Devin Nunes is Obstructing the Russia Probe Again
He’s already under investigation by the Ethics Committee, but he’s not letting this stop him.
“House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes said Saturday there “was never any collusion between Donald Trump and the Russians,” casting himself as a victim of media bias and calling on Washington to “stop chasing Russian ghosts around the closet.”
These statements are enough to disqualify Nunes from any role in the investigation-as he’s already made up his mind. And he is supposed to have recused himself, but his definition of recusal seems to be similar to the Jeff Sessions’ working definition.
“Nunes, addressing GOP donors in Orange County, said that after searching for any evidence of collusion, “I said ‘OK, I don’t think there’s any collusion here.’ And what happened to me? All the major papers in the country did a total character assassination on me. Why? Because I was telling the truth, that there was never any collusion between Donald Trump and the Russians.”
No. Because you were supposed to be investigating something you’d already made your mind up. In other words, you’re a hung judge, paid for and bought by Herr Trump.
“The keynote speaker at the Orange County Republican Party’s annual Flag Day Salute dinner, Nunes suggested the Russia investigation was distracting Washington from more pressing policy concerns.”
“He said Republicans must do a “better job selling” their health care overhaul, for example, but that “part of [it] also means that we have to stop chasing Russian ghosts around the closet and actually get to real work.”
It’s called obstruction of justice. No wonder Nunes is under investigation. Meanwhile, Nunes hasn’t really recused himself. For him to be making these statements with a clear bias and not recused is just spectacular obstruction of justice.
“Devin Nunes didn’t really recuse himself. What does it mean for the House Russia investigation?”
The LA Times points out that Nunes never said he’d recuse just ‘step back from the investigation.’ But even if this is true these statements showing his rush to judgement make plain if he didn’t say he’d recuse, he should and must.
What actually happened was there were demands for him to recuse and he used the weasel words of ‘I won’t be involved for awhile…’
“Why are we talking about Nunes’ non-recusal now?”
“Because a couple of weeks ago, CNN reported Nunes went to CIA headquarters to review intelligence documents related to Russia. Democrats started complaining that he was still too involved.”
“In an interview with Fox News a few days later, Nunes said he was still handling the portion of the committee’s investigation related to whether Obama officials inappropriately requested the unmasking of the names of Trump campaign officials in intelligence documents. Unmasking is the term for revealing the names of U.S. citizens in intelligence reports who were swept up as part of surveillance of foreign officials. Their names remain secret until top officials request them.”
“Simply put, I’m still the chairman of the committee,” Nunes said. “The way to look into this is that I’m still read into everything, but … I was going to set at least the Russia side of the investigation aside because I didn’t want to be the face of this investigation. But everything else, I’m still in charge of. … Especially the unmasking.”
“The unmasking of the names of Trump transition officials in intercepted communications was the topic Nunes said he was looking into during one of his White House visits. The communications, he said at the time, “had nothing to do with Russia.”
So Obama officials unmasked Trump transition officials but the communications had nothing to do with Russia? Talk about raising questions rather than answering them.
1. There is nothing wrong with unmasking.
2. Unmasking is not leaking. Nunes is the one leaking the alleged unmaskings.
3. If they communications had nothing to do with Russia what were they about? Why in that case is it even important? That is very hard to believe-whatever he has, it was about Russia.
The ranking Democrat on the committee, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank), told MSNBC on Thursday that the committee’s rules state the chairman has to sign subpoenas unless he delegates the authority to someone else.
“That authority should have been delegated to Mike Conaway in consultation with myself. That hasn’t happened yet, and I think that’s a violation of the recusal by the chairman,” Schiff said of his fellow Californian.
“Nunes hasn’t “fully honored” his commitment not to be involved in the investigation, Schiff said.”
The investigation had largely gotten back on track since Nunes stepped aside. The Intelligence Committee held a second public hearing, and Schiff and Conaway seem to be working well together. The committee’s last major move was issuing the subpoenas to Flynn and Cohen.
“But the grumbling about Nunes’ intervention has again put into question the committee’s ability to come to a bipartisan conclusion about the methods the Russian government used to try to influence the outcome of the election and whether anyone in Trump’s campaign helped Russia.”
