Devin Nunes Went Rogue to Find Out Who Paid for Trump-Russia Dossier, Firm Claims
Source: The Daily Beast
Fusion GPS asked a judge to block a subpoena from the Republican who claimed to step aside from the investigation. His colleagues were allegedly left in the dark.
JUSTIN MILLER
SPENCER ACKERMAN
10.21.17 11:55 AM ET
Rep. Devin Nunes, the House intelligence committee chairman who claimed to have stepped aside from the panels Russia probe, appears to still be unilaterally carrying out a shadow investigation of his own.
On Friday, the firm behind the dossier alleging Donald Trumps campaign engaged in a conspiracy with Russia to win the election and that he witnessed golden showers in Moscow claimed in a federal court filing that Nunes subpoenaed its bank for financial records that would reveal the identities of Fusions clients. Fusion asked a judge to stop the bank from complying with the subpoena.
Nuness subpoena appears to have caught at least some fellow members of the House intel committee off guard. According to a knowledgeable source, Nunes, a Republican, left several House intelligence committee members in the dark about his subpoena of Fusion. It is unclear if committee Republicans signed off or knew about Nunes Fusion GPS subpoena. A source familiar with the investigation told The Daily Beast that committee Democrats only learned of it from reading about it in the press.
The subpoena is a blatant attempt to chill both speech with which Mr. Nunes disagrees and the free association of Americans working on a campaign against Donald Trump, Fusion argues, adding it would violate the firms and its clients First Amendment rights.
Read more: https://www.thedailybeast.com/fusion-gps-claims-devin-nunes-went-rogue-to-find-out-who-paid-for-steele-dossier
Thomas Hurt
(13,903 posts)JI7
(89,264 posts)Bernardo de La Paz
(49,036 posts)JI7
(89,264 posts)Team which kicked out christie and his people and put in putin people.
Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)Russian investor in his Wine Business. Some Guy who owns or controls a Liquor Distributorship . Under stand it went South.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,337 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Good thing a D got ahold of it short time before the election, turned dossier over to the authorities.
Republicans kept that information secret for 2? years, didn't tell their VOTERS and didn't tell quite a few of their fellow Republicans.
BigmanPigman
(51,627 posts)How can he be kicked off of the committee permanently since this is not the first time he has broken the rules and has not stepped aside?
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)BigmanPigman
(51,627 posts)lastlib
(23,286 posts)He's dirty. Dirtier than dirt! Someone owns him, is pulling his strings, and I'll bet that someone is either Russian or tRumpfenstain. (more likely Russian.) We need to know who!
red dog 1
(27,849 posts)Nunez is a pig!
(It's Animal Farm & the pigs are in charge)
Linda Ed
(493 posts)I believe it was Jeb Bush. JMHO
According to news reports, that client is a major GOP donor who was adamantly opposed to Trump. They reportedly hired Fusion GPS in Sept. 2015 and paid the Washington, D.C.-based firm nearly $1 million to investigate Trump.
Glenn Simpson, the co-founder of Fusion GPS and a former Wall Street Journal reporter, isnt saying. A BBC reporter who had been in contact with Fusion GPS prior to the election reported back in January that a Jeb Bush donor was Fusions first client. But the reporter corrected the article after being contacted by Mike Murphy, the chairman of Bushs super PAC, Right to Rise.
It will come out am sure as everything does eventually. Mueller may know who it was and is just not saying.
Merlot
(9,696 posts)No matter who hired them, it's the information (which is being proven true more and more each day) that is important.
It's like when people argue over whether climate change is man made. That argument has taken up so much space because it's easier to fight than whether or not it's happening. To much evidence that it is happening. Like the dossier, to much evidence.
Igel
(35,356 posts)It's true for all "who funded the research" claims, as well.
Strictly speaking, it's the information that matters. Call that "Option A."
At the same time, there's often a desire on the part of a consultant to give the client what he wants--shading evidence, using not quite reliable evidence, leading out exculpatory evidence or context--so the information that you get might not be entirely trustworthy. Let's call that "option B."
Many decide for option A or option B, with little middle ground, and often choose that based on whether they want to believe the evidence or need to make the evidence go away.
Both option A and option B are always true.
FakeNoose
(32,748 posts)I seem to recall reading it somewhere last year, around the time of the election. (maybe one of the Gawker blogs)
Gawker and Buzzfeed were reporting the Steele report last November - I'm sure it was before the election. I wasn't on DU at the time, but I remember being infuriated that the "regular" mainstream news media were all ignoring the story.
Meanwhile they all jumped on the bandwagon over Comey's leaked story concerning nothing about Hillary's emails.