No, Devin Nunes Should Not Recuse Himself

...explains David Harsyani.

Worth reading.

I can't add anything because I don't want to. While I understand that this job is to comment on the day's news, and can't fault Harsyani for doing his job, I personally am having a lot of time even taking this nonsense seriously.

Is this really "news"? Again, not knocking Harsyani for working up the energy to deal with nonsense.

But I'm really feeling kind of exhausted at having to even pretend that the Democrats' unending firehose of bullshit is genuine "news" that anyone at all should even have to entertain.

For example: The Democrats are now making an issue of the fact that Nunes received something that looks like a leak (though possibly a legal one -- Nunes said the source went through proper procedure), and doesn't want to specify exactly what he saw. Probably because he wants to protect his source -- if it's known exactly what documents Nunes saw, it doesn't take a lot of legwork, I'm thinking, to figure out who had access and did in fact access those documents recently.

But wait -- isn't this what the media and the Democrats themselves do to push the "Russia hacked the election with Trump's help" story every single day?

Harsyani writes:

"Calls Grow for Nunes to Step Aside in Inquiry on Surveillance," says The New York Times. "The remarkable calls," it goes on to say, "by Representatives Adam B. Schiff of California, the committee�s top Democrat," came after revelations that Nunes had met a source at the White House. Democrats claimed that a "bipartisan investigation" could no longer be achieved. For starters, the idea that Schiff isn�t a full-blown partisan is preposterous. He�s already made a number of wild and irresponsible claims about Russia "hacking our election."(The California representative contends to have conclusive evidence of collusion, though he's yet to share the specifics with the group.) There is no reason to treat him like the guardian of a chaste investigation. Others who went on the record to demand recusal were nonpartisan public servants like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer.

The reason Harsyani struck through "conclusive" is, I imagine, because Harsyani mis-remembered Schiff as claiming "conclusive" evidence. If so, I know why Harsyani remembered it that way -- because when I heard Schiff talking about this, that is the impression I got. It was only later, reviewing what he said, that I saw he had left himself wiggle room here.

But he conveyed that impression, at least to someone hearing it the first time. At least to me he did.

Anyway, Schiff is claiming he's seen "evidence" that he himself won't share, while simultaneously claiming Nunes must recuse himself for making less sweeping claims and not giving up the source of those claims.

How seriously am I supposed to take this?

How seriously is anyone supposed to take this?

(Parallel thoughts were expressed by Warden, last night.)

Every single day, the Democrats and media get together and decide what the day's Microcycle Narrative Attack on Trump will be. Every single day we're supposed to treat these concocted #FakeNews fictions as matters of grave concern.

For the first time in my adult life, I am using this expression non-ironically -- "I just can't even anymore."

Journalists: We're So Tired and Our Work-Loads Are So Hard Due to Covering Trump. Yeah, hourly EST therapy primary screaming will do that.

How do you think the rest of us feel due to your temper tantrums and lies?

Tweet below.