“In the past, Schiff has threatened to walk away from the investigation if he thinks the committee’s work has become too partisan for the public to have faith in its conclusions.”
Nunes should watch what his fellow Republican Marco Rubio said on Jake Tapper this morning. As Rubio says, the best thing for Trump-assuming he’s innocent we can add-is to have a fair and comprehensive investigation that inspires confidence in the American people.
He should also listen to what Bob Inglis, a former SC Republican who voted to impeach Bill Clinton in 1999:
“I helped impeach Clinton. The charges against Trump are worse.”
“House Speaker Paul D. Ryan, R-Wis., asserted recently that if the president were a Democrat, the House wouldn’t be pursing impeachment. He must know that’s not true.”
“If FBI Director James B. Comey had angered a President Hillary Clinton by restarting the investigation into her private email server and she had fired him, Republicans would be howling. Rightly so.”
“Instead, Donald Trump won the election. Comey was pursuing an investigation into Russian meddling. It angered President Trump, and he fired Comey. But rather than howling, Republicans are whimpering. The chair of the Republican National Committee has even called for a halt to all investigations of collusion with Russia. That’s a problem.”
“I was on the House Judiciary Committee that began the consideration of impeaching of President Bill Clinton. Armed with information from independent counsel Kenneth Starr, we were convinced the president had lied under oath. We drafted articles of impeachment, and a majority of the House concurred with our assessment. The Senate subsequently determined that there wasn’t sufficient cause to remove him from office. In retrospect, a public censure or reprimand may have been more advisable.”
“Regardless, Clinton was impeached for charges less serious than the ones before us now. In the current case, Comey was exploring the possibility of American involvement in the Russian plot, a treasonous offense. While it’s not time to start drafting articles of impeachment, it is time to pursue this investigation into Russian meddling in our presidential election with vigor, without friends to reward and without enemies to punish.”
Indeed. Nixon certainly had some very admirable traits in a President unlike Trump. Nixon was also not so stupid as to boast of having tapes on Twitter and say he fired Comey because of Russia.
“When Republicans confronted Nixon in 1974, they faced three, 30-minute, nightly news broadcasts. The networks competed, but their newscasts and the facts presented were virtually identical. Those Republicans knew that their political futures rested upon their maintenance of credibility.”
“Today, Fox News, talk radio, Breitbart and others fawn over Trump, Vice President Pence and the rest of the administration. They amplify the White House’s words while defying the journalistic calling to test and to probe the government’s claims. Recall, for example, how those outlets immediately affirmed Trump’s unsubstantiated morning tweets about President Barack Obama’s wiretapping of Trump Tower.”
A different media environment for one.
“With Fox and others clogging the media landscape, Republicans’ political futures now rest on feeding the passions and proclivities of Trump’s hard-core base — the 39 percent of the electorate that likes him and responds to his code of grievance. That 39 percent is the dominant force in Republican primaries today. Cross them and you die.”
I gave Rubio some credit for not attacking the probe and expressing confidence in the process and a willingness to follow the facts where they lead. To be sure, it’s not so high a bar. But:
“That’s why Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., for example, used his time at the June 8 Senate Intelligence Committee hearing to ask Comey questions that excused, lessened and dismissed the possible connection between the Russians and Trump. It’s not that Trump has wooed Rubio; it’s that the Florida senator is aware of the power of the 39 percent.”
I also think there’s something going on with Rubio and Herr Trump-a Cuban Quid pro Quo?
P.S. So the Gravis poll against Peter King NY2 and it has good news-almost too good to believe.
In my March poll I trailed King by 11 and thought that was very good news. Now Gravis has me up by 10? Still, the moment of truth is next week when Gravis writes up the press release.
I can use any help I can get at this point-volunteers or supporters who live in NY 2. Donations whatever your zip code. These days we can’t just support a local Dem we need a Dem Congress. Which is why I’ve donated few hundred to Jon Ossoff.
Please donate to help me in my part of the effort to fight for a Dem House-$5 or $10 can do so much.
If you feel that you can’t I, of course, understand-who is rich these days? But please do me one favor: ask yourself privately, mentally, if you really can’t spare $5 dollars. If you can honestly say you can’t, no worries.
We can have a Dem Congress, we must have a Dem Cogress, and we will.
Thank you. We must have a Dem House. And so, we will.