Sally Yates repeatedly told Senate that she did not verify facts in FISA application and relied on false and misleading information from FBI. Yet she very assertively declares, as fact, how investigation started, using info from same people. Count the falsehoods in one paragraph.

2/ to do so, let's start with Alexander Downer's exact words in first interview ( http://archive.is/PB3r6 )

3/ Yates said:
a) someone affiliated with Russians had approached Papadopoulos;
b) told him that Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails that could be released anonymously;
c) wanted to know if campaign interested in them.

4/ but here's what Downer said in his public interview:
d) "Russians might use material that they have on Hillary Clinton in the lead-up to the election, which may be damaging.’’
e) Papadop "didn’t say dirt, he said material that ...would be damaging. He didn’t say what it was".

5/ even if one stipulates that Mifsud was "affiliated with the Russians" - which is implausible - as of Jan 5 or Jan 24, FBI had never heard of Mifsud (who is not mentioned in discussion of Papadop in Oct 2016 Carter Page FISA).

6/ Yates' allegation that someone "affiliated with the Russians" had ASKED Papadopoulos "if campaign interested in them [thousands of emails]" is unsupported by any evidence and contradicted in Downer's interview.

7/ Yates also misled Senate by saying that Papadop told Downer that "Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails that could be released anonymously". Downer was clear that Papadop did not talk about emails.

8/ there is also a fundamental chronological problem which disproves Yates' fantasy that Papadop was talking about DNC email hack. Papadop met Downer on May 6. DNC emails were not hacked until between May 23 and May 25. Most hacked emails had not even been sent on May 6.

9/ Yates doesn't appear to know anything more about the facts on this matter than she did about the facts asserted in Carter Page FISA warrant.

10/ Given Yates' participation in deception of FISA court - not to speak of ICA, for which she claimed ignorance of facts, one would have expected a little more humility in her exposition of what Papadopoulos told Downer. But no. She remained certain of false information.

11/ Yates' wildest claims were in response to Dem softball questions. It's as tho Republicans weren't listening or, more likely, were so uninformed that they merely re-iterated (by now) hackneyed points, instead of using opportunity to cross-examine.

12/ for example, Yates said that "someone affiliated with Russians" asked Papadop "if campaign interested in them [the thousands of emails]". First, when did Yates learn this information? Did she ever see a document containing this information?

13/ "when" is important. Yates was fired on Jan 30, 2017. Papadop wasn't interviewed until Jan 27 (AFTER Flynn.) Papadop hadn't mentioned "thousands of emails" to Downer, but did mention emails at Jan 27 interview. Was "thousands of emails" in Yates' briefing by FBI?

14/ or is Yates' falsely attributing this information to FBI's rationale for Flynn investigation as of Jan 5, 2017? Papadop was charged with lying to FBI for lying about when he met Mifsud relative to when he joined Trump campaign. Why should Yates get different standard?

15/ and why, oh why, didn't a single Senator ask Yates WHO told her that someone "affiliated with Russia" asked Papadop whether campaign was "interested in" the emails. Two possibilities. a) Yates made up the story, misremembering and now embellishing wildly. (Like Roger Stone.)

16/ Oar b) someone else made up the story, embellishing actual Downer information. In which case, identity of embellisher needs to be known. Why wasn't this asked?

17/ a new detail about Jan 5, 2017 after-meeting not in Strzok notes. Obama began meeting by asking whether White House could "continue to share sensitive national security information with General Flynn during the transition"?
https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/senate-judiciary-committee-hearing-transcript-august-5-sally-yates

18/ not that Obama admin had been consulting with Trump transition on their last-minute policy provocations and poison pills.

19/ there are many issues with Yates' testimony but it's important to listen carefully to her position, which can be missed if one has too many preconceptions. Graham tried to pin her down as only a policy dispute, but Yates is clear to link to Flynn supposedly misleading Pence.

20/ as a preface, the only reason why Flynn-Kislyak call was even at issue was because of illegal leak of this classified information, two days after the illegal leak of the inclusion of Steele dossier in Intel Assessment.

21/ as another preface, if one compares public statements about Biden's telephone calls with Ukrainian leaders in 2016 to recently leaked transcripts, it ought to be no surprise that official statements were not truthful about contents of call. To the surprise of no one.

22/ one more thing before talking about Pence Jan 15 interview: if predication for Yates was that Flynn deceived Pence, even that predicate didn't exist on Jan 14. Pence interview was not grounds for the countermanding of case closure on Jan 4-5. That seems to be due to Obama.

23/ it's too bad that Graham didn't press Yates on chronology.

anyway on Jan 15, Pence told CBS not just that Flynn hadnt talked about sanctions, but also not about expulsions. First was true, 2nd wasnt.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michael-flynn-timeline-contacts-with-russia-ouster-guilty-plea/

24/ at this point, all that Sally Yates KNOWS is that Pence said something partly untrue about a conversation with a foreign leader and that Flynn had asked Kislyak not to escalate (in expectation of improved cooperation against ISIS and AlQaeda).

25/ as an aside, while Yates dismissed other parts of Flynn call as "innocuous", for Flynn, negotiations in Astana and potential joint operations against ISIS and AlQaeda were anything but "innocuous". ISIS, AQ were core mission for Flynn.

26/ following Yates' chronology, there was no predicate against Flynn as of Jan 14, since, as of Jan 14, a policy difference but no "cover up". But that changed for gumshoe Sally on Jan 15 when Pence gave partly false info to CBS.

27/ but officials make inaccurate, even false, statements to press all the time, without becoming a personal predicate for Attorney General. As of Jan 15, for all Yates knew, Pence could have been fully briefed by Flynn and intentionally misleading CBS. If so, so what?

28/ Or, more likely, Pence could have free-lanced beyond the four corners of what had been briefed to him, extrapolating to a conclusion that wasn't in the briefing. Pence wasn't under any obligation to answer questions to CBS. But unfortunately bit on one of Obama poison pills.

29/ Yates' rationalization of investigation of Flynn was that Pence said something partly untrue to CBS. But that wasn't adequate and wasn't why the investigation was open. It was nothing more than Yates' after-the-fact rationalization.