If They Can Do It to Carter Page, They Can Do It to You

 

Reading Wednesday’s article by  Mollie Hemingway (far and away one of the best writers in Washington) “Criminal Referral Confirms Nunes Memo’s Explosive Claims of FISA Abuse,” then reading the entire Senate Referral memo comes very close to causing one’s head to simply explode. There is ample evidence contained within of the most blatant kind of dishonesty and fraud practiced upon a Federal Court. These are the kind of lies to a court which would – and should — get almost any lawyer whose name is not Clinton or Obama permanently disbarred, or at the very least severely disciplined by a Bar Association.

Which raises a naturally occurring question: has the DC Bar Association completely shut down? Is it no longer a functioning organization with the usual disciplinary enforcement procedures?

But, the question we (my wife and law partner and I) keep coming up with is this one, and to which there is no logical answer we can see, unless there are major facts not yet in the public record: why has the entire Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, en banc, not issued contempt show cause orders to Comey, Rosenstein the Reptile, Yates, McCabe, Strzok, and the whole barrel of twisting, hissing, frighteningly dangerous snakes who lied and lied and lied to the Court, time and time and time again? I simply cannot understand it unless, as one must say to be as fair as possible under these circumstances, there is very strong evidence yet to come outside the Nunes memo and now this Senate Memo.

I only know that if I had done this to a Court, I would be sitting in my newly-hired lawyer’s office getting ready for a contempt hearing, after which would come a disciplinary hearing before the Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Louisiana State Bar Association.

Don’t think Gestapo tactics could ever happen here in America? Ask Gen. Flynn, Carter Page, Paul Manafort, et al., what they think about that.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 50 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    cdor (View Comment):

    Dorrk (View Comment):
    Right, but if Page isn’t integral to the campaign, he wouldn’t be talking to anyone important. Assuming the FBI figured this out during the first period of surveillance, why keep renewing the warrant?

    Well that is a good question @dorrk. Lots of folks are wondering how the FBI was able to continue re-upping the warrant. What additional info were they using for the judge. They are supposed to show the judge some reason. But remember the situation when Admiral Mike Rodgers (CIA) met with Trump and the next day Trump moved his entire staff out of Trump Tower and to a private club he owned? Apparently POTUS was told then that he was being electronically surveilled in that building.

    Again, once surveillance of Page was authorized on the basis of Clinton campaign procured disinformation, access to past present and future communications of with his contacts, including in the Trump campaign was permitted.

    @jimgeorge linked to Andrew McCarthy’s NRO column of today. This is his heartsick conclusion:

    I spent many months assuring people that nothing like this could ever happen — that the FBI and Justice Department would not countenance the provision to the FISA court of uncorroborated allegations of heinous misconduct. When Trump enthusiasts accused them of rigging the process, I countered that they probably had not even used the Steele dossier. If the Justice Department had used it in writing a FISA warrant application, I insisted that the FBI would independently verify any important facts presented to the court, make any disclosures that ought in fairness be made so the judge could evaluate the credibility of the sources, and compellingly demonstrate probable cause before alleging that an American was a foreign agent.

    I was wrong.

     

    • #31
  2. Dorrk Inactive
    Dorrk
    @Dorrk

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):
    Again, once surveillance of Page was authorized on the basis of Clinton campaign procured disinformation, access to past present and future communications of his contacts, including in the Trump campaign was permitted.

    But only conversations in which Page is participating, right?

    Or, if Page talks to Person A, does the FBI then have carte blanche to surveil Person A and all of Person A’s contacts, including people Page never spoke to?

    • #32
  3. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    Dorrk (View Comment):

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):
    Again, once surveillance of Page was authorized on the basis of Clinton campaign procured disinformation, access to past present and future communications of his contacts, including in the Trump campaign was permitted.

    But only conversations in which Page is participating, right?

    Or, if Page talks to Person A, does the FBI then have carte blanche to surveil Person A and all of Person A’s contacts, including people Page never spoke to?

