We’ve written quite a bit about the list of requests to unmask Michael Flynn that was declassified by Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell and handed over to Sens. Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson. We haven’t heard the mainstream media asking too many questions about it, or in particular asking presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden what his reason was for putting in an unmasking request.
The Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel makes a great point: It wouldn’t be too hard to guess that it was Flynn on the line with Russia’s ambassador during the transition from the Obama administration to the Trump administration. So why so many requests?
1) A key question in the Flynn unmaskings is "how" they were done, and whether he was the victim of a sort of "reverse targeting." Remember, we eavesdrop on foreigners, who sometimes talk to Americans. We "mask" the U.S. names to protect U.S. privacy.
— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) May 14, 2020
2) Intel professionals normally unmask in order to better understand an intel situation. But given huge # of Flynn unmaskings, question is whether FBI/political people were purposely combing transcripts, looking specifically for Flynn conversations, as part of investigation.
— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) May 14, 2020
Intel professionals … like Joe Biden, Susan Power, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, the U.S. ambassador to Italy, and the White House chief of staff. Just doing their jobs.
3) After all, it wouldn't be that hard to make educated guess that it was Flynn on the line on the basis of who was calling and words in the transcripts–especially during transition.
— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) May 14, 2020
Recommended
4) There would seem a big difference between a) an official being alarmed or confused by a situation and so unmasking and just happening to discover it is flynn, and b) officials unmasking every call they assume is Flynn's in order to keep tabs/have a record/build a file.
— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) May 14, 2020
5) the latter would be a form of surveillance, and it would be outrageous. Some FBI defenders will say: well of course that was legit! The FBI had a counterintelligence probe on Flynn! It was doing its duty! But that would be total BS….
— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) May 14, 2020
6) We know from the IG that the FBI did not "seriously consider" getting a FISA on Flynn. It knew it didn't have anything near the probable cause necessary to get such a warrant. And if you lack the goods to get a real warrant, you don't just get to go eavesdrop by other means
— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) May 14, 2020
Bingo
— NOT YOUR PUPPET (@KevinBu15596375) May 14, 2020
They definitely were.
— Brian (@BrianClyce) May 14, 2020
Of course they were. But not "combing transcripts." Got it backward. Running tailored queries on metadata, THEN knowing which transcripts to comb.
— J.E. Dyer (@OptimisticCon) May 14, 2020
What were the reasons given as to why they wanted to unmask him. They had to put that on the requests, we only got half of the information needed. ODNI should be able to release that information.
— Bill Ryan (@17064311) May 14, 2020
It looks like that’s what they were doing as a group but failed to tell each other what dates they looked at. That’s why the multiple unmasking for the same date. Unlike Strzok and Page it looks like this group may have been smart enough to stay away from calls, texts and emails
— Brian (@BrianClyce) May 14, 2020
Like all pretexts, they fall apart in sunlight. I sure hope the reason for unmasking is in a record, which is one. Two, Durham or an agency head doing the job can determine if the unmasking was used to substantiate the reason.
— Lighten Up, Sparky (@cskainr) May 14, 2020
Someone needs to put this into the context of TOTAL unmasking during the same timeframe. Safe to assume there were other Russian, Chinese, Iranian, terrorists, criminals, etc. wiretaps.
How many of those were unmasked by those same officials? Or was Flynn the only one targeted.
— Ronaldus Magnus (@FunPolitics) May 14, 2020
Especially given the span of names who requested the unmasking. It wouldn’t make sense to bring that many people into anything during a transition.
— Angry Tweeter (@tweetwithfury) May 14, 2020
Leaking unmasked communications to the Press is a felony crime! Period. #ObamaGate
— Trumpism – Text TRUMP to 88022 (@amsteelpres) May 14, 2020
We’re still not sure who leaked to the press, but at least we’ve narrowed down the suspects.
Related:
‘MOVE THOSE GOALPOSTS, SISTER!’: Unmasking is a fairly routine process that occurs thousands of times a year https://t.co/l3mMbupOZm
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) May 13, 2020
Join the conversation as a VIP Member