IMPORTUNES COMEY TO -- >> YEAH, THERE’S A LOT THERE.
>> A LOT OF GRIST FOR THE MILL.
>> THANK YOU TO YOU BOTH.
>>> JOINING ME IS JOHN BRENNAN,
SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY AND
INTELLIGENCE ANALYST.
INTELLIGENCE ANALYST. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE IDEA
THAT HAS BEEN PUT FORWARD BY
FLYNN’S LAWYERS AND THEN KIND OF
RECANTED TODAY THAT MR. FLYNN
WAS TRICKED, DUPED BY THE FBI
AGENTS THAT CAME TO THE WHITE
HOUSE?
HOUSE? >> WELL, I DON’T BELIEVE THAT
THAT IS THE CASE.
I THINK THERE’S BEEN SOME
ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT THE WHITE
HOUSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INFORMED
IN ADVANCE.
IN ADVANCE. BUT MIKE FLYNN, GIVEN HIS
EXTENSIVE MILITARY CAREER, AS
WELL AS BEING NATIONAL SECURITY
ADVISER, KNOWS THAT WHEN YOU
TALK TO THE FBI, YOU ARE TALKING
TO GOVERNMENT LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICIALS.
OFFICIALS. AND YOUUST TELL THE TRUTH.
AND SO UNDER, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER
CIRCUMSTANCES YOU’RE GOING TO
MEET WITH SOMEBODY, PARTICULARLY
IN THE WHITE HOUSE, IF THE FBI
COMES OVER AND PAYS YOU A VISIT,
YOU SHOULD JUST IN THE NORMAL
COURSE OF YOUR DAY TELL THE
TRUTH.
TRUTH. BUT ESPECIALLY TO FBI OFFICERS,
AGENTS.
AGENTS. >> PARTICULARLY, I WONDER WHAT
YOU THINK ABOUT THE FACT THAT HE
IS TELLING UNTRUTHS, HE’S LYING
ABOUT CONVERSATIONS WITH KISLYAK
THAT AS AN INTELLIGENCE
PROFESSIONAL HE HAS TO KNOW THAT
THE U.S. GOVERNMENT IS
SURVEILLING.
SURVEILLING. >> WELL, YOU WOULD THINK THAT HE
WOULD KNOW THE FACTS THAT HE IS
BEING ASKED ABOUT AND THEREFORE
UNDER -- FOR WHAT REASON WOULD
HE NOT TELL TRUTH?
IT’S STILL QUITE CONFOUNDING.
I KNOW THERE’S A LOT THAT GOES
ON IN THE FIRST FEW WEEKS OF THE
ADMINISTRATION.
ADMINISTRATION. BUT FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS I
THINK MIKE JUST MADE A VERY,
VERY SERIOUS MISTAKE.
HE REALIZES IT.
HE’S PAYING FOR IT DEARLY.
BUT THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN NO
EXCUSE, AND THERE IS NO EXCUSE
FOR A NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER
TO LIE TO FBI AGENTS WHO PAY HIM
A VISIT AT THE WHITE HOUSE.
>> THERE’S ALSO THE QUESTION OF
THE KIND OF CONCERN THAT WAS
SORT OF GOING UP THROUGH THE
CHAIN.
CHAIN. I THINK THERE WAS SOME IN THE
TRANSITION WHILE YOU WERE STILL
IN OFFICE, THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION WAS THERE, AND
THEN THROUGH SALLY YATES WHO WAS
A HOLDOVER.
A HOLDOVER. WHO YOU PECULIAR, HOW STRANGE IS
IT, THIS SCENARIO IN WHICH YOU
HAVE TWO FBI AGENTS GOING TO THE
WHITE HOUSE AND ASKING QUESTIONS
ABOUT PUBLICLY FALSE STATEMENTS
THE NATIONAL SECURITY DIRECTOR
HAS MADE?
HAS MADE? >> WELL, AT THE TIME THERE WERE
A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT WHO
MIGHT HAVE BEEN AWARE OF ANY
TYPE OF INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR
OR ENGAGEMENTS, WHETHER IT BE
WITH THE RUSSIANS OR OTHERS.
AND SO WHEN THE FBI CONDUCTS
THESE TYPES OF INVESTIGATIONS,
THEY DO IT VERY, VERY CAREFULLY
AND THOUGHTFULLY SO THAT THEY’RE
NOT GOING TO COMPROMISE THE
INVESTIGATION BY DISCUSSING THE
MATTER WITH INDIVIDUALS WHO MAY,
IN FACT, BE INVOLVED.
SO IT HAS TO BE A VERY, VERY
CAREFULLY DONE PROCESS IN TERMS
OF INTERVIEWING PEOPLE.
YOU WANT TO DO IT IN THE RIGHT
SEQUENCE.
SEQUENCE. AND I KNOW THAT IN THOSE DAYS OF
THE ADMINISTRATION, THE EARLY
DAYS OF THE ADMINISTRATION,
THERE WAS TREMENDOUS INTEREST IN
TRYING TO UNDERSTAND BETTER WHAT
WAS GOING ON AND WHO WAS
INVOLVED IN ANY TYPE OF
INAPPROPRIATE OR EVEN ILLEGAL
ACTIVITY.
ACTIVITY. >> THERE WERE TWO MESSAGES THAT
PRESIDENT OBAMA CONVEYED TO
DONALD TRUMP WHEN HE CAME TO THE
WHITE HOUSE SEVERAL DAYS AFTER
WINNING THAT SURPRISE ELECTION.
