Witch hunt getting desparate.

Devin Nunes Op-Ed Reflects Intelligence Dance to Thread a Needle. sundance – “there is a stark absence within Nunes outline; there is something completely mssing, “the second operation“. The operation that originated from within the U.S. government in early 2016. The CIA operation started by John Brennan.” … “HPSCI Ranking Member Devin Nunes has an excellent op-ed today in the Washington Examiner” (recommended reading)

“I can understand why Devin Nunes would want to avoid attention on the second ‘inside government’ operation due to collateral damage that might hit our intelligence capabilities, ie. FISA. Indeed, with Mr. Nunes in charge of keeping those intelligence capabilities intact, he has somewhat of a conflicted professional interest in full exposure.

However, let me state clearly I’m very concerned the U.S. intelligence system is going to take the same approach toward defending their conflicted interests that Devin Nunes is taking inside this op-ed.

Trump lawyer sends letter to Treasury: You shouldn’t hand over his tax returns to House Democrats. Allahpundit – “A strong letter, worth reading in full. Click on the images here to read the separate pages. There are legal arguments made and precedents cited but at the heart of it is a simple prudential question: Why should Congress be able to use the IRS to gather dirt on its political enemies?

“The linchpin for that argument is a 1957 case, Watkins v. United States, in which the House Un-American Activities Committee demanded to know from a witness during testimony whether certain other people were members of the Communist Party. The witness refused to answer, arguing that such questions were outside the proper scope of the committee’s activities, and was held in contempt of Congress. The Warren Court ruled for the witness and vacated the conviction.

Richard Neal and House Democrats will claim that the Watkins case doesn’t apply because Trump hasn’t been found in contempt of Congress or suffered any other penalty. They’re not seeking to violate his First Amendment or Fifth Amendment rights by compelling him to testify before the House, as was the case in Watkins. All they’re asking for is a copy of a document he was already required by law to provide, and did provide, under a statute that already authorized them to obtain that document.

It’s not quite as simple as Allahpundit describes it, though.

Comments are closed.