As he made his way into last night’s State of the Union address, various bits of Trump’s chatter with lawmakers was overheard on cameras following him into the chamber.
Of particular interest was an exchange with Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC), who urged him to “release the memo.”
READ THIS NEXT: What Is The Nunes Memo And Will It Be Released?
Said Trump in response: “Oh yeah, don’t worry, 100 percent.”
RELATED: Is Devin Nunes a Russian Agent?
The memo is said to contain allegations of the FBI improperly surveilling Trump campaign communications.
Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee voted this week to release the memo. They also opposed publicly releasing a countermemo from Rep. Adam Schiff (Calif.), the top Democrat on the panel, but agreed to circulate it among House members.
Republican members of the committee said on Tuesday that they are working on a transcript of the closed-door vote and will release it when it’s finished.
Said CNN contributor Carrie Cordero on the memo release:
If public reports are correct that the information in the memo is derived from applications that had been presented to and approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) then the information could include sensitive investigative information, and information about sources and methods; that is, how the intelligence community obtains its information. Release of such information without proper consideration of the harm that could result from the disclosure can jeopardize ongoing investigations, human sources, technical sources and important relationships with foreign intelligence services, as examples.
As a practical matter, it appears that the White House and the Chairman of the HPSCI have worked together in a way that bypassed the normal process of consultation and deference to the Intelligence Community. Proponents of #releasethememo might bill this as a transparency “win,” but I think that scholars and knowledgeable observers of the intelligence community transparency efforts will understand that what is transpiring this week is the exact opposite, because it is “transparency” that will cloud the public’s understanding of the actual intelligence information involved. It is hard to see this proposed release as meaningful transparency versus a harmful politicization of intelligence.