# 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:** 13
**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 15, 2019, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-fbi-lie-about-carter-page-on-the-fisa-warrent/819524/241 "2019-12-15T19:30:01Z")
> [@EasyPhil](#): > > Stop misquoting me. I didn’t say “actively…”, you added that. Here’s what the IG Report says… While being asked questions by the FBI, he provided (answered) and told them about his connections with Russians. Do I have to go back over how “candor” is not exonerating? ---
**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 15, 2019, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-fbi-lie-about-carter-page-on-the-fisa-warrent/819524/242 "2019-12-15T19:41:38Z")
It occurs to me that one thing that might be holding you up is the idea that someone would admit to being a foreign agent. _One would never tell the CIA that, yes, I work with foreign intelligence officers. Yes, I am aware that they are foreign intelligence officers._ Unless that person was trying to be helpful to the CIA and was genuinely on their side. So, let’s point this out clearly: It is not a crime to be a foreign agent. Foreign agent is a _legal term_ not a crime. It _is_ a crime to _lie to the FBI_. Cooperation with the FBI and CIA under questioning is how you _stay out of jail_. Cooperating and answering their questions honestly is not the same thing as “being part of the team”. Being part of the team would be something like, as example, actively passing information to them. A person who only ever provides information, when run down, and only when asked questions that - if answered honestly - would not get you thrown into jail, is not a friendly. They are a person who is smart enough to know the law. Page is a loonbat. But he’s also a PhD. Crazy but not stupid. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2019, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-fbi-lie-about-carter-page-on-the-fisa-warrent/819524/243 "2019-12-15T19:45:26Z")
Eh PhD != not stupid. I’m sure everyone with one knows a few examples and is nodding their head here. ---
**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 15, 2019, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-fbi-lie-about-carter-page-on-the-fisa-warrent/819524/244 "2019-12-15T19:59:33Z")
> [@EasyPhil](#): > > You’re saying the FBI didn’t lie about Carter Page? Are you ever going to state your answer to the question in your thread? Why do you think the FBI went after Page? ---
**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 15, 2019, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-fbi-lie-about-carter-page-on-the-fisa-warrent/819524/245 "2019-12-15T20:34:08Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > Eh PhD != not stupid. I’m sure everyone with one knows a few examples and is nodding their head here. To be sure. As (again) it says in the video “being smart” and thinking that you’re going to buy yourself something by talking to the cops is a fool’s errand. As it ended up, Page talked himself into having a wiretap issued against him. If he had pleaded the 5th, rather than admit to being a foreign agent, the FBI would only have had the Steele Dossier and that likely wouldn’t have been enough to establish probable cause. And, I’ll note, there may well be a reason that the CIA likes Page. Let’s say, for example, that they want to know where Russian Agent 2 is hiding out. They know that Page knows and can prove it. They go to Page and ask him, “Where is Agent 2 hiding?” Page will answer honestly because it’s more important to him to stay out of jail than to protect Agent 2 or just because Page enjoys the game of seeing just how much information he can dangle in front of the CIA to establish his “honesty” while wasting their time and thinking that he’s not giving anything away (when, in fact, he is). To be sure, we might expect that just after Page tells them where Agent 2 is that he’ll send a signal to someone to warn Agent 2 to get moving. Agent 2 might still get away, because you used Page. But, minus him, you’d have no chance at all. But, under certain circumstances, Page’s “candor” and urge to show off might be as valuable as a friendly source. ---
**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 15, 2019, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-fbi-lie-about-carter-page-on-the-fisa-warrent/819524/246 "2019-12-15T21:03:40Z")
**EasyPhil** , think of it this way: I ask **Ravenman** , “Are you a _bastard_?” Ravenman replies back, “What? No. I resent the implication!” I ask, “Was your mother married to your blood father?” “Well…no.” “Did they ever live together?” “No…” “Is it not the case that the man who raised you adopted you as his son.” “Yes, that’s true.” “So, you’re a bastard.” “I do not accept that characterization. I will answer no more questions. Harumph!” So, now, likewise as I have said, Carter Page entirely and candidly admits by definition if not by “characterization” that he is a foreign agent. 1. He knows that he associates with Russian agents. He has been told that they are Russian agents. He is aware that some of them have been convicted in a court of law, here in the United States of America, as being foreign Intelligence agents. He continues to associate with these people, despite that. 2. He provides them with (non-classified) information that they ask him for. He does not do so under duress. They cannot convict him for lying to them. He does it, as far as we can tell, in an attempt to get business deals through them. Do you disagree with any of that? ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2019, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-fbi-lie-about-carter-page-on-the-fisa-warrent/819524/247 "2019-12-15T21:50:55Z")
Who the fuck is Carter Page and why should I care? ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2019, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-fbi-lie-about-carter-page-on-the-fisa-warrent/819524/248 "2019-12-16T00:14:42Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > What did the FBI lie about and, more importantly, what was their motive for doing so? Here’s a _Rolling Stone_ [article by Matt Taibbi](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/horowitz-report-steele-dossier-collusion-news-media-924944/) with pertinent information: > [@](#): > > Officials on the “Crossfire Hurricane” Trump-Russia investigators went to extraordinary, almost comical lengths to seek surveillance authority of figures like Trump aide Carter Page. In one episode, an FBI attorney inserted the words “not a source” in an email he’d received from another government agency. This disguised the fact that Page had been an informant for that agency, and had dutifully told the government in real time about being approached by Russian intelligence. The attorney then passed on the email to an FBI supervisory special agent, who signed a FISA warrant application on Page that held those Russian contacts against Page, without disclosing his informant role. So, an FBI attorney lied about Page’s actual history in order to obtain a FISA warrant that otherwise would likely not have been granted. > [@](#): > > … the Horowitz report show years of breathless headlines were wrong. Some key points: > The so-called “Steele dossier” was, actually, crucial to the FBI’s decision to seek secret surveillance of Page. > … > There’s no FISA warrant without Steele. > [@](#): > > Democrats are not going to want to hear this, since conventional wisdom says former House Intelligence chief Devin Nunes is a conspiratorial evildoer, but the Horowitz report ratifies the major claims of the infamous “Nunes memo.” > There was gnashing of teeth when Nunes first released his memo in January, 2018. The press universally crapped on his letter, with a Washington Post piece calling it a “joke” and a “sham.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi slammed Nunes for the release of a “bogus” document … > The report is especially hostile to Schiff’s claim that the FBI “provided additional information obtained through multiple independent sources that corroborated Steele’s reporting.” > In fact, far from confirming the Steele material, the FBI over time seems mainly to have uncovered more and more reasons to run screaming from Steele … So, Nunes was correct, while Pelosi & Schiff were badly wrong. > [@](#): > > I’ve written about how reporters used sleight of hand to get the Steele dossier into print without putting it through a vetting process. What Horowitz describes is worse: a story about bad journalism piled on bad journalism, balanced on a third layer of wrong reporting. > Steele in his “reports” embellished his sources’ quotes, played up nonexistent angles, invented attributions, and ignored inconsistencies. The FBI then transplanted this bad reporting in the form of a warrant application and an addendum to the Intelligence Assessment that included the Steele material, ignoring a new layer of inconsistencies and red flags its analysts uncovered in the review process. > Then, following a series of leaks, the news media essentially reported on the FBI’s wrong reporting of Steele’s wrong reporting. > [@](#): > > As a result, a “well-developed conspiracy” theory based on a report that Comey described as “salacious and unverified material that a responsible journalist wouldn’t report without corroborating,” became the driving news story in a superpower nation for two years. Yipes. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2019, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-fbi-lie-about-carter-page-on-the-fisa-warrent/819524/249 "2019-12-16T01:14:00Z")
Wow. Matt Taibbi doubles down on his bad take on Russian interference in the 2016 election. Whip di friggin’ ding dong. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2019, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-fbi-lie-about-carter-page-on-the-fisa-warrent/819524/250 "2019-12-16T01:33:14Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > Matt Taibbi doubles down … You dispute his evidence, or his inferences from it? ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2019, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-fbi-lie-about-carter-page-on-the-fisa-warrent/819524/251 "2019-12-16T01:35:28Z")
> [@Xema](#): > > You dispute his evidence, or his inferences from it? Yes. His inferences are dogshit. ---
**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 16, 2019, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-fbi-lie-about-carter-page-on-the-fisa-warrent/819524/252 "2019-12-16T02:30:30Z")
> [@Xema](#): > > Here’s a _Rolling Stone_ [article by Matt Taibbi](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/horowitz-report-steele-dossier-collusion-news-media-924944/) with pertinent information: It is correct that the FBI relied, at least in half, on the Steele Dossier for their wiretap request on Page, initially. Their later requests appear to have had more to back them, as Steele’s work started to prove more flimsy than they had expected, but it’s unclear how much the new information added to the matter, since the new stuff is all redacted. > [@200](#): > > Emails and other communications reflect that in the first week of surveillance on Carter Page \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_, following the granting of the first FISA application in October 2016, the Crossfire Hurricane team collected \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_· 354 Based on our review of the Woods Files and communications between the FBI and OI, we identified a few emails between Page and members of the Donald J. Trump for President Campaign concerning campaign related matters. Emails between Supervisory Special Agent 1 (SSA 1) and Case Agent 1 show that during the initial weeks of FISA surveillance, they discussed several \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ they believed were significant including references to \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. The analysts and agents who reviewed the FISA \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ prepared a packet \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ that they believed demonstrated Carter Page’s contacts with and references to Russia or Russian officials for 01 to consider for a renewal application. > [@200-201](#): > > Specifically, the elements that carried over from the first FISA application were: > > (1) The efforts of Russian Intelligence Services (RIS) to influence the > 2016 presidential election-the renewal application stated that > although the elections had concluded, the FBI believed that the > Russian government would continue efforts to use U.S. persons, such > as Carter Page, to covertly influence U.S. foreign policy and support > Russia’s perception management efforts; > (2) The Russian government’s attempted coordination with members > of the Trump campaign, which was based on the Friendly Foreign > Government (FFG) information concerning the offer or suggestion of > assistance from the Russians to someone associated with the Trump > campaign; > (3) Carter Page’s historical connections to Russia and RIS, which > included his business dealings with the Russian energy company > Gazprom, his relationships with known Russian intelligence officers, > and his disclosure to the FBI and a Russian Minister that he was Male- > 1 in an indictment against Russian intelligence officers; > (4) Carter Page’s alleged coordination with the Russian government in > 2016 U.S. presidential election activities, based on some of the > reporting from Steele; and > (5) Carter Page’s continued connections to Russian officials, based on > the FBI’s assessment of a consensually monitored October 17, 2016 > conversation between Page and an FBI CHS. 356 > > In addition, the recent investigative results section of the application included references to the following: > > • \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ > > * * * > > * * * > > * * * > > * * * > > • \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ > > * * * > > * * * > > * * * > > * * * > > • \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ > > * * * > > * * * > > * * * > > • \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ > > * * * > > \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Page > traveled \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ > \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ to Russia in December > 2016; > • \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ > > * * * > > * * * > > * * * > > \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_; > • \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ > > * * * > > * * * > > * * * > > * * * > > • In December 2016, Carter Page made statements to an FBI CHS > (summarized in Chapter Ten), distancing himself from his October > suggestion of establishing a Russian-funded think tank, citing funding > issues as a reason, which the FBI assessed was an indication that Page > was likely trying to distance himself from Russia as a result of media > reporting that continued to tie Page to Russia. Horowitz refrains from making any comment on the quality of the information (which is generally his standard - he just reports what he found, without comment, other than to make recommendations for what steps to take to do things better). Even with the first FISA application, the idea that it half relies on Page’s own admissions and half on Steele comes not from Horowitz, but from documentation of letters and emails between the legal team and the agents, to determine whether they have enough to establish “probable cause”. The closest we have to such an evaluation of the above redacted materials are: > [@205](#): > > Sanz-Rexach told the OIG that he reviewed Renewal Application No. 1, but did not recall any specific comments he made to the read co . He said that he recalled that rior to the renewal the FBI. He also said that the evidence collected during the first FISA application time period demonstrated that Carter Page had access to individuals in Russia and he was communicating with people in the Trump campaign, which created a concern that Russia could use their influence with Carter Page to effect policy. > [@206](#): > > According to Gauhar, ODAG did not make significant edits or have many questions after it reviewed Renewal Application No. 1. Gauhar also told us that she believed the first renewal was significant because it demonstrated that, despite the questions about whether to seek a Carter Page FISA prior to the first application, the surveillance yielded relevant and useful information. Gauhar said she recalled that the FISA collection included among other things, \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. > [@](#): > > On January 10, 2017, the 01 Attorney advised Evans and 01 management that the FISC judge reviewed the renewal application, had “no issue” with the application, and would sign the application without an appearance. If I recall correctly, in order for a FISA to be renewed, it needs to show that _it is working and providing relevant information_. So, for the judge to summarily approve would indicate that, that bar had been met. You cannot simply send the same application as before. Each renewal must include information that was discovered and that information must make it seem like the wiretap is providing value. The second renewal application then starts… > [@210](#): > > In January and February 2017, the FBI provided updates to the 01 Attorney, which were passed on to his supervisors and ODAG. These updates included: > > 1. > * * * > > * * * > > \_\_\_\_\_; > 2. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ > > * * * > > \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_; and > 3. Page met with an FBI CHS regarding Page’s think tank idea and > wanted help/insight from the CHS. Page revealed to the CHS that he > wanted the think tank to focus on countering anti-Western views on > Russia. He also revealed that a senior Russian government official > pledged a million dollars toward the project. > [@213-214](#): > > In addition, Renewal Application No. 2 advised the court of recent investigative results, including: > • \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ > > * * * > > \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_; > • The results of recent FBI interviews with Carter Page in which he > revealed that during his December 2016 travel to Russia, he met the > Russian Deputy Prime Minister who asked him how to connect for > “future cooperation,” and in which Page also revealed that during > travel to Singapore, he met a Vice President of Gazprombank, which > the FBI assessed revealed Russia’s continued interest in Page; 364 > • Carter Page’s denial during a March 2017 FBI interview that he told > Russian officials that he was “Male-1” in the indictment of three > Russian intelligence officers, described in Chapter Three. When asked > a second time about this statement, Page said he “forgot the exact > statement,” which the FBI assessed showed that Page was not > completely forthcoming during this interview; > • \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ > > * * * > > \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_; > • \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ > > * * * > > * * * > > * * * > > \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_; > • \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ > > * * * > > * * * > > * * * > > \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ and > • A February 2017 letter Carter Page sent to the Department of Justice, > Civil Rights Division’s Voting Section, urging the review of “severe > election fraud in the form of disinformation, suppression of dissent, > hate crimes and other extensive abuses” by members of the Clinton > campaign, which the FBI assessed was self-serving and untrue. > [@216](#): > > On April 3, the read copy was filed with the FISC. On April 6, the OI Attorney advised Evans and the 01 supervisors that the FISC judge reviewed the renewal application, had one non-substantive edit to a signature page, and would sign the application without an appearance. Moving into the third renewal… > [@](#): > > Case Agent 6 told us, and documents reflect, that despite the ongoing investigation, the team did not expect to renew the Carter Page FISA before Renewal Application No. 2’s authority expired on June 30. Case Agent 6 said that the FISA collection the FBI had received during the second renewal period was not yielding any new information. The OGC Attorney told us that when the FBI was considering whether to seek further FISA authority following Renewal Application No. 2, the FISA was “starting to go dark.” During one of the March 2017 interviews, Page told Case Agent 1 and Case Agent 6 that he believed he was under surveillance and the agents did not believe continued surveillance would provide an relevant information. Case A ent 6 said\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. > > SSA 5 and SSA 2 said that further investigation yielded previously unknown locations that they believed could provide information of investigative value, and they decided to seek another renewal. S ecificall SSA 5 and Case A ent 6 told us and documents reflect that \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ they decided to seek a third renewal. > \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. > [@221](#): > > In addition, Renewal Application No. 3 advised the court of recent investigative results, including: > > • A June 2017 interview by the FBI of an individual closely tied to the > President of the New Economic School in Moscow who stated that > Carter Page was selected to give a commencement speech in July > 2016 because he was candidate Trump’s “Russia-guy.” This individual > also told the FBI that while in Russia in July 2016, Carter Page was > picked up in a chauffeured car and it was rumored he met with Igor > Sechin. However, the FD-302 documenting this interview, which was > included in the Woods File for Renewal Application No. 3, does not > contain any reference to a chauffeured car picking up Carter Page. We > were unable to locate any document or information in the Woods File > that supported this assertion. 371 > • A June 2017 interview by the FBI of a different individual closely tied > to the New Economic School in Moscow who told investigators that he > did not think it likely that Carter Page and Sechin met during Page’s > visit to Moscow in July 2016. The FBI assessed that, because this > individual was unaware of a meeting that Carter Page had with a > different Russian official while in Moscow in July 2016, the individual > did not know about all the meetings that Page had while in Moscow in > July 2016, and the FBI assessed that, based on the rumored meeting > between Page and Sechin described in the prior bullet point, Page > likely met with Sechin prior to the time that Page joined this individual > at the New Economic School; > • \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ > > * * * > > * * * > > * * * > > \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_; > • \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ > > * * * > > \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_; > • \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ > \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_; > > • A statement by Carter Page during a March 30 interview with the FBI > about the loss and destruction of his cell phone at the same time > media reports were discussing the FBI’s possible investigation of Page; > and > • Carter Page’s meetings with media outlets, which the FBI assessed > may have been undertaken to promote his theories on U.S. foreign > policy and refute claims of involvement with the Russian government’s > efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. election. The FBI believed Page was > instructed by Russian officials to deny in the media Russian > involvement with the election. > > The application also stated the following: > > * * * > > * * * > > * * * > > * * * > > * * * > > * * * > > * * * > > \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Additionally, based on Page’s history of willingness to > assist Russian IOs, which as discussed above the FBI believes began > as early as 2007 … , and his comment to the FBI that he believes he is > “on the [SVR] books,” the FBI believes that Page remains favorable to > future RIS taskings. > [@224](#): > > On June 28, the 01 Attorney advised Evans, Sanz-Rexach, and OI’s Deputy Operations Section Chief that, based on the read copy, the judge would approve Renewal Application No. 3. According to the 01 Attorney’s email to his supervisors, the judge “believed there was enough to let us go one more time and he will approve without a hearing.” The 01 Attorney told the OIG that the words, “let us go one more time” were his words and not the words of the judge. He said that he was not trying to imply that the judge said that the court would not approve another renewal. Remember, when you read articles, that they have to write about something concrete. They ignore all of the black space because they don’t know what it is and they aren’t allowed to speculate. But that will, necessarily, cause one to come to an unreasonable feeling about what the FBI was using to support their FISAs if you only read second-hand sources. Steele was, yes, pivotal to getting the first FISA. But there’s a whole long section where Horowitz praises Steele from left to right, up and down, for pages and pages because that was _genuinely_ the consensus on Steele, internally, at that point in time, based on his prior work for them. So saying, in retrospect, that that was somehow dishonest of them _for the first FISA_ is bullshit if you actually read through and follow what’s going on in what order. I don’t know how relevant Steele was for the renewals but I think **there’s probably something behind all that black stuff** and a reason why everyone forgot the little Steele blurb at the start of the renewal applications that they’d copy-pasted over. I’ll also note that between cites of the report itself and cites of “a guy on Rolling Stone”, one of those is more authoritative. And, similarly, the person who is quite happy to freely copy and paste **every line of the report** over in support of every contention is generally going to be more authoritative. If you have to carefully groom the document for choice quotes, that’s a fair indication that you might not be being honest. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2019, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-fbi-lie-about-carter-page-on-the-fisa-warrent/819524/253 "2019-12-16T03:01:47Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > 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’ll go back to what I said here because Trump’s attacks on Horowitz pretty much confirm what I feared. Horowitz, like Comey, was presented with a uniquely complex set of circumstances and tried to navigate the hyperpoliticized environment. He’s now being attacked for trying to stay neutral. He can’t win, because any mistake or misstatement, followed by clarification or retraction. will be viewed as evidence of a conspiracy. Trump and the Republicans are destroying democracy with conspiracy theories and misinformation. Misinformation is easier to spread and believe than information, because it is almost always intended to be the opposite of fact; it is information that is craft brewed to be palatable according to human biases. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2019, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-fbi-lie-about-carter-page-on-the-fisa-warrent/819524/254 "2019-12-16T03:14:21Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > … intended to be the opposite of fact; it is information that is craft brewed to be palatable according to human biases. Based on what’s in the _Rolling Stone_ article, this is a reasonably accurate description of Schiff’s response to the Nunes memo. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2019, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-fbi-lie-about-carter-page-on-the-fisa-warrent/819524/255 "2019-12-16T03:23:10Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > … cites of “a guy on Rolling Stone” … The “guy on Rolling Stone” is a contributing editor, who’s covered politics for for that magazine, and who cites the IG report in his article. If you think he’s misrepresented the report, go ahead and present your evidence. ---
**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 16, 2019, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-fbi-lie-about-carter-page-on-the-fisa-warrent/819524/256 "2019-12-16T04:09:11Z")
> [@Xema](#): > > The “guy on Rolling Stone” is a contributing editor, who’s covered politics for for that magazine, and who cites the IG report in his article. The IG is the IG. > [@](#): > > If you think he’s misrepresented the report, go ahead and present your evidence. It’s fair to say that I presented a fair amount of evidence on the question in my previous post which, to summarize, I would say points to the difference between “probable cause” and “continuing cause” (not a legal term, so far as I know, but descriptive). The one you need to open the wiretap and the other you need to keep it going. If the local bank manager tells you that his friend Willard admitted to him that he murdered that girl, who has been in the news, and you open an investigation into Willard, discover a bunch of mutilated bodies in his basement, but then later determine that the local bank manager was a meth addict who was pissed off that Willard kept chucking his lawn mowings into his yard, and genuinely had zero basis to have made the accusation against Willard beyond pure luck, you still arrest Willard and take him to jail. You can’t retroactively undo history. All that you can do is do your best at each stage with the information you have. And so the question is, “Was that a reasonable use of the information you had at that moment in time?” Is it reasonable to believe that a bank manager is a reliable witness? Is it reasonable to think that a “friend” might be granted information about possible criminal activities? Here is all of the material related to the question of what was understood about Steele **at the time they started to work with him** : > [@84-86](#): > > Steele is a former intelligence officer of > \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ who, following his retirement, was enrolled by the FBI as a > CHS furnishing information to the FBI primarily on matters concerning organized > crime and corruption in Russia and Eastern Euro e. Steele told the OIG that during > his service as an intelligence officer \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_, he developed a > particular expertise on Russia and was stationed for a eriod in Moscow. Steele > stated that, after he stopped \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_, he formed a > consulting firm specializing in corporate intelligence and investigative services. > > Steele’s introduction in 2010 to the FBI agent who later became Steele’s > primary handling agent (Handling Agent 1) was facilitated by Department attorney > Bruce Ohr, who was then Chief of the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section in > the Department’s Criminal Division in Washington, D.C. Ohr told the OIG that he > first met Steele in 2007 when he attended a meeting hosted by a foreign > government during which Steele addressed the threat posed by Russian organized > crime. Ohr said that, after this first meeting with Steele, he probably met with him > less than once a year, and after Steele opened his consulting firm, Orbis Business > Intelligence, he furnished Ohr with reports produced by Orbis for its commercial > clients that he thought may be of interest to the U.S. government. Ohr said that he > eventually put Steele in contact with Handling Agent 1, with whom Ohr had > previously worked. > > Handling Agent 1 told the OIG that he first met Steele in the spring of 2010 > during a trip abroad with Ohr. 201 He recalled that prior to the meeting, Ohr > described Steele’s background, including his work as an intelligence officer, > assignment to Moscow, and Russia expertise. Based on his past experiences > working with Ohr, Handling Agent 1 said he respected Ohr’s judgment and had no > reason to doubt his representations about Steele. Handling Agent 1 told us that > Steele had relationships with reputable clients, and this fact bolstered Handling > Agent 1 's view of Steele’s credibility. He also said that he had met with some of > Steele’s clients and knew of others, and that a representative of one of Steele’s > clients informed him that Steele “was solid and that his reporting was very > interesting and good.” Handling Agent 1 stated, however, that with the exception > of Steele’s work for Fusion GPS, a Washington, D.C. investigative firm, he did not > request information from Steele about his firm’s clients. 202 > > Handling Agent 1 said he came away from his first meeting with Steele > favorably impressed. Handling Agent 1 told the OIG that Steele was very > professional and knowledgeable and “clearly an expert on Russia,” including the > activities of Russian oligarchs and Russian criminal networks. Handling Agent 1 told > the OIG that although he was interested in the information from Steele, as of 2010 > he was not yet prepared to enter into a formal CHS relationship with Steele. > Handling Agent 1 explained that it is administratively burdensome to open a CHS > who resides overseas and that prior to 2013 he was not receiving a “steady stream” > of information from Steele. Handling Agent 1 said that following their initial > meeting, Steele would provide information only every couple of months and that he > met with him only infrequently, such as when Steele visited the United States. > Steele was not compensated by the FBI during this period. Steele told us that this > information originated from work performed for Orbis’s private clients. > > Handling Agent 1 stated that in the summer of 2010 Steele introduced him to > a contact who had allegedly obtained information about corruption in the > International Federation of Association Football (FIFA). According to Handling > Agent 1, but for Steele’s assistance in arranging this meeting, the FBI would not > have had the impetus to open the FIFA investigation in 2010. The lead FBI agent > assigned to the FIFA matter told us that after Russia won the right to host the 2018 > World Cup in September 2012, he approached Handling Agent 1 to request > permission to examine possible corruption in the bidding process. According to the > agent, Handling Agent 1 recalled his earlier interview with the contact that he met > through Steele, retrieved a copy of the FBI FD-302 form memorializing the > interview, and instructed the agent to open a case. The agent said that Steele’s > role in the FIFA investigation was limited to recommending to Handling Agent 1 that > the FBI talk to the contact, whose information eventually proved valuable and > helped predicate the opening of the investigation. The agent said he did not recall > having any communication with Steele after the investigation’s opening. > > Additionally, Handling Agent 1 told us that Steele provided two other > investigative leads to the FBI in connection with the FIFA investigation. First, in > July 2011, Steele provided a report that summarized an alleged conversation > between then Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and then Prime Minister Vladimir > Putin in which, according to the report, Putin acknowledged that a Russian oligarch > had bribed the President of FIFA so that Russia could win the right to host the > World Cup tournament in 2018. Second, in 2012, Steele introduced the FBI to two > British officials with information concerning Russia’s alleged efforts to bribe FIFA > executives. Our review of Steele’s Delta file also revealed that Steele furnished the > FBI with a report dated June 2015 that quoted a Kremlin official as having admitted > that the Kremlin bribed FIFA executives in order to secure rights to host the 2018 > World Cup. 203 > > According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York, > as of December 2019, the FIFA investigation has resulted in 26 individual guilty > pleas, 2 trial convictions, 4 corporate guilty pleas, and one corporate deferred > prosecution agreement. Total forfeitures in the matter exceed $120 million. The > OIG interviewed a prosecutor on the FIFA case who told us that Steele did not > provide testimony in any court proceeding. Handling Agent 1 also told the OIG that > Steele’s information was not used to obtain any compulsory legal process in the > FIFA case. > > In addition to leads provided for the FIFA investigation, we were advised by > the FBI that Steele furnished information about Russian oligarchs, some of whom > were under investigation by the FBI. For example, we learned that, in October > 2013, Steele provided lengthy and detailed reports to the FBI on three Russian > oligarchs, one of whom was among the FBI’s most wanted fugitives. According to > an FBI document, an analyst who reviewed Steele’s reporting on this fugitive found > the reporting “extremely valuable and informative” and determined it was > corroborated by other information that the FBI had obtained. > [@90-93](#): > > Handling Agent 1 said that during 2014 and 2015 he communicated with > Steele more regularly and met with him several times in Steele’s home country and > in a city in Europe. Steele furnished intelligence information that the FBI > disseminated, including in four Intelligence Information Reports (IIRs) sent > throughout the U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) concerning the activities of > Russian oligarchs. 207 Handling Agent 1 recalled receiving positive feedback from > the USIC in response to some of the IIRs containing Steele’s information before > Steele began delivering election related information in 2016. Handling Agent 1 said > that the response to the IIRs was that the information was “really good” and there > were requests for additional reporting from Steele. By the time Steele was closed > by the FBI as a CHS in November 2016, the FBI had disseminated 10 IIRs based on > Steele’s reporting. > > Ohr told us that, during this time period, he and Handling Agent 1 asked > Steele to inquire whether Russian oligarchs would be interested in entering into > discussions with them. Handling Agent 1 stated that he did not recall tasking > Steele to contact Russian oligarchs though he\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ > \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. According to Handling Agent 1, Steele originally > proposed the idea of having him approach Russian oligarchs for the purpose of > arranging meetings between the oligarchs and representatives of the U.S. > government. In our review of Steele’s CHS file, other pertinent documents, and > interviews with Handling Agent 1, Ohr, and Steele, we observed that Steele had > multiple contacts with representatives of Russian oligarchs with connections to > Russian Intelligence Services (RIS) and senior Kremlin officials. 208 For example, in > late November 2014, Handling Agent 1 met with Steele who advised Handling > Agent 1 that he had received overtures from “interlocutors” for several Russian > oligarchs seeking to arrange FBI interviews of the oligarchs. > > Handling Agent 1 told the OIG that Steele facilitated meetings in a European > city that included Handling Agent 1, Ohr, an attorney of Russian Oligarch 1, and a > representative of another Russian oligarch. 209 Russian Oligarch 1 subsequently met > with Ohr as well as other representatives of the U.S. government at a different > location. Ohr told the OIG that, based on information that Steele told him about > Russian Oligarch 1, such as when Russian Oligarch 1 would be visiting the United > States or applying for a visa, and based on Steele at times seeming to be speaking > on Russian Oligarch l’s behalf, Ohr said he had the impression that Russian > Oligarch 1 was a client of Steele. 210 > > We asked Steele about whether he had a relationship with Russian Oligarch > > 1. Steele stated that he did not have a relationship and indicated that he had met > Russian Oligarch 1 one time. He explained that he worked for Russian Oligarch l’s > attorney on litigation matters that involved Russian Oligarch 1 but that he could not > provide “specifics” about them for confidentiality reasons. Steele stated that > Russian Oligarch 1 had no influence on the substance of his election reporting and > no contact with any of his sources. He also stated that he was not aware of any > information indicating that Russian Oligarch 1 knew of his investigation relating to > the 2016 U.S. elections. 211 [Note: Unknown if this was known to the team. Including it for honesty.] > > Steele’s prior reporting to the FBI addressed issues other than Russian > oligarchs. For example, we reviewed FBI records reflecting that he provided > information on the hack of computer systems of an international corporation, and > corruption involving former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. In addition, > Steele told us he introduced Handling Agent 1 to sources with knowledge of Russian > athletic doping and obtained samples of material for the FBI to analyze. Handling > Agent 1 could not recall meeting with these sources or obtaining samples for > analysis, though he did remember obtaining information from Steele concerning > Russian athletic doping. Handling Agent 1 said he forwarded the information to the > FBI New York Field Office (NYFO) which had an open investigation concerning > doping. > > Handling Agent 1 also recounted for us a situation involving Steele that > reinforced his view that Steele was “very professional” and primarily motivated by a > desire to counter threats posed by Russia. According to Handling Agent 1, on two > occasions Steele made arrangements for a meeting between the FBI and a - > individual who had potentially important information. In both instances the > meetings did not occur due to the FBI’s failure to attend. According to Handling > Agent 1, the FBI’s failure to meet with the individual was the FBI’s fault, cost Steele > financially in the short term, and likely caused a loss of reputation with the > intermediaries who arranged the individual’s attendance at the meeting. Handling > Agent 1 told the OIG that Steele’s professionalism in seeking to arrange the > meeting and then not seeking to “nickel and dime” the FBI in the process impressed > him. Steele was eventually reimbursed by the FBI for his expenses, but it was over > a year later. > > We asked Handling Agent 1 about what information the FBI had corroborated > from Steele’s reporting prior to spring 2016 and whether Steele had been proven to > be a reliable source. Handling Agent 1 said that Steele provided reliable > information to the FBI in the past, but that not all of the information Steele > furnished had been corroborated and verified. Handling Agent 1 cited several > examples of information from Steele that the FBI had been able to corroborate prior > to the spring of 2016, such as corruption in FIFA’s bid selection process, > information regarding \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Russian oligarchs, and corruption involving > Yanukovych, but could not recall more. He also told the OIG that he was not aware > of any information Steele provided prior to 2016 that had been shown to be false, > inaccurate, or problematic. Handling Agent 1 said that the FBI found Steele’s > information to be valuable and that it warranted compensation. As a result, in > 2014 and 2015, the FBI made five payments to Steele totaling $64,000. By the > time the FBI closed Steele in November 2016, his cumulative compensation totaled > $95,000, including reimbursement for expenses. Steele was not compensated by > the FBI for the election reporting we discuss below. ---
**Author:** ![EasyPhil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@EasyPhil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EasyPhil)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2019, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-fbi-lie-about-carter-page-on-the-fisa-warrent/819524/257 "2019-12-16T04:12:56Z")
> [@Xema](#): > > The “guy on Rolling Stone” is a contributing editor, who’s covered politics for for that magazine, and who cites the IG report in his article. > > If you think he’s misrepresented the report, go ahead and present your evidence. They aren’t going to present any evidence, the tactic is to attempt to discredit the source. Comey the Former FBI director had to acknowledge the problems with the FISA after being confronted with his prior statements that were in direct contradiction of the IG Report findings. My argument is that the FBI lied about Carter Page being an agent of a foreign government and I have yet to see any proof from anyone that shows that he was or is. ---
**Author:** ![EasyPhil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@EasyPhil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EasyPhil)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2019, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-fbi-lie-about-carter-page-on-the-fisa-warrent/819524/258 "2019-12-16T04:18:21Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > The IG is the IG. > > It’s fair to say that I presented a fair amount of evidence on the question in my previous post which, to summarize, I would say points to the difference between “probable cause” and “continuing cause” (not a legal term, so far as I know, but descriptive). The one you need to open the wiretap and the other you need to keep it going. > > If the local bank manager tells you that his friend Willard admitted to him that he murdered that girl, who has been in the news, and you open an investigation into Willard, discover a bunch of mutilated bodies in his basement, but then later determine that the local bank manager was a meth addict who was pissed off that Willard kept chucking his lawn mowings into his yard, and genuinely had zero basis to have made the accusation against Willard beyond pure luck, you still arrest Willard and take him to jail. > > You can’t retroactively undo history. All that you can do is do your best at each stage with the information you have. And so the question is, “Was that a reasonable use of the information you had at that moment in time?” Is it reasonable to believe that a bank manager is a reliable witness? Is it reasonable to think that a “friend” might be granted information about possible criminal activities? > > Here is all of the material related to the question of what was understood about Steele **at the time they started to work with him** : You posted a very long quote but it’s clear from the IG Report that Steele not only wasn’t credible, his work was commissioned by Fusion GPS on behalf of the Clinton political machine. The Dossier was opposition research which the FBI knew but didn’t tell the FISA court at any time for any of the renewals with the exception I believe of a foot note. It’s clear to everyone that the FBI lied to and misled the court even Comey acknowledges that. You know better than Comey? What’s your credentials? ---
**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 16, 2019, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-fbi-lie-about-carter-page-on-the-fisa-warrent/819524/259 "2019-12-16T04:18:54Z")
> [@EasyPhil](#): > > They aren’t going to present any evidence Yeah, I’m clearly the one not presenting evidence. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![EasyPhil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@EasyPhil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EasyPhil)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2019, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-fbi-lie-about-carter-page-on-the-fisa-warrent/819524/260 "2019-12-16T04:25:09Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Yeah, I’m clearly the one not presenting evidence. :dubious: Where’s you evidence that Carter Page is an agent of a foreign government? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-fbi-lie-about-carter-page-on-the-fisa-warrent/819524.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-fbi-lie-about-carter-page-on-the-fisa-warrent/819524.md?page=14)