Why did the FBI lie about Carter Page on the FISA warrent?

Great Debates
141

I see. So your learned admonishment to me is to understand that in the law, there is such a thing as “not proved.” Meaning that sometimes guilty people go free due to a lack of evidence. That has certainly been my experience, too!

Sometimes that lack of evidence is due to a witness dying or being intimidated. Sometimes it is due to the destruction of germane documents or other records, such as recordings or transcripts. And sometimes that “lack of evidence” is due to people misunderstanding the actual evidence before them, willfully or otherwise.

In your example of Trump being “exonerated,” I would submit that something like the above will in fact occur!

So it seems we actually do agree, there is such a thing as “not proved” – which does not indicate innocence. And there is, as you say, no need to continue your hijack on the definition of evidence, that the absence of same, again, does not necessarily mean “innocent.”

I would clarify that I was simply seeking an understanding of the terms we are using regarding evidence – and it’s not something I brought up. I think it’s important that we do understand how people are using a particular term. Seeking a clarification is not a hijack, nor was I the person who brought Trump into the discussion.

142

I feel like it should also be pointed out that, however much the FBI might have whiffed on Page, he was not the only subject of the investigation.

Michael Flynn, as example, asked for his criminal sentencing to be delayed until after the Horowitz report was released, in the hopes and expectations that it would show improper predication for his arrest, falsification of evidence, or something else exonerating.

The report has now come out. Personally, I’m expecting Flynn to go to jail and any real look at who Flynn is, one might note, would make you strongly concerned about the intelligence and sanity of any person who would get along with the man and legitimately recommend him as National Security Advisor.

143

The IG Report makes it clear that the FBI omitted the fact that Page assisted the FBI and altered an email to show that he didn’t assist the CIA.

144

Great. Then you’ll have no problem showing what you claimed in that post I responded to over a year ago.

145

Copy and paste is not a difficult procedure so, even if your point is not particularly meaningful in any practical sense, it does bear pointing out that everything you have said has been pure assertion with neither cites nor logic behind them.

You might want to consider the possibility that Fox News or whatever sources you use are not particularly honest and nor are they a reasonable substitute for having a brain.

146

I wish it this board would let you quote the contents of a quote box. But thanks for posting that excerpt because I didn’t know everything. WOW. Page helped the FBI, but then he went and told some Russians all about it because he believed in “openness”. Thank God they had the sense to decide to keep an eye on him.

Phil, like it or not, the bar for opening an investigation in this country has always been extraordinarily low and the system works to keep it low. Because part of the decision-making process involves comparing the current suspicious behavior to past cases, to see if similar behavior by different people has warranted an investigation in the past. It’s called precedent, and there’s plenty of it here.

Apparently it’s actually quite common to investigate political, economic and other consultants if they make public statements that seem to be designed to advance the agenda of a foreign power for violation of the laws involving registering as an agent of a foreign government.

So there was actually precedent for investigating Page based on his public statements alone, even though in actuality they it had a lot more.

I’m not endorsing the practice, it actually was one if those things that most liberals hated back in the day before the world went crazy and Russia infiltrated our government.

147

Technically, you can. It just requires manual formatting.

148

Let’s just calm that down, Sage Rat.

That goes for everyone. Remember where you’re posting and what the rules are.

149

So what?

As has been said, warrants are intended to be granted. Investigations are meant to be pursued. The law is meant to facilitate, not hamper, law enforcement.

Your assertion seems to be that the FBI had additional reasons to believe that Page has connections to Russia than they had previously disclosed; is that it? Because his “working with the CIA” seemed to consist of disclosing his communications with Russian intelligence. With that as a foundation, no wonder the FBI had reason to be concerned when he appeared as a foreign policy advisor for Trump - “Has Russian Intelligence infiltrated Trump’s campaign?!”

In what way does your assertion of FBI knowledge argue against a warrant?

I’m truly trying to get it - do you think that the CIA or FBI planted Page as an aid (spy) in Trump’s campaign?

150

As a direct reply to another poster, this looks and smells like an attack on that poster.
This is a Warning to avoid this sort of behavior outside the BBQ Pit.

[ Moderating ]

151

Reading up to page 267, I’d say that the primary moral of the story comes down to:

  1. People hate reading.
  2. People really hate writing.

It does seem to be the case that one OGC Attorney deliberately falsified a few words in an email response from the CIA* Liaison that he forwarded on to others. I think that’s pretty clearly not kosher. But, even there, it seems likely that he did so because he felt like he’d determined that Page didn’t count as a “friendly” and he couldn’t be bothered to read nor write something more technically accurate and nuanced.

And, as it happens, the email that he edited and forwarded contained an attachment which contained a more precise description - but, no one ever read it.

