I fail to understand how a debate over the definition of broader does anything other than obscure where we disagree.
It is possible that Woodruff asked Susan Rice whether it’s possible that Trump’s team was subject to incidental collection, as you appear to contend. If so, that was a remarkably stupid question. Of course they were. It would make no sense at all for Susan Rice to say she knew nothing about that.
What is far more likely, because it is what was newsworthy, is that Woodruff referred either to Nunes remarks or mentioned the main thrust of his remarks, which was that Obama officials disseminated unmasked intelligence without a good reason. That actually makes sense as a question in this context, unlike the narrow question about the possibility of incidental collection. And it would make perfect sense for Rice to say she knew nothing about that, because it probably didn’t happen!
Your argument is that the latter scenario is somehow ruled out by Woodruff’s paraphrase. Even if I agreed, and I don’t, I still wouldn’t call her a liar and a weasel without knowing the question she was asked.
I disagree that it was a stupid question or that it was at all obvious that this had happened.
And the basic question were stupid and obvious as you suggest, then it makes Woodruff’s question even more of a faulty paraphrase, in that it completely omitted the entire thrust of the question and included only an obvious inanity.
We can’t just ignore what looks like it may be treasonous behavior on the part of the President, just because there are imminent issues like he has his tiny hands poised above the nuclear launch button. Really, this is a very big deal. If these suspicions turn out to be correct, it’s by far the biggest presidential scandal ever ever. It would made Watergate look like jaywalking. It’s worthy of a thorough investigation.
And on the bright side, if it turns out to be true, we can be rid of that incompetent buffoon (and then be under a more competent but more sinister buffoon).
Sorry – it was from memory. I humbly apologize if anyone felt deceived by it.
My question is still the same, though – I don’t see how that changes it, but I’ll repeat it without leaving it out:
You called her a liar and a weasel. You didn’t say “if this report is accurate, she’s a liar and a weasel, looks to me”, or “if my interpretation of this paraphrasing of the conversation is accurate, she’s a liar and a weasel, looks to me”.
So are you certain (or close) that she’s a “liar and a weasel, looks to me”, or are you much less confident? If you’re close to certain, why?
It looks to me that she’s a liar and a weasel. (A liar for what she said to PBS and a weasel for how she’s spinning it now.) The level of certainty that I have is what would be indicated by the phrase “it looks to me that she’s a liar and a weasel”.
It’s not completely out of the realm of possibility that she’s not a liar and weasel. But it looks to me that she is.
That’s a tautological answer – are you very certain, somewhat certain, or just leaning towards her being a liar and a weasel? “It looks to me” could mean any of those things.
Also, what was your opinion on Rice before this? Did you already think she’s a liar? Do you think it’s possible that preconceived notions about people working for Obama (or her in particular) might be affecting your opinion?
If I had to put a number on it I would say 90% certain. But that’s only to give an idea - obviously I couldn’t pinpoint it to that extent.
Prior to this the name was vaguely familiar. Now that I see some related reporting bringing up that she was involved in dissembling about Bengazi I remember that too, but I did not remember that at the time. (In general, I didn’t follow the Bengazi matter all that closely.)
The only alternative was that Flynn et. al had been the subjects of previously undisclosed FISA warrants. Which is why I pointed out in this very thread that Trump would try to claim victory because of incidental collection, long before Nunes was given these documents by the White House to make that very claim.
What was new here was not the existence of incidental collection, but that the unmasking was done by senior white house officials, and allegations that it was done without legitimate justification.
Not really. The thrust of the question was surely asking Rice to comment on Nunes’s allegations, the newsworthiness of which was almost entirely in his claims of widespread dissemination and lack of legitimate motive, since the fact of incidental collection was already widely assumed. I grant that if you read the paraphrase literally, she seems to be asking solely about the possibility of incidental collection. But that’s just not a reasonable way to interpret this particular text. It’s not a legal document. This isn’t a deposition transcript or technical instructions on how to build a rocket. It’s 3 seconds of a news hook that some intern probably wrote. Woodruff’s colloquial paraphrasing about “swept up in surveillance of foreigners,” and paraphrasing in general in this kind of context, just doesn’t have the precision you’re trying to assign to it.
Hey, I’ve got a wild and crazy idea, why don’t we have an investigation to determine what actually happened. We could subpeona Rice, and Nunes and whomever it was the Nunes talked to and put them all under oath, and get this all figured out.Of course being a central figure in this investigation Nunes would obviously have to recuse himself and there would have to be an actual investigation into why Trump et al. were swept up in a CIA investigation, so its much better to rely wild speculation from unnamed off the record sources.
Here’s the clipof the Rice interview; the question as actually phrased concluded with “…and that their identities may have been disclosed.” Her response was to this compound question that the earlier ‘transcript’ omitted.
Her negative response thus is entirely consistent with indicating that she had no knowledge of any disclosure of identities.
So this puts to rest the suggestions by RP in this thread that the question may have been about political motivations.
As for your new suggestion, I find it almost as far-fetched. You’re apparently interpreting identities being “disclosed” as being leaked to the public. This is a very dubious suggestion, as the question was certainly about the names being unmasked, not about leaks. If you read the transcripts of the Nunes press conferences he does not mention anything at all about leaks to the public but does repeatedly discuss the unmasking; there’s no doubt that the question - specifically referencing the Nunes allegations - was about this. It’s very unlikely that Rice was unfamiliar with what Nunes said in his press conference, since she goes on to discuss this very topic.
So the question was about the collection of data and unmasking of names, and Rice responded that she knew nothing about it, when not only did she know quite a lot about it but she was personally heavily involved.
Devin Nunes specifically accused Obama officials of leaking (not just unmasking) information, and it’s reasonable that “identities may have been disclosed” might have been referring to these accusations by Nunes.
I look forward to the fascinating debate about the distinction between “political motivation” and “widely disseminated . . . with little apparent foreign intelligence value.” I’m sure these brave efforts at hair-splitting will prove up the allegations of lying and weasel-behavior.
The Woodruff question made no reference to “political motivation” or “widely disseminated . . . with little apparent foreign intelligence value.” You have been carrying on at length in this thread with your suggestion that this may have been the focus of Woodruff’s question, and the actual video shows this speculation to have been incorrect.