Congressman Devin Nunes Integral to Investigation

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

Republican Congressman Devin Nunes leaped to the top of the Democrat Party's tyrannical hit list when he said he had seen reports that reveal the government collected data on Donald Trump's transition team and family, and then he dared to share his thoughts with the public.  The allegation by Nunes did not support the liberal left narrative, so the media and the Democrats do as they always do (like they did with Hillary's emails, and Obama's unconstitutional activities as President) and ignored the illegal activities by the Democrats the accusation may be exposing, and focused their attacks on silencing Nunes.  If it had been a GOP President's staff abusing its power, and someone spilled the beans, would the liberal leftists have acted in the same manner?

"The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism." - Karl Marx

As a constitutionalist, the foundation of all of my arguments is always the same.  The U.S. Constitution only grants the federal government certain authorities for a reason.  Government is a necessary evil.  We cannot trust government to be honest, nor to act only within the limitations afforded it.  Government power can, and will, be abused.  That is the whole point of the necessity of checks and balances, and for We the People to be as involved as we can in the task of keeping our republic.

"A republic, ma'am, if you can keep it" - Benjamin Franklin

We also know that our enemies are willing to do anything they can to interfere with our system.  Liberty is a threat to collectivism, and while the Founding Fathers warned against foreign entanglements, they meant foreign entanglements in both directions.  While we must realize that foreign governments seek to interfere with our system of government, and the possibility of Russian influence on our elections is a possibility, it is also reasonable to assume that a domestic enemy may be using the allegations of foreign intrusion as a pretext.  The monitoring by the Democrats that may have existed was only supposed to look like it was for the purpose of catching the Russians, when in reality the Trump campaign was the real target.

Congressman Devin Nunes has suggested the latter, and has indicated he's seen material supporting that narrative.  So, if in fact the NSA acted in an illegal manner, and Trump's allegations against the Obama administration that states there was surveillance against his campaign holds water, should not Nunes feel duty bound to expose such improprieties?  Why is it that in an attempt to shed more light on an issue that is shrouded in darkness and uncertainty, Nunes is being targeted by Democrats, and they are demanding his recusal from all investigations regarding the possibility of Russian hacking?

The Democrats claim that if Nunes is a part of the investigation, the bipartisan nature of the team goes out the window.  Are the Democrats claiming they are not partisan on this issue?  And, if Nunes has a valuable piece of information to help them find answers, why would he need to recuse himself?

Democrats do not want an investigation, and they have no intention of seeking out the truth.  They want a witch hunt that comes to the same conclusions they are calling for because the script, as far as they are concerned, has already been written.  The liberal left has already decided that Russia is guilty of hacking our election, Putin wanted Trump to win (despite the logic that says Moscow would desire a Democrat because the party of the donkey is weaker on national security), and anyone saying otherwise must be silenced.

They are searching for anything they believe will support that allegation.  Anything that may bring a shadow of a doubt about their allegations against the Russians is not welcomed, and must be silenced - or in the case of Nunes, recused.

In the process, Democrats also see the attacks on Nunes to be an opportunity to eliminate another pawn on the gameboard, to muzzle yet another one of their conservative enemies.  They will use the situation to claim he has somehow done something unethical or illegal to defend Trump, even though that is incredibly far from he truth.  Any support for Trump is seen as poison, and must be silenced, or face recusal.

Does that sound like the "democracy" the Democrats claim to be in love with?

Author's Note: We are a republic, not a democracy.

Nunes himself has indicated that none of this has anything to do with the possibility of Russian collusion, and everything to do with taking down the Trump presidency.

Nunes has asked, why is it inappropriate for the House Intelligence Committee Chair to share intelligence about the president with the president?  Why was it wrong for him to let the world know he’s done exactly that?  Why is it wrong for the House Intelligence Committee Chair to see classified information from a source at the White House? 

“If that’s where the information is, and the information is relevant, and it’s authentic, and it’s reliable, wouldn’t you go where the information was?” Trey Gowdy asked The Weekly Standard.

The Democrats want you to believe that the information is not valid because Nunes has somehow been ethically compromised.  The definition of if a fact is a fact has become dependent upon who the messenger is.  Whistleblowers are only acceptable if they support a liberal left narrative.  Otherwise, they are traitors.  How is it that the truth can suddenly mean nothing if the messenger is not a Democrat Party team member, and if the information does not support a pre-written leftist script that is only satisfied if the can use it to overthrow the current President of the United States?

How is it that the actions of the Democrats to create hate and discontent against President Trump, and their actions of cherry-picking the truth so as to build a better case to overthrow his presidency isn't considered to be the actions of traitors?

"I shall not allow man to belittle my soul by making me hate him." - Booker T. Washington

Nunes, simply put, has a source that has told him the NSA abused its power.  The evidence is legitimate.  Nunes has a history of being truthful and credible, therefore, his information should also be considered to be credible.  The attacks against him have nothing to do with doubts about his ability to remain non-partisan in the investigation, and has everything to do with the fact that the Democrats fear his information may be what it takes to expose their own criminal activities, and the massive cover-up the liberal left is fighting desperately to protect from being exposed.

If the Democrats weren't guilty, and had nothing to fear, they wouldn't be attacking Nunes like this.  They would realize through a rational mind that if his claims are indeed false, and he has nothing, the consequences for his miscue would include a destroyed political career - and they would welcome such a thing.  The guilt of the leftists, however, has them blinded to any semblance of logic.  All they know is that they must protect their secrets, keep their cover-up hidden, and take out as many game pieces as possible that may be able to expose them for who they really are.

Let us not assume that Nunes is the only one with information that could reveal what the Democrats are really up to, either.

The media has given us plenty of clues, according to the Daily Wire.  Twelve, to be specific.

1. Heat Street - November 7, 2016

EXCLUSIVE: FBI ‘Granted FISA Warrant’ Covering Trump Camp’s Ties To Russia

Two separate sources with links to the counter-intelligence community have confirmed to Heat Street that the FBI sought, and was granted, a FISA court warrant in October, giving counter-intelligence permission to examine the activities of ‘U.S. persons’ in Donald Trump’s campaign with ties to Russia.

2. The Guardian – January 11, 2017

The Guardian has learned that the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials. The Fisa court turned down the application asking FBI counter-intelligence investigators to narrow its focus. According to one report, the FBI was finally granted a warrant in October, but that has not been confirmed, and it is not clear whether any warrant led to a full investigation.

3. The New York Times – January 12, 2017

In its final days, the Obama administration has expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.

The new rules significantly relax longstanding limits on what the N.S.A. may do with the information gathered by its most powerful surveillance operations, which are largely unregulated by American wiretapping laws. These include collecting satellite transmissions, phone calls and emails that cross network switches abroad, and messages between people abroad that cross domestic network switches.

The change means that far more officials will be searching through raw data. Essentially, the government is reducing the risk that the N.S.A. will fail to recognize that a piece of information would be valuable to another agency, but increasing the risk that officials will see private information about innocent people.

4. The BBC – January 17, 2017

Lawyers from the National Security Division in the Department of Justice then drew up an application. They took it to the secret US court that deals with intelligence, the Fisa court, named after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They wanted permission to intercept the electronic records from two Russian banks.

Their first application, in June, was rejected outright by the judge. They returned with a more narrowly drawn order in July and were rejected again. Finally, before a new judge, the order was granted, on 15 October, three weeks before election day.

5. McClatchy - January 18, 2017

The agencies involved in the inquiry are the FBI, the CIA, the National Security Agency, the Justice Department, the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and representatives of the director of national intelligence, the sources said. …

A key mission of the six-agency group has been to examine who financed the email hacks of the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. The London-based transparency group WikiLeaks released the emails last summer and in October.

The working group is scrutinizing the activities of a few Americans who were affiliated with Trump’s campaign or his business empire and of multiple individuals from Russia and other former Soviet nations.

6. The New York Times - Jan 19, 2017

Print headline: "Wiretapped Data Used In Inquiry of Trump Aides" …

The F.B.I. is leading the investigations, aided by the National Security Agency, the C.I.A. and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, the officials said. One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House.

7. The Washington Post - February 9, 2017

Headline: "National security adviser Flynn discussed sanctions with Russian ambassador, despite denials, officials say"

National security adviser Michael Flynn privately discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia with that country’s ambassador to the United States during the month before President Trump took office, contrary to public assertions by Trump officials, current and former U.S. officials said.

Flynn’s communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak were interpreted by some senior U.S. officials as an inappropriate and potentially illegal signal to the Kremlin that it could expect a reprieve from sanctions that were being imposed by the Obama administration in late December to punish Russia for its alleged interference in the 2016 election.

8. CNN - February 14, 2017

Washington Post columnist David Ignatius cited a single "senior U.S. government official" while reporting that "Flynn phoned Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak several times on Dec. 29, the day the Obama administration announced the expulsion of 35 Russian officials as well as other measures in retaliation for the hacking." …

9. NBC News - February 10, 2017

A U.S. intelligence official briefed on the matter confirmed to NBC News that National Security Advisor Mike Flynn discussed sanctions with the Russian ambassador before Flynn took office[.]

The official said he was told there was no quid pro quo and that there has been no finding inside the government that Flynn did anything illegal. …

10. The Associated Press - February 13, 2017

Two people familiar with the situation say the Justice Department warned the Trump administration about Michael Flynn's contacts with Russia.

11. ABC News - February 13, 2017

Embattled National Security Adviser Michael Flynn called Vice President Mike Pence Friday to apologize for misleading him about a conversation with the Russian ambassador to the United States, according to a senior White House official.

12. CBS News - February 10, 2017

Investigators believe that President Trump’s national security adviser, Michael Flynn, privately discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia in a phone call with a Russian official, law enforcement sources told CBS News on Friday.

Conclusion:

They all knew the Obama administration sought and/or received surveillance warrants aimed at Team Trump.

They all reported the Obama White House was looking at wiretap intelligence related to Trump.

They all reported on private telephone calls that were surveilled by the Obama administration and then illegally made public to the media.

Then, when Trump alleged the same, they all attacked him for voicing his accusation without any evidence.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary