Russia hearing: Comey says no information to confirm Trump's wiretap claims – as it happened

20 Mar 201710.55 EDT

Shaun Walker

The Guardian’s Shaun Walker writes from Russia:

Not much coverage of the hearing here in Russia; currently the only US story on Russia’s main state news site is that Trump accused Clinton of collusion with Russia.

[In this tweet from this morning:]

In general, news from the US and the positive news coverage we saw of Trump here in the first weeks after his election has been toned down in recent weeks. We’re back to the image of the US as Russia’s main enemy.

Now Rooney turns specifically to General Flynn, the former national security adviser whose career fell apart when it emerged he had been having contact with the Russian ambassador he’d denied having.

He asks who would unmask General Flynn if he was under surveillance. Rogers says he could do it or 19 others could do it, within the NSA. He’s asked whether former director of national intelligence James Clapper or others would be able to unmask Flynn.

Would leaking of a US person who has been unmasked and disseminated.. would that leaking to the press hurt or help our conduct of intelligence...

Rogers says “hurt.”

Rooney: Would such a leak harm national security?

Rogers: Yes.

Rooney: Why would someone leak the identity of a US person?

Rogers: No idea. We do not engage in this activity on principle.

Rooney: “For those who break that sacred trust, if they are not held accountable.. it is very difficult for us to be able to keep that sacred trust.”

We just heard that the FBI is investigating associates of the president (the president himself?) for election-year ties to Russia. The first questions, however – from the Republicans who control the committee – don’t touch on that historic news, instead focusing on the mechanics of intelligence collection and leaks:

#FF

Tom Rooney, Republican of Florida, the chairman of the subcommittee overseeing NSA, is asking Rogers about the rules pertaining to the surveillance of a US person (the designation includes US corporations ... thanks Mitt Romney!). Rogers is describing the rules and how carefully the NSA follows them.

Nunes says he’s very concerned about “widespread illegal leaks.” He asks Comey whether those leaks violate the law.

“Yes,” Comey says. Nunes wants it on the record.

Nunes asks Rogers, citing 6 January 2017 intelligence report that found Russia did not attack systems involved in vote tallying, whether:

Did Russia change vote totals in Michigan? Wow.

Pennsylvania?

Wisconsin?

Florida?

North Carolina?

Ohio?

All “No, Sirs” from Rogers.

No intelligence that suggests any votes were changed?

No.

Comey also says no.

“Leaks of classified information are serious, serious crimes,” Comey says.

Here’s Comey. Bombshell confirmation right off the top:

“Our practice is not to confirm existence of ongoing investigations,” he begins (cough Clinton’s emails cough). “But in unusual circumstances where it is in the public interest” we go public, he says.

Then he announces:

I have been authorized by the DoJ to confirm that the FBI ... is investigating the Russian government’s attempts to interfere in the 2016 election ... That includes any links between the Trump campaign ... This will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed.

He calls it an “open, ongoing investigation”.