Stupid Takes From “Smart” People: Trump/FBI Edition
Tell us you don't know anything about Federal Warrants without telling us you don't know anything about Federal Warrants
![[Andrew Yang]](https://otb.cachefly.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/andrew-yang-black-white-1024x732.jpg)
In the almost 48 hours since we learned that the FBI executed a search warrant on former President Trump’s Mar A Lago hotel and residence, there have been a lot of stupid takes on it. Many come from the usual sources who appear to be circling the wagons around Trump. MTG for example wants to “Defund the FBI.” The House Republican Caucus warns that if they can serve a former president with a search warrant then they can serve anyone with a warrant (as if this is not the way our criminal legal system is supposed to work). More irresponsibly Newt Gingrich and others are speculating that the FBI was actually planting evidence. Sadly, this is par for the course with these political provocateurs.
What’s far more disappointing is when people who market themselves as outside-the-box thinkers decide to weigh in on the topic. And the worst example of this is from political revolutionary Andrew Yang:
I’m not going to address the overall “former Presidents should be above the law for the good of national harmony” aspect of this thread. Over at the National Review Kevin Williamson has done an admirably succinct job of obliterating that line of thought (seriously, it’s a quick read and worth it). I’m specifically looking at the second tweet and what it indicates about Yang’s understanding of the Federal Criminal Justice system and, potentially, his overall level of curiosity about how government actually functions.
Before I unpack everything that is wrong with that characterization, let me remind you that Yang earned a Juris Doctor from Columbia Law School in 1999. And practiced law in New York for five months before leaving the profession. He recounted the impact those studies had on his life in a Washington Post article:
He said he doesn’t regret studying law, which made him more “structured and detail-oriented.” On the other hand, he said, the cautious analysis taught in law school can get in the way of an entrepreneur who needs to make decisions quickly, often based more on instinct than data. He said he had to “unlearn” some of what his law professors taught him.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/28/andrew-yang-was-groomed-high-paying-job-an-elite-law-firm-he-lasted-five-months/?arc404=true
Me thinks he unlearned too much. So let’s begin:
“It seems like this was authorized by a local judge”
First, the search warrant must be sought in the district it will be executed in. Therefore it has to be local. But it’s still being handled by the federal system, which has far higher thresholds than most State and County courts.
The search warrant was authorized by a U. S. Magistrate Judge. Magistrate judges are term positions that are appointed by Federal Judges in a specific District. While they are not voted on by the Senate, they need the majority support of the District Judges. They are not easy appointments to get and the people who serve in these positions are, generally speaking, excellent jurists. This includes Magistrate Judge Bruce E Reinhart who, previous to being appointed served as both a Federal Prosecutor and Criminal Defense Attorney (a plus in my book) among many other positions. Ken White (aka Popehat) notes the following about Magistrate judges:
This gets us to the next part of Yang’s Tweet:
“and a particular FBI office without buy-in or notification of higher levels of government.”
I’m not sure how best to even parse the absurdity of this statement. The FBI and Department of Justice, like many law enforcement organizations, can be overzealous in pursuing suspects and evidence. However, we also need to look at past behavior to interpret the news. One of the hallmarks of the last two years is how cautiously the DoJ in particular has approached investigations of the former President (much to the very public chagrin of Progressives and Democrats). The idea that a particular FBI branch office would unilaterally move forward without seeking input from FBI headquarters or DoJ headquarters is ridiculous.
Federal Prosecutors would most likely be involved in drawing up and reviewing the warrant application because it needs to include evidence of how the search would relate to an active investigation and potentially lead to charging. To get a sense of how in-depth a warrant application needs to be, see the 50-page application that was filed to obtain the Paul Manafort search warrant in 2017.
