http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/31/intelligence-official-who-unmasked-trump-associates-is-very-high-up-source-says.html

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/private-citizens-trump-campaign/2017/03/31/id/781923/?ns_mail_uid=58156&ns_mail_job=1721718_04012017&s=al&dkt_nbr=shyc8pj5

The only thing I see here is that perhaps it would be wiser to have two separate investigations. The original one having to do with the Russian's involvement in our elections, and the second, called for by Trump about Trump possibly being "wired taped" by Obama. Of course I'm certain Trump doesn't want that, given the second issue seems to be overshadowing the first.

There's four problems with the second issue. The first, who is the unnamed source who is saying the unmasking was done for political purposes. Which side of the aisle is this "congressional source"? Republican's were noted for their leaks regarding the Benghazi investigations, for political purposes. Second, whether it was done for political purposes is probably a matter of who is interpreting the action. Third, how could anything related to Trump, the Russians and the elections, not be a political matter, thus, making it easy to make the claim it was done for political purposes, when in reality the names were unmasked for a different purpose. Fourth, if Trump or his cohorts are found the have colluded with the Russians, in order to win the election, that, to me, is the more pertinent issue.

1. A source is a source. They are providing documents/intelligence. They aren't spinning them. They didn't create them and their opinion about them doesn't matter, so if they are right or left doesn't matter.  

2. Unmasking a citizen is a FELONY.  This isn't an interpretation. It's a fact. Just like Hillary lying about a video. That's a fact.

3. Surveillance of American citizens is illegal without a warrant. Reverse surveillance is a felony. Where are the warrants? Produce the FISA warrants.  There is almost no reason to EVER unmask someone unless it's for a criminal prosecution. These are very serious laws to protect citizens.  

4. Who's produced anything that proves Trump colluded with Russia? Clapper, Brennan and every serious Democrat in a leadership position said they didn't see any collusion.  HorseSchiff had to walk back his claim.. err his LIE.

Everyone everyone in Government said that the Russian's didn't effect the vote. Who didn't?   Leaking Podesta's emails caused Hillary to lose? Is that what you think?  Is that the bases for all of this.  Russia exposed Podesta's emails, and exposed the DNC colluding with the Hillary campaign and that's why she lost?  I'll tell the moments she lost. 1. When Trump said "you'd be in Jail" during the debate. 2. When she go chucked into the van.  Those where the two biggest things. It didn't help that she hid most of the time and failed to even campaign in some of the states she lost. Those are just a few of the small things, the first two KILLED her.  Everyone knew, Trump was right. She should be in jail, and that's she's frail as fuck. There is something seriously wrong with her health.  Maybe from the brain damage acquired when she fell. Likely Drunk.  
   
 There's four problems with the second issue. The first, who is the unnamed source who is saying the unmasking was done for political purposes. Which side of the aisle is this "congressional source"? Republican's were noted for their leaks regarding the Benghazi investigations, for political purposes. Second, whether it was done for political purposes is probably a matter of who is interpreting the action. Third, how could anything related to Trump, the Russians and the elections, not be a political matter, thus, making it easy to make the claim it was done for political purposes, when in reality the names were unmasked for a different purpose. Fourth, if Trump or his cohorts are found the have colluded with the Russians, in order to win the election, that, to me, is the more pertinent issue.