Another good read.
nationalreview.com/article/446456/susan-rice-unmasking-michael-flynn-legal-abuse-power-intelligence-foreign-targets?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=mccarthy&utm_content=rice-follow-up
Some points of importance from the article:
“Minimization instructions, determined by the DOJ and FISA court, are followed when “unmasking.” However, as the article points out” The standard articulated in the minimization instructions is too vague to predicate criminal liability. It requires the masking (or concealment) of the identity of any American incidentally intercepted unless the intelligence value of an intercepted communication cannot be understood without knowing the American’s identity. Within reasonable parameters, that is a subjective judgment call."
Unmasking is usually done at the request of one of the IC agencies, FBI, CIA, or NSA (the collectors/gatherers of intelligence), not by a WH staffer (consumers of intelligence), which Susan Rice was. “Consumers of intelligence
sometimes – very rarely, but sometimes — ask the collectors to unmask. Even though the collecting officials know more about their investigations than do consumers (e.g., White House staffers on the National Security Council) of their intelligence reports, it is always possible that the consumers could notice something the collectors missed. Or they could think of an intelligence angle that didn’t occur to the collectors.” "When an American is intercepted, the collecting agencies (FBI, CIA, and NSA) don’t shrug their shoulders and say, “Well, we could provide a marginally better understanding of the meaning of this communication if we revealed the name of the American.” Their practice is more along the lines of: “We don’t reveal the names unless it is absolutely necessary to understanding the communication, and even then, we prefer to use some substitute (e.g. ‘American Diplomat No. 1’) rather than the actual name.”
“The sole purpose of foreign intelligence collection is to understand the actions and intentions of foreign powers and their operatives” - NOT US CITIZENS. “American citizens are not supposed to be the subject of the intelligence collection effort — they are supposed to be protected.”
As the article goes on to point out these are all very important questions:
“Was the questionable unmasking a single, isolated instance, or was it part of a pattern?”
“Did the communications in question have real foreign intelligence value, or were they just blather in which Americans participated or were mentioned — such that it might appear that unmasking the Americans was the objective of the collection effort, not something that was “incidental”?”
“Was there a series of unmaskings of a particular American or group of Americans? After all, it would not seem very “incidental” to collect and unmask the very same people again and again — that would look more like targeting.”
“
Were standards applied consistently: Was the same unmasking protocol applied to all Americans with equal rigor, or does it appear that some Americans — like maybe . . . Americans connected to Trump — were given less protection than others?”
“While the unmasking was going on, was an unprecedented presidential decision made to disseminate intelligence information very widely across the “community” of 17 intelligence agencies, including to officials with no obvious need to know?” “And while that was going on, were administration officials (including some former ones, like Evelyn Farkas, who left the administration to join the Clinton campaign), pressuring Congress to seek as much disclosure from intelligence community as possible regarding Trump?”
