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 can’t seem to get their story straight on the controversial but still secret “Nunes memo,” 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. “Oh 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 memo’s release. 

Despite Trump’s comment, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders stated Wednesday morning on CNN that the White House will complete a “legal and national security review” 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: “The 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 memo’s accuracy.”

The statement drew a retort from Nunes, who spearheaded said memo: “It’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.”

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 decision—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 memo—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 “extraordinarily reckless” 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 Department’s position reportedly enraged President Trump, who dispatched White House Chief of Staff, John Kelly to squelch DOJ’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: “The letter said we wanted to review the memo,” she told Mother Jones via email. “We have. Now we have no statement.”

Asked if the department remained concerned that the memo’s release would have a “damaging impact” on national security, Flores noted that the letter says only that the memo’s release “could” impact national security. “It says ‘could’ because we hadn’t read it,” she said.

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE

We’re falling behind our online fundraising goals and we can’t sustain coming up short on donations month after month. Perhaps you’ve heard? It is impossibly hard in the news business right now, with layoffs intensifying and fancy new startups and funding going kaput.

The crisis facing journalism and democracy isn’t going away anytime soon. And neither is Mother Jones, our readers, or our unique way of doing in-depth reporting that exists to bring about change.

Which is exactly why, despite the challenges we face, we just took a big gulp and joined forces with the Center for Investigative Reporting, a team of ace journalists who create the amazing podcast and public radio show Reveal.

If you can part with even just a few bucks, please help us pick up the pace of donations. We simply can’t afford to keep falling behind on our fundraising targets month after month.

Editor-in-Chief Clara Jeffery said it well to our team recently, and that team 100 percent includes readers like you who make it all possible: “This is a year to prove that we can pull off this merger, grow our audiences and impact, attract more funding and keep growing. More broadly, it’s a year when the very future of both journalism and democracy is on the line. We have to go for every important story, every reader/listener/viewer, and leave it all on the field. I’m very proud of all the hard work that’s gotten us to this moment, and confident that we can meet it.”

Let’s do this. If you can right now, please support Mother Jones and investigative journalism with an urgently needed donation today.

payment methods

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE

We’re falling behind our online fundraising goals and we can’t sustain coming up short on donations month after month. Perhaps you’ve heard? It is impossibly hard in the news business right now, with layoffs intensifying and fancy new startups and funding going kaput.

The crisis facing journalism and democracy isn’t going away anytime soon. And neither is Mother Jones, our readers, or our unique way of doing in-depth reporting that exists to bring about change.

Which is exactly why, despite the challenges we face, we just took a big gulp and joined forces with the Center for Investigative Reporting, a team of ace journalists who create the amazing podcast and public radio show Reveal.

If you can part with even just a few bucks, please help us pick up the pace of donations. We simply can’t afford to keep falling behind on our fundraising targets month after month.

Editor-in-Chief Clara Jeffery said it well to our team recently, and that team 100 percent includes readers like you who make it all possible: “This is a year to prove that we can pull off this merger, grow our audiences and impact, attract more funding and keep growing. More broadly, it’s a year when the very future of both journalism and democracy is on the line. We have to go for every important story, every reader/listener/viewer, and leave it all on the field. I’m very proud of all the hard work that’s gotten us to this moment, and confident that we can meet it.”

Let’s do this. If you can right now, please support Mother Jones and investigative journalism with an urgently needed donation today.

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