Do you believe William Barr? I mean, this IG report is like a rock-solid case closed nail in the coffin any day that ends in a Y sort of proof that he lied to Congress about the DoJ “spying” on the Trump campaign.
You are correct.
To correct my statement, the OGC Lawyer did not write that Page is a Russian agent in the problematic email.
And, Carter Page is a Russian agent.
You have referenced one statement in the warrant which bore out in the text.
You have referenced two identifiable statements in the report, neither of which matched what was written.
That is a 33% success rate, which is not particularly high.
Is this a joke?
If not, can you provide a quote from Horowitz that is even in the ballpark of what you’re saying here?
Who are you again?
…
Can I get an answer to my earlier question: Is this assertion that the FBI planted Carter Page to spy on the Trump campaign?
Otherwise, how does the fact that he had previously worked with the CIA to provide info about his contacts with Russian intelligence lessen the basis for the warrant? I mean, if he’s considered a CIA contact because of such associations, and then he ends up as an advisor on Trump’s team, doesn’t that suggest a reason for the FBI to be highly concerned about Russian involvement with Trump?
This is irrelevant. The FBI lied about Carter Page, that’s what this thread is about. You want to talk about whether or not people believe Barr, create your own thread.
I’m arguing that the FBI lied about Carter Page being a Russian Agent, he is not.
This is not an accurate reflection of the IG report. You are arguing poorly.
He is.
In your mind what is an actual reflection of the IG report with regards to Carter Page and the FISA warrants?
Not according to the IG Report.
So this quote is not from the report?
So what was his relationship with Russia? Is it your belief that he had never been there, never spoke with Russian people, and never had anything to say about Russia? Or is your claim that he had a relationship with Russia, but since he wasn’t “working for” Russia, that relationship is irrelevant?
I mean, you are making a claim that he was wrongly identified as a Russian agent. So, what of it? If the FBI had said that he was six feet tall, but he’s really 5’10”, would that be worth examination?
What does this apparent lie that you’ve identified mean? I thought you took it to mean that he was a CIA agent sent to spy on Trump, but you don’t seem to want to subscribe to that idea. So help me out here with what you are trying to assert. Why, in your mind, was the FBI lying about Page?
Serious question: let’s say someone joins the mafia, but then becomes an informant for the FBI. Do you consider them no longer a member of the mafia as of that moment?
Let’s make some definitions clear since the report is discussing legal and procedural points not lay-understandings of things.
The technical definition of a foreign agent, as given a few posts back, it needs to be pointed out, does not require that the individual have done anything like swear fealty to the foreign power, receive money from the foreign power, nor anything else of that nature. It is very broad. If you are aware that you are dealing with agents of the country and cooperate with them in their tasks, then you are also a foreign agent.
Carter Page publicly admits to being aware of his interactions with Russian and American Intelligence agents and cooperating with both. He is, by his own admission, an agent of Russia. Anything Steele might say and anything within the six redacted items of evidence that Horowitz presents as evidence of Page’s Russian clandestine cooperation (page 201) are all just bonus and unnecessary, since the definition of “foreign agent” is so broad and because, again, Page does not contend the idea that he cooperates with Russian Intelligence.
Now, whereas the definition of a “foreign agent” is quite broad, the definition of a “Confidential Human Source” is relatively precise. It means a person who has signed a document agreeing to be an official source for the FBI, in return for money. Steele was a source for the FBI (until they severed the relationship). Despite cooperating with the FBI, as part of his plea deal, Michael Cohen is not. Despite answering the FBI’s questions when asked, Carter Page is not.
For the purposes of FISA, the FBI is required to note if a person is a source for them or another agency of the Federal government.
The CIA does not have “confidential human sources”. As such, this rule is problematic since it requires some translation. The CIA probably has things that are equivalent, for the purposes of FISA, to a “source” as the FBI understands it.
Carter Page is not in that bucket, though. While he has cooperated, knowingly, with the CIA and the FBI, he is not a source for either one. He has not signed a contract with either one. He has received no money from either one.
Looking back at pages 1 and 2, it seems clear that a fair number of posters have failed to make any reasonable arguments against Phil’s points.
That is an excessive leap of logic.
Consider, as example, that Charles murders five children. He is arrested and put into a jail cell with another man, Ted. Ted is annoying as all hell, talking incessantly. Among things that he talks about, he admits to having committed the crimes that he was arrested for. Charles decides, hating Ted and wanting to reduce his sentence, that he will tell the police about Ted’s admission to having committed those crimes.
Is it reasonable to say that Charles did not murder five children? After all, he helped the police to catch Ted… No, that would be ludicrous.
Let’s assume that we don’t know the backstory about Charles and Ted. All we are given is a brief summary like, “Charles murdered 5 children. Charles aided in convicting Ted.” Is it reasonable, from those two sentences, to assume that the second sentence proves that the first sentence was a lie? Again, no, that would be ludicrous.
My assumption is that your logic is that if Page is an “agent” of Russia, then he would never help to prosecute agents of Russia.
That is, as said, a giant leap. I respect that it makes sense from a certain viewpoint, but it ignores a swathe of alternate potential - including ones that are directly pointed to in, at least, the Horowitz report and quite plausibly would have been mentioned in the redacted portions of pages 10-14, given that the text there should be discussing the 2013 case and the leadup to it, and it would be strange to think that Horowitz’s version would present a wildly different viewpoint.
Ignoring the information from Horowitz, I can envision cases like:
- Page hated those individuals, even if he was otherwise friendly to Russia.
- Page was given orders, by Russia, to play friendly with the FBI in the hopes of dispelling focus from him, so that he could continue to serve as an agent of Russia.
- People are stupid and often give away the game, when in an interview with LEOs.
- Page had a choice between going to jail with his Russian handlers or staying out of jail, and chose the latter.
- Page simply likes playing spy and will work with anyone willing to involve him in anything clandestine, regardless of side.
- Page is a double-agent (at least, in his own view).
- Etc.
With Horowitz’s information and more general background info on Page, we can narrow in on items like #3, #4, and #5. According to Page, he believes in cooperating with everyone on everything. Possibly that’s true. Just as likely, that’s a ruse, and really he just gave everything away when the Feds picked him up because he’s an idiot and doesn’t want to admit it. But, also, it could simply be that they had wiretaps of Male-1 that were reasonably damning and Page was looking at perjury, if he chose to deny the conversations, or freedom if he was willing to testify that he said what they had on tape and would play in court, with or without him.
Page has openly admitted to cooperating with foreign intelligence and to being aware that they are foreign intelligence. That is, by the definition of a “foreign agent” that the warrant specifically references, sufficient to make the appellation.
That definition might well be so broad that you could drive a monster truck through it - I’m not saying that it is a reasonable standard - but it is the legal standard and its definition is clearly referenced in the document.
Page may deny it, but his denial is not proof and particularly not if he’s using a vernacular definition of “foreign agent” rather than the technical one.
The term “foreign agent” as referenced in the warrant comes from the US code of law, yes, but it comes from a section of vocabulary.
It is not a crime to be a foreign agent.
Certain activities are illegal for foreign agents to perform, unless they properly register themselves and are honest about who they represent.
However, “criminality” is not just a question of what the law says, it’s also a question of whether that person had criminal intent and whether that person could be prosecuted in a court of law.
Page has a form of implicit immunity in that he is crazy. In a court of law, being looked at by 12 reasonable people, it would be difficult to convince all of them that Page understood his actions and their ramifications in any meaningful way, such that it would be worthwhile to convict him.
You might make an argument that Page had criminal intent, mixing business and politics, but that would be overshadowed by - as said - the clear reality that the man is a loonball.
Again, that is an excessive leap of logic.
Let’s say, for example, that Charles and Ted have discussed plans for murdering 5 children.
While drunk, Ted mentioned these plans to Rebecca. Rebecca was high and intoxicated at the time and came to the police only after a few weeks had passed, having decided that Ted was a creep after some months of being in a relationship together and ignoring his strange commentary - thinking that he just had a dark sense of humor - until it became clear that he was serious.
To be clear, Ted genuinely had that conversation with Charles and both of them were genuinely planning to murder some kids.
But, Rebecca’s testimony is insufficient to establish that fact.
As all-knowing gods, we know that it’s a fact. The police only know that Rebecca says that it’s true, and they know that her testimony would not stand up in court since she might just be a spurned lover, since she was intoxicated at the time, etc.
I have not established that you, EasyPhil, are a living human being. You might be a zombie or a figment of my imagination or an AI. But if I write, honestly, “I have not established that EasyPhil is a human being.” It is wildly unreasonable to read that statement to imply that I have proved that you are non-human.
Sage Rate, you don’t know what the definition of “Foreign Power” is. Here’s a cite for you:
The FBI lied about Carter Page and falsified evidence. The IG Report and subsequent hearing makes this abundantly clear. No amount of word salad, twisting and bending on your part is going to change that fact.
Oh, I see. Everyone in the world knows that Carter Page is a dolt, except for one guy who knows he’s a superspy double agent. Great thing that this one guy posts on our little message board!
I’m pretty sure that I made no significant commentary on that term and that Russia counts as one. Are you arguing that Russia is not a foreign power?
If you mistyped and intended to say “foreign agent”, then yes, that link goes to the correct definition which is the same one that I posted and which I was both comfortable to quote and to describe why it fits. One notes that you have made no explanation of how it does not fit and were afraid to quote it. You may as well have just said, “There is no Russia! Carter Page is innocent!”
Denial is not an argument.
Yes it is.