uh Fenton, you’re still deflecting from explaining why “unmasking bad” and you’re still deflecting from explaining why so many trump officials were in a position to be unmasked. Hey I know, tell us about Freddie and Fannie, that always makes you feel better.
Unmasking bad because they are caught in what is called secondary and tertiary conversations. They, themselves, aren't engaging in any bad behavior and conversations they expect to be private are listened to and examined for political advantage by the opposition party. Later, due to policy changes by Obama, the administration disseminated the identities of the people speaking and leaked them far and wide.
1. The people caught in secondary and tertiary conversations are not accused of anything.
2. Selective leaking can make almost any narrative plausible.
3. Selective leaking doesn't allow for lawful declassification of material to protect innocent people.
4. Intel agencies shouldn't be getting used for political purposes.
5. The multiple leaks are in themselves illegal, they deal with multiple ongoing investigations.
6. No applicable warrants for secondary and tertiary persons, they shouldn't be ABLE to be unmasked, let alone leaked.
7. Political reasons should not be enough to unmask people in intel intercepts, only national security interests should be.
8. surveillance is rationalization for these sorts of dirty tricks, not justification.
9. If nothing was wrong, why did Clapper lie about it? Why did Rice?
10. There was no warrant on the campaign, but that was damaged as an entity by the illegal, selective leaks and in many cases false stories.
11. No real court would have signed off on the wiretapping of that many officials and allowed as much leaking as occurred, the political fall out would damage all the judges and officials involved. Right now: almost no one is culpable or responsible because almost no one is admitting anything---hardly the act of people doing nothing wrong.
