We Knew there is pages waved out from FBI investigation report.
Whatever reason many US administrations from G.W. Bush to Obama those pages should released because the problem we face now is an important time for the US and the world

In court filing, FBI accidentally reveals name of

What legitimate “need to know” could they possibly have had to justify their requests to unmask Flynn?

As I understand it, each individual unmasking request had to be justified by paperwork–a document–which specified the reason justifying the request as legitimate.

Boy, I’d like to see that paperwork!

It includes three requests from DNI James Clapper, two from CIA Director John Brennan, seven requests from U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power, one from James Comey, one from Obama Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and one from – wait for it – Vice President Joseph R. Biden.

But many of the requests were before the call with the Russian Ambassador on Dec. 29. The only request to unmask in between Dec. 29 and Jan. 5, when it was clear that Barack Obama knew about the call was one. That was by Obama Chief of Staff Denis McDonough on the day of the meeting, on Jan. 5, it looks pretty clear that that unmasking was related to the meeting. It makes McDonough a likely candidate for who may have briefed Obama on the call depending on the timing of the request and the timing of the meeting.
But there are a few problems here. These are NSA records. There are other avenues of surveillance, and the question would be if there were other actions going on against Flynn that may have picked up the calls.

Also the FBI knew of the call at least by Jan. 4, according to prior reports. They were scheduled to close the case on the Jan. 4, but then kept it open because of the call. So how did they learn of it? If there’s no NSA unmasking between the time of the call and Jan 4, either the list of unmasking is incomplete or there had to have been other surveillance that picked it up. That raises a lot more questions about surveillance on Flynn and whether even now, we have the full story.

CTH answered the question of other surveillance here:
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/05/13/flashback-james-comey-explains-fbi-unmasking-in-2017-today-the-fbi-is-conflating-two-collection-aspects/

On earth, ain’t gonna happen.

But some indictments seem more likely. Sometimes I think still only 10%; sometimes 90% likely for at least one rat indicted before Nov. 2020. Rat = Dem gov’t criminal.

Another set of rats are the Dem media folk who got the illegally leaked info. I’d love to see the Feds investigate them like they did with Roger Stone & Paul Manafort — two guys who were not innocent but were punished for being on Trump’s side.

The unmasking might not be illegal – but it IS illegal if done for political purposes.

As mentioned, Grand Juries should be handing out indictments, and let the DOJ prosecute.

The DOJ, filled with Obama loving Dem deep state supporters and even a few, or more, criminals willing to violate laws and rules to protect the Dems.

The FBI is corrupt. They are watched by the DOJ, who are corrupt.
Who watches the watchers?
The Dem media; and the US Congress, half controlled by the corrupt Dems.

I think many, even most, politically active Dems won’t have their minds changed just by the facts of corruption. BUT many less active Dems, and especially those who call themselves independent, will see these facts as reasons to not vote for the Dems this election.

Trump fanboy Don Surber claims that everybody who voted for Trump 2016 will vote for him again – and lots more, this time, too. I think so too — but at some 70% level now, rather than 80%. There HAS been a big recession, not Trump’s fault, but the Dems will be falsely blaming Trump.

That seems curious to me too.
Unless it’s a variant of murdering Caesar – everyone gets to take a stab so no one person is guilty (that is, the only one who could have leaked the name to the press).

Yes, they unmasked many Trump campaign members. I saw Devin Nunes on Lou Dobbs tonight and he has seen the evidence, but cannot name names until they are unclassified. Which it appears that Richard Grenell (Acting DNI) is planning to do. There’s more, much more to come.

https://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-unmasking-2017-4

This article also says that unmasking itself is not illegal but leaking an unmasked name is. There is apparently a difference of opinion on the first proposition.