At the moment, there are three active investigations into the communications between Russian government officials and the Trump campaign. The Senate and House intelligence committees, as well as the FBI, are probing the matter. And while all three investigations are likely asking some of the same questions, it’s the House investigation that has generated the most noise.

That attention has largely been a byproduct of how its chairman, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), has handled intelligence reports. On Thursday, Nunes temporarily stepped aside in his role as the head of the committee’s investigation. So, what, if anything, did the committee discover since its investigation launched? And, more importantly, where is the investigation headed?

At a recent panel in Washington DC, Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT), a member of the committee, said the investigation is about two things. One, he said, is answering the question of whether or not Trump or members of his administration colluded with the Russians in meddling in the election, intending, as the FBI and CIA concluded, to prop up the Trump campaign. Even if there was no collusion, Himes said, “is it nonetheless possible that the Russians have some form of compromise on the United States president?”

Himes called Nunes’s decision to recuse himself from the investigation “welcome news,” adding that while the chairman made mistakes, he is “fundamentally a decent guy.” But last week, on CNN, Himes also said Nunes’s behavior was “loopy” and “bizarre.”

Rep. Jim Himes says Rep. Devin Nunes’ behavior is “loopy” and “bizarre” https://t.co/uIuE85kQdQ pic.twitter.com/4KSvlwGHRe

— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) March 27, 2017

Himes expressed dismay at the noise Nunes stirred up because “we were actually making pretty good progress.” He also called for “an independent, outside, bipartisan commission” to head the effort moving forward. Many have called for something akin to the special commission that investigated the 9/11 terrorist attacks. But, Himes added, regardless of who is in charge, “[the investigation] is not going to happen quickly.”

Himes was tight-lipped about what exactly the committee has dug up thus far, but he did say “there is not nothing there.” He added: “This doesn’t end I think with the conclusion that really nobody did nothing to anybody…but how serious it is I don’t want to characterize and prejudge.” Regardless of the committee’s ultimate conclusions, Himes said Russia’s actions, and its attempts to undermine America’s democratic system, deserve a “concerted response.”

Weeks before he was set to leave office, former President Barack Obama punished Russia by imposing further sanctions on individual actors, as well as barring four Russian officials from traveling to the U.S. Two Russian-owned diplomatic compounds in the U.S. were shuttered as well. Obama’s response, Himes said, was “inadequate.” He added that it is unclear what a proper response might look like, but “we do need to extract a price.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Where is the House Intel Committee’s Russia Investigation Headed? appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday morning, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Devin Nunes announced he was stepping aside from the investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. This announcement isn’t too surprising, given his questionable actions two weeks ago when he decided to brief President Donald Trump about the ongoing investigation into his campaign, and then called a spontaneous press briefing without notifying his colleagues on the committee first.

Also on Thursday morning, the House Committee on Ethics revealed that Nunes is being investigated because of suspicions that he “may have made unauthorized disclosures of classified information,” according to the New York Times.

The main criticism against Nunes is that he doesn’t seem capable of conducting an impartial investigation into President Trump; many have claimed that he is too close to Trump and the White House. Nunes said that “left-wing activist groups” had filed “entirely false and politically motivated” accusations against him and that he made the decision to step down from the investigation into the Russia ties because that would be the best for the committee.

Devin Nunes to be investigated for disclosing classified information while heading Russia probe https://t.co/xg9AY0mLuT pic.twitter.com/bWi0jF9Gmq

— The Hill (@thehill) April 6, 2017

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan said in a statement that he still trusts Nunes but also supports his decision to step down. Texas Rep. Mike Conaway will replace him on the investigation. Nunes will remain the House Intelligence Committee Chairman, but just won’t participate in the Russia investigation. Conaway announced that he hopes to work with the Democrats on the committee to get the investigation going but that he needs their cooperation.

The investigation has already had one high-profile recusal, when Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself in the beginning of March. That time it was over questions about his meetings with the Russian ambassador last year, which were revealed after he denied having any contact with “the Russians” at his confirmation hearing. Trump then accused the Democrats of carrying out “a total witch hunt.”

However, many people had positive reactions to Nunes’s recusal.

Devin Nunes has recused himself from the Russia probe. Soon there won’t be Trump allies anywhere but in the crosshairs of this scandal.

— George Takei (@GeorgeTakei) April 6, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Devin Nunes Steps Away from House Investigation into Russia appeared first on Law Street.

With a new story coming to light seemingly every single day, there’s no question that all the news about Russia and its interference in the 2016 election is confusing. So, it’s fair to assume that a lot of people were surprised on Wednesday when Senators Richard Burr, the Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Mark Warner, the Democratic Vice Chairman, held a joint news conference discussing the Senate’s Russia probe.

The biggest takeaway from the press conference was Warner’s comment on one part of Russia’s strategy to destabilize the election, which concerned the Kremlin hiring 1,000 paid trolls to generate fake anti-Clinton stories targeted at specific areas in the U.S. Warner did not elaborate on where those specific areas were, but he alluded to the committee investigating trolls targeting Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The significance of Russia targeting these three specific states is simple: they are all swing states that President Donald Trump narrowly won. They were also the three states included in the unsuccessful recounts prompted by Jill Stein.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know About the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Russia Probe appeared first on Law Street.

