Note the item instigates a "fruit of the poisoned tree" situation to suppress possible evidence of crime in an adjudication.
Would such a doctrine apply to an impeachment? Who knows.
Moreover, the partisanship of the memo is apparent - majority staff [Repubicans] corresponding, purposes unclear since there is no recital as to motivation, with the item directed to a partisan group [committee Republicans],
Nothing in the thing disputes or contradicts the veracity of a single factual allegation within the Steele memo. That question is not even noted as germane to the authors and recipients of the memo.
And wtf was that Nunes partisan thing classified, ever, for any reason? It is indicative of the government's wanting to keep citizens in the dark by overuse of the privilege of keeping citizens in the dark. There is nothing in the thing impacting the security of the nation. Not one thing.
Buzzfeed had published the Steele memo, online, and everybody with an Internet connection could read it (under Net Neutrality at least). Nothing in the Nunes propaganda thing denies that what Buzzfeed published was, in fact, the memo that the Nunes thing considers. If the same thing, why classify facts about it whenever, and then drop the classification status because Trump wants an excuse to fire Rosenstein and Mueller?
It's partisan gamesmanship.
Not a thing in the Nunes thing contradicts that Don Jr. put out a total lie about meeting Russians over adoption stuff, with his actual intent being an expectation to get dirt on Hillary Clinton. Don Jr. released an email thread proving exactly that, and there are public press allegations that the lie was formulated by Don Jr.'s father, on an airplane headed back from Europe to DC.
That the entire FISA circus is insulting to the privacy rights of Americans has been known since the instigation of that legislation, but that's not the focus of attack.
Telling a secret court we have a memo making allegations about Carter Page and we cannot really verify this unless we track the communication of Carter Page so can we, is the essence of what the FISA court rubber stamped. That was true. Would information about the origin of that memo have weighed the rubber stamping differently, that is a question that is subject only to speculation.
Again, the abuse of a Court looking at and listening to only one lawyer in total secret and judging his work product is an inherent defect in the entire FISA process and were Nunes aiming at reform of THAT mess, bless him, but with motivation appearing to get Trump off the hook and/or to somehow weigh as a justification for Trump at the eleventh hour to try to use the Nunes stuff to fire and flumox Mueller, that's irregular and stupid.
Simply put, Trump authorized Mueller, so let him finish and report, and then the obfuscation can legitimately start, rather than prematurely before Mueller quizzes Trump himself.
There is something logically akin to the "prior restraint" doctrine concerning press freedom. Don't sanction until all facts are in, then let the advarsarial process begin, lawyers on both sides arguing and counterarguing.
Don't tell the circus they cannot come to town because an act or two are suspect, let them have their show and then if some law has been breached in some major way by a circus preformer, sort things out.
BOTTOM LINE: An attempt at prior restraint of the conclusion of the Mueller investigation is unjustified by the Nunes thing, it is mere partisan challenge of procedural conduct, for now.
If Carter Page is charged with law-breaking, he will have the fruit of the poisoned tree argument to suppress facts known to the government which he would not want admitted into evidence at a criminal trial, should he move to suppress. Every other citizen charged with federal crime has that remedy and little else, courts having said it is sufficient, so what makes Carter Page somehow better or more deserving of special consideration than any of the rest of us?
Page will have his chance in court, but why has Carter Page been elevated as if more important somehow to the interests of the nation than Trump and his family including in-laws, and what unlawful things they may have done? It does not make sense.
It does not hold together.
Move on to Mueller's findings, when he is good and ready to conclude his investigation has ended. The most important witness, Trump, is yet to be questioned so why do you suppose Nunes wants to poison Mueller's well before that step?
The ground rules from day one were that Mueller, as special prosecutor, would have the same power to conclude an investigating stopping point is reached and to proceed from that, as with any prosecutor overseeing any investigation of possible criminality.
Why deviate?
What has Trump and family to hide? The point to say no was when Rosenstein invoked his official privilege to empower Mueller, as he did. Trump then uttered not a peep, nor did Nunes. Now the shoe pinches? Now take it off? No.
__________UPDATE__________
Opinions can differ but more important to me and the future of our nation than the Nunes smokescreening is Robert Hunziker. He is running as a progressive Democrat in Washington's Eighth Congressional District, and why he is more important to me than a guy named Nunes is clear from reading his "About" page on his campaign site.
Also, the lead Young Turk has a conversation with Hunziker which is under ten minutes per a YouTube video.
But read the page first, or only that, rather than only viewing the video. That "about" webpage will resonate all too well to far too many Americans suffering the same Odyssey of system-imposed stresses Hunziker catalogs. It's us, stomped on by them, and there's only 1% of them, along with a large minority of fellow travelers. Fight 'em.
Progressive Democrats across the nation, if sent by voters to Congress, will have more national value than a clear partisan apologist named Nunes indulging in propaganda. Press attention is better addressed to the more important things. After all, should Trump be impeached in time, Mike Pence is behind him, so what's the difference?
Opinions can differ. My opinion, elect progressives if you desire progress. Bless the status quo if the status quo is friendly to your millions of dollars in wealth, as it is to Nancy Pelosi and her vast fortune.
___________FURTHER UPDATE__________
The current DoJ has provided a letter directed to Nunes, dated Jan. 24, 2018.
It appears Nunes/Trump ignored its suggestions.
FURTHER: The link to that letter item was from Lawfare, which has a range of items related to the FBI, the McCabe resignation, the Nunes Memo, and more:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/
FURTHER: If instead of a "So what" practical reaction to the Nunes conduct/memo, and you want something like a legal brief arguing precedent against the premises of the Nunes committee Republican majority's approach, i.e., the contention that cataloged claimed procedural impediments exist irreparably tainting the FISA warrant process as it was pursued; this link:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/dubious-legal-claim-behind-releasethememo
A flavor: "Here's the context. It turns out that there is lots of litigation on whether warrant applications need to discuss the bias of informants. [...]" Enjoy.
FURTHER: AP reports on a tweet I think important, even though it is in tweet form and Twitter is not respected in general in Crabgrass commentary:
By ERIC TUCKER and CHAD DAY Associated Press -- February 2, 2018 — 1:50pm
WASHINGTON — Former FBI Director James Comey scorned the memo that was released by House Republicans after being declassified Friday by President Donald Trump, saying it doesn't add up to much. "That's it?" Comey said on Twitter.
Amen.
FURTHER: Op-eds about the Nunes memo, Strib and WaPo; those outlets being unimpressed. Strib's item, authored by Jennifer Rubin, is attributed to WaPo; while the WaPo link above does get into the thicket of a need to worry over the reach and actions of the Survillance State.
What was Nunes thinking? This memo was originally classified, "Top Secret," yet all of what's in it that is factual as to things allegedly left out of FISA warrant application affidavits [the full texts of which apparently have not been declassified] - those report-related facts - they had been public knowledge over several weeks before this circus stunt. A full testimony transcript had been made public days before Nunes' stunt; this websearch. Nunes danced out old "so what" news, the only innovation being references to a claim of FISA warrant "material" omissions? Get real.
Having a report worked on by a Brit with a trusted intelligence community background over years of service on Russian internal matters which said what it said, that document, is said to have been what was introduced via warrant affidavits before a FISC judge, who signed off. The contention that the document arose from paid opposition research does not add nor subtract to truthfulness of report content. Presumably monitoring of communicatins of Carter Page was necessary to establish or refute what the report noted was hearsay information from unidentified Russion sources who, if identified, would face grave danger. Presumably if subsquent monitoring of Carter Page communication was exculpatory, the monitoring would have been helpful to a subsequent Page defense with prosecutors obliged to turn over exculpatory evidence. Where's the meat? This entire Nunes/White House spectacle is a joke. So far substantial media op-ed content seems to agree.
Updating has been item-by-item as discovered, with the Nunes document considered first, per the initial posting above beginning with an online link to it. Read it; and then cogently deny it's a tempest in a teapot.