From Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic:
Representative Devin Nunes, a Republican, is chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. He is therefore leading a key probe into whether or not Donald Trump’s presidential campaign had ties to Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
Can an inquiry he leads be trusted?
[M]istrust seemed vindicated Tuesday when Nunes responded to a journalist’s question about the Russia investigation with a highly dubious answer.
The journalist was David Corn, a progressive who works at Mother Jones. He asked Nunes about Carter Page and Roger Stone, two figures whose ties to both Trump’s presidential campaign and Russia have piqued widespread interest and media coverage. Nunes insisted that he wasn’t familiar with either man.
“You haven’t heard of Carter Page and all these other people?” Corn asked.
“No,” Nunes said.
“I mean,” Corn replied, “there were about five names mentioned by the Democrats.”
“I don’t know these people,” Nunes said.
Said an incredulous Corn, “You’ve not heard of Carter Page or Roger Stone?”
“No,” Nunes insisted, “I’ve heard of Manafort,” Trump’s former campaign chairman, who was paid handsomely to do work for a pro-Russia faction in Ukraine, and was later replaced by Trump, apparently due to public controversy over those ties.
Carter Page was a foreign-policy adviser to Trump when he was a candidate.
[Page] traveled to Moscow to speak at a Russian university prior to the election. And he met with the Russian ambassador during the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, despite previously claiming on TV that he had no such meetings. […] [A]nyone investigating the possibility would be incompetent or dishonest if they insisted that they’d never even heard of the man.
It seems even less likely that Nunes has never heard of Roger Stone, given his long career in Republican politics and frequent media appearances over the years.
Stone is germane to this story because he worked on the Trump campaign and communicated on Twitter with a hacker alleged to have facilitated the leaks of DNC emails.
On February 14, the New York Times published the article “Trump Campaign Aids Had Repeated Contacts with Russian Intelligence.” It included this paragraph:
The F.B.I. has closely examined at least three other people close to Mr. Trump, although it is unclear if their calls were intercepted. They are Carter Page, a businessman and former foreign policy adviser to the campaign; Roger Stone, a longtime Republican operative; and Mr. [Michael] Flynn.
The White House then asked key intelligence officials and lawmakers to debunk the article, according to the Washington Post. Nunes was one of them: “Nunes spoke on the record and was subsequently quoted in the Wall Street Journal,” the newspaper reported.
Later, on March 3, during a television interview with a local news affiliate in his district, Nunes was asked about the Russia investigation and a Fresno Bee editorial that called him a “paper tiger” who was not equipped to lead the effort.
In the course of a long, meandering series of answers, Nunes said, “I think where people are getting confused at is, there was a New York Times story where three Americans were named in that story. And I was asked whether or not I was going to bring those people before the committee and ask them questions. And I said, ‘Absolutely not.’ I said we cannot go on witch hunts against the American people just because their name ends up in a newspaper story, because look, we know this, all newspapers are biased … I have to be very careful not to start hunting down Americans and bringing them before the legislative branch of government just because they appeared in a newspaper story as being a friend of some foreign government.”
In other words, far from being unfamiliar with Carter Page and Roger Stone, Nunes apparently concluded weeks ago that it would be improper for his committee to call them to testify, ostensibly because he doesn’t trust the objectivity of the New York Times—this despite the fact that, as best I can tell, the local news interview happened after Page went on live television and admitted to meeting with the Russian ambassador at the RNC, reversing his prior, inaccurate public position.
Now, weeks later, Nunes tells David Corn—and by extension, the American public—that he is flat-out unfamiliar with Page and Stone, both having been subject to massive media attention; attention including mentions in a prominent news article Nunes helped Trump rebut; mentions Nunes alluded to earlier this month.
Given all that, do you trust Nunes to run this investigation honestly?
11 responses to “Devin Nunes has never even heard of Devin Nunes”
You know, I think I may forgive Nunes his stupidity on that. You know, since he went to the White House today to brief Trump on Nunes investigation into Trump & Co’s contacts with the Ruskies thereby making it impossible to even pretend he is impartial.
Can you say “special prosecutor”?
It’s not stupidity, it’s blatant lying. Even people who don’t read newspapers or watch TV have heard of Flynn and Manafort. Maybe most haven’t yet heard of Carter Page, but Nunes was on the transition team, so his declared ignorance is just bullshit. The new revelations of him running over to brief Twitler was most likely written and directed by Bannon. You have to wonder what he and Twitler have on Nunes. Something stinks bigly about this whole thing.
with my sincere apologies to all the fucking assholes out there, what this Nunes did today proves him a fucking asshole. Leaks to the press, leaks to the WH, all without telling his fellow Committee members.
Add to that the fact that Trump hinted about this a few days in advance, and you see the MO of the entire gang. Nunes is in on it, he is guilty of tempering with the investigation, and that is the very least of it.
What a mess. What an effin mess.
“but…but…but her emails!”
again, my apologies for the language and to all other assholes out there.
Someone over at Daily Kos, after I asked what they had on Nunes, pointed out this from Palmer Report:
I don’t know if it’s true or not, but it sure would explain a lot.
I don’t mind the previous commenters a-holes usage. I’m quite fond of the word/s. I agree that Nunes is in on the T. thingy and bigly. Blatant or audacious lying and T’s supporters don’t even seem to care that folks know they are lying. Nothing will happen with the so-called investigation. I highly doubt there are any GOP members of the house/senate, and there are some exceptions, that will want to continue the investigation. Heck, maybe the FBI is just sending up a smoke screen and then at the end will say all of it was merely coincidental- the meetings, calls, ,visits to Russia. I don’t trust any of those ass hats.
I think Comey is very cognizant of how his ambush Hillary seriously damaged his and the FBI’s reputations. He likes good press, and that’s why he made sure everyone knew that he stood up to Dubya’s henchmen when they tried to coerce Ashcroft when he was seriously ill. Therefore, I think he will try to redeem himself and make sure that he doesn’t get in the way of any investigations. Even if he does act like an asshole, don’t forget there are 50 state Attorney Generals who have the power and resources to investigate. Those in the red states won’t do anything, but the ones in the blue states–especially New York’s Eric Schneiderman–won’t be scared away. They have their political bones to make, too.
Hope you are correct further investigations.
“we’re going to need a bigger boat.”
Nice poster, nonnie
The bigger the boat, the faster the sinking. Or is it slower? Whatevah. As long as it sinks with as many Rethugs on board as possible. The Trumptanic.
“The Trumptanic” love it. “I am the King of the world”.
Just like when I was watching that horribly boring movie, I will be rooting for the iceberg.