The unmasking of Joe Biden
BY JONATHAN TURLEY, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 05/14/20 10:00 AM EDT
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL
© Getty Images
The declassification of material from the Michael Flynn case has exposed more chilling details of a concerted effort by prosecutors to come up with any crime to use against the former national security adviser. This week, however, a letter revealed a new unsettling detail. Among more than three dozen Obama administration officials asking to “unmask” Flynn from the investigation was former Vice President Joe Biden. This revelation came less than 24 hours after Biden denied any involvement in the investigation of Flynn. It also follows a disclosure that President Obama was following that investigation.
For three years, many in the media have expressed horror at the idea of the Trump campaign colluding with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election. We now know there never was credible evidence of such collusion. In recently released transcripts, a long list of Obama administration officials admitted they never saw any evidence of such collusion — none. That included the testimony of Evelyn Farkas, a former Obama national security adviser who was widely quoted in her public plea for Congress to gather the evidence that she learned of as part of the Obama administration.
The media widely covered her alarm that this evidence would be lost “if they found out how we knew what we knew about their, the staff, the Trump staff’s, dealing with Russians.” Yet, in her previously classified testimony under oath, she repeatedly said “I didn’t know anything.” (Farkas is now running for Congress in New York and highlighting her role in raising “the alarm” over Russian collusion.)
As much of the media blindly pushed the Russian collusion story, a truly alarming story has unfolded in plain view: the use of national security power to investigate an opposing political party and opponents. There is little question that the response by the media to such a story would have been overwhelming if George Bush and his administration had targeted Obama campaign figures with secret surveillance. That story would have become all encompassing if it was learned that there was no direct evidence to justify the investigation and, ultimately, the underlying allegation of collusion was found to lack any credible basis.
However, the motivations and means of Obama officials are not to be questioned, apparently. Indeed, when candidate Donald Trump claimed the Obama administration was putting his campaign under surveillance, the media universally mocked him. It was later proven to be true. The Obama administration used the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court to conduct surveillance of Trump campaign officials. The FBI even falsified key evidence to continue that surveillance.
Yet none of that matters. The media is now fully invested in the original false allegations of collusion. If Obama administration officials were to be questioned now, the coverage and judgment of the media might be placed into question. Even this latest disclosure of the unmasking request of Biden will not alter the official media narrative.
Unmasking occurs when an official asks that an intelligence agency remove anonymous designations hiding the identity of an individual. This masking is an important protection of the privacy of American citizens who are caught up in national security surveillance. The importance of this privacy protection is being dismissed by media figures like Andrea Mitchell who declared the Biden story to be nothing more than “gaslighting.”
While unmasking is more routinely requested by intelligence officials, with a reported 10,000 such requests by the National Security Agency last year alone, it is presumably less common for figures like Biden or Obama chief of staff Denis McDonough. There remains a concern over asking for the unmasking information that was likely to reveal the name of a political opponent and possibly damage the Trump administration. 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 had portrayed both Obama and Biden as uninvolved in the investigation. Now, however, we know that both actively followed the investigation. According to former acting Attorney General Sally Yates, she was surprised that President Obama not only knew about the investigation but knew more than she did at that time. Obama even called upon former FBI Director James Comey to stay back after a January meeting, in order to discuss the Flynn investigation. At the meeting, he discussed using a flagrantly unconstitutional law, the Logan Act, to charge Flynn, even though it has never been used successfully in a prosecution since the founding of the republic.
For his part, Biden has repeatedly denied knowledge of the investigation. Just the day before the latest disclosure, George Stephanopoulos asked Biden in an interview what he knew of the Flynn investigation. Biden was adamant that “I know nothing about those moves to investigate Michael Flynn” and called it all a “diversion ... a game this guy [Trump] plays.” Stephanopoulos then pointed out that recent disclosure of a meeting on the Flynn investigation in January 2017 with Obama and Comey. Biden said he did know about the investigation: “I was aware that there was, that they asked for an investigation, but that’s all I know about.” That also is not true if Biden took the relatively uncommon step for a vice president of demanding the unmasking of Flynn information.
But none of this matters. A Democratic administration using a secret national security court to investigate the opposing party’s campaign simply does not matter to Democrats in Congress or many in the media anyway. An investigation continuing despite the lack of any credible information supporting collusion does not matter to them either. A president and vice president taking personal interest in surveillance of political opponents? It does not matter.
There was a time when all of this did matter, though. Indeed, there was a time when this would be viewed as the story of the century, including the unmasking of Biden himself in this investigation. But this is not those times. This cannot be a story, you see. Russian collusion was a story and, as Biden stressed, the rest is just a “diversion.” The public however will have to decide who was ultimately unmasked by the Flynn investigation.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates online @JonathanTurley.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment