Steve Bannon.

[hollodero]

(04-12-2017, 12:30 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: 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.

I see the point. I read the question an additional five times now, and maybe your interpretation is right. But I still rather think it's not, given her clarification afterwards that can be read in Belsnickel's link. 

"But he said whatever he was referring to was a legal, lawful surveillance, and it was potentially incidental collection on American citizens. [...]" (No referrence to leaks.)

And if that is what she was talking about, she can't quite say "I know nothing about this" when asked "that he [Trump] and the people around him may have been caught up in surveillance of foreign individuals in that their identities may have been disclosed. Do you know anything about this?" - I don't see that "disclosed" automatically means "leaked" there, and nothing within the question or the response indicates it does. If she read the question with "leaked", wouldn't the answer be a different one? -- But whatever. My language skills are not sufficient to really determine that. I just argue that whoever says this is not truthful does have some ground to stand on and isn't just crazy.

I do fully acknowledge the whole glasshouse and stone situation surrounding the "other side" argueing this. I just try to keep it real and call a duck a duck, regardless of the duck's color.