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:

Someone committed a crime in the Michael Flynn case. It wasn’t him.

from The Gray Area:

A good short summary of why the Flynn case and the truth matters.

by Marc Theissen,

from The Washington Post,

Let’s be clear: A crime was committed in the Michael Flynn case. But that crime was committed not by the retired general, but by someone who leaked the classified details of his conversations with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

Instead of pursuing Flynn for a crime he did not commit, we should be focused on finding the individual who did commit a serious felony by leaking the classified details of Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak. And thanks to acting national intelligence director Richard Grenell, we finally have a list of suspects.

More From The Washington Post (subscription required):

365 Days Page
Comment ( 0 )