Sally Yates’s Testimony Does Not Confirm Trump-Russia Collusion

On Monday, former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates testified in front of Congress on what many folks on the Left touted out early as something that would be a bombshell story. This was not the case.

Yates’s testimony brought almost nothing new to the table regarding alleged collusion between President Trump and Russia; her hearing most certainly did not give any hard evidence to prove said collusion. Former National Intelligence Director James Clapper was on NBC weeks ago where he said, “We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say, ‘our,’ that’s NSA, FBI and CIA, with my office, the Director of National Intelligence, that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report.” When asked again on Monday if he still stands by his aforementioned assertation, Clapper agreed that he did and it was correct.

Sally Yates then countered Clapper’s response by saying Clapper did not have the full story and she could not reveal much of it because the matter is under investigation and is classified. Like the Obama wiretap situation, Trump can presumably vindicate himself if he were to instruct a declassification of the intelligence. Assuming there is no collusion. The fact he is not merely doing that is troubling.

Something else that is troubling has to do with what Yates also said in her testimony: Michael Flynn was named a National Security Adviser even though Sally Yates warned the Trump administration that Flynn was compromised by the Russians and susceptible to blackmail. Not only was Flynn hired, but he was retained as a member of the Trump administration for the better part of a month. Why is that? Why didn’t Trump follow the bevy warnings presented to him and not hire Flynn? Why didn’t Trump oust him quickly either? The answer is relatively straightforward: the American public do not know, and the Trump administration has made it their duty not to let them know. That’s bad.

Regardless of the nothingness that came out of the Yates testimony, an indicator of suspicious behavior is the way Trump handled it. After clappers so-called vindication of Team Trump, the President Trump changed his Twitter account banner to one that read: Director Clapper reiterated what everybody, including the fake media already knows- there is “no evidence” of collusion w/ Russia and Trump.

Trump Changes Twitter Banner

The reason this is suspicious is because Trump was exhibiting the Streisand Effect. After only about three hours, the header was changed back.

Before the testimony, Trump tweeted:

Afterward, the true tweetstorm ensued:

If Trump wants to go about this in a way that’s beneficial to him and his team that doesn’t involve the declassification of information, he didn’t do it. These tweets accomplish nothing but exacerbate and grant legitimacy to conspiracy theories about his campaign based on suspicion. Because it’s suspicious.

The fact is that Yates’s testimony brought no hard evidence to levy against Trump in regards to colluission. What it did do was reopen unanswered questions by bringing them into a new light.

Greg Matusow

Author: Greg Matusow

Greg Matusow is a conservative writer and founder of