# Why did the FBI lie about Carter Page on the FISA warrent? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 13, 2018, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-fbi-lie-about-carter-page-on-the-fisa-warrent/819524 "2018-08-13T15:34:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2019, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-fbi-lie-about-carter-page-on-the-fisa-warrent/819524/181 "2019-12-12T16:30:28Z")
> [@EasyPhil](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2019, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-fbi-lie-about-carter-page-on-the-fisa-warrent/819524/182 "2019-12-12T17:21:09Z")
> [@EasyPhil](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![EasyPhil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@EasyPhil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EasyPhil)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2019, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-fbi-lie-about-carter-page-on-the-fisa-warrent/819524/183 "2019-12-12T18:16:39Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2019, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-fbi-lie-about-carter-page-on-the-fisa-warrent/819524/184 "2019-12-12T18:37:09Z")
> [@EasyPhil](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2019, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-fbi-lie-about-carter-page-on-the-fisa-warrent/819524/185 "2019-12-12T19:03:22Z")
> [@EasyPhil](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2019, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-fbi-lie-about-carter-page-on-the-fisa-warrent/819524/186 "2019-12-12T20:26:45Z")
For the record, the relevant portion of the document starts on page 248. > [@](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > 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: > [@](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2019, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-fbi-lie-about-carter-page-on-the-fisa-warrent/819524/187 "2019-12-12T21:29:30Z")
I want to thank **Sage Rat** for his efforts here - they are clear and concise and easy to parse - which is very helpful. ---
**Author:** ![EasyPhil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@EasyPhil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EasyPhil)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2019, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-fbi-lie-about-carter-page-on-the-fisa-warrent/819524/188 "2019-12-12T22:06:32Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > 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: > [@](#): > > 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). > [@](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2019, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-fbi-lie-about-carter-page-on-the-fisa-warrent/819524/189 "2019-12-12T23:21:12Z")
> [@EasyPhil](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-fbi-lie-about-carter-page-on-the-fisa-warrent/819524/190 "2019-12-13T00:06:53Z")
> [@EasyPhil](#): > > Carter Page was an operational contact for the CIA. He’s also got a “PhD.” Doesn’t make him learned. ---
**Author:** ![CaptMurdock](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/captmurdock/32/11736_2.png) [@CaptMurdock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaptMurdock)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-fbi-lie-about-carter-page-on-the-fisa-warrent/819524/191 "2019-12-13T00:52:23Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Yes it is. Now, stop that, before I buy you “Getting Hit On The Head” Lessons for Christmas. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-fbi-lie-about-carter-page-on-the-fisa-warrent/819524/192 "2019-12-13T02:23:05Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![EasyPhil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@EasyPhil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EasyPhil)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-fbi-lie-about-carter-page-on-the-fisa-warrent/819524/193 "2019-12-13T19:12:22Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-fbi-lie-about-carter-page-on-the-fisa-warrent/819524/194 "2019-12-13T19:29:45Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![EasyPhil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@EasyPhil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EasyPhil)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-fbi-lie-about-carter-page-on-the-fisa-warrent/819524/195 "2019-12-13T19:30:17Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![EasyPhil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@EasyPhil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EasyPhil)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-fbi-lie-about-carter-page-on-the-fisa-warrent/819524/196 "2019-12-13T19:32:00Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-fbi-lie-about-carter-page-on-the-fisa-warrent/819524/197 "2019-12-13T19:50:44Z")
> [@EasyPhil](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![EasyPhil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@EasyPhil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EasyPhil)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-fbi-lie-about-carter-page-on-the-fisa-warrent/819524/198 "2019-12-13T19:59:22Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-fbi-lie-about-carter-page-on-the-fisa-warrent/819524/199 "2019-12-13T20:01:20Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-fbi-lie-about-carter-page-on-the-fisa-warrent/819524/200 "2019-12-13T20:02:53Z")
> [@EasyPhil](#): > > 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? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-fbi-lie-about-carter-page-on-the-fisa-warrent/819524.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-fbi-lie-about-carter-page-on-the-fisa-warrent/819524.md?page=11)