04-12-2017, 12:30 PM
(04-12-2017, 12:11 PM)hollodero Wrote: OK, that's semantics, and you beat me to it, of course. But when asked about "were names disclosed", it seems quite clear that it's not about what the public learned, but which names were unmasked. For me it was clear, I thought about that word "disclosed" and reached that conclusion. To me, you seem to argue that "disclosed" equals "disclosed inappropriately to someone not authorized", and that is a whole other topic and not what the question seemed to be aimed at.
But you might be right as well. I will argue, however, that it's not overly unreasonable to argue that it was a lie. I myself don't care and don't think it matters in the bigger picture.
Politicians, criminals, and husbands lie about semantics all the time.
"Jim, were you at Kevin's house drinking?"
"No."
(In my head, I was at Bill's house drinking.)
I didn't lie because she asked me about Kevin's house, not Bill's.
In that conversation disclose equals leak. Did Rice leak names to the public. As far as we know, no. Did she ask to know redacted names, yes.
Again, if she knew the names were Trump's people there would be no need to ask for the name and thus no smoking gun for the Trump administration to leak publicly via Nunes to start an unmasking scandal. If the names aren't Trump's people and the info isn't handled inappropriately there's no scandal to take the heat off Trump's wire tap claim. Remember this is the info which made Trump feel "somewhat" vindicated about the wire tap claim despite the fact it literal doesn't support anything he claimed.
