House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes produced new information last week about what he said was “lawful” surveillance that ensnared someone on President Trump’s staff.
A government intelligence agency had picked up conversations referring to or involving members of the Trump transition team when President Obama was still in office, Nunes said. The striking part of his revelation was not that there had been surveillance but that information gleaned about Trump campaigners, supposedly of no intelligence value to the federal government, may have been shared illegally throughout government without concealing the identity of the Americans involved.
Democrats and their media allies have refused to address this serious allegation on its merits. Their related call for Nunes to recuse himself from the panel’s separate investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election is a non-sequitur and has nothing to do with the issue he brought up.
Journalists were so busy scoffing on Twitter at Nunes’ March 22 press conference that they failed to pay attention to what he said. Importantly, the intelligence collected on Trump transition staff was not related to Russia. It was not collected in the course of monitoring Russian officials, nor as part of any official criminal investigation into Trump-world that might have justified inter-agency sharing.
In describing this still-unreleased intelligence material, Nunes referred to an earlier incident in which the Obama administration spied on Israeli officials. During that monitoring, the White House incidentally picked up conversations between the Israelis and members of Congress at the height of the debate over the Iran nuclear deal.
Democrats are trying to compound media confusion between the Russia investigation and apparent but unrelated lawbreaking by the feds before Trump took office. Perhaps Nunes should have shared his information with his committee before going public, but that also has nothing to do with the substance of unlawful sharing of intelligence information on Americans.
Democrats have responded to Nunes by throwing up a smokescreen, which suggests they are worried about possible wrongdoing against Trump, not about hinted wrongdoing by his campaign. Either that, or perhaps they just don’t like any information that clouds the persistent narrative of shady and collusive ties between the president and Russia, with which they are constantly trying to stall the new president’s agenda and ability to govern.
Intelligence Ranking Member Adam Schiff, D-Calif., has worked especially hard and deliberately to confuse the two separate investigations. Immediately after Nunes spoke, Schiff insinuated that his actions had somehow compromised the Russia investigation.
There are two important and separate questions now. One pertains to Russian propaganda efforts and illegal hacking during the 2016 election. The other pertains to potentially illegal handling of intelligence information on U.S. persons by the intelligence community or the Obama administration.
Democrats claim Nunes was trying to give Trump cover for accusing Obama of wiretapping him, but the lawmaker said explicitly that Trump’s allegation was false. By Nunes’ account, the collection of conversations involving or referring to Team Trump members was incidental and legal. The issue is not the surveillance, but what was done with the information. The law strictly limits what can be done with it. But someone disseminated it throughout the government revealing that person’s identity.
Such an act could be illegal, even punishable with prison time under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The questions become who did this, why, and did they break the law?
Further confusing the issue is the separate question of the intelligence committee’s open hearing scheduled for Tuesday, which Nunes abruptly canceled. He said he instead wanted a closed door session to question the FBI and NSA directors about this separate issue.
Democrats accuse him of canceling the hearing to prevent testimony by Sally Yates, Obama’s acting attorney general whom Trump fired in January.
Whatever the truth of this claim, and Nunes can prove them wrong by quickly rescheduling Yates’ testimony on Flynn and Russia, the illegal handling of intelligence information about conversations by opposition politicians is a very serious issue. Nunes is right to demand answers quickly by going to the source. Democrats’ calls for him to recuse himself from a completely separate investigation are not just disingenuous, but are intended to confuse the public.
