Earlier today Congressman Nunes held a press conference declaring that Trump’s transition team was monitored by US intelligence. The information looks to be somewhat of a rehash of what is known from the New York Times. US citizens were caught up in foreign intelligence surveillance of other targets and reports of these communications were monitored by the White House. Although some chalked up the presser to a rear guard defense of the Trump tweets, he put forth some very important information. According to his statements the transcripts and reports disseminated through the intelligence services held ‘little to no apparent foreign intelligence value.’ This is an important distinction because when there is no intelligence purpose to include US citizen information, the agency is supposed to mask it. If correct, these names were wrongfully exposed, meaning procedures, if not laws, were violated. Further, if this treatment was specific to Trump’s team, it is fair to assume it was politically motivated. With the narrative under attack, it sounds like the FBI went to CNN with a story if their own.

‘ The FBI has information that indicates associates of President Donald Trump communicated with suspected Russian operatives to possibly coordinate the release of information damaging to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, US officials told CNN.’

This opener is loaded with equivocation, see ‘possibly’ and ‘indicates.’ Further, wouldn’t some evidence be needed before the FBI opens an investigation into a presidential candidate, especially in the midst of an election? Just like other articles reporting on this investigation months ago, it includes statements such as, ‘though officials cautioned that the information was not conclusive’ and ‘ U.S. officials who spoke to CNN say it’s premature to draw that inference from the information gathered so far since it’s largely circumstantial.’

However, there are a few lines that indicate possible new developments.

‘ The FBI cannot yet prove that collusion took place, but the information suggesting collusion is now a large focus of the investigation, the officials said.’

It sounds like something new has been uncovered if the investigation is ‘now’ focusing more intently on collusion. On the other hand, Comey said the investigation of collusion began in July, so why is it only ‘now’ a focus? It seems just as likely that this is an editorial license taken by the author. This interpretation is strengthened by later lines explaining an investigatory shift occurred in July. Separately, Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff also declared that there is more than circumstantial evidence, though he refused to elaborate. Regardless, this isn’t a welcome story for Trump. CNN doesn’t come clean with its source, but it does spend it’s time reviewing the FBI’s investigation. It details just how extensive this probe is.

‘ FBI counterintelligence investigations are notoriously lengthy and often involve some of the U.S. government’s most highly classified programs, such as those focused on intelligence-gathering, which can make it difficult for investigators to bring criminal charges without exposing those programs.’

This isn’t your typical investigation. The FBI’s non criminal investigation of Trump’s campaign uses tools designed to surveil foreign governments and terrorists. This latest media brush up is an escalation of the conflict between Trump and the FBI. Following Trump’s tweetstorm about the wiretapping, Comey went to the New York Times to counter some of the specific points. In recent days the FBI hasn’t been forthcoming of requested information in the congressional investigation of Russian interference.

So let’s consider the two possible outcomes, proof of collusion or not. If the FBI suddenly finds proof that the Trump campaign was conspiring with Russia, it would be a major shock to our political system. Recriminations would abound. What did Trump know and when did he know it? It would be a devastating if not fatal blow to his presidency.

However, let’s also imagine the likely case that they don’t. The Republican president elect had his transition staff monitored by a Democrat administration using the national security apparatus. Information from intelligence surveillance was leaked in violation of the law. This happened, the only question remaining now is if the investigation has merit. In the case that it doesn’t, the evidence that launched it and the investigation itself must be 100% airtight. If there was any hint of political motivation by any decision maker, this is the biggest political scandal since Nixon. It amounts to using the national intelligence apparatus to spy on domestic political opponents.

No matter the conclusion, a full review of the investigation needs to take place. Every single investigatory decision needs to be reviewed. Who knew about it and when did they know about it? The seriousness of using such powerful law enforcement tools against political opposition requires that it be fully transparent to the American public. Anything less does far more damage to the US political system than a few leaked emails.