THAT'S NEXT MONTH. JASON CHAFFETZ HOUSE OF THE
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE AND REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN OF UTAH
JOINS US. NICE TO SEE YOU, SIR.
>> THANK YOU, GRETA. >> SO, HAS THE WHITE HOUSE BEEN
COOPERATIVE WITH YOU ON THIS INVESTIGATION?
>> YES. LOOK, WE HAD SOUGHT INFORMATION
WONDERING AND INQUIRING AS TO WHETHER OR NOT GENERAL FLYNN HAD
SOUGHT THE PROPER CLEARANCES. NOW, REMEMBER, THIS GOES BACK TO
2015. AND WHAT HE WAS REQUIRED TO DO
BY LAW IS GET PERMISSION, NOT ONLY SEEK, BUT GET PERMISSION
FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE AS WELL AS THE SECRETARY OF THE
ARMY. WE DON'T SEE ANY PAPERWORK
THERE. SO, IF THERE IS A NONRESPONSE,
IF YOU WILL, FROM THOSE AGENCIES ABOUT THE LACK OF PAPERWORK, IT
GOES TO OUR SUSPICION THAT GENERAL FLYNN FAILED TO SEEK AND
GET PERMISSION PRIOR TO ACCEPTING MONEY FROM FOREIGN
ENTITIES. THAT IS THE VIOLATION.
BUT I DO THINK THE WHITE HOUSE, A, HAS BEEN COOPERATIVE.
B, IT WAS THE OBAMA WHITE HOUSE THAT THIS WOULD HAVE FALLEN
UNDER. I DON'T THINK WHAT HAPPENED HERE
IS REALLY THE FAULT OF DONALD TRUMP.
>> OKAY. EXCEPT IT'S NOTABLE THAT THE
LETTER THAT YOU SENT OVER TO THE WHITE HOUSE WAS SENT LONG AFTER
PRESIDENT OBAMA HAD VACATED THE WHITE HOUSE.
>>> ALL RIGHT. NOW, YOU SAY THAT GENERAL FLYNN
PROBABLY BROKE THE LAW. AND YOU USED THE TERMS
"INAPPROPRIATE." EITHER HE BROKE THE LAW OR HE
DIDN'T BREAK THE LAW. ARE YOU MAKING A CRIMINAL
REFERRAL TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE?
>> SO, THE FINAL DETERMINATION NEEDS TO BE MADE BY THE
SECRETARY OF ARMY, THE COMPTROLLER AT THE ARMY WOULD
ALSO BE INVOLVED AS WELL AS THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.
THEY NEED TO MAKE THAT FINAL DETERMINATION.
AS A MEMBER OF CONGRESS AND A COMMITTEE, THE OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE, WE FIND NO EVIDENCE THAT ACTUALLY GENERAL FLYNN
COMPLIED WITH THE LAW WHICH REQUIRES HIM TO PROACTIVELY SEEK
AND BE GRANTED PERMISSION. THEY DON'T HAVE THAT AT THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. WE DON'T SEE THAT AT THE
SECRETARY OF STATE'S OFFICE, NOR DO WE SEE ANYTHING AT THE WHITE
HOUSE THAT WOULD LEAD US TO BELIEVE THAT HE ACTUALLY WAS IN
FULL COMPLIANCE. WE DO BELIEVE THAT HE DID ACCEPT
WHAT IS NORTH OF $500,000, BUT THAT LETTER OR THAT FINAL
DETERMINATION NEEDS TO COME FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY.
>> ALL RIGHT. HIS LAWYER SAYS THAT HE BRIEFED
THE DEFENSE -- THE DNI, HE DID THAT.
HE JUST DIDN'T TELL D.O.D. IS THAT ENOUGH FOR YOU OR NOT?
>> THAT'S NOT WHAT THE LAW SAYS. THAT MAY VERY WELL BE TRUE, BUT
THE LAW IS PRETTY CLEAR AND VERY SIMPLE AND BASICALLY SAYING, YOU
HAVE TO SEEK AND GET PERMISSION IN ORDER TO BE IN COMPLIANCE.
WE DON'T SEE THAT HE DID THAT. >> ALL RIGHT.
SO, JUST TELLING DIA WOULD NOT BE ENOUGH, HE'S GOT TO GET
ACTUAL PERMISSION FROM D.O.D.? >> I'M SURE AS A GOOD GESTURE
AND I'M SURE IT WAS MAYBE PERHAPS EVEN DONE IN THE SPIRIT
OF BEING COOPERATIVE AND OPEN, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THE LAW
REQUIRES. >> ALL RIGHT.
HAVE YOU HAD ANY INDICATION THAT HE ACTUALLY DID TELL DIA?
>> HE MAY VERY WELL HAVE DONE THAT.
THE FACT THAT HIS ATTORNEY IS SAYING THAT, YOU KNOW, I'LL TAKE
HIM AT HIS WORD THAT THAT DID HAPPEN, BUT THERE IS NO
PAPERWORK AND WE'VE BEEN TRYING FOR MONTHS NOW TO GET PAPERWORK.
BUT WE JUST DON'T SEE ANY PAPERWORK PROPERLY FILED SEEKING
PERMISSION OR BEING GRANTED THAT PERMISSION.
>> HAVE YOU TRIED TO SUMMON FLYNN FORMALLY LIKE WITH A
SUBPOENA OR INFORMALLY TO COME TESTIFY BEFORE YOUR COMMITTEE?
>> LOOK, THE BIGGER, BROADER INQUIRY WILL BE SPEARHEADED BY
THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE.
I DON'T NECESSARILY NEED TO HEAR DIRECTLY FROM GENERAL FLYNN.
I'M LOOKING FOR PAPERWORK. I'M LOOKING FOR A PAPER TRAIL.
I'M LOOKING FOR EVIDENCE. I'M LOOKING FOR SOMETHING THAT
SHOWS AND DEMONSTRATES THAT HE DID THIS BY THE LETTER OF THE
LAW. I SEE NONE OF THAT AND THAT'S
WHY I KNOW THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE, IS ENGAGED. THE COMP CONTROLLER IS GOING TO
HAVE TO GET INVOLVED. SOMEBODY NEEDS TO MAKE A FINAL
DETERMINATION. ONCE THEY'VE MADE THAT FINAL
DETERMINATION, HE LIKELY WILL HAVE TO REPAY THAT AMOUNT
THROUGH THE TREASURY. THERE IS PRECEDENT FOR THAT.
AND ABOVE AND BEYOND THAT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE MAY OR MAY NOT DO. >> IN LISTENING TO BOTH YOU AND
CONGRESSMAN ELIJAH CUMMINGS, THE RANKING MEMBER, IT LOOKS LIKE
YOU'RE BOTH ON THE SAME PAGE OF THIS.
DO YOU HAVE ANY DIFFERENCES WITH HIM ON THIS?
>> I THINK WE'RE PRETTY MUCH ON THE SAME PAGE.
I THINK AS I HEARD MR. CUMMINGS IS SEEKING MORE INFORMATION FROM
THE WHITE HOUSE, BUT OBVIOUSLY WE CAME TOGETHER TODAY TO DO
THIS JOIPTLY. WE'VE GOT A LETTER THAT WE'RE
GOING TO DO JOINTLY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
SPECIFICALLY THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY SEEKING FINAL
DETERMINATION. BUT AS THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
IS CONCERNED ON THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC, WE'VE PRETTY MUCH
EXHAUSTED IT. NOW THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
SPECIFICALLY THE ARMY, THEY'VE GOT TO MAKE THIS FINAL
DETERMINATION. >> ALL RIGHT.
TO SHORTHAND THIS, WOULD YOU SAY AFTER WHAT YOU REVIEWED TODAY
THAT GENERAL FLYNN IS IN A HEAP OF TROUBLE?
>> YES, YES. CLEARLY -- YOU CAN'T DO THIS.
YOU CAN'T AS A FORMER MILITARY OFFICER -- THERE IS NOTHING
SPECIFICALLY WITH MR. FLYNN OR GENERAL FLYNN, IT HAS EVERYTHING
TO DO WITH FORMER MILITARY OFFICERS.
THEY CAN'T GO AND TAKE MONEY FROM A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT.
YOU CAN'T GET A DIRECT PAYMENT LIKE THAT BECAUSE FORMER
MILITARY OFFICERS CAN BE CALLED UP AND INTO DUTY AT ANY GIVEN
TIME. THAT'S WHY THEY'VE GOT TO BE A
LITTLE BIT CLEAR HER, A LITTLE MORE PURE.
THAT'S WHY THERE ARE LAWS ON THE BOOKS THAT PREVENT THIS TYPE OF
THING FROM HANG YET IT DOES APPEAR IT HAPPENED IN THE CASE
OF MR. FLYNN. NOW, THAT DOES BEG ANOTHER
QUESTION, WHICH IS HOW DID HE GET A SECURITY CLEARANCE.
IF HE DID ALL THOSE THINGS, WE COULD EASILY FIGURE OUT HOW DID
HE GET A SECURITY CLEARANCE. ANOTHER BIGGER, BROADER
QUESTION, BUT CERTAINLY I WOULDN'T FAULT THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION. BUT I DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR
THE DIA. WHY WAS HE GIVEN A SECURITY
CLEARANCE IF HE OBVIOUSLY DID WHAT I THINK, AT LEAST THE
EVIDENCE POINTS TO, VIOLATED