    It looks as though I wasn’t correct. McCarthy:

    …the warrant meant the FBI could seize not only Page’s forward-going communications but any past emails and texts he may have stored — i.e., his Trump campaign communications.

     

    • #33
  4. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):

    Dorrk (View Comment):

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):
    Again, once surveillance of Page was authorized on the basis of Clinton campaign procured disinformation, access to past present and future communications of his contacts, including in the Trump campaign was permitted.

    But only conversations in which Page is participating, right?

    Or, if Page talks to Person A, does the FBI then have carte blanche to surveil Person A and all of Person A’s contacts, including people Page never spoke to?

    It looks as though I wasn’t correct. McCarthy:

    …the warrant meant the FBI could seize not only Page’s forward-going communications but any past emails and texts he may have stored — i.e., his Trump campaign communications.

    Which I gather was the whole point of spying on him. Indirect spying on anyone he communicated with.

    Page was just a useful pawn.

    • #34
  5. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Here’s the Eli Lake bit mentioned earlier.

    We Should Care About What Happened to Carter Page.

     

    • #35
  6. Larry3435 Inactive
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):

    Dorrk (View Comment):

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):
    Again, once surveillance of Page was authorized on the basis of Clinton campaign procured disinformation, access to past present and future communications of his contacts, including in the Trump campaign was permitted.

    But only conversations in which Page is participating, right?

    Or, if Page talks to Person A, does the FBI then have carte blanche to surveil Person A and all of Person A’s contacts, including people Page never spoke to?

    It looks as though I wasn’t correct. McCarthy:

    …the warrant meant the FBI could seize not only Page’s forward-going communications but any past emails and texts he may have stored — i.e., his Trump campaign communications.

    Which I gather was the whole point of spying on him. Indirect spying on anyone he communicated with.

    Page was just a useful pawn.

    A question for you:  If you were the FBI and you wanted to find out what was happening in the Trump campaign, wouldn’t you have been able to find a better way than wiretapping a guy who had already been booted by the campaign, or at least publicly disavowed by the campaign, and who never had access to Trump or anyone close to Trump?  I’m not sure which is more disturbing:  that the FBI might have been spying for political purposes, or that the FBI was so bad at it.  I mean, if they were going to lie in order to get a wiretap, shouldn’t they have tried to get one on Jared Kushner or someone like that?

    • #36
  7. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Larry3435 (View Comment):
    I mean, if they were going to lie in order to get a wiretap, shouldn’t they have tried to get one on Jared Kushner or someone like that?

    Too obvious? Might have tripped their hand? Remember, they needed plausible deniability. They felt they had it with Page.

    • #37
  8. Larry3435 Inactive
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    Larry3435 (View Comment):
    I mean, if they were going to lie in order to get a wiretap, shouldn’t they have tried to get one on Jared Kushner or someone like that?

    Too obvious? Might have tripped their hand? Remember, they needed plausible deniability. They felt they had it with Page.

    Apparently not all that plausible.

    • #38
  9. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Larry3435 (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    Larry3435 (View Comment):
    I mean, if they were going to lie in order to get a wiretap, shouldn’t they have tried to get one on Jared Kushner or someone like that?

    Too obvious? Might have tripped their hand? Remember, they needed plausible deniability. They felt they had it with Page.

    Apparently not all that plausible.

    Depends on who you ask.

    • #39
  10. cdor Member
    cdor
    @cdor

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    Larry3435 (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    Larry3435 (View Comment):
    I mean, if they were going to lie in order to get a wiretap, shouldn’t they have tried to get one on Jared Kushner or someone like that?

    Too obvious? Might have tripped their hand? Remember, they needed plausible deniability. They felt they had it with Page.

    Apparently not all that plausible.

    Depends on who you ask.

