Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 12-11-2019, 02:43 PM
EasyPhil is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYCNYUSA
Posts: 1,582
It is the CIA, Carter Page admits that. An FBI lawyer altered an email to bolster the LIE that Carter Page was a Russian Agent even though they knew better. I guess this is nothing because it's expected for law enforcement to lie to the court to obtain warrants.
__________________
Thinking in, out and around the box!
  #152  
Old 12-11-2019, 02:45 PM
EasyPhil is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYCNYUSA
Posts: 1,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
I wish it this board would let you quote the contents of a quote box. But thanks for posting that excerpt because I didn’t know everything. WOW. Page helped the FBI, but then he went and told some Russians all about it because he believed in “openness”. Thank God they had the sense to decide to keep an eye on him.

Phil, like it or not, the bar for opening an investigation in this country has always been extraordinarily low and the system works to keep it low. Because part of the decision-making process involves comparing the current suspicious behavior to past cases, to see if similar behavior by different people has warranted an investigation in the past. It’s called precedent, and there’s plenty of it here.

Apparently it’s actually quite common to investigate political, economic and other consultants if they make public statements that seem to be designed to advance the agenda of a foreign power for violation of the laws involving registering as an agent of a foreign government.

So there was actually precedent for investigating Page based on his public statements alone, even though in actuality they it had a lot more.

I’m not endorsing the practice, it actually was one if those things that most liberals hated back in the day before the world went crazy and Russia infiltrated our government.
The problem here is the FBI lied to get and renew a FISA warrant, multiple times. They altered documents and then submitted it to the FISC. Is this what you and others are defending?
__________________
Thinking in, out and around the box!
  #153  
Old 12-11-2019, 02:51 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
It is the CIA, Carter Page admits that. An FBI lawyer altered an email to bolster the LIE that Carter Page was a Russian Agent even though they knew better. I guess this is nothing because it's expected for law enforcement to lie to the court to obtain warrants.
It is unclear from the report what the CIA considered Page to be. My understanding is that he was an asset, known to run his mouth off.

No one ever said that Page was a Russian agent. The OGC lawyer edited the email to state that Page was not a Steele/Orbis style 3rd party intelligence source on retainer. While his understanding of what Page's actual relationship was to the CIA seems to be incorrect, that much seems to be true.

I don't believe that Page was ever paid money by the CIA. He is simply, as said, an idiot known to run his mouth off.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 12-11-2019 at 02:56 PM.
  #154  
Old 12-11-2019, 02:54 PM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
The problem here is the FBI lied to get and renew a FISA warrant, multiple times. They altered documents and then submitted it to the FISC. Is this what you and others are defending?
You might have an easier time convincing people if you cited your claims.
__________________
This can only end in tears.
  #155  
Old 12-11-2019, 03:04 PM
EasyPhil is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYCNYUSA
Posts: 1,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
You might have an easier time convincing people if you cited your claims.
It's all in the IG Report.
__________________
Thinking in, out and around the box!
  #156  
Old 12-11-2019, 03:05 PM
EasyPhil is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYCNYUSA
Posts: 1,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
It is unclear from the report what the CIA considered Page to be. My understanding is that he was an asset, known to run his mouth off.

No one ever said that Page was a Russian agent. The OGC lawyer edited the email to state that Page was not a Steele/Orbis style 3rd party intelligence source on retainer. While his understanding of what Page's actual relationship was to the CIA seems to be incorrect, that much seems to be true.

I don't believe that Page was ever paid money by the CIA. He is simply, as said, an idiot known to run his mouth off.
Wrong, in the FISA warrant that I posted a link to in the original post says specfically that Carter Page is a Russian Agent.
__________________
Thinking in, out and around the box!
  #157  
Old 12-11-2019, 03:38 PM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
It's all in the IG Report.
It may well be. But I'm not going to read ~400 pages to try and find evidence for you. Want me to believe the FBI made up stuff to get a warrant on Page? Show me.
__________________
This can only end in tears.
  #158  
Old 12-11-2019, 03:53 PM
ElderSign is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 243
Aaaand it turns out EasyPhil was on the right track and all of you piling on him are fountains of misinformation.

I started to believe you guys until I heard it from the Michael Horowitz himself today at the Senate hearing.

Remind me never to believe you guys again.
  #159  
Old 12-11-2019, 03:58 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 3,178
This is what I heard today:

"First off, Russian interference: "Does anything in your report call into question the finding in the special counsel's report that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in a sweeping and systematic fashion?" she asked. "No, it doesn't," Horowitz answered, adding that his report cites the Mueller report and others that have all outlined that interference. The follow-up from Klobuchar: "Does anything in your report call into question Chairman Burr's statement that, quote, Russia is waging an information warfare campaign against the U.S. that didn’t start and didn’t end with the 2016 election?" His answer, "No, it doesn't."

What about the Mueller report finding that "quote, the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome?" Horowitz said, "We don't take issue with any part of the special counsel's report, no."

Then, in rapid-fire back-and-forth, she asked if he had "any evidence that political bias or other improper consideration affected the FBI's decision to open the investigation into" a series of players:

George Papadopoulos. "No, we don't."

Paul Manafort? "No, we don't."

