Steve Bannon.

[hollodero]

(04-12-2017, 08:03 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The Trump administration is accusing her of wrongdoing which the underlying reason she was even interviewed about this.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/04/susan-rice-denies-leaking-trump-associate-intel-defends-unmasking-requests.amp.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thinkprogress.org/amp/p/7394822d74d3


https://www.google.com/amp/s/thinkprogress.org/amp/p/1a72785b100e

Well, again, I wasn't talking about any of these things. The underlying reasons of team Trump don't factor into what I actually said. I never fell into these lines of talking, I never said she leaked or committed a crime and whatnot. That Trump and the statements coming out of his surroudings are almost exclusively lies and BS doesn't need to be argued with me.

(04-12-2017, 08:03 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: No one's identity was disclosed until the Trump administration disclosed identities by leaking this story in an attempt to back up Trump's false wire tapping claim.

We could argue again about the word "disclosed", but I'm kinda fed up doing that. You read the word and hence the question differently than I do. OK.

(04-12-2017, 08:03 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If she admits she is aware of unmasking of US citizens talking to Russian agents or states "I can't talk about that," what else does that confirm?

It confirms to the Russians their conversations are being monitored.  Which they should know already, right?  Kinda like Hillary and the Democrats should have known not to use unsecure email. But, there is the potential it could compromise ongoing intelligence operations.

I... don't even get what you're saying here. You seem to argue she maybe was untruthful (didn't choose the truthful options) out of national interest (not being compromising). Which, what do I know, might very well be - but it then would not contradict my point. Which is, to me it looks like she was untruthful.