04-12-2017, 01:36 PM
(04-12-2017, 12:55 PM)hollodero Wrote: 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.
She didn't deny surveillance of foreign nationals. She didn't deny incidental collection. She denied names were disclosed/leaked.
What is the intent of this scandal? To suggest Obama had Trump wire tapped during the election to lend support to Trump's false claim. That didn't work. So what happen next? They tried to make a case Trump was being illegally surveilled by the government after the election and the White House was leaking/disclosing/unmasking names. Rice asked to know the names of people talking to Russians in an intelligence report in her capacity as the National Security advisor. The scandal seeks to equate unmasking with leaking, with incidental surveillance with illegal surveillance, and government oversight with government over reach. Why? To cover Trump's ass. It's as simple as that. Cover Trump's ass.