Carter Page’s applications all contained the same information, written with the same words, each go around not because there weren’t pros and cons to append to it about the sources but because people felt like the balance of pros and cons all continued to be about the same level as they had been at first - just more specific - so why spend the time doing paperwork?

The report makes the point that, in FISA proceedings, no one is acting as the defense and so it’s incumbent on the FBI to go above and beyond to tell the entire story, warts and all, for the judge to weigh in.

From a theoretical sense, that’s all well and fine. In all practicality, though, that’s basically a request for the FBI agents to learn to love taking on the career of a novelist and to give up their chosen profession as an investigator.

That doesn’t work.

In the case of the OGC Attorney, it’s fair to say that he did wrong. Even if we trust that he genuinely believed that Page didn’t count as a compatriot of the CIA in any positive sense, he still made a clear attempt to misrepresent their response to him.

But, from everything else in the document, where people are asked, “Well, so, you learned this thing that might put X in a more positive/negative light. Why didn’t you update the Page FISA application footnote?” It’s a unanimous, “Yeah, ultimately, it just didn’t feel like it moved the needle enough to be worth the hassle of writing up.”

It’s probably the case that by the fourth application, the needle had moved on Steele enough to warrant an update. But it is also the case that they seem to have had other material (redacted) to supplement the application, such that any added provisos in the Steele section wouldn’t have fundamentally changed the overall merit of the application, on the balance. So, even there, there’s an argument to be made that the needle hadn’t really shifted.

Ultimately, I’d say that this is a somewhat crappy way to run a system that’s supposed to protect the average citizen’s basic rights to privacy. But, at the same time, it’s a human effort and humans just aren’t very good at some things and, at the current moment, they seem to be staying largely between the lines in terms of what they pursue, when they give up the pursuit, and how much of that they divulge to the public (so that the privacy violations never end up having any actual impact on anything). They’re lazy, not evil.

But, of course, any shoddy system has poor protections against going bad.

  • Technically, it’s an assumption that we’re talking about the CIA in all of this.
152

It is the CIA, Carter Page admits that. An FBI lawyer altered an email to bolster the LIE that Carter Page was a Russian Agent even though they knew better. I guess this is nothing because it’s expected for law enforcement to lie to the court to obtain warrants.

153

The problem here is the FBI lied to get and renew a FISA warrant, multiple times. They altered documents and then submitted it to the FISC. Is this what you and others are defending?

154

It is unclear from the report what the CIA considered Page to be. My understanding is that he was an asset, known to run his mouth off.

No one ever said that Page was a Russian agent. The OGC lawyer edited the email to state that Page was not a Steele/Orbis style 3rd party intelligence source on retainer. While his understanding of what Page’s actual relationship was to the CIA seems to be incorrect, that much seems to be true.

I don’t believe that Page was ever paid money by the CIA. He is simply, as said, an idiot known to run his mouth off.

155

You might have an easier time convincing people if you cited your claims.

156

It’s all in the IG Report.

157

Wrong, in the FISA warrant that I posted a link to in the original post says specfically that Carter Page is a Russian Agent.

158

It may well be. But I’m not going to read ~400 pages to try and find evidence for you. Want me to believe the FBI made up stuff to get a warrant on Page? Show me.

159

Aaaand it turns out EasyPhil was on the right track and all of you piling on him are fountains of misinformation.

I started to believe you guys until I heard it from the Michael Horowitz himself today at the Senate hearing.

Remind me never to believe you guys again.

160

This is what I heard today:

"First off, Russian interference: “Does anything in your report call into question the finding in the special counsel’s report that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in a sweeping and systematic fashion?” she asked. “No, it doesn’t,” Horowitz answered, adding that his report cites the Mueller report and others that have all outlined that interference. The follow-up from Klobuchar: “Does anything in your report call into question Chairman Burr’s statement that, quote, Russia is waging an information warfare campaign against the U.S. that didn’t start and didn’t end with the 2016 election?” His answer, “No, it doesn’t.”

What about the Mueller report finding that “quote, the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome?” Horowitz said, “We don’t take issue with any part of the special counsel’s report, no.”

Then, in rapid-fire back-and-forth, she asked if he had “any evidence that political bias or other improper consideration affected the FBI’s decision to open the investigation into” a series of players:

George Papadopoulos. “No, we don’t.”

Paul Manafort? “No, we don’t.”

Michael Flynn? “We did not”

Carter Page? “No documentary or testimonial evidence or other evidence.”

“Did your report uncover systematic political bias at the FBI?” she asked. Horowitz responded, “As to what we looked at in the openings, we did not find documentary testimonial evidence to support a finding of bias.”"