Leaked information in the never-ending Russia drama is only of interest to the national media when it casts the slightest suspicion on the White House.
It’s unsurprising then that since Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., came out two weeks ago to say that there is at least some evidence that the Obama administration spied on President Trump during the campaign, reporters have busied themselves not with how that could be true and why but with investigating how Nunes got the dirt.
Related Story: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2619060
The New York Times on Thursday advanced the beside-the-point worrying by reporting that Nunes received the intelligence from two White House officials: Ezra Cohen-Watnick, the senior director for intelligence at the National Security Council, and Michael Ellis, a lawyer who works on national security.
Matthew Nussbaum of Politico followed up during that day’s White House press briefing by asking Sean Spicer if it’s “appropriate” for administration officials “to find information that then validates something the president said.”
“Information that validates” is otherwise known as: evidence that intelligence officials, under Obama, surveilled the incoming Trump administration.
So, yes, it’s likely “appropriate” that the president’s staff attempted to back him up when he accuses his predecessor of spying on him.
Anyone who missed Nunes’ two press conferences on his findings now practically needs a microfilm reader to get articles on what exactly it is that he found. You’d have an easier time finding reports on how Nunes got to the White House, why he hasn’t revealed his sources, and who let him in the front door.
Reporters: By the way, boxers or briefs, Congressman Nunes?
What we know from Nunes is that there was “incidental” surveillance of Trump’s associates during the transition period (on matters that excluded Russia, so it went beyond national security matters); that their identities were revealed and shared among Obama administration personnel, a potential crime; and that details of that surveillance was then leaked to the news media.
Why did any of that happen, and isn’t that at least an abuse of power?
Reporters: Nah, but why did Nunes wear a black belt with brown shoes?
Instead of asking why the Obama administration would have found it necessary to potentially have spied on Trump, a reporter with the Daily Mail asked Sean Spicer on Tuesday if he “learned any more information … about how [Nunes] would have even gotten in and how he would have gotten cleared.”
In every other case where information on Trump was leaked, the national media were far more interested in the substance of the leaks rather than how they made their way public.
It was leaked that ousted National Security Adviser Mike Flynn had failed to disclose talks with the Russian ambassador about sanctions, the details of which are still not public. It was leaked that Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner met with the ambassador during the transition period. It was leaked that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had previously met with the ambassador in his senate office and didn’t say so during his confirmation hearing.
During the congressional hearing on March 20 over Russia’s interference with the election, Nunes said he was “extremely concerned about the widespread illegal leaks…”
The Washington Post responded with an editorial headlined, “No, Republicans, the ‘real story’ is not the leaks.”
In February, CNN dismissed complaints from Trump over negative news coverage of Flynn because they were “focused on the leaks as well, not the issues surrounding Flynn.”
After the dossier of still-unsubstantiated and lewd claims regarding Trump and Russia were published in January, Politico said that Republicans and the president “seem more concerned with how the information wound up in the news media than with the allegations that Trump associates colluded with Moscow.”
When leaks make Trump look like he’s chairing the Gorbachev fan club, the media say it’s the “substance” of the leaks that matters. When they show that the Obama administration really may have spied on Trump, it’s the leaks themselves everyone should find concerning.
There is a potential compromise to be made. Nunes could show his leaks if the news media will show theirs.
Eddie Scarry is a media reporter for the Washington Examiner.
