Five posts up?
There is no possible way you can know this. Are you claiming to have access to all evidence they collected?
What, you mean the one that makes me a shitty, bitter, hateful misogynistic prick who happens to be totally wrong about everything all the time?
If there were, they could easily charge Page with failing to register as a foreign agent. Didn’t happen and won’t happen.
I haven’t seen any evidence, have you?
I am neither the prosecution nor the defense.
Are you?
It won’t happen because Trump has fired everyone in the FBI who would have the cajones to arrest a someone from Trump’s inner circle. Page ought to answer for what he’s done, but it won’t happen under Trump.
First you said that the FBI “omitted” details about Page’s cooperation with the Russian spies he was being recruited by. The unredacted portions of pages 12 and 13 clearly reference that Page was talking to the FBI. Ergo, there was no omission.
Then you said that nobody can know what’s in the redacted parts. And yet, you claim to know what is in the redacted parts; that the FBI isn’t being truthful.
You need to find one mindless pro-Trump narrative and stick with it. I suggest the one you’ve peddled that Page is a counterintelligence mastermind who is playing 28 dimensional chess. That one gets a big laugh at parties.
So, maybe he’s actually guilty but he still walks, because who cares? He is no threat to national security, he is too dumb to make his own oatmeal. I don’t care so much about punishing threats to our security as much as neutralizing them. And he has clearly been neutered, surprised he’s not wearing one of those cones to keep him from licking his incised nutsack.
And this one earns a warning, too.
Sorry for the delay, I was in a doctor’s appointment.
Ok, I’m going to jump in here, because I’ve seen this argument advanced before, and it is fundamentally flawed. I speak as a criminal defense lawyer who reads, and challenges, search warrants as a regular part of my job (although, full disclosure: this redacted FISA warrant is the only FISA warrant I’ve read).
When requesting a search warrant, law enforcement does NOT have to include all details about a source. They do NOT have to provide the court the pros and cons of their case.
Law enforcement has to provide the details necessary to show that they believe that evidence of a crime, or ongoing criminal activity, is present at a particular place. In presenting this to a court, they are 1) going before a friendly tribunal, who’s instinct is to help them, 2) given, as a matter of law, the benefit of the doubt, and 3) not subject to any rebuttal.
In other words, the search warrant process is designed to grant search warrants.
And, in effecting that plan, police regularly rely on crooks and ne’er-do-wells for information; they don’t then have to itemize all of the bad things the person has done, or speculate on why they have reason to lie. Instead, police just have to give a reason why this person is telling the truth - it can be that they are speaking from 1st hand knowledge (which they plausibly obtained). It can also simply be that they have provided reliable information in the past.
But that’s it; I regularly argue (and typically lose) that police need to do more than just take the word of a person who is, himself, facing legal jeopardy. Or, I regularly complain that the police didn’t disclose exculpatory evidence (real story: Cop is trying to bust a house for growing pot, but everytime he walks by, he doesn’t smell anything. So, he has his fellow cop walk by, and then puts in the warrant application that fellow officer confirmed the anonymous tip with a smell).
Unless the police included information that they knew to be false, or was misleading (and I think that failing to disclose his failure to smell anything make’s the cops pot warrant misleading, but it’s up on appeal right now), then none of it matters. And saying that Carter Page was a foreign agent is not misleading - the whole reason he ended up helping the FBI in the earlier sting was because he was first overheard on wire taps trying to conduct business with Russians.
That’s because the whole point of this process is to further a police investigation, so the courts err on the side of law enforcement. Do you have articulable facts? If they come from rats, do you have any reason to believe these rats? If it comes from anonymous sources, do you have any independent corroboration (even of seemingly mundane details) that can corroborate the story?
If so, then they get to search. A challenge to the search can always come later, but quibbling about some minor detail like whether Carter Page was happy to cooperate with the FBI or a reluctant resource, (especially when we don’t even see the full unredacted version) would get you shut down by a judge within minutes.
Oh, and another thing: If you read the FISA warrant link, you’ll see that it appears to just repeat over and over. That’s because the warrant wasn’t open-ended. It had to be renewed. In renewing the application, the warrant always starts with the initial predicate request; but, more importantly, it must indicate what has since been found during the search. It’s only if the search is producing useful information that it gets renewed. So, every time you see that the warrant is repeating itself, know that the warrant is being re-applied for, but new (and redacted) details are being added to the investigation. If nothing was coming up, the court wouldn’t re-authorize the search.
I guess this means Hillary Clinton is innocent of any and all wrongdoing also, right? After all, if she had done anything she would have been arrested, right?
The 400+ page FISA application lays out the evidence in excruciating detail. You must be aware of this document since you linked to it earlier.
However, let’s focus on one piece of evidence that is publicly available. Carter Page claimed that Carter Page was an agent of a foreign power. There’s a ton of other evidence that corroborates that statement, but I’m curious how you hand wave that one away.
Is this an immutable law of nature? Something you just made up? Part of the agent of a foreign government code? I hear that’s really more of just a guideline.
You haven’t even established that he did assist the FBI much less shown what form the assistance took. That’s kind of super relevant.
Didn’t you read post 22?
I thought if you asked somebody if they were a foreign agent, they had to tell the truth.
From the Mueller Report:
I ask again, why did the FBI lie about Carter Page on the FISA warrant?