The White House and GOP Keep Changing Their Story on the Nunes Memo

What does the document really allege, and will Trump actually release it?

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes at a March 22, 2017 news conference. Clark/Congressional Quarterly/Newscom via ZUMA Press)Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Republicans and the White House canā€™t seem to get their story straight on the controversial but still secret ā€œNunes memo,ā€ which is said to attack the FBI and Justice Department over alleged bias in the Trump-Russia investigation. The push from GOP lawmakers, led by Rep. Devin Nunes, and the White House, to release the document appears aimed at underming the special counsel investigation of President Trump and his campaign’s ties to Russia. But now it is #ReleaseTheMemo advocates who are struggling to explain themselves.

Following Trump’s State of the Union speech last night, a C-Span hot mic caught him assuring Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) that he would release the memo. ā€œOh yeah, don’t worry,” Trump said. “100 percent.” That blew up assertions by White House aides that Trump had not yet decided whether to allow the memoā€™s release. 

Despite Trumpā€™s comment, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders stated Wednesday morning on CNN that the White House will complete a ā€œlegal and national security reviewā€ before it takes action on the memo. Yet that didn’t seem to line up with remarks from Trump’s chief of staff, John Kelly, who told Fox News radio on Wednesday that the memo would be “released pretty quick” and that “this president wants everything out.”

In a rare and pointed public disagreement with President Trump, FBI Director Christopher Wray blasted the plan to release the controversial memo, via a statement from the bureau: ā€œThe FBI was provided a limited opportunity to review this memo the day before the committee voted to release it. As expressed during our initial review, we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memoā€™s accuracy.ā€

The statement drew a retort from Nunes, who spearheaded said memo: ā€œItā€™s no surprise to see the FBI and DOJ issue spurious objections,” he said in a statement, adding “It is clear that top officials used unverified information in a court document to fuel a counter-intelligence investigation during an American political campaign.ā€

His statement appeared to strongly suggest that his memo, as has been reported by news outlets, faults the FBI for knowingly including bunk research from former British spy Christopher Steele in an application for a surveillance warrant of Trump campaign official Carter Page. The problem is that the memo remains classified pending Trump’s decisionā€”so there is no way for the public to know whether Nunes’ explosive innuendo has merit. In the meantime, the Intelligence chairman’s statement appeared to amount to at least partial disclosure of information that remains classified.

Nunes, who regularly reminds reporters that he does not discuss Intelligence Committee matters, also undermined his position earlier this week when he refused during a committee hearing to say whether his staff had collaborated with the the White House on the memoā€”as Nunes himself was revealed to have done in last year’s infamous “unmasking” debacle. Sanders likewise declined to say Wednesday if the White House worked with Nunes staff. 

Last week Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd sent a letter to Nunes that warned release of the memo without DOJ first reviewing it would be ā€œextraordinarily recklessā€ and might endanger national security. The letter asks “why the Committee would possibly seek to disclose classified and law enforcement sensitive information without first consulting with the relevant members of the intelligence community.”

The Justice Departmentā€™s position reportedly enraged President Trump, who dispatched White House Chief of Staff, John Kelly to squelch DOJā€™s objections. Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores seemed notably dismissive of the urgently worded letter from Boyd, a top Justice Department official, on Wednesday: ā€œThe letter said we wanted to review the memo,ā€ she told Mother Jones via email. ā€œWe have. Now we have no statement.ā€

Asked if the department remained concerned that the memoā€™s release would have a ā€œdamaging impactā€ on national security, Flores noted that the letter says only that the memoā€™s release ā€œcouldā€ impact national security. ā€œIt says ā€˜couldā€™ because we hadnā€™t read it,ā€ she said.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate