Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 12-09-2019, 07:26 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
What's that got to do with the FBI lying about Carter Page? Please stay on topic.
No really, you’re saying a friend of the Trump family, Christopher Steele, fabricated things about Carter Page. It’s up to you to explain the motivation. You stay on topic: were Javanka setting up Carter Page? Because I don’t believe that.
  #102  
Old 12-09-2019, 08:12 PM
Hamlet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Where the Wild Things Are
Posts: 14,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
Read the IG report.
"We concluded that Priestap's exercise of discretion in opening the investigation was in compliance with Department and FBI policies, and we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced his decision."

"We also concluded that, under the AG Guidelines and the DIOG, the FBI had an authorized purpose when it opened Crossfire Hurricane to obtain information about, or protect against, a national security threat or federal crime, even though the investigation also had the potential to impact constitutionally protected activity. "

"We therefore concluded the FBI met the requirement in the AG Guidelines and the DIOG that Crossfire Hurricane be opened for an "authorized purpose," namely "to detect, obtain information about, or prevent or protect against federal crimes or threats to the national security or to collect foreign intelligence." We also determined that, although the investigation had the potential to impact constitutionally protected activity, the FBI's decision to open the investigation was permissible under both Department and FBI policies because there was a legitimate law enforcement purpose associated with the investigation."
  #103  
Old 12-09-2019, 08:53 PM
EasyPhil is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYCNYUSA
Posts: 1,582
What does any of that have to do with the FISA issues regarding Carter Page, Hamlet? The FBI withheld evidence and lied to the court to obtain the first warrant and the subsequent renewals.
__________________
Thinking in, out and around the box!

Last edited by EasyPhil; 12-09-2019 at 08:56 PM.
  #104  
Old 12-09-2019, 09:03 PM
Hamlet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Where the Wild Things Are
Posts: 14,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
What does any of that have to do with the FISA issues regarding Carter Page, Hamlet?
Sorry to rain on your parade; I just thought it important to deal with the "police misconduct means no crime happened" conclusion that so many people desperately want to reach.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil
The FBI withheld evidence and lied to the court to obtain the first warrant and the subsequent renewals.
Yep. The FBI screwed up, and its been referred for possible prosecution, and changes should, and likely will, be made. It's a shame that law enforcement occasionally acts over-zealously. I, for one, am glad you take such interest in curtailing the abuses of law enforcement, at least in cases when it tangentially effects a Republican.

Drawing the conclusion that the misconduct was politically motivated or somehow negates the entirety of the investigation or the Mueller investigation is, however, complete and utter bullshit. I'm sure that's not YOUR conclusion, but I think, in light of the responses from some members of the right, it needed to be said.

Last edited by Hamlet; 12-09-2019 at 09:04 PM.
  #105  
Old 12-09-2019, 09:13 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,592
Haven't read the report because the process of oversight has become tainted by political pressure. Horowitz, like Comey, seems like someone who prides himself on being a straight shooter, who tries to call balls and strikes but who has gotten sucked into the vortex of hyper-partisan politics. I get the very distinct feeling that Horowitz is hanging on, trying to thread a needle, trying to protect an important public institution from the relentless sledgehammer of political bias that the right wing is using against it -- and in the process, I think he assumes that he has to find a way to keep his critics at bay. So he tosses them a little bit of meat (i.e. FBI made numerous errors blah! blah! blah!) while dutifully protecting the valuable mission that these agents performed.

Were there technical errors in the execution of the FISA process? I'm guessing there were. A bigger problem is the power that the courts and congress have given presidential administrations and law enforcement agencies in the post-9/11 world, but Trump's henchmen aren't here to take back that power from law enforcement. They're not complaining that the FISA process needs to be reformed (it does); they're arguing that, FISA should be used to bust terrorists, not corrupt authoritarian presidents who want a leg up from foreign governments to win elections.
  #106  
Old 12-09-2019, 10:51 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,412
Based on pages 61 and 62 of the Horowitz report, I'm going to say that the answer to the OP is:

The CIA told the FBI something in confidence which made it apparent that Page needed to be investigated. But, unable to use this information on the record, they had to bolster the information with some stretched and possibly falsified materials.

That's illegal but, at the same time, justified and likely to be an accepted component and risk of the job working in counter-intelligence with the CIA. You probably go into it knowing that one day you're going to have to take the fall even though all you did was replace truthful and sufficient evidence that would satisfy FISC in all ways - but that you aren't allowed to use - with something you can use but that won't stand any deep scrutiny since it is a facade.
  #107  
Old 12-09-2019, 10:56 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,412
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I get the very distinct feeling that Horowitz is hanging on, trying to thread a needle, trying to protect an important public institution from the relentless sledgehammer of political bias that the right wing is using against it -- and in the process, I think he assumes that he has to find a way to keep his critics at bay. So he tosses them a little bit of meat (i.e. FBI made numerous errors blah! blah! blah!) while dutifully protecting the valuable mission that these agents performed.
Possibly, but I think that's ignoring a secondary aspect which is simply that Horowitz's entire job description is to find flaws and critique them.

It's like if you're a teacher, even when you write a 'B' at the top of someone's essay - which is a pretty good grade - everything else that you write in the essay beyond that once letter will be negative and critical. Telling people where they have gone wrong is what you're being paid to do.

To a great extent, the only positive IG report is an empty one.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 12-09-2019 at 10:57 PM.
  #108  
Old 12-09-2019, 11:20 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Since this thread is about what may have motivated the FBI to lie about Carter Page, this seems relevant:

Quote:
Originally Posted by U.S. Attorney John H. Durham
“I have the utmost respect for the mission of the Office of Inspector General and the comprehensive work that went into the report prepared by Mr. Horowitz and his staff. However, our investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department. Our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S. Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.”
  #109  
Old 12-09-2019, 11:24 PM
EasyPhil is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYCNYUSA
Posts: 1,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Based on pages 61 and 62 of the Horowitz report, I'm going to say that the answer to the OP is:

The CIA told the FBI something in confidence which made it apparent that Page needed to be investigated. But, unable to use this information on the record, they had to bolster the information with some stretched and possibly falsified materials.

That's illegal but, at the same time, justified and likely to be an accepted component and risk of the job working in counter-intelligence with the CIA. You probably go into it knowing that one day you're going to have to take the fall even though all you did was replace truthful and sufficient evidence that would satisfy FISC in all ways - but that you aren't allowed to use - with something you can use but that won't stand any deep scrutiny since it is a facade.
The FBI left of the fact that Carter Page was a CIA Operational Contact with a "Positive Assessment". The FBI knew he wasn't a Russian agent.
__________________
Thinking in, out and around the box!
  #110  
Old 12-09-2019, 11:26 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,412
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Since this thread is about what may have motivated the FBI to lie about Carter Page, this seems relevant:
Relevant, yes, but also not terribly convincing.

Let's say that I give you 100 FBI and CIA agents who are experts in Russian counter-intelligence and who neither gain nor lose anything based on the results of their output. Now let's put you up against me, a lone sleuth with no such expertise nor brute manpower. Further, I am being run by people who may be complicit in the crimes being investigated and all relying on information that they give me.

Whose results are more plausible?

Last edited by Sage Rat; 12-09-2019 at 11:28 PM.
  #111  
Old 12-09-2019, 11:29 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,412
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
The FBI left of the fact that Carter Page was a CIA Operational Contact with a "Positive Assessment". The FBI knew he wasn't a Russian agent.
Page number?
  #112  
Old 12-09-2019, 11:41 PM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Haven't read the report because the process of oversight has become tainted by political pressure. Horowitz, like Comey, seems like someone who prides himself on being a straight shooter, who tries to call balls and strikes but who has gotten sucked into the vortex of hyper-partisan politics. I get the very distinct feeling that Horowitz is hanging on, trying to thread a needle, trying to protect an important public institution from the relentless sledgehammer of political bias that the right wing is using against it -- and in the process, I think he assumes that he has to find a way to keep his critics at bay. So he tosses them a little bit of meat (i.e. FBI made numerous errors blah! blah! blah!) while dutifully protecting the valuable mission that these agents performed.

Were there technical errors in the execution of the FISA process? I'm guessing there were. A bigger problem is the power that the courts and congress have given presidential administrations and law enforcement agencies in the post-9/11 world, but Trump's henchmen aren't here to take back that power from law enforcement. They're not complaining that the FISA process needs to be reformed (it does); they're arguing that, FISA should be used to bust terrorists, not corrupt authoritarian presidents who want a leg up from foreign governments to win elections.
I’m sorry, Carter Page had a history of working with spies, in fact he was caught up in the government surveillance of some Russian spies a few years back. Apparently, like many Americans, he was chasing the money that could be made if he owned shares in a formerly state-owned Russian energy company and he tried to cultivate some “ins” by obtaining non-classified publicly available information for them.

Which, I believe, was not illegal. But it’s behavior that should merit extra scrutiny. I’m sure law enforcement was properly stunned when this character showed up on the a President’s foreign policy team, and they would have been justified in opening an investigation on that basis alone.

The bar for opening an initial inquiry is not very high. Political consultants are routinely investigated for foreign agent registration violations solely on the basis of op-ed pieces they publish. If they write editorials pushing the agenda of a foreign country, and they aren’t registered as an agent of that country, they will probably be investigated. That’s one of those “the way law enforcement has always worked” things. You don’t need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to start an investigation, you just need a reasonable suspicion.

It would’ve been negligent not to investigate Page, considering his history.
  #113  
Old 12-09-2019, 11:46 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,412
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
The FBI left of the fact that Carter Page was a CIA Operational Contact with a "Positive Assessment". The FBI knew he wasn't a Russian agent.
A search of the text revealed your reference.

Carter Page, for your reference, is a nut job. Unfortunately, his essay relating American treatment of Russia to African American slavery has been taken down, but here's a commentary that someone wrote on it:

https://www.the-american-interest.co...rter-gets-a-d/

The quote that you are half giving is that the CIA gave a positive assessment of Carter Page's candor (page ix).

Likewise, President Trump had a lot of candor when he posted this tweet:

https://mobile.twitter.com/realdonal...16887692234753

Surprisingly, nutjobs say stupid shit that they shouldn't because they're lost in their own little worlds.

That's good for people who want to keep track of what the nut jobs are busy at but it's not really a complement. And it's certainly not a voucher that you should take that person on and trust their actions without review nor concern.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 12-09-2019 at 11:50 PM.
  #114  
Old 12-09-2019, 11:50 PM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,638
Hey Ashai, I don’t know why I quoted you in post #112, I must’ve hit something by accident. I missed the edit window and couldn’t delete the quote.

So just know my comment was a general reply to the thread, not a reply to your post.
  #115  
Old 12-09-2019, 11:53 PM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
The FBI left of the fact that Carter Page was a CIA Operational Contact with a "Positive Assessment". The FBI knew he wasn't a Russian agent.
That means he worked with them AFTER HE GOT CAUGHT in order to stay on their good side. It doesn’t mean he wasn’t still a suspicious character.
  #116  
Old 12-09-2019, 11:57 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,412
From the report, for those who never went past the Cliff notes:

Quote:
NYFO CI agents believed that Carter Page was "passed" from Intelligence Officer 1 to a successor Russian intelligence officer {Intelligence Officer 2) in 2013 and that Page would continue to be introduced to other Russian intelligence officers in the future.181 In June 2013, NYFO CI agents interviewed Carter Page about these contacts. Page acknowledged meeting Intelligence Officer 2 following an introduction earlier in 2013. When agents intimated to Carter Page during the interview that Intelligence Officer 2 may be a Russian intelligence officer, specifically, an "SVR" officer, Page told them. he believed in "openness" and because he did not have access to classified information, his acquaintance with Intelligence · Officer 2 was a "positive" for him. In August 2013, NYFO CI agents again interviewed Page regarding his contacts with Intelligence Officer 2. Page acknowledged meeting with Intelligence Officer 2 since his June 2013 FBI interview. In January 2015, three Russian intelligence officers, including Intelligence Officer 2, were charged in a sealed complaint, and subsequently indicted, in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) for conspiring to act in the United States as unregistered agents of the Russian Federation.182 The indictment referenced Intelligence Officer 2's attempts to recruit "Male-1" as an asset for gathering intelligence on behalf of Russia. On March 2, 2016, the NYFO CI Agent and SDNY Assistant United States Attorneys interviewed Carter Page in preparation for the trial of one of the indicted Russian intelligence officers. During the interview, Page stated that he knew he was the person referred to as Male-1 in the indictment and further said that he had identified himself as Male-1 to a Russian Minister and various Russian officials at a United Nations event in "the spirit of openness." The NYFO CI Agent told us she returned to her office after the interview and discussed with her supervisor opening a counterintelligence case on Page based on his statement to Russian officials that he believed he was Male-1 in the indictment and his continued contact with Russian intelligence officers. 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; however, she said the squad was preparing for a big trial, and they did not focus on Pa.ge until he was interviewed again on March 2. She told us that after the March 2 interview, she called CD's Counterespionage Section at FBI Headquarters to determine whether Page had any security clearances and to ask for guidance as to what type of investigation to open on Page.183 On April 1, 2016, the NYFO CI Supervisor received an email from the Counterespionage Section advising her to o en a investigation on Page.
Mm, candor.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 12-09-2019 at 11:59 PM.
  #117  
Old 12-10-2019, 12:00 AM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,860
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
That means he worked with them AFTER HE GOT CAUGHT in order to stay on their good side. It doesn’t mean he wasn’t still a suspicious character.
A mobster that turns state's evidence isn't a mobster anymore, duh. And there's no way they could possibly keep doing mobster things. It's all right there.
  #118  
Old 12-10-2019, 12:45 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,412
Candor.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/id-e...ry?id=63669304

Clearly a sign of good and not criminal intentions.
  #119  
Old 12-10-2019, 08:35 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,475
Wray: The inspector general did not find political bias or improper motivations impacting the opening of the investigation or the decision to use certain investigative tools during the investigations.

Thomas: Including FISA?

Wray: Including FISA.
  #120  
Old 12-10-2019, 09:04 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Since this thread is about what may have motivated the FBI to lie about Carter Page, this seems relevant:
The report proves that Barr is a lying conspiracy theorist (since Barr said that the Trump campaign was "spied" on), so why should anyone trust the integrity of his hand-picked "investigator?"

Honestly, Barr's "investigations" into how the Trump campaign got treated poorly should have as much credibility into Trump's requested investigations into Hunter Biden.

If anything, Congress should look into why Barr lied to them, which is a bigger deal than when Clapper misled Congress.
  #121  
Old 12-10-2019, 09:09 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,475
"When you read the report ... the headline is they didn't find the things that Bill Barr and Donald Trump alleged. They basically found there was not political bias ... it was proper to launch the investigation ... and proper to seek a warrant on Carter Page" - Chris Wallace (Fox News)
  #122  
Old 12-10-2019, 10:56 AM
EasyPhil is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYCNYUSA
Posts: 1,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
"When you read the report ... the headline is they didn't find the things that Bill Barr and Donald Trump alleged. They basically found there was not political bias ... it was proper to launch the investigation ... and proper to seek a warrant on Carter Page" - Chris Wallace (Fox News)
Here's what John Durham had to say and he's currently doing an investigation into all of this unlike Chris Wallace.

Quote:
I have the utmost respect for the mission of the Office of Inspector General and the comprehensive work that went into the report prepared by Mr. Horowitz and his staff. However, our investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department. Our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S. Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.
It's pretty clear that the FBI lied about Carter Page being a "Russian Agent", they knew that wasn't true all along.
__________________
Thinking in, out and around the box!

Last edited by EasyPhil; 12-10-2019 at 10:57 AM.
  #123  
Old 12-10-2019, 11:17 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,412
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
It's pretty clear that the FBI lied about Carter Page being a "Russian Agent", they knew that wasn't true all along.
Just like the CIA said that they approved of Page?
  #124  
Old 12-10-2019, 11:49 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
... They basically found there was not political bias ...
They didn't find any documentary or testimonial evidence of political bias among the documents they reviewed and the people they interviewed, which is not the same thing as what you wrote above.
  #125  
Old 12-10-2019, 11:50 AM
EasyPhil is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYCNYUSA
Posts: 1,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Just like the CIA said that they approved of Page?
The CIA sent an email to the FBI indicating that Page was a source and an FBI lawyer altered that email to claim that he wasn't and submitted it to the FISC.
__________________
Thinking in, out and around the box!

Last edited by EasyPhil; 12-10-2019 at 11:51 AM.
  #126  
Old 12-10-2019, 11:50 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
They didn't find any documentary or testimonial evidence of political bias among the documents they reviewed and the people they interviewed, which is not the same thing as what you wrote above.
Tell it to Chris Wallace.
  #127  
Old 12-10-2019, 11:54 AM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
They didn't find any documentary or testimonial evidence of political bias among the documents they reviewed and the people they interviewed, which is not the same thing as what you wrote above.
What other sort of evidence is there? Opinion "evidence"?
  #128  
Old 12-10-2019, 11:57 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
What other sort of evidence is there? Opinion "evidence"?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
  #129  
Old 12-10-2019, 11:59 AM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
In legal proceedings -- and I suspect in impeachment proceedings -- it is.
  #130  
Old 12-10-2019, 12:02 PM
EasyPhil is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYCNYUSA
Posts: 1,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
In legal proceedings -- and I suspect in impeachment proceedings -- it is.
This has nothing to do with the FBI lying about Carter Page, they knew he wasn't a Russian Agent they also knew that he was a CIA Asset.
__________________
Thinking in, out and around the box!
  #131  
Old 12-10-2019, 12:04 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
In legal proceedings -- and I suspect in impeachment proceedings -- it is.
No, it's different, which is why we have judges and juries that declare people "not guilty" instead of "innocent". 'We didn't find enough evidence to convict' is different than 'We basically found that a crime was not committed or that the accused did not do it'. I'm confident you'll fully understand this point right about the time that President Trump is acquitted by the Senate.

ETA: EasyPhil, apologies, you're right, this is a tangent, and I'll drop it.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 12-10-2019 at 12:05 PM.
  #132  
Old 12-10-2019, 12:12 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
This has nothing to do with the FBI lying about Carter Page, they knew he wasn't a Russian Agent they also knew that he was a CIA Asset.
Saying this over and over doesn't make it true.
  #133  
Old 12-10-2019, 12:15 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,412
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
The CIA sent an email to the FBI indicating that Page was a source and an FBI lawyer altered that email to claim that he wasn't and submitted it to the FISC.
Your average source is an incompetent drug addict criminal. If you tell me that someone is a source, than I am more liable to think that they're a shady sumbitch who needs to be investigated, not less liable.

You are, in essence, saying that the FBI made Carter Page look more innocent than he is, in their warrant.

I'm suggesting that they did so because the CIA asked them to keep this on the down low. Whether that is the reason or not, I don't know, but it fits more closely than the idea that they hid Carter's status because they didn't want to make the judge think that Carter was a loon who was known by the CIA to be traipsing around Russia talking to 3+ FSB agents and leaking everything anyone ever told him because he can't keep his mouth shut. If you told the judge that why, gosh, he'd just approve that warrant in two seconds flat and that would be too easy!
  #134  
Old 12-10-2019, 12:15 PM
EasyPhil is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYCNYUSA
Posts: 1,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
I’m sorry, Carter Page had a history of working with spies, in fact he was caught up in the government surveillance of some Russian spies a few years back. Apparently, like many Americans, he was chasing the money that could be made if he owned shares in a formerly state-owned Russian energy company and he tried to cultivate some “ins” by obtaining non-classified publicly available information for them.

Which, I believe, was not illegal. But it’s behavior that should merit extra scrutiny. I’m sure law enforcement was properly stunned when this character showed up on the a President’s foreign policy team, and they would have been justified in opening an investigation on that basis alone.

The bar for opening an initial inquiry is not very high. Political consultants are routinely investigated for foreign agent registration violations solely on the basis of op-ed pieces they publish. If they write editorials pushing the agenda of a foreign country, and they aren’t registered as an agent of that country, they will probably be investigated. That’s one of those “the way law enforcement has always worked” things. You don’t need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to start an investigation, you just need a reasonable suspicion.

It would’ve been negligent not to investigate Page, considering his history.
Carter Page has a history of working with the CIA and the FBI knew that, they also hid that information from the FISC.
__________________
Thinking in, out and around the box!
  #135  
Old 12-10-2019, 12:17 PM
EasyPhil is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYCNYUSA
Posts: 1,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Your average source is an incompetent drug addict criminal. If you tell me that someone is a source, than I am more liable to think that they're a shady sumbitch who needs to be investigated, not less liable.

You are, in essence, saying that the FBI made Carter Page look more innocent than he is, in their warrant.

I'm suggesting that they did so because the CIA asked them to keep this on the down low. Whether that is the reason or not, I don't know, but it fits more closely than the idea that they hid Carter's status because they didn't want to make the judge think that Carter was a loon who was known by the CIA to be traipsing around Russia talking to 3+ FSB agents and leaking everything anyone ever told him because he can't keep his mouth shut. If you told the judge that why, gosh, he'd just approve that warrant in two seconds flat and that would be too easy!
The CIA sent the FBI an email asserting that Carter Page was a source in good standing, the FBI altered that email and submitted that altered email to the FISC to renew the warrant.
__________________
Thinking in, out and around the box!
  #136  
Old 12-10-2019, 12:29 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,412
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
The CIA sent the FBI an email asserting that Carter Page was a source in good standing, the FBI altered that email and submitted that altered email to the FISC to renew the warrant.
Unless you see me denying that somewhere, I fail to see what you think you're gaining from repeating your original statement.

So to repeat my response:

Your average source is an incompetent drug addict criminal. If you tell me that someone is a source, than I am more liable to think that they're a shady sumbitch who needs to be investigated, not less liable.

You are, in essence, saying that the FBI made Carter Page look more innocent than he is, in their warrant.

I'm suggesting that they did so because the CIA asked them to keep this on the down low. Whether that is the reason or not, I don't know, but it fits more closely than the idea that they hid Carter's status because they didn't want to make the judge think that Carter was a loon who was known by the CIA to be traipsing around Russia talking to 3+ FSB agents and leaking everything anyone ever told him because he can't keep his mouth shut. If you told the judge that why, gosh, he'd just approve that warrant in two seconds flat and that would be too easy!
  #137  
Old 12-10-2019, 12:35 PM
EasyPhil is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYCNYUSA
Posts: 1,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
You are, in essence, saying that the FBI made Carter Page look more innocent than he is, in their warrant.
No, I'm not saying that at all.
__________________
Thinking in, out and around the box!
  #138  
Old 12-10-2019, 12:48 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,412
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
No, I'm not saying that at all.
I realize that you don't intend to be saying that, but it remains the case.

If I say that Roger gave me a good report on Charles, it matters that you note that Roger is a prison warden, that Charles is an inmate who murdered five children and abused their corpses, and that I was asking about his diet.

Summarizing is all well and fine so long as we're clear what we're actually talking about and being honest about what we should take away from the story.

That the CIA gave Page - a useful idiot, being run by the FSB - a positive review as someone who you can get info out of is not, under any reasonable understanding, a statement of support for innocence.
  #139  
Old 12-10-2019, 12:55 PM
Hamlet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Where the Wild Things Are
Posts: 14,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
Carter Page has a history of working with the CIA and the FBI knew that, they also hid that information from the FISC.
And? Do you have an actual point, or do you simply want to repeat yourself?

The investigation concluded there was no political bias and that, despite those improprieties by the FBI, there was more than enough evidence to warrant an investigation.

Repeating "The FBI screwed up" over and over and over isn't much of a "Great Debate". And it has very little actual import to the investigation itself, to the Mueller investigation, or to the President's repeated attempts to obstruct justice. It's akin to a police officer not reading a guy his Miranda rights (and not questioning him), and the guy claiming that means he can't be convicted of any crimes.

Last edited by Hamlet; 12-10-2019 at 12:56 PM.
  #140  
Old 12-10-2019, 12:56 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
That the CIA gave Page - a useful idiot, being run by the FSB - a positive review as someone who you can get info out of is not, under any reasonable understanding, a statement of support for innocence.
And, the fact that months after the FISA warrant was granted a lone FBI lawyer altered an email about Carter Page is not, under any reasonable understanding, evidence that the FBI lied about Page to get a FISA warrant.
  #141  
Old 12-10-2019, 01:49 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
No, it's different, which is why we have judges and juries that declare people "not guilty" instead of "innocent". 'We didn't find enough evidence to convict' is different than 'We basically found that a crime was not committed or that the accused did not do it'. I'm confident you'll fully understand this point right about the time that President Trump is acquitted by the Senate.

ETA: EasyPhil, apologies, you're right, this is a tangent, and I'll drop it.
I see. So your learned admonishment to me is to understand that in the law, there is such a thing as “not proved.” Meaning that sometimes guilty people go free due to a lack of evidence. That has certainly been my experience, too!

Sometimes that lack of evidence is due to a witness dying or being intimidated. Sometimes it is due to the destruction of germane documents or other records, such as recordings or transcripts. And sometimes that “lack of evidence” is due to people misunderstanding the actual evidence before them, willfully or otherwise.

In your example of Trump being “exonerated,” I would submit that something like the above will in fact occur!

So it seems we actually do agree, there is such a thing as “not proved” – which does not indicate innocence. And there is, as you say, no need to continue your hijack on the definition of evidence, that the absence of same, again, does not necessarily mean "innocent."

Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
This has nothing to do with the FBI lying about Carter Page, they knew he wasn't a Russian Agent they also knew that he was a CIA Asset.
I would clarify that I was simply seeking an understanding of the terms we are using regarding evidence – and it’s not something I brought up. I think it’s important that we do understand how people are using a particular term. Seeking a clarification is not a hijack, nor was I the person who brought Trump into the discussion.
  #142  
Old 12-10-2019, 03:30 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,412
I feel like it should also be pointed out that, however much the FBI might have whiffed on Page, he was not the only subject of the investigation.

Michael Flynn, as example, asked for his criminal sentencing to be delayed until after the Horowitz report was released, in the hopes and expectations that it would show improper predication for his arrest, falsification of evidence, or something else exonerating.

The report has now come out. Personally, I'm expecting Flynn to go to jail and any real look at who Flynn is, one might note, would make you strongly concerned about the intelligence and sanity of any person who would get along with the man and legitimately recommend him as National Security Advisor.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/18/polit...ets/index.html
  #143  
Old 12-10-2019, 06:37 PM
EasyPhil is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYCNYUSA
Posts: 1,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Is this an immutable law of nature? Something you just made up? Part of the agent of a foreign government code? I hear that's really more of just a guideline.

You haven't even established that he did assist the FBI much less shown what form the assistance took. That's kind of super relevant.
The IG Report makes it clear that the FBI omitted the fact that Page assisted the FBI and altered an email to show that he didn't assist the CIA.
__________________
Thinking in, out and around the box!
  #144  
Old 12-10-2019, 06:49 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
The IG Report makes it clear that the FBI omitted the fact that Page assisted the FBI and altered an email to show that he didn't assist the CIA.
Great. Then you'll have no problem showing what you claimed in that post I responded to over a year ago.
  #145  
Old 12-10-2019, 07:13 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,412
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
The IG Report makes it clear that the FBI omitted the fact that Page assisted the FBI and altered an email to show that he didn't assist the CIA.
Copy and paste is not a difficult procedure so, even if your point is not particularly meaningful in any practical sense, it does bear pointing out that everything you have said has been pure assertion with neither cites nor logic behind them.

You might want to consider the possibility that Fox News or whatever sources you use are not particularly honest and nor are they a reasonable substitute for having a brain.
  #146  
Old 12-10-2019, 07:16 PM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
From the report, for those who never went past the Cliff notes:



Mm, candor.
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.

