Why? Why was there an 18-day gap between the urgent warning from an acting attorney general that the person occupying the most sensitive national security post at the White House might be compromised by a hostile foreign power, and the day that person was finally shown the door?
This is the question that leapt out to reporters just as soon as we learned in February that acting Attorney General Sally Yates briefed White House counsel Don McGahn on Jan. 26 about the hazard Michael Flynn posed to America's national security. Yet Flynn wasn’t forced out until Feb. 13.
One theory that would explain such a gap is that Trump not only knew Flynn lied to the FBI on Jan. 24 about his contacts with Russia, but perhaps directed him to do it. NBC writes:
Mueller is trying to determine why Flynn remained in his post for 18 days after Trump learned of Yates' warning, according to two people familiar with the probe. He appears to be interested in whether Trump directed him to lie to senior officials, including Pence, or the FBI, and if so why, the sources said.
This is the first we've heard of this line of inquiry and it puts a whole new spin on the question of what Trump knew and when he knew it. If Trump actually knew that Flynn had spoken to the Russians along with the content of those conversations and told him to stonewall the FBI, then Trump wasn't just a bystander in the lie that compromised Flynn: he was the genesis of that lie. And by the way, if the Russians were to know that Trump directed Flynn to do any these these things—from contacting Russia to discussing sanctions to lying to the FBI—then Trump himself is in danger of being compromised because Vladimir Putin could literally decide the fate of his presidency.
So let's keep that in mind but not get too far ahead of the implications of Mueller's inquiry into what pushed Flynn's lifespan in the White House a solid 18 days longer than it should have been under any president who was acting rationally in the best interests of the nation.
Keep these four days in mind:
- Jan. 24: Flynn lies to the FBI about at least two contacts he had with Russia
- Jan. 25: Acting Attorney General Sally Yates is briefed by FBI agents about Flynn
- Jan. 26: Yates warns White House counsel Don McGahn that Flynn is in danger of being compromised; McGahn briefs Trump immediately after
- Jan. 27: Yates and McGahn meet again about Flynn; Trump asks former FBI director James Comey for his loyalty
McGahn's actions following his briefing are crucial here because although Yates informed him that Flynn was at risk of being compromised, she testified that she didn't directly divulge to him that Flynn had lied to the FBI because she wasn't at liberty to reveal that information.
"Mr. McGahn asked me how he did and I declined to give him an answer to that," Yates testified in May. [...]
Two former federal prosecutors who spoke to NBC News on the condition of anonymity said most lawyers in McGahn's position would have immediately gone to Flynn and asked him whether he had lied to the FBI.
According to then-press secretary Sean Spicer, McGahn briefed Trump on his conversation with Yates immediately following the meeting. Now here's an interesting question: What if the true revelation for Trump wasn't that Flynn was potentially compromised, but rather that the FBI and Justice Department knew he was potentially compromised?
This paints McGahn's follow-up meeting with Yates in a much different light.
After the first meeting, Yates said she was asked to return to the White House by McGahn for some follow-up questions the next day.
She said there were four topics on the agenda. First, she testified, McGahn asked “essentially, why does it matter to DOJ whether one White House official lies to another?” She said McGahn followed up by asking about Flynn’s potential criminal exposure, whether taking action against Flynn could impede any investigation against him, and whether the White House could examine the underlying evidence in this matter.
The second meeting now reads exactly like a fishing expedition—an attempt by the White House to find out how much the FBI/DOJ knew and therefore how much legal exposure both Flynn and Trump might have.
After the second meeting, Trump would host then-FBI Director James Comey at the White House and attempt to secure a pledge of loyalty from him.
Flynn was effectively finally undone by reporting.
In the second week of February, Flynn again told senior White House officials he had not discussed sanctions with Kislyak. Fresh questions arose at that time because Washington Post reporters had multiple sources saying the two men had discussed sanctions. Under repeated questioning by the senior officials, Flynn shifted his story, according to White House officials familiar with the matter.
Pence said he first learned that Flynn had misled him when the Post story was published on Feb. 9. Four days later, Yates's warning to McGahn became public in another Post story.
Only then, on Feb. 13, did Trump fire Flynn, saying he did so because he had misled Pence.
Justice Department officials told NBC that they had originally anticipated Flynn would be fired on Jan. 26, immediately following the urgent warning from Yates. Instead, Trump fired Yates on Jan. 30.
Just last week, the specter was raised that Trump knew about Flynn’s lie to the FBI all along when a Trump tweet emerged saying he "had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI." Since then, Trump's lawyer John Dowd has pretty unconvincingly tried to take the blame for that incriminating tweet.
If Trump knew his national security adviser lied to the FBI in the early days of his administration it would raise serious questions about why Flynn was not fired until Feb. 13, and whether Trump was attempting to obstruct justice when FBI Director James Comey says the president pressured him to drop his investigation into Flynn. Trump fired Comey on May 9.
And that timeline along with the actions Trump took become dramatically more problematic if Flynn's lies originated with Trump.