On Jan. 12, 2017, The Washington Post ran a story about one of its opinion columnists revealing that the incoming national security adviser, Gen. Michael Flynn, had spoken repeatedly by phone to the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak.

TRUMP WEIGHS IN ON UNMASKING: 'GREATEST POLITICAL CRIME IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY'

Now, by itself, that wouldn't be much of a story. It is common for a president-elect and his staff to speak to their foreign counterparts before Inauguration Day. It's part of the transition to a new administration.

But The Washington Post suggested that what Michael Flynn had done could be criminal. Those phone calls, the columnist posited, might be a violation of the Logan Act, a Revolutionary War-era statute that is so obscure, not a single person has ever been convicted under it during the entire span of American history. So, it's a safe bet that nobody reading the paper that morning had ever heard of the Logan Act, much less understood what it actually says.

But it didn't matter. The Washington Post story spurred an instant scandal. Within hours, reporters were yelling about Flynn and Kislyak in the White House briefing room and that was the beginning of it all. Three full years of hysterics over Russia followed from there.

Lost in the noise and the gesticulating were several vital questions. How exactly did The Washington Post know who Mike Flynn was talking to on the phone? Where did the details of his conversation come from? And the Logan Act of 1799 -- who came up with that?

These are not small questions. Government agencies clearly had been spying on the incoming national security adviser. That is unethical and it's scary. It's a terrible precedent. Leaking details of those calls for political effect is a straightforward felony.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

During the Obama administration, several government employees went to prison for leaking. We've interviewed one of them on the show repeatedly. In the case of Mike Flynn, by contrast, no one has ever been punished. And we still don't know who did it, but we are getting warmer.

Earlier Wednesday, Senators Ron Johnson and Chuck Grassley released a list they received from Ric Grenell, the acting Director of National Intelligence. On Grenell's list is the name of every Obama administration official who requested that Mike Flynn's name be "unmasked" in secret documents. There are an awful lot of names here -- 39 names. Former Vice President Joe Biden is on the list. His name is last on the roster.

This is clearly a big story, but what exactly does it add up to? It's complex. So, here is some context for it. Every day, American intelligence agencies -- primarily the NSA, but also others -- collect massive amounts of data from around the world, emails and phone calls from foreign nationals they are interested in monitoring. This goes on and always has.

But often, the names of American citizens appear in these transcripts. By federal law, these names must be redacted from intel reports. They are Americans, they haven't done anything wrong. Unless they receive special warrants from a FISA court, the intel agencies are not allowed to spy on American citizens. It is illegal for the NSA or CIA. to spy on you if they don't have a FISA warrant.

This was a domestic spying operation. That's what it was. It was hidden under the pretext of national security.

So, if the administration officials really want to know the names of Americans caught up in these reports, they have to fill out a form and officially request what's called an "unmasking." As former National Security Adviser Susan Rice once explained, unmasking someone's name is something you only do when it's critical to our national security.

Susan Rice, former U.S. National Security Adviser: We can't be passive consumers of this information and not -- and do our jobs effectively to protect the American people.

Imagine if we saw something of great significance that involved Russia or China or anybody else interfering in our political process and we needed to understand the significance of that. For us not to try to understand it would be dereliction of duty.

So as Rice just told you, it's their duty to unmask the names of American citizens caught up in the surveillance when it protects the American people.

Now, news reports on Wednesday, needless to say, are suggesting that the unmasking names of American citizens and intel reports is no big deal -- it happens all the time. And in fact, now, it does happen quite frequently. It certainly did under Obama. But it didn't always, and by the way, if it was no big deal, the names wouldn't be redacted in the first place by law.

We spoke today to a former Intel officer who said that in his years working at CIA headquarters, he never one time requested an unmasking. So the question is, why did 39 separate Obama officials ask to unmask Mike Flynn's name?

Now, we can't know for certain until we see the forms they filled out. Every unmasking request requires a reason for the unmasking. You can't just get it; you have to explain why you want it.

When we see the forms they filled out, we will know the official pretext they gave. But for now, we know this: Every unmasking request is prompted by a separate intel report. That means there were an awful lot of intelligence reports being generated with Mike Flynn's name in them in the closing weeks of the Obama administration.