Michael Flynn? "We did not"

Carter Page? "No documentary or testimonial evidence or other evidence."

"Did your report uncover systematic political bias at the FBI?" she asked. Horowitz responded, "As to what we looked at in the openings, we did not find documentary testimonial evidence to support a finding of bias.""
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #160  
Old 12-11-2019, 04:43 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElderSign View Post
Remind me never to believe you guys again.
Do you believe William Barr? I mean, this IG report is like a rock-solid case closed nail in the coffin any day that ends in a Y sort of proof that he lied to Congress about the DoJ "spying" on the Trump campaign.
  #161  
Old 12-11-2019, 04:47 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
Wrong, in the FISA warrant that I posted a link to in the original post says specfically that Carter Page is a Russian Agent.
You are correct.

To correct my statement, the OGC Lawyer did not write that Page is a Russian agent in the problematic email.

And, Carter Page is a Russian agent.
  #162  
Old 12-11-2019, 04:55 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
It's all in the IG Report.
You have referenced one statement in the warrant which bore out in the text.

You have referenced two identifiable statements in the report, neither of which matched what was written.

That is a 33% success rate, which is not particularly high.
  #163  
Old 12-11-2019, 05:05 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElderSign View Post
I started to believe you guys until I heard it from the Michael Horowitz himself today at the Senate hearing.
Is this a joke?

If not, can you provide a quote from Horowitz that is even in the ballpark of what you're saying here?
  #164  
Old 12-11-2019, 06:22 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 3,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElderSign View Post
Aaaand it turns out EasyPhil was on the right track and all of you piling on him are fountains of misinformation.

I started to believe you guys until I heard it from the Michael Horowitz himself today at the Senate hearing.

Remind me never to believe you guys again.
Who are you again?


Can I get an answer to my earlier question: Is this assertion that the FBI planted Carter Page to spy on the Trump campaign?

Otherwise, how does the fact that he had previously worked with the CIA to provide info about his contacts with Russian intelligence lessen the basis for the warrant? I mean, if he's considered a CIA contact because of such associations, and then he ends up as an advisor on Trump's team, doesn't that suggest a reason for the FBI to be highly concerned about Russian involvement with Trump?
  #165  
Old 12-11-2019, 06:32 PM
EasyPhil is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYCNYUSA
Posts: 1,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Do you believe William Barr? I mean, this IG report is like a rock-solid case closed nail in the coffin any day that ends in a Y sort of proof that he lied to Congress about the DoJ "spying" on the Trump campaign.
This is irrelevant. The FBI lied about Carter Page, that's what this thread is about. You want to talk about whether or not people believe Barr, create your own thread.
__________________
Thinking in, out and around the box!
  #166  
Old 12-11-2019, 06:33 PM
EasyPhil is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYCNYUSA
Posts: 1,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
Who are you again?


Can I get an answer to my earlier question: Is this assertion that the FBI planted Carter Page to spy on the Trump campaign?

Otherwise, how does the fact that he had previously worked with the CIA to provide info about his contacts with Russian intelligence lessen the basis for the warrant? I mean, if he's considered a CIA contact because of such associations, and then he ends up as an advisor on Trump's team, doesn't that suggest a reason for the FBI to be highly concerned about Russian involvement with Trump?
I'm arguing that the FBI lied about Carter Page being a Russian Agent, he is not.
__________________
Thinking in, out and around the box!
  #167  
Old 12-11-2019, 06:51 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
I'm arguing that the FBI lied about Carter Page being a Russian Agent, he is not.
This is not an accurate reflection of the IG report. You are arguing poorly.
  #168  
Old 12-11-2019, 06:51 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
I'm arguing that the FBI lied about Carter Page being a Russian Agent, he is not.
He is.

Quote:
(b)“Agent of a foreign power” means (2) any person who (E) knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1801
  #169  
Old 12-11-2019, 07:00 PM
EasyPhil is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYCNYUSA
Posts: 1,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
This is not an accurate reflection of the IG report. You are arguing poorly.
In your mind what is an actual reflection of the IG report with regards to Carter Page and the FISA warrants?
__________________
Thinking in, out and around the box!
  #170  
Old 12-11-2019, 07:02 PM
EasyPhil is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYCNYUSA
Posts: 1,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Not according to the IG Report.
__________________
Thinking in, out and around the box!
  #171  
Old 12-11-2019, 07:04 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
Not according to the IG Report.
So this quote is not from the report?

Quote:
The FBI's NYFO CI squad supervisor (NYFO CI Supervisor) told us she believed she should have opened a counterintelligence case on Carter Page prior to March 2, 2016 based on his continued contacts with Russian intelligence officers
  #172  
Old 12-11-2019, 09:01 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 3,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
I'm arguing that the FBI lied about Carter Page being a Russian Agent, he is not.
So what was his relationship with Russia? Is it your belief that he had never been there, never spoke with Russian people, and never had anything to say about Russia? Or is your claim that he had a relationship with Russia, but since he wasn’t “working for” Russia, that relationship is irrelevant?

I mean, you are making a claim that he was wrongly identified as a Russian agent. So, what of it? If the FBI had said that he was six feet tall, but he’s really 5’10”, would that be worth examination?

