Kim Strassell thread: https://mobile.twitter.com/KimStrassel/status/1261050491737235456
Kimberley Strassel
@KimStrassel
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.
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.
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.
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.
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....
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