Michael Flynn Wants Immunity Before He Talks

There’s a new development in the investigation into ties between the White House and Russia. Former national security adviser Michael Flynn said last night that he has information to spill and offered to tell all about it. But his lawyers said that he won’t reveal anything until he is promised immunity. Donald Trump commented on the development on Twitter this morning.

Mike Flynn should ask for immunity in that this is a witch hunt (excuse for big election loss), by media & Dems, of historic proportion!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 31, 2017

An immunity deal would make it pretty much impossible to prosecute Flynn, and asking for it is a common procedure in such a high-profile case. But it definitely raised a lot of questions about what exactly he knows. Many Democrats quickly pointed out his 2016 comment about Hillary Clinton, “when you are given immunity, that means you probably committed a crime.”

“When you are given immunity, that means that you have probably committed a crime.” — Michael Flynn in September of 2016

— Lauren Duca (@laurenduca) March 31, 2017

As of early Friday morning, a senior official from the Senate Intelligence Committee turned down Flynn’s request for immunity, but this story is still unfolding.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: March 31, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) said, in a press conference on Capitol Hill and later at the White House on Wednesday, that President Donald Trump and his associates were compromised during the campaign as the result of surveillance in Trump Tower. Trump’s associates, Nunes said, were “unmasked” by the surveillance, and some of Trump’s communications were swept up in “incidental collection” as a result. He cited a classified report as the source of his claims, but did not divulge who provided him with the information.

“I don’t want to get too much into the details, but these were intelligence reports, and it brings up a lot of concern about whether things were properly minimized or not,” Nunes said. “What I have read bothers me, and I think it should bother the president himself and his team, because I think some of it seems to be inappropriate.”

This behavior by Nunes, head of the House investigation into Trump and his associates’ communications with Russia, brings up a host of questions: Can Nunes continue to lead an impartial investigation? Did he reveal any new information? What is “unmasking” and “incidental collection”? And was the surveillance that Nunes described lawful?

Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) said that Nunes apologized Thursday morning for going straight to the White House with his concerns, and circumventing the House Intelligence Committee. But many House Democrats, including Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee, said Nunes could no longer be expected to be an impartial voice in the Trump-Russia investigation.

The White House, in contrast, warmly embraced Nunes’s direct approach. “I very much appreciated the fact that they found what they found,” Trump said, adding that he feels “somewhat” vindicated for his accusations that Obama wiretapped Trump Tower during the campaign. Sean Spicer, the White House spokesman, said Nunes provided “startling information.” But what exactly did Nunes reveal that was previously unknown?

The FBI and the Senate Intelligence Committee, which are leading separate investigations into Russia’s communications with Trump and his associates, both concluded there is no evidence Trump Tower was wiretapped–by Obama or any other intelligence agency. And Nunes on Wednesday admitted as much. It is the “unmasking” of Trump’s associates that has Nunes concerned. Americans are often surveilled for communicating with foreign actors that might concern the U.S. But their identities are commonly masked, hidden from U.S. authorities who are tracking them.

Not so in the case of Trump’s associates, Nunes claims. He said the identity of those who were surveilled–Nunes said it was multiple associates, Schiff said it was one–was revealed to U.S. officials. Given the unusual nature of the investigation into people close to Trump who had ties to Russia (a common target of U.S. surveillance), it is hardly surprising that U.S. officials might not have conducted business as usual.

And according to Schiff, “unmasking” in and of itself “does not indicate that there was any flaw in the procedures followed by the intelligence agencies,” and “is fully appropriate when it is necessary to understand the context of collected foreign intelligence information.”

The “incidental collection” Nunes mentioned refers to Trump’s communications that might have been collected due to the surveillance of his associates. Again, there is nothing illegal about that. As to who might have been the subject of the surveillance, Nunes provided no specifics. Here’s a good bet though: Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chairman who resigned last August after his name was included on a ledger of cash payments made by Ukraine’s former pro-Russia President Viktor Yanukovych.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Did Devin Nunes Reveal Any New Information About Trump’s Wiretap Claim? appeared first on Law Street.

What You Need to Know About Devin Nunes, the FBI, and Russia

Yesterday, House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) shocked everyone by claiming that President Donald Trump might have been under surveillance after all. He said that he had been given reports that showed that intelligence agencies had intercepted communications of Trump and his associates. But he conceded that those communications were picked up incidentally by intelligence agencies and that Trump was not the primary target. Nunes then chose to brief Trump and talk to the media before informing his Democratic counterpart, California Congressman Adam Schiff.

Within minutes of #DevinNunes‘s stunt, it was clear he had torpedoed his reputation and that of his committee. That assessment still holds.

— Peter Daou (@peterdaou) March 23, 2017

It’s all very confusing–Nunes said that the information appeared to be part of lawful collections of foreign intel, but that he was still “alarmed.” And he was pretty severely criticized for immediately briefing Trump on the matter, given that he’s also tasked with investigating the president. Nunes defended his decision by saying that the information he told Trump had nothing to do with Russia.

Then, late last night, U.S. officials said that the FBI does have information that indicates that Trump’s associates may have communicated with Russian officials to release information that would damage Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Accusations have now been levied that Nunes only made the surveillance comments to deflect attention from these more concerning claims. Democrats, and some Republicans, are pretty outraged and are calling for an independent investigation.

The idea that Devin Nunes will investigate Trump/Russia is a farce. It’s time for a real, independent, transparent inquiry.

— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) March 23, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: March 23, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.