Re: Nunes: There Was NO OFFICIAL INTELLIGENCE USED to Start DOJ Spying on Trump
This morning, Rep. Nunes was interviewed by Maria Bartiromo of Fox News. He made a statement about what was found in the electronic communications document he was finally able to get from the FBI that is simply stunning.
Listen for yourself:
After watching this interview, I am rather shocked myself...but not for the reasons anyone seems likely to think. What exactly is the claim? It's hard to tell, but it's somewhere in the neighborhood of this: there was no "five eyes" intelligence used to start the investigation into collusion (Bartiromo asks the question at the start of the video--"you wanted the electronic communication to understand how the investigation into collusion began?" to which Nunes responds "that's correct"). I have to assume they're talking about the FBI investigation into Carter Page, which began in 2016. Later, Nunes says something about the investigation into Papadopoulos, but there was no investigation into Papadopoulos as far as I can tell--he was arrested for lying to the FBI in an interview that took place as part of an investigation that was already underway.
At about 42 seconds in, he says very clearly that the reason he wanted this information is that he was afraid intelligence might have been used to start the investigation, and
the reason he was concerned is that if intelligence had been used--i.e. something from our foreign intelligence services like the CIA--it would have been illegal. Hopefully that's clear to everyone, but I imagine not, so let me say it a different way:
at the start of the interview, Nunes' attitude is that he DID NOT want to find that any of what's been called "official intelligence" in this thread was used to start "the investigation," because if so, that would mean "the investigation" was started illegally. At about the 2:03 mark, Nunes starts to wrap things up by saying "Now, we're glad to have gotten this behind us..." suggesting that, at that point in the interview, he doesn't think there's anything remarkable about what he's just said. He hoped there was no intelligence used, and indeed, found there was none.
Surely that's clear. Continuing on:
Bartiromo then schools her face into a look of horror and says (I paraphrase--this is about the 2:30 mark) "What?!? You mean the investigation didn't start because of any
official intelligence?" At that point, Nunes suddenly catches on to how she's spinning the story and says "yes, that's correct."
And now we have this thread. You just cannot make this shyte up! The problem is not that no intelligence was used--it would have been a problem, says Nunes, if there had been intelligence used. And indeed, they discovered that no intelligence was used.
I feel compelled to make a couple further points:
1. It seems Nunes must almost perforce admit that his memo of February this year is misleading, since it wouldn't make any sense for him to continue to look for why "the investigation" got started since the memo itself puts forward an answer to that question--and indeed, that the Steele Dossier was supposedly used to obtain the FISA warrant on Carter Page was supposed to be the centerpiece of the memo. Nunes' own behavior and words suggests he now thinks there was some other starting point. Unless he's talking about some entirely different investigation, but the only other ones that seem like plausible candidates are the Congressional investigations and the Mueller probe, and we know how those got started.
2. It's not clear to me whether he's only clearing "five eyes" intelligence or all intelligence. The way the five eyes agreement works (and note: this "five eyes" bit is a limited hangout of Echelon), the five countries involved are "not supposed to" spy on each others' citizens, but technically speaking, it's not illegal for them to do so. It definitely would be illegal for, say, the CIA to spy on an American citizen and then for the FBI to use any intelligence so gathered to start an investigation into that citizen. So that part of his claim is not totally clear.
3. In case it's not obvious, Bartiromo spins Nunes' claim 180 degrees. X is good, Mr. Nunes? No, no, X is bad. That's what she did, in the space of a few seconds. Again, as Nunes himself clearly says, it would have been a problem had there been any "official intelligence" used. Bartiromo turns that into "it's a problem--nay, a shocking fact!--there was no official intelligence used." I marvel that so many of our citizens are so unable to follow a train of thought for a couple minutes that they can be taken in by something like this. Are we at war with Eurasia? No, no, we are at war with Eastasia; we were never at war with Eurasia...
