“When you read the report … the headline is they didn’t find the things that Bill Barr and Donald Trump alleged. They basically found there was not political bias … it was proper to launch the investigation … and proper to seek a warrant on Carter Page” - Chris Wallace (Fox News)
Here’s what John Durham had to say and he’s currently doing an investigation into all of this unlike Chris Wallace.
It’s pretty clear that the FBI lied about Carter Page being a “Russian Agent”, they knew that wasn’t true all along.
Just like the CIA said that they approved of Page?
They didn’t find any documentary or testimonial evidence of political bias among the documents they reviewed and the people they interviewed, which is not the same thing as what you wrote above.
The CIA sent an email to the FBI indicating that Page was a source and an FBI lawyer altered that email to claim that he wasn’t and submitted it to the FISC.
Tell it to Chris Wallace.
What other sort of evidence is there? Opinion “evidence”?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
In legal proceedings – and I suspect in impeachment proceedings – it is.
This has nothing to do with the FBI lying about Carter Page, they knew he wasn’t a Russian Agent they also knew that he was a CIA Asset.
No, it’s different, which is why we have judges and juries that declare people “not guilty” instead of “innocent”. ‘We didn’t find enough evidence to convict’ is different than ‘We basically found that a crime was not committed or that the accused did not do it’. I’m confident you’ll fully understand this point right about the time that President Trump is acquitted by the Senate.
ETA: EasyPhil, apologies, you’re right, this is a tangent, and I’ll drop it.
Saying this over and over doesn’t make it true.
Your average source is an incompetent drug addict criminal. If you tell me that someone is a source, than I am more liable to think that they’re a shady sumbitch who needs to be investigated, not less liable.
You are, in essence, saying that the FBI made Carter Page look more innocent than he is, in their warrant.
I’m suggesting that they did so because the CIA asked them to keep this on the down low. Whether that is the reason or not, I don’t know, but it fits more closely than the idea that they hid Carter’s status because they didn’t want to make the judge think that Carter was a loon who was known by the CIA to be traipsing around Russia talking to 3+ FSB agents and leaking everything anyone ever told him because he can’t keep his mouth shut. If you told the judge that why, gosh, he’d just approve that warrant in two seconds flat and that would be too easy!
Carter Page has a history of working with the CIA and the FBI knew that, they also hid that information from the FISC.
The CIA sent the FBI an email asserting that Carter Page was a source in good standing, the FBI altered that email and submitted that altered email to the FISC to renew the warrant.
Unless you see me denying that somewhere, I fail to see what you think you’re gaining from repeating your original statement.
So to repeat my response:
Your average source is an incompetent drug addict criminal. If you tell me that someone is a source, than I am more liable to think that they’re a shady sumbitch who needs to be investigated, not less liable.
You are, in essence, saying that the FBI made Carter Page look more innocent than he is, in their warrant.
I’m suggesting that they did so because the CIA asked them to keep this on the down low. Whether that is the reason or not, I don’t know, but it fits more closely than the idea that they hid Carter’s status because they didn’t want to make the judge think that Carter was a loon who was known by the CIA to be traipsing around Russia talking to 3+ FSB agents and leaking everything anyone ever told him because he can’t keep his mouth shut. If you told the judge that why, gosh, he’d just approve that warrant in two seconds flat and that would be too easy!
No, I’m not saying that at all.
I realize that you don’t intend to be saying that, but it remains the case.
If I say that Roger gave me a good report on Charles, it matters that you note that Roger is a prison warden, that Charles is an inmate who murdered five children and abused their corpses, and that I was asking about his diet.
Summarizing is all well and fine so long as we’re clear what we’re actually talking about and being honest about what we should take away from the story.
That the CIA gave Page - a useful idiot, being run by the FSB - a positive review as someone who you can get info out of is not, under any reasonable understanding, a statement of support for innocence.
And? Do you have an actual point, or do you simply want to repeat yourself?
The investigation concluded there was no political bias and that, despite those improprieties by the FBI, there was more than enough evidence to warrant an investigation.
Repeating “The FBI screwed up” over and over and over isn’t much of a “Great Debate”. And it has very little actual import to the investigation itself, to the Mueller investigation, or to the President’s repeated attempts to obstruct justice. It’s akin to a police officer not reading a guy his Miranda rights (and not questioning him), and the guy claiming that means he can’t be convicted of any crimes.
And, the fact that months after the FISA warrant was granted a lone FBI lawyer altered an email about Carter Page is not, under any reasonable understanding, evidence that the FBI lied about Page to get a FISA warrant.