Your OP asked ‘why’ this happened, yet you stubbornly refuse to address your own question. Why is that?
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.
He has. Repeatedly.
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.
For the record, the relevant portion of the document starts on page 248.
Now, to be fair, the liaison contends that she made no descriptions like the OGC Counsel describes.
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:
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.
I want to thank Sage Rat for his efforts here - they are clear and concise and easy to parse - which is very helpful.
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.
He’s also got a “PhD.” Doesn’t make him learned.
Now, stop that, before I buy you “Getting Hit On The Head” Lessons for Christmas.
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.
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.
Please provide a cite for what you know a CIA Operational Contact to be.
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?
Again, stay on the topic, we’re not talking about Trump and this is certainly bigger than Trump.
I’m pretty sure his point is that the government is corrupt, therefore the executive in charge of the government cannot be corrupt.
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?