House Intel Committee Ready To Restart Probe Into Russian Election Meddling

It’s time to get back to work, and that’s a good thing.

Rep. Jim Hines (D-Conn.), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, appeared on CNN’s “New Day” this morning to say that after a week-long delay, they’re ready to get back to the probe of Russia’s alleged interference in the 2016 election, as well as President Trump’s claims that Trump Tower was “wiretapped” by former President Obama.

“I do think we’re getting back to business, which is really important here, both for the investigation but also for the oversight role that we have to play,” Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) told CNN’s “New Day.”

“We are going to stay in this investigation because we don’t have an outside commission,” he said.

He brings up a good point. Many have called for an independent investigation, believing that House Intel Committee Chairman Devin Nunes has royally screwed things up, with his extracurricular activities.

Democratic lawmakers called on Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the chairman of the committee, to recuse himself after he admitted that he traveled to White House grounds to view classified material one day before briefing President Trump on incidental intelligence collection. Nunes, when he announced the incidental surveillance, did not inform the committee’s ranking member, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), or other lawmakers on the committee.

And it wasn’t just Democrats who feel Nunes compromised the integrity of the investigation.

Former Hewlett-Packard CEO and 2016 presidential contender, Carly Fiorina, and North Carolina Rep. Walter Jones have both called for an independent panel to take up the investigation, feeling this is the only way to avoid the appearance of partisan motives.

Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain have also expressed some disdain for Nunes’ actions.

Rep. Hines further stated that Democrats will walk out, if they feel they aren’t getting all the available information.

And they should.

Either there is full disclosure of the evidence involved, or there’s no investigation. This is little more than a charade, without it, in which case, you then have to ask yourself who doesn’t want an answer to this, and why not?