Devin Nunes said FBI Christopher Wray should just call spying for what it is, spying, in an interview with FNC's Laura Ingraham on Tuesday.
"The real facts have to come out in this case, and what we're trying to continue to get to the bottom of is how many spies were involved spying on the Trump campaign, and that's what we continue to try to get answers to in Congress," Nunes said.
LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS: The New York Times is hyping, oh what a shock, a big story tonight. They found "printouts" from Mr. Trump's IRS tax transcripts from 1985, I graduated from college then, and 1994, all the way to 1994, showing large losses for various interests.
Now, the question is, how did they obtain these records? Joining me now Congressman Devin Nunes, Ranking Member of the House Intel Committee; Sol Wisenberg, former Whitewater Deputy Independent Counsel. So, does any of this matter, I mean it's a big shock that The New York Times is desperate to bring up 30 year old the losses in Atlantic City, I guess. But does any of this matter, and how do they get tax transcripts, do you think?
SOL WISENBERG, FORMER WHITEWATER DEPUTY INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: Well, two different questions. I suppose it matters to some people, is anybody surprised now that Donald Trump lost a lot of money during the ‘80s and ‘90s and that sometimes his actual records may not be congruent with what he said he made or lost.
No, I don't think so. But I do think you put your finger on what may be the real news here is, once again something was leaked that shouldn't have been leaked. According to that story, The Times said they got the tax documents from somebody who had legal access to them.
That doesn't tell us whether or not somebody from the government illegally leaked them or somebody who worked for Mr. Trump violated a professional confidential relationship. But either way, it's unfortunate.
INGRAHAM: Congressman Nunes, I have to get to another point. We had a big piece today and a big push by some in Congress to hold Bill Barr in contempt, and this was for his refusal to appear in a Senate committee.
And Washington Post writes a piece, the Trump administration is in contempt of Congress. Previous administrations have sought to accommodate Congressional overseers, but Mr. Trump's just say no approach may mean that effective oversight may not come for years down the road, pointing to that, and Steve Mnuchin not wanting to testify I guess additionally on tax matters and so forth.
REP. DEVIN NUNES (R-CA): Well, I've got news for them about this, I checked, okay. I don't think that they wanted Barr to testify. They did not want him to show up. That's why they did what they did. They knew if they made the requirement so ridiculous, we're not going to have the Attorney General of the United States come to Congress and be questioned by staff.
It's ridiculous. The members of Congress can do it themselves or Barr's not going to come. So I think this was all designed just so that they could eat Kentucky Fried Chicken in the dais when in fact Attorney General Barr didn't show up.
INGRAHAM: So, they are obsessed with Bill Barr. Now, they're obsessed and I think I have a couple of theories, I think it's really hard when someone like Barr or you - I'd say if you were testifying at all, I'd be really nervous and afraid. But if you're up against Bill Barr and you're trying to make Barr out to look like this nefarious terrible person, he's just a lot smarter than a lot of these people.
I know it sounds pejorative, but he's just a lot smarter than a lot of these folks. I think they were mad that Mueller didn't deliver and now they're mad that I think Barr in most cases got the better of them. But they're kind of stuck here on this Bill Barr hill and they can't seem to jump off of it or get off of it.
WISENBERG: Well, it's more than that. They're stuck on that hill because he is legitimate, he is effective, he has a tremendous amount of gravitas, and he is a member of President Trump's cabinet. So they must destroy him. He's effective, he's a man of the law, he's trying to restore integrity to the DOJ and be a proper and effective and loyal Attorney General, and they can't have that.
He must be destroyed. Anyone who is not completely on their team must be destroyed. I said this the other night about Rod Rosenstein. When thought Rod Rosenstein was protecting Mueller, he was their golden boy. Now that they see he's just really an honest arbiter or trying to be and they see him as aligned with Barr, now he must be destroyed too.
And so they leak an article about him saying I can land the plane. That's what it's all about, destroying anyone who is not with them.
INGRAHAM: All right. And just when you thought guys that the FBI might have turned a corner, it wouldn't be playing politics anymore, especially after how they treated the Trump campaign in 2016, this happens.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN, D-N.H.: Do you believe that they're engaging in spying, when they're following FBI investigative policies and procedures?
CHRISTOPHER WRAY, FBI DIRECTOR: Well that's not the term I would use. There are lots of people have different colloquial phrases. I believe that the FBI is engaged in investigative activity and part of investigative activity includes surveillance activity of different shapes and sizes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Congressman Nunes, the Deep State was exposed in 2016. We're going to learn a lot more. But now this semantic game with whether or not they spied the Trump campaign, what's going on here with Chris Wray?
NUNES: Yes, spying occurred, plain and simple to any normal American out there. I believe what the FBI Director is trying to do is - his position really needs to be nonpartisan. He's there for ten years. He's got eight years left.
So I think what he's trying to do is trying not to get in the headlines, and shame on those Senators for trying to put the FBI Director in the middle of this. I mean look I wish he would just call spying for what it is, spying.
But look, the real facts have to come out in this case, and what we're trying to continue to get to the bottom of is how many spies were involved spying on the Trump campaign, and that's what we continue to try to get answers to in Congress.
And every day that goes by, I think we get - the answer becomes more and more people were doing spying. And what the Director is trying to say is, is he's trying to say, was it legal or illegal spying.