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:

How would you cover this story if it were about Donald Trump?

from The Gray Area:
A major 'bombshell' from the Durham investigation and case against Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann occurred yesterday. Under oath in court, witness Robby Mook said Hillary personally approved the pursuit of the Russia collusion narrative. Yet nothing at all was said about this in the legacy media. The media has set themselves up with the wild way they covered Donald Trump, his family and everything Trump. So much unsubstantiated rumor and conspiracy chased chased on a daily basis. The same simple question always arises: How would you cover this story if it were about Donald Trump, his campaign or his children?  The question is asked over and over again, because it is so obviously in need of an answer.  And, this one is particularly ironic as it in regards to the media's almost 2 year long lies about the Russia collusion story! At some point the legacy media must justify why they censor things like this, Hunter Biden's laptop & President Joe Biden's lies & mental health. Don't expect that admission anytime soon.

365 Days Page
Comment ( 0 )