ONE WAS ABOUT NORTH KOREA AND
THE DIFFICULTY OF DIPLOMACY AND
DISARMAMENT WITH NORTH KOREA,
THE OTHER WAS DON’T HIRE MICHAEL
FLYNN.
FLYNN. WHY DID HE GIVE HIM THAT ADVICE?
>> WELL, I THINK THE FEELING WAS
THAT MICHAEL, ALTHOUGH HE HAD A
VERY, VERY LAUDABLE MILITARY
CAREER IN INTELLIGENCE, HIS
TENURE AT DIA WAS NOT HIS MOST
ACCOMPLISHED TIME.
ACCOMPLISHED TIME. AND HIS ENGAGEMENTS AND
ACTIVITIES AFTER HE RETIRED FROM
THE MILITARY WERE OF CONCERN.
THEY WERE PUBLIC AND THERE WERE
THINGS THAT HE HAD BEEN DOING.
BUT I THINK A NUMBER OF PEOPLE
HAD WORKED WITH MIKE OVER THE
YEARS, AND PRESIDENT OBAMA
SOUGHT THE COUNSEL OF
INDIVIDUALS WHO KNEW MIKE AND
PRESIDENT OBAMA KNEW HIM AS
WELL.
WELL. KNEW OF HIS REPUTATION.
AND JUST SAID THAT HE WAS NOT
THE RIGHT PERSON TO BE THE
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER FOR
THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.
>> DID HE SEEK YOUR COUNSEL?
>> NOT DIRECTLY, NO.
>> DO YOU KNOW MIKE FLYNN?
>> I DO, I KNOW HIM WELL.
I WORKED WITH HIM.
>> WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE
TRAJECTORY OF THIS MAN WHO IS
INCREDIBLY CELEBRATED AND A
DECORATED VETERAN IN THE ARMED
SERVICES, A PATH BREAKER IN
COUNTERINTELLIGENCE, AND
COUNTERINTELLIGENCE, AND PARTICULARLY COUNTERINSURGENCY
PARTICULARLY COUNTERINSURGENCY WHEN HE WAS POSTED IN
AFGHANISTAN AND OTHER PLACES,
WHAT DO YOU THINK HAPPENED HERE?
>> WELL, I THINK MIKE ALWAYS HAD
A VERY INDEPENDENT STREAK AND
DID THINGS HIS WAY.
HE ALSO, I THINK, WAS -- CAME
ACROSS IN SOME RESPECTS AS
ARROGANT IN TERMS OF HIS
THINKING.
THINKING. BUT AGAIN TO SOMEBODY WHO WAS
RESPECTED FOR HIS
ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN UNIFORM.
I THINK, THOUGH, THAT HE, LIKE
OTHERS WHO WERE CAUGHT UP IN THE
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WHIRLWIND,
I THINK GOT CARRIED AWAY AND
PLAYED TO SOME OF HIS WORST
INSTINCTS.
INSTINCTS. SO HIS PERFORMANCE AT THE
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION
AND OTHER TYPES OF THINGS THAT
HE WAS INVOLVED IN, I THINK,
REALLY RAISED PEOPLE’S QUESTION,
MADE PEOPLE QUESTION WHAT HE WAS
DOING.
DOING. AND HE’S -- HE WAS A DIFFERENT
MIKE THAN I KNEW HIM.
I HAD TESTIFIED IN FRONT OF
CONGRESS WITH HIM.
I HAD ENGAGED WITH HIM A NUMBER
OF TIMES.
OF TIMES. BUT I DO THINK THAT HE GOT INTO
THAT POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT.
AND UNFORTUNATELY WHEN THERE’S A
LACK OF ETHICS AND PRINCIPLES AT
THE VERY HELM OF A CAMPAIGN, I
THINK THE PEOPLE WHO FALL INTO
THAT CAMPAIGN FALL ALSO BY THE
WAYSIDE OF ETHICS AND
PRINCIPLES.
PRINCIPLES. >> THE JUDGE TODAY IN
REFERENCING, I BELIEVE, MICHAEL
FLYNN’S ACTIVITY IN TAKING HALF
A MILLION DOLLARS FROM THE
TURKISH GOVERNMENT TO SECRETLY
WORK ON THEIR BEHALF AND ON
BEHALF OF THE INTERESTS OF
ERDOGAN AND THE CHURCH
GOVERNMENT, SAID TO MICHAEL
FLYNN YOU ARGUABLY SOLD OUT YOUR
COUNTRY.
COUNTRY. DO YOU THINK THAT’S A FAIR
CHARACTERIZATION?
CHARACTERIZATION? >> WELL, MIKE DID NOT FOLLOW HIS
RESPONSIBILITIES AND OBLIGATIONS
IN TERMS OF REPORTING THAT
RELATIONSHIP.
RELATIONSHIP. AND IN DOING IT IN A RATHER SORT
OF CLANDESTINE MANNER.
I THINK THERE WAS SOME
WRONGDOING THERE, CLEARLY AND
OBVIOUSLY.
OBVIOUSLY. AND THE JUDGE WHO KNOWS MORE OF
THIS CASE, I THINK, AS HE SAID,
HE WAS DISGUSTED BY WHAT
HAPPENED, ESPECIALLY SOMEBODY
WHO IS GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE
FOR THIS COUNTRY’S NATIONAL
SECURITY, THERE ARE, AGAIN, SOME
THINGS THAT WE EXPECT OF PUBLIC
OFFICIALS LIKE THAT.