Former FBI official aghast at GOP attempt to derail the Russia investigation with subpoenas for unmasking

CNN’s Phil Mudd: It’s normal that a national security adviser tasked with executing U.S. policy on Russia sanctions would want to know the names of American citizens “interfering by having secret conversations with the Russians”

Written by Media Matters Staff

Published

A CNN panel slammed Rep. Devin Nunes (C-CA) over the news that he unilaterally issued a series of subpoenas for the unmasking of associates of President Donald Trump who had secret communications with Russian officials during Obama’s presidency. The New York Times’s Maggie Haberman noted that “it’s going to be hard for people not to see it as an effort to distract from Russia.” CNN’s John Avlon pointed out that Nunes, who had previously recused himself from the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, “keeps on basically parroting White House talking points,” which Avlon said appears to be “a sign of a corrupt inquiry, unfortunately.” 

And CNN’s Phil Mudd, a former FBI official, said that Nunes’ apparent concern over the unmasking of the names of people in contact with Russia was “like a two-headed goat at the freak show.” “Alt-right” figures, fake news purveyors, right-wing media figures, and Trump himself have made baseless and purely speculative claims that members of the Obama administration had the names of Trump associates unmasked for political purposes. 

From the June 1 edition of CNN’s New Day:

CHRIS CUOMO (CO-HOST): So, doing a little bit of digging. Other than a little bit of illegal distinction which is where recusal is where someone is making the suggestion that you need to step away and what that process is where a judge or a juror steps away. In this political context, it is self-perpetuating. And, just like with [Attorney General Jeff] Sessions, Sessions didn't go through a process to remove himself from the investigation. He said, “I'm going to have to step away.” Said it publicly, put somebody else in there, and then we carried forward. How is [House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin] Nunes any different?

MAGGIE HABERMAN:  No, I think it's exactly the same. I think, to your point, this is the problem with the political inquiry and why it is that people have been calling for an independent commission, something that would be theoretically more outside of politics. Look, you had the headline which was, “Nunes steps aside” or “recuses” -- I don't even remember what the headlines were. You had the same thing about Sessions. Neither of them has been exactly true. And so in the case of Nunes, this has been a pet issue, I would say, for the Trump administration for several weeks now is this unmasking issue. The president put it forward in an interview with my colleague Glenn Thrush and me, made something about Susan Rice. I think you're going to see a huge focus on her. There are legitimate questions about how intelligence is handled in this country, and that pre-dates this administration, it pre-dates the Obama administration. But when it is put forward in sort of this parallel track to the Russian investigation, it's going to be hard for people not to see it as an effort to distract from Russia. 

[...]

JOHN AVLON: If you really parse the sequence of events that came out after the Trump meeting it's clear he's not totally hands off here. The Nunes thing I think is particularly problematic thoughand insulting for this reason. Nunes kept, keeps on basically parroting White House talking points in his actions on this committee. Right? There are two core points you see surrogates in the White House constantly pushing. First of all, it's deflection: “It's not us, let's look at what they did -- the Obama administration. The issue is the leaks, the is unmasking.” If you've got a member of Congress who has been entrusted with that role, pursuing those talking points in action, as well as on air when cameras are put in his face, that's a sign of a corrupt inquiry, unfortunately. 

CUOMO:  Let's put up Phil Mudd's face for a second. You see Phil Mudd's face. That tells you everything about how he feels about these subpoenas for the unmasking. Explain to people why you look the way you do, Phil.

PHILIP MUDD: To say that this is a political exercise is polite. This is a freak show. Maggie nailed it. There are two issues here. One of primary concern to the American people, that is, what happened during an American presidential election, and how were Americans involved? How do we move forward and protect an election particularly a presidential election in 2020? Because the message to Moscow now is, intervene and it's fine. Not only is it fine, we will continue to work with you. There's stories today about giving back those Russian facilities in the United States that were sanctioned by President Obama just months ago. Unbelievable.

Meanwhile, you have a secondary issue, at best, and that is, how does the U.S. Intelligence community handle information when a US citizen is named? Devon Nunes decides that instead of being a politician for America, he's like a two-headed goat at the freak show. Let me tell you how normal this is, Chris. If you are the national security adviser several months ago in the waning months of the Obama administration, your responsibility is to execute policy on Russia. That includes sanctions. You get a piece of intelligence that says that says an American citizen is interfering by having secret conversations with the Russians that presumably discuss sanctions, and you think it's worth investigating why the national security adviser wants to know which American citizen is doing that? That's a freak show. It's not a political side show.