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.

Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn would testify in the House and Senate intelligence committees’ Russia investigations in exchange for immunity, his lawyer said in a statement on Thursday. Flynn “certainly has a story to tell,” said his lawyer, Robert Kelner, who added that his client is seeking immunity because of the “highly politicized, witch-hunt environment” of the investigations.

An immunity deal would protect Flynn against criminal charges, should it come to light that he broke the law. According to a U.S. official, the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is engaged in one of two congressional investigations of President Donald Trump and his advisers’ communications with Russia, denied Flynn’s immunity request. The House Intelligence Committee, which is running the second congressional investigation, has not responded as of Friday morning.

Flynn resigned in February after he misled White House officials, including Vice President Mike Pence, about the content of his communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. He has since become a central figure in the murky saga of Russia–which the FBI and CIA concluded meddled in the U.S. election in favor of President Donald Trump–and its communications with Trump aides during the campaign.

Congress has the ability to grant immunity, but usually consults a prosecutor first. The FBI is conducting a parallel investigation into Trump and his advisers’ ties to Russia, which director James Comey recently said has been underway since last July. The Justice Department has the power to delay–but not outright deny–an immunity request.

Kelner, Flynn’s lawyer, said in a statement, “no reasonable person, who has the benefit of advice from counsel, would submit to questioning in such a highly politicized, witch-hunt environment without assurances against unfair prosecution.” He added, somewhat cryptically: “General Flynn certainly has a story to tell, and he very much wants to tell it, should circumstances permit.” Trump, in a message on Twitter early Friday, encouraged Flynn to seek immunity:

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

But an immunity request does not necessarily suggest Flynn is guilty of something worthy of criminal charges. “At this early stage, I wouldn’t read anything into this request beyond smart lawyering,” Mark Zaid, a lawyer who specializes in national security cases, told the New York Times. “In such a politically charged, high-profile national security case, I couldn’t imagine not first asking for immunity.”

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 What You Need to Know About Michael Flynn’s Immunity Request appeared first on Law Street.

The House Intelligence Committee convened its first public hearing with FBI Director James Comey on Monday. Fielding questions from Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), the committee’s chairman, and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the ranking Democrat on the committee, Comey was reluctant to reveal anything too explosive. He did, however, reaffirm the Senate Intelligence Committee’s conclusions that, contrary to President Donald Trump’s tweets, there is no evidence that Trump Tower was bugged at any time during the campaign. Comey also said the bureau is actively investigating Russia’s election meddling, including any communications it had with Trump’s campaign associates.

No Evidence of a Wiretap

To hardly anyone’s surprise (except the president’s), Comey said there is “no information” to support Trump’s accusations that President Barack Obama had his de facto campaign headquarters, Trump Tower, wiretapped. “With respect to the president’s tweets about alleged wiretapping directed at him by the prior administration, I have no information that supports those tweets,” Comey said.

He added: “And we have looked carefully inside the FBI. The Department of Justice has asked me to share with you that the answer is the same for the Department of Justice and all its components: the department has no information that supports those tweets.”

Last week, the Senate Intelligence Committee came to the same conclusion, even as Trump and his aides refused to lay the issue to rest. Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, quoted a report from a Fox News reporter that suggested Obama colluded with GCHQ, the British spy agency, in bugging Trump Tower. GCHQ strongly rejected that claim, and Spicer reportedly met with the British ambassador to promise the unfounded claim would not be made again.

Russia Probe

Confirming what many privately suspected, Comey said the FBI is actively investigating Russia’s role in hacking the emails of Democratic operatives during the campaign; a cohort of Trump’s current and former campaign aides are also being investigated for their Russian ties. What was a surprise to many observers of the hearing, however, was that the FBI has been probing the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia since July of last year, well before the Obama Administration announced the possible role Russia played in hacking the Democrats’ emails.

“Because it is an open, ongoing investigation and is classified, I cannot say more about what we are doing and whose conduct we are examining,” Comey said.

Trump, early Monday morning before the hearing, tried to deflect blame to his favorite target: Hillary Clinton. He tweeted:

The real story that Congress, the FBI and all others should be looking into is the leaking of Classified information. Must find leaker now!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 20, 2017

The hearing showcased what Democrats and some Republicans perceive as the real issues at hand. For Democrats, it is the fact that an adversary intentionally hacked the U.S. political process, and what role the current administration might have played in that plot. Republicans at the hearing largely questioned the leaks that ultimately led to former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s resignation. The leaker, they seemed to imply, should be identified and punished.

“Unauthorized dissemination is punishable by felony up to 10 years in federal prison?” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) asked Comey, who responded: “Yes, as it should be.” But to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the Senate minority leader, the most pressing issue facing the country is not the leaker, but the content of the leaks.

“The possibility of coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian officials is a serious, serious matter,” Schumer said after the hearing. “The investigation must be fair, independent, and impartial in every way, and the F.B.I. must be allowed to follow the facts wherever they may lead.”

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 What You Need to Know About the House Intelligence Committee Hearing with James Comey appeared first on Law Street.