    I wouldn’t completely rule out that the FBI were really bad at it. For example, just look at that dossier. It reads like a parody. The Russian whores they claimed were hired by Trump to pee on the bed that Obama slept on. Really? Golden showers? Trump laughingly joked, “Hey, I’m a germaphobe.” The vagueness and third party references. The thing was a joke. And what about the FISA judge? We gotta see that application for a warrant because if these special judges rubber stamp crap like that dossier in an area as critical as national security and 4th amendment constitutional rights, there is a serious problem with the entire program. John Yoo stated that the FISA judges are appointed by the Chief Justice and serve in the locality of their District. They are all already Federal Judges. The prominent one that gets the most work is likely from D.C. or New York. I am guessing that because of the regionality, the same judge heard all of the rennual requests. But that is a guess.

    • #40
  11. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    cdor (View Comment):
    I wouldn’t completely rule out that the FBI were really bad at it

    Nah. They just farmed it out to Sid Blumenthal and the Clinton machine.

    • #41
  12. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):

    cdor (View Comment):
    I wouldn’t completely rule out that the FBI were really bad at it

    Nah. They just farmed it out to Sid Blumenthal and the Clinton machine.

    They farmed out examining the “hacked” DNC server, so why not?

    • #42
  13. Dorrk Inactive
    Dorrk
    @Dorrk

    Larry3435 (View Comment):
    A question for you: If you were the FBI and you wanted to find out what was happening in the Trump campaign, wouldn’t you have been able to find a better way than wiretapping a guy who had already been booted by the campaign, or at least publicly disavowed by the campaign, and who never had access to Trump or anyone close to Trump? I’m not sure which is more disturbing: that the FBI might have been spying for political purposes, or that the FBI was so bad at it. I mean, if they were going to lie in order to get a wiretap, shouldn’t they have tried to get one on Jared Kushner or someone like that?

    Yes, this is the part that is the weirdest to me. Why persist with Page through three warrant renewals if he is a dead end? Unless they just needed someone to use a boogeyman tenuously connecting Trump to Russia?

    Possible answers:

    • Page, independent of his brief work for the Trump campaign, was up to something bad. The lack of charges at this point suggest that wasn’t the case.
    • Page was more integral to the Trump organization than anyone is admitting
    • Page was covertly working on behalf of the FBI to entrap the Trump organization be offering them Russian contacts, but not getting anywhere
    • I’ve read that there was a large increase in rejected FISA warrant applications in 2016. Page was one of many Trump-adjacent targets, and one of the few(?) for whom warrants were granted.
    • The DOJ needed someone to use as a credible Trump/Russia hammer to justify some other investigation/activity making the Page warrant useful for something other than actual information collection.

    There are missing links here, unless the plan was simply to create as many Trump/Russia connections as possible without any interest in establishing something substantial.

    • #43
  14. Larry3435 Inactive
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    Dorrk (View Comment):
    I’ve read that there was a large increase in rejected FISA warrant applications in 2016. Page was one of many Trump-adjacent targets, and one of the few(?) for whom warrants were granted.

    Now that would be a more damning piece of evidence than anything involving Page himself.  If the FBI was repeatedly seeking warrants against Trump-adjacent targets, and getting denied by a court that almost never denies such a request, then the dots become much easier to connect.  Still circumstantial, of course, but much stronger.  Do you recall where you read that?

    • #44
  15. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    JavaMan (View Comment):
    the FBI used dubious “evidence” (i.e. speculation and conjecture) to obtain warrants but this is no different than what thousands of investigators and prosecutors do every day.

     

    Jim George (View Comment):
    Please read both items linked in my post, especially the Senate memo itself, and then read McCarthy’s article of this morning, and also the Eli Lake piece this afternoon on Bloomberg and you will fully understand the warrant and the three renewals were based on no evidence whatsoever – questionable, fake, fraudulent or any other kind. It was not based on any evidence! It was a fraud upon the Court and therefore upon Carter Page and every American citizen.

    Sincerely, Jim

    Summing it up, this time the testilying was being done to the Trump campaign and then the Trump administration by lawless Obamaites in the FBI, by lawless attorneys in the Justice Department, and signed off on by lawless FISA judges who are supposed to be the last safeguard for our civil rights.

    If treason prosper, none dare call it treason; if Hillary had won they would have been promoted.

    This is banana republic stuff.

