Rep. Devin Nunes did not apologize for taking the information to the White House — something Democrats have decried as inappropriate. | Getty Democrats are stuck with Nunes in Russia-Trump probe

Democrats are plotting their next move after questioning House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes’ fitness to lead the panel’s investigation into Russia’s involvement in the 2016 election.

One step they almost certainly won’t take: a boycott.


Even as they ramp up calls for an outside investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Moscow, Democrats say it would not make sense for them to walk away from the House probe led by Nunes, the California Republican many now view as a lackey for Trump.

If Democrats boycotted the investigation, they say, they would risk losing access to the evidence being turned over to the intelligence panel — giving Republicans complete control over how that evidence is presented to the public.

“Democrats feel that if we're not engaged in this investigation, no one will be,” Rep. Adam Schiff of California, the Intelligence Committee’s top Democrat, said Friday. “In the minority, the only power we have is the power of public persuasion.”

Democrats on the committee huddled Friday morning to discuss how to respond to recent actions by Nunes, including his decision to cancel a planned public hearing next week with former members of the Obama administration.

As they entered and exited the meeting, they expressed a determination to trudge on.

“If we're not here shining a light on this, the light goes out,” said Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), a member of the intelligence panel. “Our plan is to use pressure to make this the most credible investigation possible.”

Added Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), also a committee member: “We want to illuminate the obstruction. We want to preserve our access.”

For Democrats, the episode is the latest example of how little power the minority is afforded in the House of Representatives, which isn’t subject to the Senate filibuster that gives them more leverage in the upper chamber.

Rep. Jackie Speier of California, another Intelligence Committee Democrat, said that while she has lost confidence in Nunes’ leadership of the investigation, she is not ready to commit to a boycott.

“It’s very important for us to recognize that if we are not part of the process, then it is only the Senate that is doing an investigation,” Speier said. Nunes, she added, “knows full well that there is grave question about his objectivity, and I think over the next few days, we're going to assess whether or not we feel confident that he can continue in that role.”

The latest dust-up with Nunes began Wednesday when the intelligence chairman — without any notice to committee Democrats — held a news conference and then briefed the White House on what he called new evidence, provided to him by an unnamed source, that members of the Trump transition might have been improperly monitored by U.S. intelligence agencies following the November election.

Nunes, who himself was a member of the Trump transition team, apologized to Democrats on Thursday morning for not giving Schiff a heads up before going public with his new information. He said he hopes Democrats on the panel will be provided access to the new information on Friday.

He did not apologize, though, for taking the information to the White House — something Democrats have decried as inappropriate given that his panel is investigating possible collusion between the Trump team and Moscow. Nunes told Fox News he believed he had a "duty and obligation" to inform President Donald Trump, saying he believes Americans might be troubled by the information he saw.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) responded on Thursday by calling Nunes a "stooge for the president of the United States." Some Democrats have demanded that Nunes lose his chairmanship of the Intelligence Committee, something that almost certainly will not happen given that Nunes kept House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) informed about what he was up to.

Even some fellow Republicans have questioned whether Nunes’ actions have compromised the integrity of his probe.

Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.), for example, said on NBC that Nunes' actions were "very disturbing" and told reporters at the Capitol this was yet another reason to create a special committee to handle the investigation.

Meanwhile, Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) delivered an indirect rebuke to the House intelligence chairman.

“It's most appropriate for the committees to work independent of the White House, not next to the White House,” said Lankford, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is conducting its own Russia investigation. “Anything that happens within our committee needs to be completely not only bipartisan but nonpartisan.”

Several Senate Democrats emphasized that, despite getting off to a rough start, they are happy with the status of their chamber’s Russia investigation, which this week began doing private witness interviews.

And while they are clamoring for an independent investigation of the issue, it’s clear Democrats fear they could lose out if they walked away from the Republican-led investigations in the House and Senate.

POLITICO Playbook newsletter Sign up today to receive the #1-rated newsletter in politics Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Doing so, according to Sen. Angus King, would lead to some major logistical headaches — and could cause it to take even longer for the public to get answers.

“The problem with creating an independent commission is, who gets to appoint the members?” said King, a Maine independent who caucuses with Democrats. “They don't have security clearances. That would have to take time. In other words, it would be about six to eight months to get where we are now in the Intelligence Committee.”

Martin Matishak contributed to this report.

