Provided by USA Today: The investigation into Russian interference in the presidential election — and President Trump's counterattack against surveillance and leaking — has brought a new term into the American political lexicon. "Unmasking." Until now, the process for revealing information about U.S. citizens in intelligence reports was almost completely obscure outside of the intelligence community. But the issue has taken on new importance since House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes alleged that the Obama administration may have improperly identified Trump transition officials in classified reports he had access to — reports that later turned out to be provided to him by the Trump White House. Here's what we know about the hows and whys of unmasking:

The FBI Needs a Grand Jury

By William McGurn,
from The Wall Street Journal,

Only the threat of indictment will get Bill Barr to the truth—and reform the bureau.

If the Federal Bureau of Investigation is to recover its lost reputation, the first item on Attorney General William Barr’s agenda must be to make good on something that set off a frenzy when he proposed it last week: an honest accounting of the FBI’s spying on the presidential campaign of Donald Trump. To do it, Mr. Barr would be well advised to use a grand jury, the same tool used by special counsel Robert Mueller in his investigation. Right now the American people don’t even know when the FBI investigation into the Trump campaign really started. Officially it began July 31, 2016, set off by a tip from Australia’s ambassador to the United Kingdom, Alexander Downer, that Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos had told him Russia had damaging information on Hillary Clinton. But the accumulating evidence—confidential informants were reportedly reaching out to Trump campaign officials well before July 31—casts doubt on the party line.

More From The Wall Street Journal (subscription required):

365 Days Page
Comment ( 0 )