Don't Unmask Me, Bro

GOP, cut the bullshit. Please.

In the newest line of, "OMG I MIGHT HAVE BEEN UNMASKED," I give you Lindsey Graham. Per FOX:

"Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., on Friday told “America’s Newsroom” he’d been informed by an intelligence community source that his identity was requested unmasked – a typically rare and scrutinized ask that usually requires the American be the suspect in a crime, be in danger or be essential to understanding the context of the conversation.
“I have reason to believe that a conversation that I had was picked up – with some foreign leader or some foreign person – and somebody requested that my conversation be unmasked,” Graham said. “I’ve been told that by people in the intelligence community.”
Graham’s claim comes less than a month after Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., sent a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee asking if his name “or the names of other members of Congress, or individuals from our staffs or campaigns, were included in queries or searches of databases of the intelligence community, or if their identities were unmasked in any intelligence reports or products.”

I'd like to repeat what I've said repeatedly on Twitter: Not only is this not news, it's nothing but a Trump / Russia smokescreen. I can't help but notice that Republicans are awfully concerned about their foreign communications. First, I wonder why? Second, I think maybe if they had read the PATRIOT act that they all demanded be passed in 2001, they would know that this is a relatively common practice. I'd like to pause for a moment to explain to people how the 'unmasking' process works, because it seems like no one understands it.

Firstly, in order to be a candidate for unmasking, the communication must have at least one foreign end. So there are three types of communication that are collected under this provision: Foreign to Foreign, American to Foreign and Foreign to American. That's it. Full stop.

IF THE OFFICIAL READING THE INTEL FEELS THAT THEY NEED THE NAME OF THE 'MASKED' AMERICAN IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND THE CONTEXT, THEY CAN REQUEST IT BE REVEALED BY THE ORIGINATING AGENCY.

This is not a guarantee - it's not a rubber stamp process. The agency that originally collected the intelligence has full discretion over its unmasking. Then, it goes to the individual that requested it. It's not widely disseminated throughout the intelligence community, it's not declassified, etc. The IC is notoriously good at keeping secrets; the only reason that you're seeing the drip, drip, drip that you are now is because this administration is blatantly lying to the American people. Most people think it started with Flynn, but they don't seem to remember that POTUS started this war when he repeatedly disparaged members of our intelligence community. Then he poured gasoline on the fire with the way he handled the Comey firing. It shows absolute ignorance of our collection capability that members of his campaign purportedly engaged in such openly egregious behavior.

It's also worth noting that, as Sally Yates testified, there is often no need to request an unmasking, because the IC has already done it for clarity. Regardless, I hate to use an old cliché, but...

"If you haven't done anything wrong, what do you have to worry about?"

I'd also like to briefly touch on the reports that the administration is considering invoking executive privilege on Comey's testimony. In what has been a torrent of impressively bad decisions, this would by far be the worst. Again, he says the conversations never happened, what does he have to hide? Not only would asserting executive privilege all but admit guilt, Comey has planned for this. Remember his Dead Man's Switch when he got fired? I don't think we've seen anything yet. This is also ignoring the greater IC in the event that Trump sought to block Comey from testifying - that drip, drip, drip of leaks would become an instant tsunami.

Ignoring the absolute idiocy of that plan, I don't believe that Trump has legal ground to invoke executive privilege. He's discussed it on national television and tweeted about it multiple times, so the information is out in the open and he can't argue that it was a confidential conversation, or that national security would be at risk. Also, if the Comey argument is that Trump sought to halt an investigation via pressure or influence, executive privilege would be void, as it may not be used to cover up government misdeeds. 

For what seems to be the 435th time in his young presidency, POTUS seems to have again found himself on rocky legal footing. To be completely clear: This is not sustainable. The special prosecutor is already expanding his investigation to Manafort and possibly Sessions, his travel ban is being set up to be heard by SCOTUS, where most experts predict that it will fail, again because of POTUS' own words being used as evidence of intention, and he's possibly facing several counts of obstruction of justice. Oh, and there's that money laundering thing. I know people feel like this is moving slowly, but if we're making comparisons to Watergate, we're moving lightning-fast.