And given the conservatism of Federal Prosecutors (again something that White regularly talks about) in terms of charging political figures, no Prosecutor would stick their neck out on this one (especially given Merrit Garland’s concerns around the perceived politicization of the Department of Justice). Let’s look at White’s take:
Part of the reason for this care is that a copy of the warrant, which includes both the items taken AND the information about what crimes are being investigated, has to be left with the subject of the warrant. Note that Trump’s legal team has already stated they will not be making that document public at this time.
Now it’s entirely possible that all of these distinctions were part of the things from Law School that Yang decided to “unlearn.” I for one have definitely forgotten a lot of stuff I knew in 1999 as well. The problem was that Yang decided to write about this topic without doing any basic research to check his hot take. That to me demonstrates both a lack of curiosity and a lack of detail that is deeply problematic for someone who positions himself as a serious political thinker. Of course, as James and Steven have already pointed out, this isn’t a particularly new behavior for Yang. The best we can say is we found a topic he understands even less than political theory, but still comments as if he’s an expert in it.
Update: We may know more about the warrant in the next few days. A number of organizations including Judicial Watch and the Albany Times Union have petitioned the Southern District of Florida to unseal (if sealed) and release the warrant that was left with the Trump Attornies. The Court has until Monday to respond.
Update 2: In a press conference today Attorney General Garland confirmed that he personally approved the warrant. So much for “It seems like this was authorized by a local judge and a particular FBI office without buy-in or notification of higher levels of government.” Looking forward to Yang’s retraction or clarification.
Andrew Yang is just following the footsteps of Dan Abrams and Michael Smerconish, two examples of people who work so hard to be “even-handed”, that it ends up being a joke when something is actually serious.
It’s simple.
Did Trump break the law? Yes or no.
If the answer is yes, what do we do about it?
At least now we can forecast how far the Forward Party will go.
The market value for “people who market themselves as outside-the-box thinkers” is measured in retweets. The metric doesn’t distinguish between retweets of agreement and those of mockery. Since Yang’s primary objective is to be seen as relevant, the old adage holds true – any publicity is good publicity.
The elephant in the room is Hillary sliding by a federal indictment for her “wiped down” server deleting hundreds if not thousands of classified documents. She was unscathed. Left unsaid is the judge OK’ing the warrant…while a Republican appointee, he has donated thousands of dollars to Obama and the Democrats. Also IMHO, Merrick Garland is not a fan of American ideals and is likely on a vendetta because of his failure to get on the Supremes.
The screaming is loud. Very loud. It inspires fears that it might propel Trump back into the White House. That’s what Yang is voicing. “We coulda maybe just let him fade away, but now we’re putting him in the spotlight again”. It’s a 100 percent political take.
Let’s bear in mind, though, that at the moment, Trump can talk all he wants and the people with the facts that contradict him are keeping their mouths shut. As they should.
I hope they have something really solid, I do. If they don’t, it will create further political problems. And, it must be said, Trump is a good wiggler. He can duck and dodge his way out of lots of stuff. He’s very good at the “imply stuff without saying it” game.
And yet, all signs point to, yes, they do have something very solid. They have to know that the weight of the situation demands it. I demand it, even for Trump. No harassment. No going at him on stuff that’s kind of thin and speculative. I’m in “wait and see” mode.
I would also like to note that with this Twitter outburst, Yang merely adds himself to a long list of people now carrying water for TFG, including all journalists and punditry calling the FBI action “a raid” or harping on “unprecedented” or “historical” in their reporting/commentary. If there was anything exculpatory for Trump in the search warrant, we would have seen it by now.
@John430: Hilary Clinton complied with all search warrants served on her. She followed the law. You are engaging in scurrilous speculation about her not complying with the law. But that’s just based on a feeling, not on any fact in evidence. Because you don’t like her. Which is common.
Also, if your claim amounts to “y’all are ignoring H. Clinton”, it’s quite evident from the discussions of the past few days that we aren’t.
If you are here to have a discussion, you have to engage with what is actually said, and what facts are in common.
But that might not be why you posted, I don’t really know what the reason is. I’m not going to speculate, either, and I hope other commenters don’t either.
@Jay L Gischer: Can I point out that all those folks screaming what about Hillary are actually agreeing that no one is above the law and this action was legal and warranted.
To be fair to Yang, law schools don’t really teach any of the practical ways to actually be an attorney. Which is totally a bold choice for what is a glorified trade school.
One of the skills you pick up rapidly after passing the bar is to hide the fact that you don’t know anything about what you’re doing and to get people to pretend you actually know what you’re doing. Yang seems to have forgotten this valuable skill.
Andrew Yang proved some time ago that he’s not too smart. It is not surprising that he continues to prove that fact.
@John430:
You might be interested in reading this reporting:
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/09/why-the-trump-search-warrant-is-nothing-like-hillarys-emails-00050691
There is also this:
https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/aug/09/comparing-hillary-clintons-emails-and-donald-trump/
Also, to be clear, there is no guarantee that this document recovery effort leads to an indictment for Trump either. This could simply have been a document recovery effort (which would have needed a warrant as well).
The former president could clear this all up by releasing the warrant.
My brother texted me a long, typo ridden diatribe yesterday about how even liberals like Andrew Yang were horrified by the FBI raiding Casa de la Trump.
I’m still amazed anyone at all bothers with him or reports on him. He’s got “one simple trick” energy and a constituency of people who watch TEDtalks and drive Teslas but think Musk is too brash. I’m pretty bad at reading people and within 30 seconds of hearing him at a debate I clocked him as a lightweight idiot grifter.
@Matt Bernius:
I actually did a spit take when I read that. “Interested in reading…” Good one!
@Scott: They may be inadvertently acknowledging what you are noting, but their intent is to allow that since Hillary “got away with it” that FG should be able to also. The peak of such thinking comes from my mom who for several years lamented that ANYONE was convicted of murder in the light of what Sen. Kennedy did to “that nice girl” on Chappaquiddick Island.
But but but if he did that it might put an end to the semi annual fleecing of the rubes.
@Just nutha ignint cracker: I’ve taken to the tactic of me as a parent basically saying to my kid, “I don’t care how his Mom disciplined him, this is your punishment”.
@John430: The actual elephant in the room is that you Rethuglikkklan are morally bankrupt anti-American thugs and patholgical liars who can’t defend Trump’s criminal behavior, so you’re reduced to your pathetically desperate and played out “But Hillary” playbook.
It’s not going to work. Hillary was cleared by Senate Republicans, House Republicans, a Republican FBI director because unlike fascist scumbag Dementia Donald, she didn’t break any laws.
Rules in place at the time allowed Hillary broad latitude to not just declassify information, but to curate and delete emails at her discretion. Unlike the tens of thousands of private server emails deleted by the Republican Bush administration during the Valerie Plame affair, all of Hillary’s emails were recovered during the phony Emailghazigatepalooza witch hunt. Nothing of import was found.
Unlike Trump, Hillary did not steal, flush, and refuse to turn over classified documents. That’s why after thirty years of Republicans hunting down Hillary, Republicans have not charged Hillary with a crime and never will.
Hillary is innocent. That’s why she testified publicly for 11 hours. Trump is guilty. That’s why he is subject to search warrants approved by Republican judges he appointed, and why he is pleading the 5th.
You tried tho. Choke on it. #LockHimUp #JailTreasonTrump
@Just nutha ignint cracker: Hillary didn’t “get away with it,” she just didn’t commit any crimes. She testified publicly for 12 hours, Republicans at every level investigated her, and they found zilch because there was no there there. Just like in every other fake anti-Hillary white nonsense witch hunt of the past three decades.
Trump is a criminal, a thug, and liar who is pleading the 5th because he committed crimes and is incapable of telling the truth. So the comparison won’t work.
Someone shove a book on Civil Procedure at Yang, please. I’m not impressed.
@Beth:
Sadly that’s a good point.
Translation* . He failed as a baby lawyer and left before he could be fired from his junior associate legal eagle position.
* Speaking only as the poor sap who got to train baby lawyers on how to actually practice law at a practical, making $$$ for the firm basis for far too many years. My favorite senior partner moment was the one who always referred to new lawyers as FNG’s, and them would explain to them exactly what the F meant. In detail.
@grumpy realist:
@Beth:
Truth truthily truthed!
@John430:
Ah, John, we missed your trenchant commentary and witty humor. No, really, we did. You may be a one-trick pony, but by Dawg, you’re OUR one trick pony!
@John430:
Johnny 420 showing once again that he is immune to irony and allergic to self-awareness.
@John430: You do realize deleting emails on your computer doesn’t make those emails disappear right? There are copies on the sending machine, the server on their end the server on your end and probably still copies in cache on your machine and all the prior machines. The emails were recovered and nothing was found outside what was allowed to be deleted.
In the case of the federal government there’s probably a few more copies on various servers than stated above. Since the above statement was from the perspective of a standard civilian non governmental/corporate email system. I know corporate email systems will store extra copies like the federal government.
TLDR nothing sent across the internet really disappears.
THis is why “but her emails” merch is selling so well..
For all of the “BuT hILlary dId iT” idiots out there, this is a good thread that breaks down, in very simple terms, why what Trump did is far, far worse.
@John430:
BTW, in a bit of irony, once he was President Donald Trump was frustrated enough by the way Clinton was treated and how things played out with the FISA courts that he pushed to strengthen a variety of laws related to the handling of secret documents. This included upgrading the crimes from misdemeanors to felonies (with up to five years in prison).
So, if some analysts are right, and this is about the mishandling of secret documents and Trump is eventually charged, it will be for breaking a law that he had advocated and signed into law.
More details here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/08/10/trump-fbi-search-surveillance-law/
So you were the Deck Shiflett to many a Rudy Baylor. You have my sympathies.
@OzarkHillbilly:
Thank you. Sympathies greatly appreciated. We used to tell the baby (paralegals and attorneys) that, if they hadn’t met Denny Crane (or his cousins Niles and Frasier Crane) in their first year in the office, they needed to lock themselves in the bathroom, lean in close to the mirror, and say (in their best William Shatner voice) I’m Denny Crane!
https://youtu.be/XzmrZWe_9eg
Hi Matt,
I think you’ve mischaracterized Yang’s tweets. He’s specifically talking about the political effects of the warrant/raid and not their legal legitimacy. In short, he’s suggesting that the raid plays into Trump’s narrative that he’s a victim of the so-called “Deep State.”
I don’t think that’s a wild-eyed or dumb analysis, particularly since that’s exactly how Trump’s allies are characterizing it and will continue to characterize it. That, in turn, will put pressure on the DoJ to release the warrant itself and relevant details so that the decision can be scrutinized.
So I do not think that Yang believes “former Presidents should be above the law for the good of national harmony.” He never actually said that (as far as I’m aware anyway), and I certainly don’t interpret those tweets that way.
So I think most of your post is attacking a straw man, and not very effectively IMO.
The fundamental problem is that we don’t have the information to evaluate the validity of the warrant and whether this was really about not turning over records or if it was something else. I think it’s way too early to make any conclusions although the DoJ deserves the initial benefit of the doubt. Eventually, though, I think the onus is on the DOJ to make the case – at some point – that this was a warranted response.
But you and Ken White are basically arguing that everything must be kosher because it’s a serious process that is taken seriously by serious people, that all the checks and balances were made, etc., and that it’s ridiculous to suggest otherwise. That no one would fail to dot all the i’s and t’s given who this warrant is for.
But I wouldn’t be so confident. After all, the arguments you, Ken White, and many others are making now are the same ones made for months in defense of the Carter Page FISA warrant and the Steele Dossier – until both were later shown to be illegitimate. Those errors also contradict your contention that “One of the hallmarks of the last two years is how cautiously the DoJ in particular has approached investigations of the former President.”
What we really need is transparency. And I think that is a foundational principle that applies to a politically sensitive investigation of a former President as much as it does to any other investigation, no matter how routine.
@Flat Earth Luddite: What surprised me was the number of lawyers I ran across who seemed to assume (getting A’s in law school) == (being a great lawyer). For some of them, the concept that they had to actually go out and be rainmakers and get clients was an absolute horror. It was as if they expected clients should just automatically waltz in through the door because of their great GPAs.
@Flat Earth Luddite: I worked at a (eta: high priced) law firm (mail room clerk) for a couple years during the late 70s. Believe it or not, I acquired a fondness for lawyers. Even more so for librarians, a much maligned and underappreciated resource of knowledge.
@OzarkHillbilly:
All well and good, but you gotta know the Deck Shifflets of the world to get to the aid of the Bruiser Stones.
I love Shifflet’s introduction. The way Rourke yells, “Deck! Deck!” cracks me up.
@Flat Earth Luddite: @grumpy realist: I have a friend (been a long time since I’ve seen her) who got hired onto a big time STL law firm in corporate law. She earned it, really smart and a bulldog when needed. But the moment came when she realized that she was being paraded in front of potential black clients at initial meetings, then when they signed up, never called upon to do work for them again.
Eventually she got so tired off the soft racism she got off the partnership train and did strict contract work. She got paid, but no longer dealt with the headaches and uncompensated overtime.
@Kurtz: I love that movie. It’s pure John Grisham pulp, but entertaining as hell. Not to mention it’s Danny DeVito at his best.
@Andy:
Only two of the four Carter Page warrants were found to be in error (incomplete, leading to misleading conclusions)*, and no one serious has ever claimed that the Steele dossier was anything other than raw intelligence — effectively transcribed rumors that would need further evidence and investigation (I know some non-serious people were claiming that it was made up whole cloth).
——
*: and that was a conclusion made by the Trump justice department, so if we are claiming the justice department cannot be trusted, are we also discounting the Trump justice department making findings in Trump’s interest?
@Andy: Andy!!! Good to see you again! How have things been in your neck of the woods? We were just wondering about you a couple weeks ago.
If we were at our local bar, like Cheers, I’d be buying you a beer right now. 😛
@Matt Bernius:
I assume you were joking? Because, no. No he wouldn’t.
@Andy: Carter Page warrant. True. Page took the same shortcuts he and other law enforcement officials do all the time and get away with.
Steele dossier being “illegitimate”. That’s just a bullshit Fox News MAGA talking point. The Steele dossier was exactly what he purported it to be. It still is. He did right by turning it over to the Feds. He’s a f’ing hero as far as I can see.
@Andy:
BS right wing propaganda. The Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee found the FBI justified in targeting Page despite problems with the FISA warrants, because Page’s conduct Russian contacts were shady. For the same reason, Page has lost lawsuits against the DNC, Perkins Coe, HuffPo, Yahoo News, and Verizon Media.
The Steele Dossier was raw intel and oppo research. Bits and pieces of that intel have been corroborated and confirmed, other parts found to be bunk. As happens with raw intel. Big whoop.
And none of the above justifies Trump stealing, destroying, and hiding classified documents. Or his crime family colluding with a Russian cyberwar on US elections, which they did do btw.
Hey @Andy!
As always thank you for taking the time to comment. I suspect this is going to be one of those ones where we are going to agree to disagree. And, before that happens, I wanted to address some of your concerns and hint at where the disconnect might be.
First of all, I think some of this is a (somewhat expert parsing) of the sections I highlighted. As I mention, beyond working in the CLS, I’m married to a Federal Clerk. So that influences the way I read:
This simply isn’t the way the system works. I do note that you mention the Cater Page FISA case as an example. Beyond points brought up by other posters, there are differences between the FISA court and Federal District Courts. As strange as it seems, Federal District Courts are often seen as far more skeptical of Federal Warrant Applications than FISA courts–in part because their work is more public. In fact, Ken White, as a former Federal Prosecutor and now Defense Attorney, has in the past expressed skepticism about FISA court review processes (as have a number of more libertarian-leaning legal professionals)–I’ll try to dig up the “All the Presidents’ Men” episodes.
Either way, comparing what happened in the FISA court with the current situation feels like a stretch due to the different factors involved in each case (not unlike efforts to compare Clinton to Trump as noted above). As White and others note, there is no right-thinking DoJ agent that doesn’t appreciate the amount of immediate scrutiny that the decision to execute this search warrant would lead to (and did). To act unilaterally on this (if it was even possible) would be a career-ending decision.
I think that has already entered into the calculus and they went forward with it. But beyond this, this gets to the larger point that if you take this point seriously then the extension is that we are unable to ever charge a former President who retains significant support out of fear of alienating part of our population. This also fits into a broader pattern of Yang’s where he has expressed hesitancy about impeachment in the name of political expediency:
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/19/andrew-yang-debate-impeachment-088449
Yang, to his credit, did call on twitter for impeachment after 1/6 so he does have his limits: https://twitter.com/AndrewYang/status/1348965667664490497?s=20&t=RpQiuewTlzSr6PPbSP52Xw
I can see how, taken on its own, this article might appear that way. I also believe that taken in the context of both of our broader positions (and skepticism) of the Criminal Legal System (and expertise… in particular in the case of White who was both a Federal Prosecutor and currently a Defense Attorney and someone who for the last 6 years has warned against wish-casting prosecutions of Trump) is not a grounded or accurate assessment. And also I believe at some point you need to accept the normal checks and balances within this system until data demonstrates otherwise. The cases you cite (as dealt with above) are historic exceptions versus rules.
Beyond all of that, we might not need to wait long for additional information. It turns out that Judicial Watch and an Albany, NY newspaper[1], potentially to the ex-President’s chagrin, have filed a request to unseal the warrant (not the more detailed warrant application):
https://www.timesunion.com/state/article/Requests-filed-to-unseal-search-warrant-used-to-17365143.php?utm_source=t.co&utm_campaign=socialflow&cmpid=twittersocialflow&utm_medium=referral
[1] – The Times Union has been doing really amazing investigative political reporting at the state and national levels. Very interested to see how this request goes. This is also a really interesting example of how right wing interest can overlap with more traditional mainstream journalists.
@Andy:
Again, I want to note that former President Trump could bring some immediate transparency by releasing the warrant (versus having Judicial Watch and the Time Union file for it’s unsealing). Beyond that, the FBI and the DoJ are to some degree caught in a Catch-22. The general policy of law enforcement agencies is not to transparently discuss in-process investigations. And at least one of those institutions was raked over the coals (including having a former Director dismissed) for being too public about a certain politically charged investigation in the fall of 2016. And it’s worth noting that even the former president used that as a critique of Comey in justifying his dismissal.
@Gustopher:
“Incomplete” is a charitable way of characterizing deliberate deception in an application to the FISA court that obtained an illegal surveillance warrant on an American citizen.
As for this:
“Transcribed rumors” is an accurate description. That “no one serious” ever claimed otherwise is not.
As just one example, here’s what the DoJ IG conclusion about the relevance of the Dossier for the Carter Page FISA warrants:
@MarkedMan:
Which is kind of the point. Arguments that there could not possibly be anything wrong with this latest warrant – considering how little we know – seem to be at least premature.
@DK:
I don’t have much interest in relitigating this, but most of what you say here is just factually wrong. I’ll just focus on this easy one:
Page was previously a CIA asset who collected information on the Russians for the agency. It was the fact that he was a CIA asset that collected on Russians that was hidden from the FISA court to make it appear that his Russian contacts were “shady.” As well as the Steele Dossier, which contained inaccurate information.
That you link to a Slate (!!) piece from 2017 as proof that some of the information was verified isn’t very convincing when we have primary source material that’s developed since that time as well as an IG investigation that lays out the timeline and details. So I would really suggest you read at least the IG Executive Summary:
https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf
@Jax:
Thank you Jax! That is such a nice and thoughtful comment. I’d love to have a beer with you sometime!
I’ve had a really busy summer, so I haven’t been online much until recently. For most of June I was off-grid, then work was really busy, and my oldest child is heading to college out of state, so there’s that. And lot of family stuff which I won’t belabor here.
I’ve still been reading posts here and elsewhere, but haven’t had much time to dive into comments.
@Matt Bernius:
Hey Matt, thanks for the detailed response! Hope you are well.
The two paragraphs starting with this sentence are really good. And I would hasten to add that I agree with the thrust of what and Ken are saying, that the process and structural incentives guard against risk-taking in warrants.
My point is that the argument only goes so far. It’s an argument, it’s not proof or evidence. This event is unusual and significant enough that it warrants greater scrutiny IMO, and appeals to the integrity of the system aren’t sufficient.
As noted, I think political pressure for transparency will result in relevant details being release at some point that will allow independent observers and experts to provide opinions based on actual evidence.
Sure, but that is not exactly a novel view, and there is longstanding debate and opinion about what protections – if any – that Presidents should have for the various things they do. I do not think Yang is out of the mainstream opinion here.
I agree with that. Although I said the DoJ deserves the initial benefit of the doubt, I should have made that point stronger in my response.
The problem, though is that accepting the normal checks and balances in the system doesn’t mean that one can’t question whether they worked in a specific case. It’s perfectly legitimate to ask if the checks and balances worked and to ask for evidence showing that they did.
I think this situation is quite similar to my own expertise in intelligence and various kinetic operations. I know how lethal strikes are performed and the checks and balances in that system, which aren’t generally known by the public. If a strike looks “bad,” then it’s inevitable and expected that people will question the result and that process. Any efforts I make to suggest that the strike wasn’t bad because bad strikes are very rare is true but also speculative.
I think that is good. What’s needed is less speculation and more information.
He could and he should. But as well all know, Trump is going to Trump.
@Andy: I’m just north and west of you in the ol’ 307 if you ever end up over on this side of the state. Good luck with your daughter going off to college, and I hope your sister, your wife and the other kids are doing well!
@Andy:
Like Page himself, you’re just not telling the whole truth. Direct quote from the Senate Intel Committee report re: Page:
The report goes on to note that Page’s “responses to basic questions were meandering, avoidant and involved several long diversions.”
Carter Page’s Russia contacts were “made to look shady” by Carter Page. Because Page, Trump, and their apologists constantly lie by omission and are incapable of telling the full truth. They and the FBI deserve each other.
@Andy:
Thanks for the condescending suggestion, but I read that years ago. Nothing in it changes the reality that the Steele dossier was a collection of raw intel, never intended to be a statement of confirmed facts, and that parts of the dossier were later corroborated, other parts discredited, as is typical with intelligence gathering.
The central theory of the dossier, alleging shady links between the Trump folks and Russiam operatives, isn’t even up for debate. Trump publicly called for Russia to steal emails, his scampaign met with Russian operatives in Trump Tower to exchange election meddling for ending sanctions. Both Trump’s one-time campaign manager Manafort (who once helped Putin rig Ukrainian elections) and Bannon helped Russian spies target their propaganda cyberattacks.
The focus on FISA warrant errors and dossier sourcing is designed by Putin apologists and those who confuse Roganesque contranianism with critical thinking to keep the gullible focused on the trees not the forest. The forest being that Carter Page lied, Trump lied, Manafort lied, and Bannon lied because they wanted to hide their shady, treason-adjacent Russian collusion.
The trees do not mitigate the Trump’s crime family’s collusion with Russia’s attack on the 2016 American electorate. But those who would rather peddle Greenwald-Carlson’s right wing Russia talking points cannot tell the whole truth and have to cherry-pick only the “parts were discredited” edge of the dossier story, as befits Putin’s preferred fake narrative.
@Andy: “My point is that the argument only goes so far. It’s an argument, it’s not proof or evidence. This event is unusual and significant enough that it warrants greater scrutiny IMO, and appeals to the integrity of the system aren’t sufficient.”
IMHO, your side bears the burden of proof. And after Jan 6, no Republican can play the ‘unprecedented’ or ‘unusual’ card.
People have probably abandoned this thread by now, but something to bear in mind re: Carter Page. Most raw intelligence does amount to rumors. Carter Page’s sources were probably framed as sketchy because an awful lot of sources are sketchy. Think about what it means to share information about your country, your government, with another power. Some are disillusioned patriots. Some want revenge, and a certain portion just want money. Intelligence gathering, particularly human-collected, is not a fairy tale.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and people in the intel community know this. The general public though, does not.
@DK:
Again, the IG report directly contradicts what you claim about Page and the FISA warrants.
Keep in mind I was an intel analyst for over 20 years. I know very well what “raw intel” is. In this case, it became clear very early to the FBI that Steele’s information had very significant problems and that the information wasn’t actually “raw” intelligence – it was passing off Steele’s own conclusions and the opinion of some of his sub-sources – as fact.
The “corroborated” information was simply a repetition of information that was already public knowledge. As the IG report states:
It’s important to note that Steele was just a middle-man who collected information from sub-sources – most from a single sub-source. The FBI interviewed that multiple times in 2017 and found that Steele had mischaracterized the source’s information:
and this:
That is only one small part.
And anyone who understands intelligence reporting knows that this is a massive red flag:
The point being, it wasn’t actually “raw intelligence.”
Meanwhile, Steele was feeding this same information to the media, despite the FBI’s objections, and they dropped him as a CHS when he told reporters that he was working for the FBI.
Anyway, it’s 2022, and the validity of the Steele Dossier is settled. You don’t need to try to keep it relevant via claims that it’s “raw” intelligence. The Dossier was vetted and found to be mostly a pile of shit. All the derogatory information about Carter Page was wrong, and all the most sensationalist claims were wrong, yet there are still rubes out there trying to hang their hat on it.
And this made me laugh:
I see that you haven’t changed much. You don’t have the facts on your side when it comes to the FISA warrants or the Dossier, which is why you are forced to cite and cling to old and dated information and “assessments” from politicians, so the ad hominem fallacy comes out.
@Andy:
Great responses all around. And it looks like we’re far closer in thinking than I initially thought we were.
@Barry:
I’m not and never have been a Republican, so I’m not sure which “side” you are referring to. Regardless, I do not agree that the burden of proof is only applies to political opponents.
@Jen:
All good points. I would just note again that Page was a CIA asset who provided reporting to the Agency on Russia and Russian sources.
@Andy:
I couldn’t care less who you are or what you see. You being a legend in your own mind is not relevant to me.
Carter Page was under a cloud of suspicion because Carter Page repeatedly lied to investigators. I don’t need the facts on my side when it comes to the Steele Dossier. The facts are on my side when it comes to Trump’s Russia collusion, and nobody needs the Steele Dossier for that.
And some of it was corroborated, just like I said. The fact that Steele was, as you say, a mere middle-man passing on information that other, more important people then poured over reinforces the point I’m making and makes your and the right wing propagandists’ hysterical meltdowns over the dossier foolish. Steele was a nobody gathering rumors and intel, which was vetted and curated accordingly. And none of it changes the reality that Carter Page and Trump both lied repeatedly, and that the Trump crime family collude with Russia’s attack on the 2016 election.
Why this truth should is causing you to write 10,000 word screeds (that are moot) is an issue for your therapist to work out.