BOMBSHELL: General Flynn Was Unmasked Via Request Made In Joe Biden’s Name

Biden isn’t being honest about what he knew and when.

Today’s bombshell news that a request to unmask General Michael Flynn’s identity was made in Joe Biden’s name is the latest evidence that Biden simply isn’t being honest about what role he played in the Obama-Biden FBI’s abuses of power against President Trump and his team.

We learned last week that the January 5, 2017, Oval Office meeting where Obama, Biden, FBI Director James Comey and others were present focused heavily on Michael Flynn. Biden first claimed “knew nothing” about the Flynn investigation. But when ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos pressed him, Biden caved and admitted, “I was aware.”

Now we know this was very likely a big understatement. According to newly declassified information, requests to unmask Flynn’s identity in intelligence reports were made by several Obama-Biden Administration officials – including in Joe Biden’s name. That request was made on January 12, 2017, the same day that a “senior U.S. government official” leaked this classified information to The Washington Post in order to fuel the Democrat Media’s Russia collusion conspiracy fire. That leak was a felony, and no one has been held accountable.

It's clear Biden is not being honest about what he knew about the targeting of Flynn. What more is he hiding? Biden needs to come clean about his role in the Obama-Biden Administration’s massive abuse of power against a decorated military veteran and the operation to undermine the new presidency of a political rival.

Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.
May 15, 2020

Why Joe Biden is Misleading Americans About His Role in Targeting Michael Flynn

As usual, most of the media is downplaying the latest revelations about the Obama-Biden FBI’s targeting of General Michael Flynn, even though it is not in dispute that a felony was committed by whoever leaked details of Flynn’s December 2016 phone call to the media. Both NBC News and The Washington Post published supposedly exhaustive explainers about the unmasking bombshell – yet neither outlet even mentioned the criminal January 12, 2017, leak about Flynn to the Washington Post that supercharged the Russia collusion hoax.

Meanwhile, Biden’s story on the Flynn case has evolved from knowing “nothing” to being “aware” of an “investigation” to never having “knowledge of any criminal investigation,” an eyebrow-raising qualifier that allows him to deny any knowledge of something that did not exist while avoiding answering for the counterintelligence investigation that actually did exist.

This is a major story that should not be ignored. Don’t just take our word for it:

The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald:

“What newly released documents over the last month reveal is what has been generally evident for the last three years: The powers of the security state agencies — particularly the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, and the DOJ — were systematically abused as part of the 2016 election and then afterward for political rather than legal ends. … [T]here was also massive corruption on the part of the investigators themselves, exploiting and abusing their vast and invasive investigative and prosecutorial powers for ideological goals, political subterfuge, election manipulation, and personal vendettas.”

The Hill, Jonathan Turley:

“Seeking unmasking information that was likely to reveal the name of a political opponent and possibly damage the Trump administration raises a concern. More importantly, it adds a detail of the scope of interest and involvement in an investigation that targeted Flynn without any compelling evidence of a crime or collusion. The media portrayed both Obama and Biden as uninvolved. But now we know they both actively followed the investigation…Biden has repeatedly denied knowledge of the investigation. Just a day before the latest disclosure, George Stephanopoulos asked Biden in an interview what he knew of the Flynn investigation. Biden was adamant that he knew nothing about ‘those moves’ and he called it a diversion. But that is not true if he took the relatively uncommon action for a vice president of demanding the unmasking of Flynn information.”

Washington Post, Marc Thiessen:

“The crime of leaking the details about Flynn and Kislyak’s call could only have been committed by a small universe of people who had access to the unmasked intelligence on Flynn. We don’t know whether it was someone on the list. That is for U.S. Attorney John Durham, who is investigating the origins of the Russia probe, to determine. But this much is certain: Obama administration officials leaked unmasked intelligence about Flynn to the press. The fact that those individuals have gone unpunished for three years, while Flynn has endured a legal hell, is appalling.”

Wall Street Journal Editorial Board:

“But most of the rest are partisan officials who had no business spying on their successors…The Flynn unmasking is important because it occurred amid a media frenzy over supposed Trump campaign collusion with Russia. Leaks to the Washington Post about the conversations between the Russian ambassador and both Mr. Flynn and soon-to-be Attorney General Jeff Sessions were played up as central to the collusion scandal… The peaceful transition of power is a hallmark of American democracy, or at least it used to be. It isn’t supposed to be an opportunity for the Administration that lost the election to cripple its successors as they take power."

Washington Times Editorial Board:

“Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell has reportedly unmasked the Obama administration officials who unmasked, or revealed, Mr. Flynn’s identity in telephone contact with Russia’s ambassador. The list of culprits, which rests on Mr. Barr’s Justice Department desk, should be held up for public gaze so Americans can learn who turned the nation’s spy apparatus against a patriot in order to undermine an incoming president they despised.”

New York Post Editorial Board:

“True, it’s not unusual for officials to make unmasking requests, but Obama’s team was obsessed with Trump’s foreign-policy team, particularly Michael Flynn, who had been kicked out of Obama’s administration. Were these legitimate worries, or a vendetta? Or just anger that Trump wanted to pursue a foreign policy different from Obamas? And given how the FBI pushed to bring down Flynn, the broad Team Obama interest in Flynn’s conversation certainly raises red flags.”

National Review, David Harsanyi:

“[M]any of the same characters central to all this apparent malfeasance now want to retake power in Washington. Biden is the Democratic Party’s presumptive presidential nominee, he’s running as the heir to Obama’s legacy, and he was at that meeting with Rice. He had denied even knowing anything about the FBI investigation into Flynn before being forced to correct himself after ABC’s George Stephanopoulos pointed out that he was mentioned in Rice’s email. It’s completely legitimate to wonder what he knew about the investigation.”

Washington Examiner, Quinn Hilyer:

“Who were those officials? Why were they telling reporters the content of secretly recorded phone conversations from the then-private-citizen, incoming national security adviser? Even if it were legal to tape those calls, the reason it would have been legal was for protecting national security, because of an intelligence operation. If it is part of an intelligence operation, it is classified…. It is also inexcusable to harm the national security of this nation by leaking details of a counter-intelligence operation. Whichever of those Obama administration officials committed those leaks, even if the leakers included former vice president Joe Biden or his staff, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

Fundraising emails, including these two from May 16, 2020, echo the Obamagate theme: