House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes has been in the news recently because a source in the intelligence community informed him that Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice was behind the "unmasking" of Trump campaign associates in intelligence reports, which may have led to other members of the intelligence community leaking classified information to the press for partisan political reasons.

Nunes has been criticized for the way he handled and presented this information—not without reason—as he rushed to the press with it before handing it over to the rest of the intelligence committee. As a result, Nunes has recused himself from the intel committee's Trump-Russia probe, but he's still looking into Rice's unmasking and the questionable conduct of the intelligence committee more generally. However, Democrats on the committee have now seen the information that Nunes has, and no one denies that Rice is behind the unmasking.

CNN responded to the Rice revelation in a way that was frankly discrediting for a respectable news organization. They refused to cover it, except to have their reporters overtly discredit it and even called it "false" in chryons. (See plenty of examples of the CNN responded to the Rice revelation in a way that was frankly discrediting for a respectable news organization. They refused to cover it, except to have their reporters overtly discredit it and even called it "false" in chryons. (See plenty of examples of the bizarre way they handled this story here .) Even MSNBC, ostensibly much more liberal than CNN, treated the Rice story as legitimate.

After ignoring and downplaying the Rice story, CNN began heavily pushing a story Tuesday night that contradicts Nunes: " After ignoring and downplaying the Rice story, CNN began heavily pushing a story Tuesday night that contradicts Nunes: " CNN Exclusive: Classified docs contradict Nunes surveillance claims, GOP and Dem sources say ." Well, that sounds like it could be a big deal. Let's look at the story, shall we?:

"... Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers and aides have so far found no evidence that Obama administration officials did anything unusual or illegal, multiple sources in both parties tell CNN.



Their private assessment contradicts President Donald Trump's allegations that former Obama national security adviser Susan Rice broke the law by requesting the "unmasking" of US individuals' identities. Trump had claimed the matter was a "massive story."



However, over the last week, several members and staff of the House and Senate intelligence committees have reviewed intelligence reports related to those requests at NSA headquarters in Fort Meade, Maryland.



One congressional intelligence source described the requests made by Rice as "normal and appropriate" for officials who serve in that role to the president. And another source said there's "absolutely" no smoking gun in the reports, urging the White House to declassify them to make clear there was nothing alarming in the documents.

This story, then, is sourced completely anonymously and stands in direct contrast to Rep. Nunes' public assertions that he's seen information about Rice's conduct that he finds alarming. Further, the claims that Rice did nothing "unusual or illegal" are tendentious at best. Nunes has been consistent all along that no evidence he's yet seen would allow him to conclude what Rice did was illegal. (Trump, as he's wont to do, has muddied the waters by saying he This story, then, is sourced completely anonymously and stands in direct contrast to Rep. Nunes' public assertions that he's seen information about Rice's conduct that he finds alarming. Further, the claims that Rice did nothing "unusual or illegal" are tendentious at best. Nunes has been consistent all along that no evidence he's yet seen would allow him to conclude what Rice did was illegal. (Trump, as he's wont to do, has muddied the waters by saying he "thinks" Rice comitted a crime , but Nunes has been clear on this.) Nonetheless, when someone in Washington defaults to the defense that what they did wasn't illegal, it's often a sizable tell they're defending some other abuse of power.

As for judging whether Rice's behavior was "normal and appropriate," without knowing what Rice actually did, that's in the eye of the beholder. There are many standard operating procedures in Washington that ordinary people find pretty abhorrent and could result in political consequences if exposed. If you believed Trump and/or his associates are not above doing Putin's bidding—as many partisans and As for judging whether Rice's behavior was "normal and appropriate," without knowing what Rice actually did, that's in the eye of the beholder. There are many standard operating procedures in Washington that ordinary people find pretty abhorrent and could result in political consequences if exposed. If you believed Trump and/or his associates are not above doing Putin's bidding—as many partisans and members of the media apparently do —perhaps you'd think it was "normal and appropriate" to be surveilling his associates. Trump supporters who note the lack of hard evidence of Trump-Russia connections might understandably argue that using surveillance powers to keep tabs on the opposing party and incoming administration is the stuff of banana republics.

It doesn't help that CNN's thesis—that Rice did the unmasking, but it's perfectly normal—just happens to be It doesn't help that CNN's thesis—that Rice did the unmasking, but it's perfectly normal—just happens to be the exact talking point that former Obama administration officials were pushing when the story broke last week. Worth noting: CNN national security correspondent Jim Sciutto is the first byline on this story. Sciutto is also a former Obama administration official, and here's what he said about the Rice story when it broke last week: "This appears to be a story largely ginned up, partly as a distraction from this larger investigation."

It's not that I think Sciutto is incapable of good reporting, but asking me to choose between Devin Nunes asserting on record he's seen abuses of power, and Sciutto first dismissing Nunes out of hand and later refuting Nunes with anonymous sources making subjective claims, well, that isn't much of a choice at all. CNN provides zero new facts, and no source is on record and available for other reporters to question. Maybe more evidence will emerge later to vindicate CNN's reporting here. For now there is very little there there, and what there happens to be there, is little more than a convenient story for congressional Democrats to attack Nunes with: