House Intel members look for ‘reset’ after partisan era of Schiff, Nunes

The House Intelligence Committee will get a facelift this Congress following the booting of its former chairman and the retirement of a prior ranking member — a drastic makeover that’s prompting internal hopes that the panel can move beyond the partisan battles that have practically defined it in recent years.

The committee launched the last Congress with Reps. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) at the helm, two national — and highly polarizing — figures whose epic battles, waged predominantly over issues related to former President Trump, came to symbolize the panel’s shift from a rare bastion of bipartisan cooperation to an arena of partisan warfare. 

This year, there may be a turnaround.

Nunes retired from Congress last January to lead the Trump Media & Technology Group, the former president’s social media company. And this week, Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) blocked Schiff from sitting on the panel, accusing the former chairman of lying to the public about Trump’s ties to Russia. 

Schiff’s eviction drew howls from Democrats, who denied the charges and rushed to his defense. But amid the protests, even some Democrats acknowledged that both Schiff and Nunes had become so radioactive in the eyes of the opposing party that it became a drag on the work of the committee. 

With that in mind, committee members of both parties are hoping the roster reshuffling will turn a page on that combative era and return the panel to its historic image as a largely collaborative body. 

"We're hoping it'll be a reset, and we can get past all the infighting … and just focus on national security,” said a source familiar with the committee dynamics.

Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.), who was first seated on the panel in the last Congress, echoed that message, saying the new chairman, Rep. Michael Turner (R-Ohio), is making improved relations a priority as he takes the gavel.

"That's the goal,” Gallagher said. “I think we've got really good, thoughtful members. We've got the right leadership in Turner. And we're trying to get back to that more bipartisan approach.” 

In denying committee seats to Schiff, along with Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), McCarthy claimed their exit would help move the panel in a less partisan direction — something the two Democrats and their allies deny.

“I think what McCarthy is doing is actually quite the opposite,” Schiff said.

“He's politicizing the committee. No Speaker has ever sought to interfere with who the ranking member on the Intelligence Committee should be. Certainly, [Former] Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi had many differences with Devin Nunes, but she has a reverence for the work of the committee and Kevin McCarthy evidently doesn't.”

Members of both parties pointed to Nunes’s departure, at the start of last year, as the beginning of improved relations on the panel. 

“We entered a new chapter after Nunes left. It really changed with Turner, a ton. And so I suppose maybe from their side they think that something is going to change on our side without Schiff and Swalwell. Perhaps? But I really thought everything changed for the better once Nunes was gone. We were very collegial,” said one Democratic source familiar with the panel’s innerworkings.

Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah), an eight-year veteran of the Intel Committee, cautioned against pinning the panel’s problems on any one person.

“I don't want to say, ‘Yeah, the committee is going to work beautifully now because those two are gone,’” he said of Schiff and Swalwell, “because that would be unfair, and it wouldn't be accurate. So I don't want to indicate that the committee didn't work, or was more political, only because of them.”

Still, Stewart also said it was “fair” to say Nunes contributed to the panel’s combative environment —  a dynamic he blamed on the charged atmosphere of the Trump years, which also featured Schiff playing lead manager of Trump’s first impeachment. 

“Devin was associated with those very contentious times just like Adam Schiff was associated with those very contentious times. I don't think it was necessarily Devin, I think it was the two leaders who had to navigate through those tough times,” he said.

Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), another member, agreed that the impeachment era soured the committee’s dynamic, though he contributed the deterioration largely to the Republicans’ defense of Trump.

“Whatever my own view is, obviously, the committee became enormously polarized, which is pretty unusual. When we moved on [after] Ukraine, it already started to repair itself. You know, Devin Nunes moved on,” Himes said. “Mike Turner, in my opinion, has always been a fair actor.”

Turner declined to talk this week. 

The full roster of the committee remains unclear. While Republicans have named their members — including new additions that include Reps. Dan Crenshaw (Texas), Michael Waltz (Fla.) and French Hill (Ark.) — Democrats are waiting for Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.) to make his accompanying selections.

“A lot will depend on that,” said Gallagher. “But I hope that Leader Jeffries looks at who we've appointed … and responds in-kind with, not just bomb-throwers, but solutions-oriented types.” 

McCarthy’s refusal to seat Schiff has created a vacuum at the top of the Democrats’ roster — a void that virtually every committee Democrat is hoping to fill. 

Pelosi (D-Calif.), had she remained the leader of the party, was set to appoint Himes to the position, according to several Democrats familiar with her plans. But others are also expressing interest, including Rep. André Carson (D-Ind.).

Jeffries, however, has given no indication either who he’ll pick or when he’ll announce it. 

As the committee comes together, members say they’re not expecting to avoid partisan fights altogether. Gallagher pointed out that the panel will have to tackle a number of prickly topics this Congress — including the reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court — which are sure to lead to partisan clashes.

But those are issues-based differences, he emphasized, not collisions of personality. And Gallagher said he’s established a good rapport with some of the newer Democrats on the panel, including Reps. Jason Crow (Colo.) and Raja Krishnamoorthi (Ill.), who has co-sponsored legislation with Gallagher to ban TikTok in the United States.