     

    • #45
  16. Dorrk Inactive
    Dorrk
    @Dorrk

    Larry3435 (View Comment):

    Dorrk (View Comment):
    I’ve read that there was a large increase in rejected FISA warrant applications in 2016. Page was one of many Trump-adjacent targets, and one of the few(?) for whom warrants were granted.

    Now that would be a more damning piece of evidence than anything involving Page himself. If the FBI was repeatedly seeking warrants against Trump-adjacent targets, and getting denied by a court that almost never denies such a request, then the dots become much easier to connect. Still circumstantial, of course, but much stronger. Do you recall where you read that?

    It’s been referenced in several news articles, and must be based on this:
    http://www.uscourts.gov/news/2017/04/20/new-report-foreign-intelligence-surveillance-court-issued

    Wikipedia only goes to 2013, but the number of rejections in 2016 is notable if not large.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court#FISA_warrants

     

    • #46
  17. Dorrk Inactive
    Dorrk
    @Dorrk

    Some clarity on my questions, from Tablet Magazine:

    Newly disclosed evidence from the House Intelligence Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee shows that the FBI and Department of Justice used the Steele dossier—opposition research paid for by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign—to secure a FISA warrant on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. The warrant allowed the FBI to intercept not only the communications of Page, but also anyone in contact with Page whose metadata—phone number, email, etc.—might have signaled a pattern interpreted by FBI analysts as potentially meaningful to a counterintelligence investigation. In other words, the warrant was a backdoor giving the FBI access to spy on the entire Trump campaign.

    I don’t know anything about Tablet’s reliability, but so far this seems like a sober analysis.

    • #47
  18. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Dorrk (View Comment):
    Some clarity on my questions, from Tablet Magazine:

    Newly disclosed evidence from the House Intelligence Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee shows that the FBI and Department of Justice used the Steele dossier—opposition research paid for by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign—to secure a FISA warrant on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. The warrant allowed the FBI to intercept not only the communications of Page, but also anyone in contact with Page whose metadata—phone number, email, etc.—might have signaled a pattern interpreted by FBI analysts as potentially meaningful to a counterintelligence investigation. In other words, the warrant was a backdoor giving the FBI access to spy on the entire Trump campaign.

    I don’t know anything about Tablet’s reliability, but so far this seems like a sober analysis.

    Lee Smith and Andrew McCarthy are two who are doing excellent work on this topic. I’d trust it.

    • #48
  19. Jim George Member
    Jim George
    @JimGeorge

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    Dorrk (View Comment):
    Some clarity on my questions, from Tablet Magazine:

    Newly disclosed evidence from the House Intelligence Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee shows that the FBI and Department of Justice used the Steele dossier—opposition research paid for by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign—to secure a FISA warrant on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. The warrant allowed the FBI to intercept not only the communications of Page, but also anyone in contact with Page whose metadata—phone number, email, etc.—might have signaled a pattern interpreted by FBI analysts as potentially meaningful to a counterintelligence investigation. In other words, the warrant was a backdoor giving the FBI access to spy on the entire Trump campaign.

    I don’t know anything about Tablet’s reliability, but so far this seems like a sober analysis.

    Lee Smith and Andrew McCarthy are two who are doing excellent work on this topic. I’d trust it.

    I would put Lee Smith right up there in McCarthy’s level when it comes to depth of research and clarity of writing; he has, in recent months, become one of my favorites. And on this particular point he is writing about, it’s most interesting that yesterday when Sen. Cotton asked Director Wray point blank if this oligarch had paid for the dossier, he declined to answer in a public hearing but said he would in a closed hearing. Once again, we’re forced to try to “read the tea leaves” in all this, but it seems a reasonable conclusion that there is definitely a “there” there; not at all sure what it means, however.

    Sincerely, Jim.

    • #49
  20. Mike-K Member
    Mike-K
    @

    cdor (View Comment):
    Was he seen as a possible entry point into Trump’s organization, from which further evidence could be accumulated to justify more warrants?

    Yes, of course. The Flynn judge recused himself in a big hurry once this began to leak out.

    • #50
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.