Last edited by Ann Hedonia; 12-10-2019 at 07:18 PM.
  #147  
Old 12-10-2019, 08:03 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,412
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
I wish it this board would let you quote the contents of a quote box.
Quote:
Not an actual quote
Technically, you can. It just requires manual formatting.
  #148  
Old 12-10-2019, 09:28 PM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 23,295

The Moderator Speaks


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Copy and paste is not a difficult procedure so, even if your point is not particularly meaningful in any practical sense, it does bear pointing out that everything you have said has been pure assertion with neither cites nor logic behind them.

You might want to consider the possibility that Fox News or whatever sources you use are not particularly honest and nor are they a reasonable substitute for having a brain.
Let's just calm that down, Sage Rat.

That goes for everyone. Remember where you're posting and what the rules are.
  #149  
Old 12-10-2019, 10:16 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 3,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
Carter Page has a history of working with the CIA and the FBI knew that, they also hid that information from the FISC.
So what?

As has been said, warrants are intended to be granted. Investigations are meant to be pursued. The law is meant to facilitate, not hamper, law enforcement.

Your assertion seems to be that the FBI had additional reasons to believe that Page has connections to Russia than they had previously disclosed; is that it? Because his “working with the CIA” seemed to consist of disclosing his communications with Russian intelligence. With that as a foundation, no wonder the FBI had reason to be concerned when he appeared as a foreign policy advisor for Trump - “Has Russian Intelligence infiltrated Trump’s campaign?!”

In what way does your assertion of FBI knowledge argue against a warrant?

I’m truly trying to get it - do you think that the CIA or FBI planted Page as an aid (spy) in Trump’s campaign?
  #150  
Old 12-11-2019, 01:40 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,412
Reading up to page 267, I'd say that the primary moral of the story comes down to:

1) People hate reading.
2) People really hate writing.

It does seem to be the case that one OGC Attorney deliberately falsified a few words in an email response from the CIA* Liaison that he forwarded on to others. I think that's pretty clearly not kosher. But, even there, it seems likely that he did so because he felt like he'd determined that Page didn't count as a "friendly" and he couldn't be bothered to read nor write something more technically accurate and nuanced.

And, as it happens, the email that he edited and forwarded contained an attachment which contained a more precise description - but, no one ever read it.

Carter Page's applications all contained the same information, written with the same words, each go around not because there weren't pros and cons to append to it about the sources but because people felt like the balance of pros and cons all continued to be about the same level as they had been at first - just more specific - so why spend the time doing paperwork?

The report makes the point that, in FISA proceedings, no one is acting as the defense and so it's incumbent on the FBI to go above and beyond to tell the entire story, warts and all, for the judge to weigh in.

From a theoretical sense, that's all well and fine. In all practicality, though, that's basically a request for the FBI agents to learn to love taking on the career of a novelist and to give up their chosen profession as an investigator.

That doesn't work.

In the case of the OGC Attorney, it's fair to say that he did wrong. Even if we trust that he genuinely believed that Page didn't count as a compatriot of the CIA in any positive sense, he still made a clear attempt to misrepresent their response to him.

But, from everything else in the document, where people are asked, "Well, so, you learned this thing that might put X in a more positive/negative light. Why didn't you update the Page FISA application footnote?" It's a unanimous, "Yeah, ultimately, it just didn't feel like it moved the needle enough to be worth the hassle of writing up."

It's probably the case that by the fourth application, the needle had moved on Steele enough to warrant an update. But it is also the case that they seem to have had other material (redacted) to supplement the application, such that any added provisos in the Steele section wouldn't have fundamentally changed the overall merit of the application, on the balance. So, even there, there's an argument to be made that the needle hadn't really shifted.

Ultimately, I'd say that this is a somewhat crappy way to run a system that's supposed to protect the average citizen's basic rights to privacy. But, at the same time, it's a human effort and humans just aren't very good at some things and, at the current moment, they seem to be staying largely between the lines in terms of what they pursue, when they give up the pursuit, and how much of that they divulge to the public (so that the privacy violations never end up having any actual impact on anything). They're lazy, not evil.

But, of course, any shoddy system has poor protections against going bad.

* Technically, it's an assumption that we're talking about the CIA in all of this.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 12-11-2019 at 01:42 AM.
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 07:58 PM.

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