What does this apparent lie that you’ve identified mean? I thought you took it to mean that he was a CIA agent sent to spy on Trump, but you don’t seem to want to subscribe to that idea. So help me out here with what you are trying to assert. Why, in your mind, was the FBI lying about Page?
  #173  
Old 12-11-2019, 09:20 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
I'm arguing that the FBI lied about Carter Page being a Russian Agent, he is not.
Serious question: let's say someone joins the mafia, but then becomes an informant for the FBI. Do you consider them no longer a member of the mafia as of that moment?
  #174  
Old 12-11-2019, 09:51 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,406
Let's make some definitions clear since the report is discussing legal and procedural points not lay-understandings of things.

The technical definition of a foreign agent, as given a few posts back, it needs to be pointed out, does not require that the individual have done anything like swear fealty to the foreign power, receive money from the foreign power, nor anything else of that nature. It is very broad. If you are aware that you are dealing with agents of the country and cooperate with them in their tasks, then you are also a foreign agent.

Carter Page publicly admits to being aware of his interactions with Russian and American Intelligence agents and cooperating with both. He is, by his own admission, an agent of Russia. Anything Steele might say and anything within the six redacted items of evidence that Horowitz presents as evidence of Page's Russian clandestine cooperation (page 201) are all just bonus and unnecessary, since the definition of "foreign agent" is so broad and because, again, Page does not contend the idea that he cooperates with Russian Intelligence.

Now, whereas the definition of a "foreign agent" is quite broad, the definition of a "Confidential Human Source" is relatively precise. It means a person who has signed a document agreeing to be an official source for the FBI, in return for money. Steele was a source for the FBI (until they severed the relationship). Despite cooperating with the FBI, as part of his plea deal, Michael Cohen is not. Despite answering the FBI's questions when asked, Carter Page is not.

For the purposes of FISA, the FBI is required to note if a person is a source for them or another agency of the Federal government.

The CIA does not have "confidential human sources". As such, this rule is problematic since it requires some translation. The CIA probably has things that are equivalent, for the purposes of FISA, to a "source" as the FBI understands it.

Carter Page is not in that bucket, though. While he has cooperated, knowingly, with the CIA and the FBI, he is not a source for either one. He has not signed a contract with either one. He has received no money from either one.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 12-11-2019 at 09:52 PM.
  #175  
Old 12-12-2019, 04:52 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,406
Looking back at pages 1 and 2, it seems clear that a fair number of posters have failed to make any reasonable arguments against Phil's points.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
The FBI in their FISA warrent asserts that Carter Page is "a U.S. person, and an agent of a foreign power...". This is a lie because in 2013 Carter Page assisted the FBI in their case against a Russian spy ring resulting in the conviction of Evgeny Buryakov.
That is an excessive leap of logic.

Consider, as example, that Charles murders five children. He is arrested and put into a jail cell with another man, Ted. Ted is annoying as all hell, talking incessantly. Among things that he talks about, he admits to having committed the crimes that he was arrested for. Charles decides, hating Ted and wanting to reduce his sentence, that he will tell the police about Ted's admission to having committed those crimes.

Is it reasonable to say that Charles did not murder five children? After all, he helped the police to catch Ted.... No, that would be ludicrous.

Let's assume that we don't know the backstory about Charles and Ted. All we are given is a brief summary like, "Charles murdered 5 children. Charles aided in convicting Ted." Is it reasonable, from those two sentences, to assume that the second sentence proves that the first sentence was a lie? Again, no, that would be ludicrous.

My assumption is that your logic is that if Page is an "agent" of Russia, then he would never help to prosecute agents of Russia.

That is, as said, a giant leap. I respect that it makes sense from a certain viewpoint, but it ignores a swathe of alternate potential - including ones that are directly pointed to in, at least, the Horowitz report and quite plausibly would have been mentioned in the redacted portions of pages 10-14, given that the text there should be discussing the 2013 case and the leadup to it, and it would be strange to think that Horowitz's version would present a wildly different viewpoint.

Ignoring the information from Horowitz, I can envision cases like:

1) Page hated those individuals, even if he was otherwise friendly to Russia.
2) Page was given orders, by Russia, to play friendly with the FBI in the hopes of dispelling focus from him, so that he could continue to serve as an agent of Russia.
3) People are stupid and often give away the game, when in an interview with LEOs.
4) Page had a choice between going to jail with his Russian handlers or staying out of jail, and chose the latter.
5) Page simply likes playing spy and will work with anyone willing to involve him in anything clandestine, regardless of side.
6) Page is a double-agent (at least, in his own view).
7) Etc.

With Horowitz's information and more general background info on Page, we can narrow in on items like #3, #4, and #5. According to Page, he believes in cooperating with everyone on everything. Possibly that's true. Just as likely, that's a ruse, and really he just gave everything away when the Feds picked him up because he's an idiot and doesn't want to admit it. But, also, it could simply be that they had wiretaps of Male-1 that were reasonably damning and Page was looking at perjury, if he chose to deny the conversations, or freedom if he was willing to testify that he said what they had on tape and would play in court, with or without him.

Quote:
The FBI knew that Carter Page wasn't an agent of a foreign power.
Page has openly admitted to cooperating with foreign intelligence and to being aware that they are foreign intelligence. That is, by the definition of a "foreign agent" that the warrant specifically references, sufficient to make the appellation.

