Actually, the main question I have from the Yates hearing is why one element of the FBI believed Flynn should be investigated and one element did not. The former element *clearly* turned out to be correct—based on what we know now. So what the *hell* was the latter element up to?
When Flynn was charged; when he then cut a deal; when he pleaded guilty (and admitted he did what he was accused of and the FBI did nothing wrong in investigating him); we discovered all *sorts* of crimes he'd committed. So why did *any* FBI element *not* want to investigate him?
On January 4, 2017, we were still just beginning to learn about the scope of the Russian attack—yet there was an element within the FBI, opposing the views of the FBI director, that wanted Flynn *dropped entirely* from the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. Obvious question: why?
The whole thrust of Graham's warpath is that Flynn did nothing wrong, so any investigation of him is—in hindsight—suspect. Of course, *all* the evidence we have (and a federal judge agrees) suggests Flynn's crimes weren't just *extant*, but *heinous*. We can't lose sight of that.
It's not those who wanted Flynn to *remain* a witness in the post-election probe who have explaining to do, but the elements in the FBI—perhaps the same ones who lied to the NYT pre-election about Trump-Russia—who wanted Flynn dropped from the case *the month after the election*.
When Sally Yates says that she was shocked to learn about Flynn's call with Kislyak on January 5, 2017, what her surprise at Flynn's treachery underscores is how *right* the Comey FBI faction was in believing Flynn needed to *remain* part of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.
I'd vote for Sally Yates for just about any office. But Obama, Comey, Brennan, and others knowing by the transition that Flynn was a counterintelligence threat, but DOJ *not* knowing, *doesn't* mean that information was wrong—it simply means there was a communication breakdown.
Somewhere in all this is *everyone* agreeing that Flynn violated a federal criminal statute (the Logan Act); *everyone* agreeing he *could* be criminally investigated under it; there being disagreement about *whether* to do so; and the GOP pretending the Logan Act doesn't exist.
The Logan Act prohibits *any* non-government official from negotiating U.S. policy under false color of authority. *No one* doubts the Act is necessary, which is why it's never been repealed. It's that almost no one before Flynn was treacherous enough to violate it so flagrantly.
Just as the Russian cyberattack was unprecedented, Flynn's treachery was unprecedented. A federal criminal statute that'd remained on the books for very good reasons but had rarely been applied suddenly found its moment, but everyone was accustomed to not seeing it as applicable.
The FBI director, sometimes a stickler to a fault, saw—*correctly*—that a federal criminal statute had been violated, as a high-stakes negotiation had occurred under false color of authority. And moreover that a beneficiary of a crime had negotiated the lack of punishment for it.