"Those younger members and I have a really good working relationship,” Gallagher said. “We just hope to build on that."

Eric Swalwell Named As One Of Pelosi’s Impeachment Managers

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced nine managers she has chosen to lead President Trump’s second impeachment, with Rep. Eric Swalwell among them.

Swalwell’s inclusion is a bit of a surprise, having been named in a report last month indicating he had been the target of a Chinese spy.

“Congressman Swalwell serves on House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where he chairs the Intelligence Modernization and Readiness Subcommittee, and on the Judiciary Committee,” a press release from the Speaker’s office reads.

“He is a former prosecutor and is the son and brother of law enforcement officers.  He is serving his fifth term in Congress.”

Swalwell has never been a serious member of Congress, let alone somebody who should be placed in positions of power.

His latest rants calling Republican senators objecting to the election results as being members of the “Coup Klux Klan” and falsely alleging they were fraternizing with “terrorists” is yet another example.

RELATED: Top Congressional Leader Calls For Eric Swalwell’s Removal From Congress After Report Links Him To Chinese Spy

Eric Swalwell, Named in Chinese Spy Report, Is Now an Impeachment Manager

Pelosi naming Eric Swalwell as an impeachment manager seems to be a nod that she supports the embattled Democrat congressman despite his alleged connections to a Chinese spy.

A bombshell Axios report last month indicated that a woman by the name of Christine Fang “took part in fundraising activity for Swalwell’s 2014 re-election campaign” and that she interacted with the Congressman “at multiple events over the course of several years.”

Fang had served as a Chinese Intelligence operative with China’s Ministry of State Security.

The FBI warned Swalwell about Fang in 2015 during his first year on the House intelligence committee.

Fox News host Tucker Carlson added to the scandal by alleging during a broadcast that “U.S. intelligence officials believe that Fang had a sexual relationship with” Swalwell.

The Democrat refused to comment on the matter, citing such information as being possibly classified.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) immediately called for Swalwell’s removal from Congress following the reports, while others insisted he should have been removed by the House Intelligence Committee long ago.

Pelosi defended her colleague, saying she didn’t have “any concern” about him.

Swalwell, thus far, has not been accused of any wrongdoing by any intelligence officials.

RELATED: Congressman Admits Democrats Seeking to Indict Trump After He Leaves Office

Other Impeachment Managers Named

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) will serve as the lead impeachment manager. Raskin, of course, plotted Trump’s impeachment before he stepped foot in the White House.

In fact, prior to President Trump’s inauguration day, the lead manager had impeachment on the brain.

“I just know that if I’m going to vote to impeach the man at some point, I would like to be able to look him in the eye on Inauguration Day,” he said when asked if he planned on attending the event.

Demonstrating just how unserious this impeachment team is, Raskin objected to certification of Florida’s electoral votes in 2017.

Yes, the same reason Democrats are screaming that Trump must be impeached, that Republicans must be expelled from Congress, that conservatives must be purged from social media – objecting to electoral votes – is exactly what Raskin did just three years ago.

CNN reported at the time:

Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland rose to object to 10 of Florida’s 29 electoral votes.

“They violated Florida’s prohibition against dual office holders,” Raskin said.

Again, despite the fact that Raskin pointed out that he had his objection in writing, he failed to get a senator’s signature.

In fact, House Democrats tried objecting to the certification of electoral votes for Donald Trump 11 separate times. Why were there no calls for their expulsion?

The post Eric Swalwell Named As One Of Pelosi’s Impeachment Managers appeared first on The Political Insider.

Susan Collins has nothing to say about lessons in latest post-impeachment retaliation from Trump

Sen. Susan Collins didn't even manage to work herself up to "concerned" in reacting to impeached president Donald Trump's firing of Michael Atkinson from his post as Intelligence Community inspector general. "I have long been a strong advocate for the Inspectors General," the senator, a member of the Senate Select Committee Intelligence wrote.

Then she fluffed herself a bit. "In 2008, I coauthored with former Senators Claire McCaskill and Joe Lieberman The Inspector General Reform Act (P.L. 110-40), which among other provisions requires the President to notify the Congress 30 days prior to the removal of an Inspector General along with the reasons for the removal. In notifying Congress yesterday, the President followed the procedures in that law," and here's where we finally get to her reaction. "I did not find his rationale for removing Inspector General Atkinson to be persuasive."

Let's make sure her time is up. Please give $1 to help Democrats in each of these crucial Senate races, but especially the one in Maine!

So what are you going to do about it, Senator? "While I recognize that the President has the authority to appoint and remove Inspectors General, I believe Inspector General Atkinson served the Intelligence Community and the American people well, and his removal was not warranted." Oh, that's it? You're not going to do anything? Even fret your brow?

Fortunately for Collins, this time Trump has retaliated against a perceived enemy, there aren't any reporters around to remind her about that whole "the president has learned from" impeachment nonsense. She gets to issue statements from self-isolation without having to face questions about her own culpability for Trump's actions.