That definition might well be so broad that you could drive a monster truck through it - I'm not saying that it is a reasonable standard - but it is the legal standard and its definition is clearly referenced in the document.

Page may deny it, but his denial is not proof and particularly not if he's using a vernacular definition of "foreign agent" rather than the technical one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
We know Carter Page isn't acting as a "foreign agent" and so does the FBI. If he were he would have been arrested.
The term "foreign agent" as referenced in the warrant comes from the US code of law, yes, but it comes from a section of vocabulary.

It is not a crime to be a foreign agent.

Certain activities are illegal for foreign agents to perform, unless they properly register themselves and are honest about who they represent.

However, "criminality" is not just a question of what the law says, it's also a question of whether that person had criminal intent and whether that person could be prosecuted in a court of law.

Page has a form of implicit immunity in that he is crazy. In a court of law, being looked at by 12 reasonable people, it would be difficult to convince all of them that Page understood his actions and their ramifications in any meaningful way, such that it would be worthwhile to convict him.

You might make an argument that Page had criminal intent, mixing business and politics, but that would be overshadowed by - as said - the clear reality that the man is a loonball.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
From the Mueller Report:

Quote:
...Russian intelligence officials had formed relationships with Page in 2008 and 2013 and Russian officials may have focused on Page in 2016 because of his affiliation with the Campaign. However, the investigation did not establish that Page coordinated with the Russian government in it efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.
I ask again, why did the FBI lie about Carter Page on the FISA warrant?
Again, that is an excessive leap of logic.

Let's say, for example, that Charles and Ted have discussed plans for murdering 5 children.

While drunk, Ted mentioned these plans to Rebecca. Rebecca was high and intoxicated at the time and came to the police only after a few weeks had passed, having decided that Ted was a creep after some months of being in a relationship together and ignoring his strange commentary - thinking that he just had a dark sense of humor - until it became clear that he was serious.

To be clear, Ted genuinely had that conversation with Charles and both of them were genuinely planning to murder some kids.

But, Rebecca's testimony is insufficient to establish that fact.

As all-knowing gods, we know that it's a fact. The police only know that Rebecca says that it's true, and they know that her testimony would not stand up in court since she might just be a spurned lover, since she was intoxicated at the time, etc.

I have not established that you, EasyPhil, are a living human being. You might be a zombie or a figment of my imagination or an AI. But if I write, honestly, "I have not established that EasyPhil is a human being." It is wildly unreasonable to read that statement to imply that I have proved that you are non-human.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 12-12-2019 at 04:53 AM.
  #176  
Old 12-12-2019, 08:27 AM
EasyPhil is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYCNYUSA
Posts: 1,582
Sage Rate, you don't know what the definition of "Foreign Power" is. Here's a cite for you:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1801

The FBI lied about Carter Page and falsified evidence. The IG Report and subsequent hearing makes this abundantly clear. No amount of word salad, twisting and bending on your part is going to change that fact.
__________________
Thinking in, out and around the box!
  #177  
Old 12-12-2019, 09:12 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,436
Oh, I see. Everyone in the world knows that Carter Page is a dolt, except for one guy who knows he's a superspy double agent. Great thing that this one guy posts on our little message board!
  #178  
Old 12-12-2019, 10:24 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
Sage Rate, you don't know what the definition of "Foreign Power" is. Here's a cite for you:
I'm pretty sure that I made no significant commentary on that term and that Russia counts as one. Are you arguing that Russia is not a foreign power?

If you mistyped and intended to say "foreign agent", then yes, that link goes to the correct definition which is the same one that I posted and which I was both comfortable to quote and to describe why it fits. One notes that you have made no explanation of how it does not fit and were afraid to quote it. You may as well have just said, "There is no Russia! Carter Page is innocent!"

Denial is not an argument.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 12-12-2019 at 10:27 AM.
  #179  
Old 12-12-2019, 10:26 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,860
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Denial is not an argument.
Yes it is.
  #180  
Old 12-12-2019, 11:30 AM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 3,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
The FBI lied about Carter Page and falsified evidence. The IG Report and subsequent hearing makes this abundantly clear. No amount of word salad, twisting and bending on your part is going to change that fact.
Your OP asked 'why' this happened, yet you stubbornly refuse to address your own question. Why is that?
  #181  
Old 12-12-2019, 12:21 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
No amount of word salad, twisting and bending on your part is going to change that fact.
Let me also note that if by "word salad" you mean that I was saying things that sounded like nonsense and then saying, "which would be ludicrous." Then yeah, those were ludicrous nonsense statements.

You might want to consider that those were statements that were written to reflect how far past reasonable assumptions it seems that you had jumped. If they come across to you as insanity and word salad then a) that was precisely the point, and b) you might want to be concerned about how you are coming across.
  #182  
Old 12-12-2019, 01:16 PM
EasyPhil is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYCNYUSA
Posts: 1,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Let me also note that if by "word salad" you mean that I was saying things that sounded like nonsense and then saying, "which would be ludicrous." Then yeah, those were ludicrous nonsense statements.

