I check Google News once or twice a day just to get a feel for the top headlines, and it feels as if Fox News headlines are getting more play than they used to. I could easily be wrong about that, it's not like I've been keeping a daily tally, but their headlines do tend to stand out because of topic and claims. The topic is frequently someone the president either likes or hates, and the claims are usually somewhat extravagant or overblown. Another frequent headline is something Hannity or Ingraham or Pirro or Carlson said.
So I thought I'd start a thread about Fox claims and predictions so that I have a record of them and can keep track of which ones prove true and which ones don't.
The story reports Ingrham saying, "We now know that 39 Obama aides submitted dozens of unmasking requests for calls that involved Flynn." This perpetuates the misperception that Flynn was targeted by Obama administration unmasking requests, when the reality is that the unmasking request is only made because the identity of the person is unknown. The unmasking request is made to find out who it is. A report refers to someone as "person-of-interest-1", and someone can make a request for the identify of "person-of-interest-1". Administrations make thousands of these requests every year.
The rest of the news article is incredibly thin gruel. Ingraham suspiciously wonders why no unmasking request for Flynn for the original FBI report on the Flynn phone call with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak was ever made, then after raising suspicions answers her own question by explaining that the report used Flynn's name, making an unmasking request totally unnecessary. Ingraham then goes on to cast suspicion on the FBI for using Flynn's actual name when this has already been explained as being because knowing Flynn's name and position were essential for understanding the report.
Ingraham states that Flynn was targetted by Comey's FBI.
She concludes by stating that Flynn had every right to talk to the Russian Ambassador. I'm no expert on that aspect of the law. Maybe he had that right as part of the incoming administration, maybe not, but I have a feeling that they don't have that right, at least not without giving the current administration some kind of heads up. There must be a strong desire that foreign governments not have two administrations to talk to independently in the days leading up to a transition from one administration to the next, and that that desire would be codified in law or regulation or at least in common practice.
But the key point is that Flynn wasn't charged with talking to the Russian Ambassador. He was charged with lying to the FBI about it, and he probably lied about it because it either wasn't legal or at least wasn't proper.
There are so many problems with this Fox report that it isn't even necessary to wait for the passage of time to assess it's truth or falsity. At minimum it's misleadingly intended to lend the impression that there was malfeasance on the part of Comey's FBI and the Obama administration in investigating Flynn.