Unmasking" the UnmaskersWho are the masked unmaskers"? Who dares eavesdrop on innocent citizens as a bulwark against espionage? Yes its your government trampling your constitutional freedoms to keep you safe from everyone and everything except themselves. According to documents recently declassified and released by acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell more than two dozen Obama administration officials made requests to unmask incoming Director of National Intelligence Lt. General Michael Flynns name in conjunction with electronic intercepts. The list of unmaskers includes a now familiar rogues gallery of suspects including; US Ambassador to the UN Susan Powers Director of the CIA John Brennan Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former FBI Director James Comey. The emerging unmasking scandal has numerous former Obama officials and sycophants throughout the country cringing in their spider holes. To understand the scandal it is useful to review the federal legislation under which it is authorized. The law is US 50 Chapter 36 The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which states: (a)Submission by Federal officer; approval of Attorney General; contents Each application for an order approving electronic surveillance under this subchapter shall be made by a Federal officer in writing upon oath or affirmation to a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title. Each application shall require the approval of the Attorney General based upon his finding that it satisfies the criteria and requirements of such application as set forth in this subchapter. It shall include (1)the identity of the Federal officer making the application. (2)the identity if known or a description of the specific target of the electronic surveillance; (3)a statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant to justify his belief that (A)the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; and (B)each of the facilities or places at which the electronic surveillance is directed is being used or is about to be used by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; (4)a statement of the proposed minimization procedures; Minimization" requires that unless certain conditions are met unconsenting" American citizens identities remain anonymous when caught in the governments electronic intelligence net. This part of the act allows for what is referred to as unmasking. It is described as; (h)Minimization procedures" with respect to electronic surveillance means (1)specific procedures which shall be adopted by the Attorney General that are reasonably designed in light of the purpose and technique of the particular surveillance to minimize the acquisition and retention and prohibit the dissemination of non-publicly available information concerning unconsenting United States persons consistent with the need of the United States to obtain produce and disseminate foreign intelligence information; (2)procedures that require that non-publicly available information which is not foreign intelligence information as defined in subsection (e)(1) shall not be disseminated in a manner that identifies any United States person without such persons consent unless such persons identity is necessary to understand foreign intelligence information or assess its importance; (3)notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2) procedures that allow for the retention and dissemination of information that is evidence of a crime which has been is being or is about to be committed and that is to be retained or disseminated for law enforcement purposes; and (4)notwithstanding paragraphs (1) (2) and (3) with respect to any electronic surveillance approved pursuant to section 1802(a) of this title procedures that require that no contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party shall be disclosed disseminated or used for any purpose or retained for longer than 72 hours unless a court order under section 1805 of this title is obtained or unless the Attorney General determines that the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person. The act requires that the identity of US citizens remain anonymous unless the requesting government official makes the case that the identity needs to be revealed because it is necessary to understand foreign intelligence information or assess its importance to protect national security" or the target is an agent of a foreign power". Imagine that youre a judge and a request has been made to reveal the identity of a former high-ranking military official. This individual served this country with distinction for more than thirty years and his unfailing patriotism is a matter of record not conjecture. In your position as a guarantor of constitutional freedoms you would require an extremely high burden of proof to be convinced of the necessity to unmask the name of any American citizen let alone a highly decorated military veteran. If you were seated on the Judges bench you would examine these requests thoroughly and with an unusual high degree of scrutiny because of the political circumstances from which they originated. Given the recently concluded election and the level of political agitation surrounding it would not the requestors motivation be as legitimate a question to investigate as the activities of the unconsenting" citizen described in the intelligence reports? It is inconceivable a judge adjudicating the appropriateness of unmasking that name would not at the same time be concerned that the request was potentially politically motivated. Consequently the judge would have to view the request within the totality of the circumstances not simply within the confines of the FISA Act to ensure that a constitutionally protected and conducted election is not impugned. His or her decision would necessarily defend both the constitution and free elections in general. Any decision that avoided those weighty aspects is injurious to our republic because it allows for political bias to enter a process of which it is intended to be free. The FISA Act may not be unconstitutional but as we can see from the Flynn case it can be used as a tool of political bias. When any law is used against political opponents or to obtain a pre-determined outcome to support a federal or political narrative the constitution is victimized. The abuses alleged in this case at the minimum require a thorough re-examination of the law. In reviewing the appropriateness of the FISA Act we should examine whether it grants too great a latitude to federal agents to act in a way that infringes on constitutional rights. A law that can allow a federal agents discretion to pursue criminal investigations based on political motivations is dangerous. At the very least political bias in criminal investigations can result in abuses that violate our rights to privacy protections against unlawful seizure and our right to be secure in our homes. Even in the absence of political bias this act represents a serious threat to our constitutional freedoms because it allows surveillance on such a wide-spread scale without at the same time providing significant protections to prevent governmental abuse. When elected and non-elected officials in our country can subvert a law meant to protect the country from various forms of foreign intrigue and use it as a tool of political bias we are in trouble. Spying on its own citizenry is an inherently un-American act and to do it under the guise of protecting" us is outrageous. We have laws that prohibit various forms of treasonous activities and none of them authorize the government to troll society with such a comprehensive net that we are all potentially ensnared. Our government is oppressive when it peeks into our bedroom windows listens in on our private phone calls and culls information electronically all in the hopes of catching someone somewhere doing something wrong. Using electronic surveillance to fish for wrongdoing violates our basic right to privacy and should not be construed as any form of protection from illegal foreign influence. The DOJs honest and sober decision to drop the charges against Lt. General Flynn reflect that departments belief the Flynn prosecution was political in nature and as a result illegitimate from the start. In this astonishing admission the DOJ exposes government corruption on an unimaginable scale. Flynns treatment at the hands of the government he honorably served is a vivid reminder that we are all in peril. A peril wherein our enemies are the very people weve entrusted to protect us and our freedoms. In 2016 American voters had the audacity to ignore their liberal-progressive masters by electing Mr. Trump instead of Hillary Clinton. In response those same masters tried to invalidate the election of a president and then his presidency. Obama Administration officials and federal agents from various intelligence and law enforcement agencies conspired to prevent Trump from taking office. To do this they first accused Russia of meddling in the election in favor of Trump then activated the surveillance state to fulfill that narrative by ensnaring Flynn and others when all that failed they fed the same false information to their congressional handlers resulting in the clearly stilted impeachment effort. So secure were they in their arrogance and power it never occurred to them they would get caught. The recent document releases expose the depth and breadth of the scandal. In one of the recently released memos former National Security Advisor Susan Rice acknowledges not only President Obamas presence in a meeting on the subject of Flynn but his engagement on the matter when she wrote he asked that the investigation be conducted by the book". Rice memorialized the former presidents comments in a memo she wrote to herself fifteen days after the meeting occurred on the last day the Obama administration. An NSA writes a memo to herself more than two weeks after a meeting in which the main subject is the former presidents desire that the Flynn investigation be conducted properly? Clearly the memo is a contrived and unsophisticated attempt to provide cover for her and the former presidents rear quarters. In doing this Rice establishes one incontrovertible fact that she now must regret. The memo makes it clear the tentacles of this miscarriage of justice reached all the way to the Oval Office. Instead of acting to protect our country Obama and his band of blue-state misfits subverted federal law to support their political aims. They wore the disguise of benevolent compassionate benign benefactors who they said we could trust for Hope and Change". With their masks now being removed I hope they all suffer a change of address to a federal penitentiary soon.