You might want to consider that those were statements that were written to reflect how far past reasonable assumptions it seems that you had jumped. If they come across to you as insanity and word salad then a) that was precisely the point, and b) you might want to be concerned about how you are coming across.
None of this changes the fact the FBI lied about Carter Page. If you have an argument to the contrary, present it.
__________________
Thinking in, out and around the box!
  #183  
Old 12-12-2019, 01:37 PM
Hamlet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Where the Wild Things Are
Posts: 14,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
None of this changes the fact the FBI lied about Carter Page. If you have an argument to the contrary, present it.
He has. Repeatedly.
  #184  
Old 12-12-2019, 02:03 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
None of this changes the fact the FBI lied about Carter Page. If you have an argument to the contrary, present it.
One OGC lawyer wrote that Carter Page is not a source for the CIA, doing such as an edit of someone else's email.

Carter Page is not a source for the CIA. He has no contract with them. He receives no money from them.

The one lawyer lied about what the CIA said, but that lie was also immaterial and didn't change the facts.

If I ask you, for example, if you are male and you write back, "It's none of your business." But, in talking with you further it was clear that you were in fact male and that there was no real dispute on that matter.

Now, if someone else asks me what gender you are, it would be fair for me to say that "EasyPhil is male." But it would be a lie for me to say, "EasyPhil told me that he was male." Factually, you only ever said to me that it was none of my business. But regardless of which of the two answers I gave, your maledom would remain true. My lie, in the second version, does not change your gender, it only changes your words.

The individual lawyer's action, putting words into the mouth of the CIA that they did not say was unethical. His personal belief that he had no duty to explain to the judge what the precise relationship of Page was to the CIA is, debatably, against protocol. He should, according to Horowitz, present all information of which he is aware to the judge. But, as far as I can tell in my read, he is only required to tell the judge if Page is a source of the CIA, where a "source" is a person who has a contract and receives compensation from the CIA for providing information, professionally.

Whether he had lied or not, Page would have stayed an agent of Russia (that was never a part of the one lawyer's email) and he would have remained not-a-source of the CIA. The lie made no material difference on the facts at discussion.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 12-12-2019 at 02:04 PM.
  #185  
Old 12-12-2019, 03:26 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,406
For the record, the relevant portion of the document starts on page 248.

Quote:
The OGC Attorney told us he recalled that the Supervisory Intel Analyst on the Crossfire Hurricane team had raised a concern that Page may have had a prior relationship with the other U.S. government agency in the past.393 The OGC Attorney said it was "a big, big concern from both 01 and from the FBI that we had been targeting [an individual with a prior relationship with the other agency], because that should never happen without us knowing about it." The OGC Attorney characterized the Crossfire Hurricane team as "spun up" about this concern, and said he knew that if it were true, they would "need to provide that to the court" because such information would "drastically change[] the way that we would handle ... [the] FISA application." SSA 2 told the OIG that this issue was very important to resolve, because if Page was being tasked by another agency, especially if he was being tasked to engage Russians, then it would absolutely be relevant for the Court to know ... [and] could also seriously impact the predication of our entire investigation which focused on [Page's] close and continuous contact with Russian/Russia-linked individuals.
Quote:
The Liaison also wrote that the U.S. government agency uses the [digraph] to show that the encrypted individual...is a [U.S. person]. We encrypt the [U.S. persons] when they provide reporting to us. My recollection is that Page was or is ... [digraph] but the [documents] will explain the details. If you need a formal definition for the FISA, please let me know and we'll work up some language and get it cleared for use.
Quote:
On June 19, 2017, the OGC Attorney and SSA 2 exchanged instant messages about Carter Page's past relationship with the other agency. 397 As described above, SSA 2 would be the affiant on Renewal Application No. 3 and was seeking a definitiv·e answer as to whether Page had a prior relationship with the other agency. The relevant portions of the instant message exchange were as follows: 15:26:35, SSA 2: "Do we have any update on the [agency] CHS request? Also, [Case Agent 6] said [01 Attorney] is not so optimistic." 15:27:53, OGC Attorney: "[agency] CHS: You are referring to [Carter Page]?" 15:28:01, SSA 2: "Yes." 15:28:05, OGC Attorney: "He is cleared." 15:28: 15, SSA 2: "Cleared to fly?" 15:28:16, OGC Attorney: "[digraph]=Masked USPER." 15:28:34, SSA 2: "So he was and the relationship officially ended?" 15:28:37, OGC Attorney: "So, essentially, the real...source was using [Carter Page] as a [Steele]-like subsource." 15:28:47, OGC Attorney: "[Carter Page] was never a source." 15:28:59, SSA 2: "You mean the [agency] officer?" 15:29: 19, OGC Attorney: "Right. Whomever generated the reporting from the [documents]." 15:29:45, OGC Attorney: "It was just liaison with [Carter Page] which resulted in reporting, eventually they closed it out as unhelpful." 15:30:39, OGC Attorney: "So, in discussing with [01 Attorney], he agreed we do not need to address it in the FISA." 15: 31: 16, OGC Attorney: "[01 Attorney] is always Eeyore in drafting these special FISA applications." 15:31:27, SSA 2: "So [Carter Page] was a [digraph] or [Carter Page] was a subsource of the [digraph]." 15:32:00, OGC Attorney: "It's [sic] sounds like a subsource of the [digraph]." 15:32:31, OGC Attorney: "And yes, [the other agency] confirmed explicitly he was never a source." 15:33:05, SSA 2: "Interesting." 15:33:21, OGC Attorney: "But like, interesting good, right?" 15:33:54, OGC Attorney: "I mean, at least we don't have to have a terrible footnote." 15:33:57, SSA 2: "Sure. Just interesting they say not a source. We thought otherwise based on the writing ... ! will re-read." 15:34:28, OGC Attorney: "At most, it's [the Supervisory Intel Analyst] being the CHS, and you talking to [the Supervisory Intel Analyst]." 15:34:54, SSA 2: "Got it. Thank you. Do we have that in writing." 15:35:19, OGC Attorney: "On TS. I'll forward/" We asked the OGC Attorney about this instant message exchange with SSA 2 in which he told SSA 2 that Carter Page was never a source. The OGC Attorney stated, "That was my, the impression that I was given, yes." We also asked why he told SSA 2 in the instant message exchange that the other U.S. government agency "confirmed explicitly that he was never a source." The OGC Attorney explained that his statement was just "shorthand" for the information provided by the other agency about Page and that he had no particular reason to use the word "explicitly." As to his comment about a "terrible footnote" in the instant messages, the OGC Attorney told us that he was referring to how "laborious" it would be to draft such a footnote for the FISA application, not that such a footnote might undermine or conflict with the overall narrative presented in the FISA applications. SSA 2 told us that the most important part of this interaction with the OGC Attorney was when the OGC Attorney told SSA 2 that the other agency had said "explicitly" that Page had never been a source. SSA 2 characterized that statement as "the confirmation that I need[ ed]." SSA 2 also said that he understood the OGC Attorney's comment about not having to draft a "terrible footnote" to mean that the team could avoid having to explain in Renewal Application No. 3 that they had "just now come to determine that [Page] was an asset of the [other agency] and probably being tasked to engage ... [with] Russians which is ... why we opened a case on him." SSA 2 said that he understood the 0GC Attorney to be saying that "the optic ... would be terrible" if the prior FISA applications were "dubious" in light of a relationship between Page and the other agency, and the FBI was only becoming aware of th~t relationship in the third renewal application and after Page's public statements.
Quote:
Immediately following the June 19 instant message exchange between the 0GC Attorney and SSA 2, SSA 2 received an email from the 0GC Attorney that appeared to be forwarding the Liaison's June 15 response email concerning Page's historical contact with the other U.S. government agency. However, the 0IG determined that this forwarded version of the Liaison's response email had been altered. Specifically, the words "and not a 'source"' had been inserted in the Liaison's June 15 response after the word "[digraph]." Thus, the Liaison's email was altered to read: "My recollection is that Page was or is and [sic] '[digraph]' and not a 'source' but the [documents] will explain the details." (Emphasis added). The OGC Attorney also did not include in the email sent to SSA 2 the initial email inquiry from the OGC Attorney to the Liaison about Page's status as a " [digraph] source. "398 In response to the June 19 email, SSA 2 asked the OGC Attorney if SSA 2 could send the email to the FBI agents working on the matter. The OGC Attorney responded: "Yes. I actually already did on Friday when [the 01 Attorney] said we're good to go. Sorry for not cc'ing you. "399 We asked the OGC Attorney about the alteration in the email he sent to SSA 2. He initially stated that he was not certain how the alteration occurred, but subsequently acknowledged that he made the change. He also stated it was consistent with his impression of the information that he had been provided by the Liaison.
Quote:
He told us that OI should have been made aware of any "internal debate" within the FBI about whether Page was a source for another U.S. government agency, because with the FISC there is no "defense counsel on the other side," and it is up to OI "to over tell the story."
Now, to be fair, the liaison contends that she made no descriptions like the OGC Counsel describes.

Quote:
When we asked the Liaison about the OGC Attorney's interpretation of the Liaison's email, the Liaison told us that her email stated just the opposite, namely that Page was a U.S. person who had provided direct reporting to the other U.S. government agency in the past. The Liaison also said that the reason she offered, in her email, to assist in providing language for the FISA application was because she was telling the OGC Attorney that, using the FBI's terminology, Page had been a source for the other agency. The Liaison also stated that she saw no basis for the OGC Attorney to have concluded, based on their communications and the August 17 Memorandum, that Page never had a direct relationship with the other agency. The Liaison also said that she did not recall having any telephone discussions with the OGC Attorney on this issue. She added that, even if she had, she did not think the OGC Attorney would have been able to draw any conclusions from such a conversation. The Liaison explained that she would not have had the documents in front of her at the time of any such conversation, and therefore would not have given the OGC Attorney a definitive answer. She emphasized the need to read the documents in order to accurately understand the relationship between Page and the other U.S. government agency.
Usually, we would prefer the OGC's version of events since there is contemporaneous documentation (the instant messages) stating that just such a conversation took place and that it contained that information. A later statement to the contrary, when asses are on the line, have a lower level of credence.

In this particular case, however, we know that the OGC Lawyer seems to have been open to cutting corners to save leg work and having to write up things he didn't want to write up. He may have manufactured the existence of the conversation in his messages.

