Sunday, July 22, 2018

Carter Page FISA application

Making my way through the Carter Page FISA application. First thing that jumps out: They went straight for “knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence activities”; I’d thought they might have leaned on the “aids or abets” definition of a foreign agent.
6:51 PM - 21 Jul 2018
46 replies458 retweets1,081 likes
 
 
 
Robby BallTweet text
 
 

    1. New conversation
    1.  13 hours ago
      “The FBI believes that the Russian Government’s efforts are being coordinated with Page and perhaps other individuals associated with Candidate #1’s campaign.”
      5 replies147 retweets460 likes
       
       
       
    2.  13 hours ago
      Significant amount of redacted information pertaining to Page’s pre-2016 ties to Russia & Russian intelligence. Implies they think he was recruited years ago, but impossible to assess the evidence for that.
      11 replies141 retweets502 likes
       
       
       
    3.  13 hours ago
      There’s a full page of discussion of Steele being hired to conduct political oppo research, and why the FBI regards his reporting as reliable anyway. Makes the Nunes claim that they tried to hoodwink the FISC about this look even more ridiculous.
      18 replies279 retweets885 likes
       
       
       
    4.  13 hours ago
      It’s absolutely insane Nunes tried to claim FBI hid this information from the FISC. All this immediately follows the first mention of Steele (aka “Source 1”).
      52 replies637 retweets1,535 likes
       
       
       
    5.  13 hours ago
      Several fully redacted pages in the section containing Steele dossier information. Suggests he may have provided info beyond what has been published, or that the FBI had independent sourcing supporting some of his claims.
      12 replies133 retweets522 likes
       
       
       
    6.  13 hours ago
      Also quite clear that, contrary to Nunes’ claims, the FBI was NOT using Michael Isikoff’s Yahoo News article as independent confirmation of Steele’s reporting, but as a source for Page’s denials he was working for Russia.
      13 replies259 retweets750 likes
       
       
       
    7.  13 hours ago
      Possible Steele misled FBI about whether he’d talked to press, but it looks like FBI understood the Isikoff article was based on Steele’s reporting and made this clear to the FISC, ever if they didn’t think Steele had provided it directly.
      8 replies74 retweets352 likes
       
       
       
    8.  13 hours ago
      Somewhat surprisingly, they redact the section where they appear to lay out what criminal statutes they think Page’s conduct would or “may” violate
      7 replies75 retweets355 likes
       
       
       
    9.  12 hours ago
      Main takeaway: It’s still impossible to assess the overall strength of FBI’s evidence. Long sections related to Page’s preexisting relationship with Russian intelligence, and many pages following reference to Steele’s reporting, are redacted in full.
      6 replies85 retweets358 likes
       
       
       
    10.  12 hours ago
      The fact that the material remains redacted implies they had *something* apart from the Steele reporting that’s currently public, but no way to know what it is or how solid it is.
      8 replies60 retweets339 likes
       
       
       
    11.  12 hours ago
      What this does make clear beyond any serious doubt is the brazen dishonesty of the Nunes memo. It is impossible to imagine a reasonable person reading this document and then making the claims in that memo in good faith.
      26 replies389 retweets1,074 likes
       
       
       
    12.  12 hours ago
      Assorted odds and ends: There are some pretty puzzling redactions, including what looks like a citation to the statutory definition of “minimization procedures”. Open to theories as to why that would be blacked out.
      3 replies29 retweets173 likes
       
       
       
    13.  12 hours ago
      Just eyeballing it, but the renewal application seems to have a substantially longer redacted section implying additional supporting evidence gained from either collection on Page or from other sources.
      4 replies50 retweets230 likes
       
       
       
    14.  12 hours ago
      One part of the application quotes KellyAnne Conway’s claim that if Page was involved in discussions with Russian officials, he was not doing so with the “permission or knowledge of the campaign.” A redacted passage follows. Possibly evidence for thinking this claim was untrue?
      7 replies72 retweets316 likes
       
       
       
    15.  12 hours ago
      Of potential interest: The renewal applications cite Page’s public denials and, specifically, his claims that he was targeted purely based on bogus information produced at the behest of the Clinton campaign. Long redacted passages follow.
      3 replies41 retweets204 likes
       
       
       
    16.  11 hours ago
      Two full Roman-numeral demarcated sections of the initial FISA application are redacted in full. In the renewal applications, there are three such sections, and by the final one (approved by Rosenstein) these final sections have gotten much, much longer.
      5 replies60 retweets228 likes
       
       
       
    17.  11 hours ago
      Whatever these sections contain, it seems safe to assume they are independent of the Steele reporting.
      17 replies54 retweets296 likes
       
       
       
      18. End of conversation
    2. New conversation
    1.  13 hours ago
      Replying to 
      On that point, it almost always is Page (redacted section) “knowingly engage” (plural) (...) or “knowingly conspires” (singular? That redacted section must reference someone else. Papadopoulos?
      4 replies13 retweets41 likes
       
       
       
    2.  12 hours ago
      The first clause ("knowingly engage") may be an infinitive rather than a plural indicative. E.g., it could be something like "Page did X and Y in an effort to knowingly engage." I'm have no view on which reading is more likely; just noting the ambiguity.
      3 replies9 likes
       
       
       
    3.  12 hours ago
      Fair enough possibility. But I noticed it every time that predecessor phrase was redacted, in multiple applications, so the verb choice seemed intentional.
      1 retweet4 likes
       
       
       
      4. End of conversation
    3. New conversation
    1.  13 hours ago
      Replying to 
      No foreplay, just straight to no lube traitoring. Sounds right for a guy like Page
      2 replies1 retweet22 likes
       
       
       
    2.  11 hours ago
      It says that Page was probably doing this well before 2016, they just don't have any evidence to support that allegation.
      1 reply3 likes
       
       
       
    3.  10 hours ago
      No. There are multiple redacted pages on pre-2016. Read the thread. You can’t just say “no evidence.”
      17 likes
       
       
       
      4. End of conversation
    1.  9 hours ago
      Replying to  
      Good on you for doing this.
      1 retweet3 likes
       
       
       
Posted by rkball44 at 5:17 AM