don't have a specific recollection of a particular meeting with this, but generally, I recall, you know, learning from the National Security Division at DOJ, from FBl, when we would have the Monday, Wednesday, Friday meetings over at FBl, but also with the lntel Community more broadty that the information sort of would come from all three of those sources. O And do you remember what that information was, or what can you tell us that you remember about that information? A Well, I rnean, the first thing I remember hearing about, but I can't tell you from whom or sortof what the circumstances were, was the hacking issue, was that lhe Russians had hacked into the DNC, the RNC, I believe, as well I I 29 as -- or one element of the Republican committee, O And realizing that, I think as Mr. Gowdy and you conversed earlier, that John Carlin and Mary McCord have sort of A O - Right. .. the day-to{ay focus on this sort of level of material. And you have an entire department to run. Would that information, the hacking of the DNC, be something that you as the Deputy Attorney General took a particular interest in because of the subject matter and timing, or it was not? A No, it was - I mean, I have a \rery general recollection of leaming that there had been these hacks at a number of places, including the DNC- I did not know at the time how the FBI was in - that they were going to be notiffing everybody that they had been hacked. I didn't know at the time how they were doing that, because it then becarne an issue later on, obviously, when there were issues with the adequacy or questions about the adequacy of the FBI's warning to the DNC. So that was when ! became aware of how they were going about doing those. lt wasn't so much at the time. At the time, ljust have a general recollection of there were all these hacks; we're going to - you know, the FBI is going to wam people and not much beyond that. O Right. And then, as you indicated some time thereafter, another issue arose that, and conect me if I am wrong, that stuck out as to the adequacy of the sort of disclosure? A a A Right. What c:rn you tell us about what happened there? What I remember is having discussions with the Bureau where I - and I I don't know how it had come to 30 - I guess maybe there was some public discussion about it, but there had obviously been an issue that the person that the Bureau had interacted was an lT manager. And I think there was a lot of hubub over the fact he was a contract lT manager, which they were quick to tell me that didn't mean that he was like the guy that was just coming in and plugging in the computers, that he was actually, you know, running the systems of the DNC but just didn't actually happen to be an employee of theirs, that they had interacted with him. I can't -- I don't remember if it was personally or phone calls or whatever it was. They had interacted with him. But it looks like he had not taken the steps that should have been taken to address the breach at the DNC. And so there was some back and forth about, was that really an adequate way to notify the DNC? And I think Director Comey even testified later, in retrospect, he wishes he had gone over there and like banged on the door. O So, and conect me if I am wrong, but would it be fair to say the DNC -- let's just call it the DNC hack seryer issue -- as that issue evolved over the course of time, would it be fair to say that you obtained more and more knowledge of it as you just sort of stated to us? A Yeah, I obtained more knowledge in terms of sort of how the notification took place and the adequacy or lack of adequacy of that. You know, stillwas not in the weeds in terms of how the hack occurred or, you know, exactly what lnformation was taken; that was not something that I was delving into too deeply. O Did that ever occur? Was that information ever brought to your atention when you were Deputy Attorney General? A I think - what I recall .. again, this might not be accurate - I they pretty I I 31 much got everything. O A O A O I'm sony? They? "They" being the hackers pretty much got everything. Off the DNC server? That was - that was, but I could be wrong about that. And after the DNC server hack issue, is there a sequence of events that you recallthat sort of tie that to the general matter that we're speaking here today that is the collusion, coordination, conspiracy between any campaign and the Russian Government, or are there separate incidences? ls there a connector? A O l'm sorry. I didn't understand that. Sure, sure. So my line of questioning was, how did this allfirst come to your attention? And the DNC hack and server issue first A attention. - Yeah. Let me say it wasn't the DNC hack that first came to my lt was the hack of a whole lot of entities that included the DNC .. O Okay. Thank you. A - that first came to my attention. O And after all of that information first came to your attention, what happened next? What do you recall along these lines happened next while you were Deputy Attomey Generalthat you were made aware of? A You know, that's where following the sequence of this - and I know that this is a really important topic, and I can understand why you would want to go in sequence - but l'm dealing with this at the same time I'm dealing with a whole lot of other things O - Sure. I I 32 A - and at the time not knowing what the significance of this was ultimately going to be, so I wasn't like making notes of the sequence. I can't tell you the sequencing. O Sure. That's completely fair. A And I'm trying to help you. O No. Let's take sequencing and throw it out the window. What do you remember next? A Okay. Good. I remember there being obvlously information about the hack about developing that the lntelCommunity, which included the FBl, developed further information that this was being not only orchestrated by the Russians but directed at high levels within the Russian Govemment and that it was part of an overall campaign to attempt to influence the election, which included not only hacks but also information campaign through websites, et cetera, that they were doing. O So, when the information was brought to your attention that this slew of activity, flurry of activity was -- could possibly be related to interfering with the 2016 Presidential election, dirJ you take any more interest in the investigation itself, or did you have A - did you ask for a briefings? Oh, there were cerlainly a lot of discussions, not just within DOJ, but there were discussions with the Bureau, and there were discussions within the interagency as well, within the NSC about the fact that this interference is going on, and that the Intel Community was trying to get to the bottom of it to figure out what was going on, but everybody was obviously also being sensitive about the fact that we have an election that's coming up and wanting to be careful