But, for our purposes we can say that both he AND SSA 2 viewed there as being a difference between a person like Steele - a paid, on the books source - and a sub-source and that the latter did not need to be included.

Whether the Liaison says that there should have been a FISA note now, or not, clearly the principals believed that they only needed to include something if the source was on contract. And Page's status as a not-on-contract person is matched by Horowitz's footnote:

Quote:
394 The Liaison told the OIG that the other U.S. government agency uses a specific two-letter designation, or digraph, to describe a U.S. person who has been approved by the other agency for operational contact.
A digraph is simply a person that people are allowed to approach. It is not a person on contract.

It is possible that the OGC Lawyer did not have the discussion with the Liaison that he said he had and it's possible that he didn't read her attachments to determine what the correct answer was. And so it's possible that when he wrote that Page was not "a source" that he was not basing that on any real understanding of the matter.

In that worst case of all scenarios, he got lucky and ended up being correct. In the best case, he did have that conversation, correctly understood what he was told, and simply edited the one email to include a headline summary to spare others from having to read too much.

In either case, his insertion was correct, if we accept that a person who is less like Steele and more like a Steele subsource is not applicable to the inclusion guidelines that they were operating under.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 12-12-2019 at 03:29 PM.
  #186  
Old 12-12-2019, 04:29 PM
simster is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 11,458
I want to thank Sage Rat for his efforts here - they are clear and concise and easy to parse - which is very helpful.
  #187  
Old 12-12-2019, 05:06 PM
EasyPhil is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYCNYUSA
Posts: 1,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
One OGC lawyer wrote that Carter Page is not a source for the CIA, doing such as an edit of someone else's email.

Carter Page is not a source for the CIA. He has no contract with them. He receives no money from them.

The one lawyer lied about what the CIA said, but that lie was also immaterial and didn't change the facts.

If I ask you, for example, if you are male and you write back, "It's none of your business." But, in talking with you further it was clear that you were in fact male and that there was no real dispute on that matter.

Now, if someone else asks me what gender you are, it would be fair for me to say that "EasyPhil is male." But it would be a lie for me to say, "EasyPhil told me that he was male." Factually, you only ever said to me that it was none of my business. But regardless of which of the two answers I gave, your maledom would remain true. My lie, in the second version, does not change your gender, it only changes your words.

The individual lawyer's action, putting words into the mouth of the CIA that they did not say was unethical. His personal belief that he had no duty to explain to the judge what the precise relationship of Page was to the CIA is, debatably, against protocol. He should, according to Horowitz, present all information of which he is aware to the judge. But, as far as I can tell in my read, he is only required to tell the judge if Page is a source of the CIA, where a "source" is a person who has a contract and receives compensation from the CIA for providing information, professionally.

Whether he had lied or not, Page would have stayed an agent of Russia (that was never a part of the one lawyer's email) and he would have remained not-a-source of the CIA. The lie made no material difference on the facts at discussion.
Carter Page was an operational contact for the CIA.

From page 10 of the Report:

Quote:
The failure to provide accurate and complete information to the OI Attorney concerning Page's prior relationship with another U.S. government agency (item
1 above) was particularly concerning because the OI Attorney had specifically asked the case agent in late September 2016 whether Carter Page had a current or prior relationship with the other agency. In response to that inquiry, the case agent advised t he OI Attorney that Page's relationship was "dated" ( claiming it was when Page lived in Moscow in 2004-2007) and "outside scope." This representation, however, was contrary to information that the other agency had provided to the FBI in August 2016, which stated that Page was approved as an "operational contact" of the other agency from 2008 to 2013 (after Page had left
Moscow).
Quote:
Moreover, rather than being "outside scope," Page's status with the other agency overlapped in time with some of the interactions between Page and known Russian intelligence officers that were relied upon in the FISA applications to establish probable cause. Indeed, Page had provided information to the other agency about his past contacts with a Russian Intelligence Officer (Intelligence Officer 1), which were among the historical connections to Russian intelligence officers that the FBI relied upon in t he first FISA application
(and subsequent renewal applications). According to the information from the other agency, an employee of the other agency had assessed that Page "candidly
described his contact with" Intelligence Officer 1 to the other agency. Thus, the FBI relied upon Page's contacts with Intelligence Officer 1, among others, in support of its probable ca use statement in the FISA application, while failing to disclose to OI or the FISC that ( 1) Page had been approved as an operational contact by the other agency during a five-year period that overlapped with allegations in the FISA application, (2) Page had disclosed to the other agency contacts that he had with Intelligence Officer 1 and certain other individuals, and (3) the other agency's employee had given a positive assessment of Page's candor.
__________________
Thinking in, out and around the box!
  #188  
Old 12-12-2019, 06:21 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
Carter Page was an operational contact for the CIA.

From page 10 of the Report:
Yes, he was. You are correct. I said as much and quoted as much. You have just repeated exactly what I explained to you.

It doesn't mean what you think it means.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 12-12-2019 at 06:21 PM.
  #189  
Old 12-12-2019, 07:06 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
Carter Page was an operational contact for the CIA.
He’s also got a “PhD.” Doesn’t make him learned.
  #190  
Old 12-12-2019, 07:52 PM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 2,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Yes it is.
Now, stop that, before I buy you "Getting Hit On The Head" Lessons for Christmas.
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #191  
Old 12-12-2019, 09:23 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,406
To help understand the difference between a source and an operational contact, consider dating.

If you want to meet someone at a speed dating event, you have to be registered and approved to come to the event.

The women that you meet at the event are not your girlfriend. You're allowed to meet them and talk to them, but that is all.

Now if you hit it off, date, and end up tying the knot then, yes, you now have a formal and official relationship.

A wife and a "woman you are allowed to introduce yourself to" are two very different things.

Likewise, a contracted source is a very different thing from an operational contact. With the first, you have a formal and official relationship. With the latter, you're allowed to talk to them and introduce yourself as CIA, but they are no more a source than the woman you just met two minutes ago on your speed date session is your wife.
  #192  
Old 12-13-2019, 02:12 PM
EasyPhil is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYCNYUSA
Posts: 1,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
To help understand the difference between a source and an operational contact, consider dating.

If you want to meet someone at a speed dating event, you have to be registered and approved to come to the event.

The women that you meet at the event are not your girlfriend. You're allowed to meet them and talk to them, but that is all.

Now if you hit it off, date, and end up tying the knot then, yes, you now have a formal and official relationship.

A wife and a "woman you are allowed to introduce yourself to" are two very different things.

Likewise, a contracted source is a very different thing from an operational contact. With the first, you have a formal and official relationship. With the latter, you're allowed to talk to them and introduce yourself as CIA, but they are no more a source than the woman you just met two minutes ago on your speed date session is your wife.
You can come with all kinds of analogies but what you can't do is provide a cite where Carter Page is an agent of a foreign power and that foreign power being Russia. The IG Report is clear, why you want to cling to the notion that the FBI didn't lie and doctor evidence to support their false claim says a lot. I assume you're not a US Citizen because I'm sure most if not all US Citizens do not want a law enforcement apparatus that lies and doctors evidence especially not with a court where there is no adversarial system in place.
__________________
Thinking in, out and around the box!
  #193  
Old 12-13-2019, 02:29 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 3,178
The defense refusing to appear to defend itself is not the same as saying there is no adversarial system. Trump and his advisers could have testified at any time, but refused to do so, so that they can fool people like you into thinking that they were not allowed to defend themselves. You should be ashamed to have swallowed that bullshit so thoroughly.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #194  
Old 12-13-2019, 02:30 PM
EasyPhil is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYCNYUSA
Posts: 1,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Yes, he was. You are correct. I said as much and quoted as much. You have just repeated exactly what I explained to you.

It doesn't mean what you think it means.
Please provide a cite for what you know a CIA Operational Contact to be.
__________________
Thinking in, out and around the box!
  #195  
Old 12-13-2019, 02:32 PM
EasyPhil is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYCNYUSA
Posts: 1,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
The defense refusing to appear to defend itself is not the same as saying there is no adversarial system. Trump and his advisers could have testified at any time, but refused to do so, so that they can fool people like you into thinking that they were not allowed to defend themselves. You should be ashamed to have swallowed that bullshit so thoroughly.
We're not talking about Trump, we're talking about the FISC, please stay on topic.
__________________
Thinking in, out and around the box!
  #196  
Old 12-13-2019, 02:50 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 3,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
We're not talking about Trump, we're talking about the FISC, please stay on topic.
Yeah but the reason you are so het up about it is because you think this is somehow a silver bullet that will nullify everything bad that Trump has done. That somehow if you can remove this link in the investigative chain, then all if this goes away.

If that is not your point, then for God's sake, what is?
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes

Last edited by Airbeck; 12-13-2019 at 02:51 PM.
  #197  
Old 12-13-2019, 02:59 PM
EasyPhil is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYCNYUSA
Posts: 1,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Yeah but the reason you are so het up about it is because you think this is somehow a silver bullet that will nullify everything bad that Trump has done. That somehow if you can remove this link in the investigative chain, then all if this goes away.

If that is not your point, then for God's sake, what is?
Again, stay on the topic, we're not talking about Trump and this is certainly bigger than Trump.
__________________
Thinking in, out and around the box!
  #198  
Old 12-13-2019, 03:01 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 3,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Yeah but the reason you are so het up about it is because you think this is somehow a silver bullet that will nullify everything bad that Trump has done. That somehow if you can remove this link in the investigative chain, then all if this goes away.

If that is not your point, then for God's sake, what is?
I'm pretty sure his point is that the government is corrupt, therefore the executive in charge of the government cannot be corrupt.
  #199  
Old 12-13-2019, 03:02 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 3,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
Again, stay on the topic, we're not talking about Trump and this is certainly bigger than Trump.
It's only the subtext of the entire thread. It's the entire reason you are banging the drum on this so hard and so incessantly. Because you are trying to find a way to clear your hero and go after his enemies, which happens to be US law enforcement.

And no it's not. It's a nothingburger. Isn't that the term you guys always use?
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #200  
Old 12-13-2019, 03:03 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
We're not talking about Trump, we're talking about the FISC, please stay on topic.
Ok, let's stay on topic. WHY do you think the FBI "lied" (your words, not mine) about Carter Page? What, in your view, was the motivation?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:32 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017