Why? Well, it's obvious what was going on. The Obama administration wanted to monitor Mike Flynn's private communications. Legally, they could not do that. They didn't have a FISA warrant, so instead, they used the NSA to do it for them. The NSA forwarded all surveillance reports that included Mike Flynn's name to the White House, where Mike Flynn's name was promptly unmasked.

It is clear that Michael Flynn did not commit a crime. Whatever you think of him, in this country you are punished for crimes, and he clearly didn't commit one. Obama administration officials, by contrast, did commit crimes -- felonies

This was a domestic spying operation. That's what it was. It was hidden under the pretext of national security. Once you see the details, that's very clear.

Plenty of the 39 people who saw Flynn's name, who unmasked it, had no reason to know his name. They were not national security officials. They were political hacks, and that's not an exaggeration.

On December 6, for example, the American ambassador to Italy, a guy called John Phillips, asked to unmask Mike Flynn's name. Phillips is not an intelligence officer. He is an Obama campaign donor who is married to a former Obama aide.

Why was Phillips party to spying on an American citizen? What could possibly be the justification for that? We don't know. We can only guess. The ambassadors to Russia and Turkey, by the way, also saw Mike Flynn's name.

Some in the press tonight are defending this, but they shouldn't be defending it. It is totally wrong. Samantha Power was the U.N. ambassador, but in real life, she was a political activist -- for decades. She requested to see Flynn's name, too. So did Denis McDonough, the White House chief of staff, and a seasoned political operative.

McDonough confirmed Mike Flynn's identity on the very same that his boss, Barack Obama, discussed Mike Flynn in the Oval Office with FBI Director Jim Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates. Maybe that's why Barack Obama's name is not on the unmasking list. He had his assistant do it for him.

Imagine if Donald Trump did this to his political enemies. That would be a legitimate reason to impeach him. We would not defend that on this show, that's for sure. It would be indefensible, and so is this.

More from Opinion

And then there's Joe Biden. Biden asked to uncover Mike Flynn's name on January 12. That was just a week -- eight days -- before Donald Trump took office. What official justification could Biden possibly have had for doing that? He must have given some reason. He had to.

Again, the official form requires it. Let's see that form. Until we do, we can only speculate about Biden's motives. It's hard to see a legitimate reason for doing this, especially so close to the end of the administration. Eight days.

Biden, for his part, is now claiming that he knew nothing at all about the Mike Flynn investigation. Watch this interview from ABC on Tuesday. Keep in mind, it took place before we received the unmasking list.

Joe Biden, 2020 presidential candidate and former vice president: I know nothing about those moves to investigate Michael Flynn, number one. Number two, this is all about diversion.

George Stephanopoulos, ABC News host: You say you didn't know anything about it, but you reported to being at a Jan. 5, 2017 meeting where you and the president were briefed on the FBI's plan to question Michael Flynn over those conversations he had with the Russian Ambassador Kislyak.

Biden: No, I thought you asked me whether or not I had anything to do with him being prosecuted.

Stephanopoulos: Okay.

Biden: I'm sorry. I was aware that there was -- that they had asked for an investigation. But that's all that I know about it, and I don't think anything else.

"That's all I know." But you asked to unmask his name from classified surveillance documents.

Now, if it was anyone but Joe Biden saying that, you'd have to conclude that's an obvious lie. On the face of it, we can prove it is. But because it is Joe Biden, it is possible he honestly doesn't remember that or what he had for breakfast.

But the rest of us should remember it. As the facts come in, it is clear that Michael Flynn did not commit a crime. Whatever you think of him, in this country you are punished for crimes, and he clearly didn't commit one.

Obama administration officials, by contrast, did commit crimes -- felonies. They spied on Mike Flynn. They passed his name around the White House like a joint at a party. They leaked his private conversations to Jeff Bezos's newspaper in order to destroy his life, and they succeeded.

These amoral creeps destroyed Michael Flynn's life and reputation and family. They should be punished for that and by the way, they may be punished.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

According to a knowledgeable source, a portion of the relevant information is missing from this latest document release. Now, that could be a sign that some evidence is now in the hands of a grand jury impaneled to consider charges against whoever did this.

We don't know that's true. We certainly hope it is.

Adapted from Tucker Carlson's monologue from "Tucker Carlson Tonight" on May 13, 2020.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM TUCKER CARLSON