The repeated assertions by President Trump that there was no collusion and no obstruction on the part of him or people working for him are completely contradicted by an overwhelming volume of evidence. The evidence against Trump's assertions includes the fact that two former Trump campaign and Trump administration officials have already pled guilty to lying about their ties and communication with Russia.
But what about this big memo supposedly being released by Congressman Devin Nunes this week? Well, Nunes says the issuance (or renewal?) of the FISA warrant justifying wiretapping Carter Page was politically motivated. But the facts arguing against this assessment are overwhelming: (1) In 2013, 3 years before Trump announced he was running for President, Carter Page was identified as a source by Victor Podobnyy and two other Russians who were later charged with working as agents for Russian intelligence in New York. The FBI has a tape of Podobnyy calling Page "an idiot" and stating that he wanted money. Podobnyy, who was working at the Russian consulate, was eventually deported for espionage. (2) In March, 2016, then-candidate Donald Trump identified Carter Page as one of his advisors on international affairs. (3) In July, 2016, Page spoke (on invitation) at the Economic School in Moscow, criticizing US and European policy towards Russia and praising Putin. He met with senior Russian government officials and allegedly asked for ownership of a Russian company in exchange for eliminating sanctions against Russia. (4) Carter Page left the Trump campaign in September, 2016, after controversy erupted over his July activities in Russia. (5) In October, 2016, the FISA warrant authorizing monitoring of Carter Page was either approved or renewed.
So now Devin Nunes wants to assert, in this "controversial" memo, that, even though there was sufficient reason for the Trump campaign to break ties with Carter Page in September, there was not enough evidence to justify monitoring his communications in October? It just doesn't make sense.
The facts are clear: Page came to the attention of the FBI three years before the election because he was meeting with (and perhaps being recruited by) Russians who were later deported for being spies. In July, 2016, he was invited to speak in Moscow. His speech indicated he was sympathetic to Putin and against US policy toward Russia. By his own admission, he met with Russians high up in business and government. He was alleged to have asked for something of financial benefit in exchange for doing something of benefit to the Russian government (getting rid of sanctions). Regardless of the source of the last allegation, the fact that a group of Russian spies independently identified Page in 2013 as someone who wanted money, coupled with his behavior in 2016 seems to provide reasonable grounds for the FISA warrant. I think most Americans, at least those of us who lived through 9-11, will feel the same way. It seems pretty clear that monitoring Page would have been reasonable, regardless of which campaign he supported, based on his own behavior.