about how - how that was handled. I r 33 Five minutes BYI O Thanks. Do you recall if you, on behalf of the Department, attended any DCs or PCs? A a A Uh-huh. At the NSC regarding that? Yeah, I do remember going to some. I couldn't tellyou how many, but I do remember going to some. And it was primarily as it related to issues of the intel assessment that then was prepared - and that was being prepared by the lntel Community, so I wasn't really having input into that, but it was being at the DCs, maybe some PCs if the Attomey General was gone, about the information that was being compiled. And then, as the entire community, lntel Community, was making decisions about what would be publicly rebased at that point as well. O And putting aside the lCA, the assessment, being that that entity was being handled by the other components, not necessarily DOJ, what other information was brought to your attention that you recall at these DCs or PCs regarding: Okay. We have a situation where the U.S. election may possibly be being interfered with by a foreign govemment. What should our response be? What is DOJ's position? What do we need to be doing? A Yeah, those are the questions. Thats what everybody was talking about around the table in trying to grapple with, what level of specificity do we have, and then what levelof information should be provided to the American public at this point? And, particularly, the issue that was of great concem then was the efforts that they had identified, and DHS and FBI had identified, of efforts to get I I 34 into State voting systems and being able to interact with the States so that they could harden those systems to ensure that there was no monkeying - for lack of a better term -- with the vote tally, but also to work with them to harden things like voter registration rolls, where they had iJentified that the Russians were -- had broken into, had been able to hack into some of that, and were rooting around there, and were trying to address that issue as well. O So that would seem to be some sort of criminal offense without identifying the statute or whatever. Was it the position or was it the ask of the While House or the NSC that, how should the Department of Justice respond to this? Should we be moving fonruard on charges? Should we be moving fonrard on investigation? l'm asking not DOJ as a whole but you there representing the body. A Yeah, I don't - well, you know, that certainly could have been in the mix of things that were discussed. I think the primary concern at that point was being able to alert the States so that they could take whatever actions they needed to take to be able to harden their systems. I r 35 [11:05 a.m.] BY O Okay. And did you have any coordination with the Attorney General- A And DHS was handling most - you know, DHS was the primary agency then that was interacting with the States on that issue. One minute. BY O Okay. So DHS - thank you. And DOJ sorl of was A - you were just sort of in receive mode? I mean, you've been in the sort of DC process before. lt's - right? Have you ever been to one? O A Yes, ma'arn. Okay. So you know how - that you're all around the table, and just because you may not be the primary agency that's handling something. There are cerlain agencies that are kind of always there and you have an interest in it, but DHS would be the lead agency on that issue. O A And at these meetings, rna'am, did the - sort of shifting rea! quickly And sometimes lwould attend those, by the way, DCs. John Carlin would attend DCs, or sometimes Mary McCord from 0 - Oftentimes - Actually, you know, before ! get into my next line of questioning, I think there's only about 30 second left, so I'lljust yield over to the minority for 45 minutes. And we'll return, but l'll keep my fingers crossed that Mr. Gowdy comes back. A Okay. I I 36 EXAMINATION BY O Hi. So just a quick point of clarffication, based on the line of questioning that occurred. We just want to make certain, there are two separate elements here that were being discussed and I think may have been discussed without delineating the two separately. One is the counterintelligence investigation lhat the FBI had commenced in the summer that then-Director Comey had announced at a public hearing publicly in March to this committee; and a separate matter was the policy response to Russia's active measures as a general matter. A O Uh-huh. And we have a line of questioning, we would just want to clarify. So, to the extent that you are able to when you're speaking, is specify information that may relate to the Cl investigation and to what extent that information was shared with you, shared with others in the Department by the FBI and/or possibly shared, if at all, with the broader interagency. And then, as a separate matter, the broader policy response which got to much of what you were discussing in your response right now, which deals with matters separate from the very specific Cl investigation. So we just want to make sure that there is no mbunderstanding. A That's a good clarification. And even within the Cl investigation, I would note there were also, you would either callthem two different or two phases of that investigation. The first phase is determining whether the Russians were attempting to interfere in our election and what they were doing. I I 37 The second phase that Director Comey mentioned in his testimony that began in the summer, as I recall, was the phase that was focused on whether or not there were U.S. persons who were working with the Russians in that effort. Because that began even before the summer, the counterintelligence investigation with respect to whether or not there was attempted Russian interference in the election. O So we'll have questions on both, but we just want to make sure that A Right. O -- there are not -A That was not - right, right. O - differences between the two, and if there was overlap then to clarify where the overlap rnay have been. A Okay. But I'll tum it over to BY o Hi. A Hi. O I have a couple notes from what Mr. Gowdy talked about earlier, and then l'lljust go through chronologically about the events last year. A a Okay. There was some mention of a defensive brief that may have been given to the campaigns. Do you recallwhy there was a need to provide a defensive brief to the campaigns? A Well, the defensive brief I was referring to with Congressman Gowdy was there at the end when lhere was - he had mentioned the dossier and said, I I 38 you might not have known it as the dossier. And I think I was telling him, yes, we didn't really - I don't remember hearing that term untilat the very end, you know, in January, as I recall, when President Trump was given a defensive briefing on the information, a summary of the information that was in the dossier so that he would know that this information was out there, for lack of a better term, Presi