Devin Nunes Won't Say If He Worked With White House on Anti-FBI Memo

[applegrove]

BETSY WOODRUFF and SPENCER ACKERMAN at the Daily Beast

https://www.thedailybeast.com/devin-nunes-wont-say-if-he-worked-with-white-house-on-anti-fbi-memo?ref=home

"SNIP..........

The Republican chairman of the House intelligence committee refused to answer when a colleague asked him if he had coordinated his incendiary surveillance memo with the White House, The Daily Beast has learned.

During Monday’s contentious closed-door committee meeting, Rep. Mike Quigley, a Democrat, asked Nunes point-blank if his staffers had been talking with the White House as they compiled a four-page memo alleging FBI and Justice Department abuses over surveillance of President Trump’s allies in the Russia probe.

According to sources familiar with the exchange, Nunes made a few comments that didn’t answer the question before finally responding, “I’m not answering.”

Spokespeople for Nunes and for the White House did not immediately respond.


...............SNIP"

[PJMcK]

1. This is some government we've got (n/t)

[Lindsay]

2. Like a grade school student council,

but with nukes.

[PJMcK]

4. Nah

The student council follows the rules.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. Of course he did. Steve Miller probably wrote it for him.

[democratisphere]

5. Nunes' memo will bring him down and end his representation in the House.

[Gothmog]

6. Republicans risk becoming accomplices in obstruction of justice

Lock them up https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2018/01/26/republicans-risk-becoming-accomplices-in-obstruction-of-justice/?utm_term=.969c26c70804

One can imagine that leaking this information was another way to head off errant action by the president. Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress have shown none of the courage Comey, Wray, McGahn, etc., demonstrated. With the exception of chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Republicans have demonstrated little inclination to dig deeply into the scandal or to restrain Trump. Two bipartisan bills seeking to hinder Trump from firing Mueller remain dormant. Democrats should insist these get an up-or-down vote.

Moreover, the antics of House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) should be seen in the context of Trump’s multiple efforts to decapitate the FBI and the Russia investigation. Nunes is plowing the way — cooking up conspiracy theories and propounding baseless allegations against Mueller and the FBI — to predispose the public to accept Mueller’s firing. He is encouraging, almost baiting, Trump to fire Mueller. He is also assisting Trump by tainting the jury (the American people), if you will, to accept or even applaud Mueller’s firing. From the unmasking stunt to his latest “memo,” he has tried to distract from the Russian threat and discredit law enforcement.....

Nunes is in every sense cooperating — colluding, you could say — with the ongoing attempts to obstruct justice. It is indefensible.

Nevertheless, House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) gives him free rein to keep this up. Neither of them have shown anything near the fidelity to the rule of law that Comey, McGahn, Wray and even Sessions (caveat: his lack of candor under oath to the Senate and participation in Comey’s firing may also implicate him) have demonstrated. Neither Nunes nor Ryan seems to grasp that setting up barriers to constrain Trump is the right and constitutional thing to do. It also amounts to protecting Trump from Trump. You almost wonder if Ryan is giving Trump enough rope to hang himself

[rockfordfile]

7. We are way past republicans obstruction of justice.

[Beantighe]

8. I think Nunes

needs to be investigated because it sure appears someone has him by the short hairs. Either that or he's just an ass-kissing, bootlicking treason weasel.

[LuckyCharms]

9. Nunes is so stupid, he doesn't know you have to go all in when lying.

What a dumbass.

[MelissaB]

10. Off to the greatest!

[bhikkhu]

11. Which means "yes"

The only other answer would be "no", which everyone would be fine with. Unless it would be a lie that he could be prosecuted for. So the correct answer is obviously "yes".