The Rosenstein Hearing

I have this running in the background.  Sounds like the republicans are prepared to send out 53 subpoenas shortly.  Ugh.

Sheldon Whitehouse's question as to why none of the Democrat's QFRs (Questions for the Record?) were not answered during his tenure was a fascinating question.  Why is this?

What's the hearing about?

drummerboy said:

What's the hearing about?

It's about creating a diversion.

I would say a big part of it is the approval of the Carter Page FISA application.

jamie said:

I would say a big part of it is the approval of the Carter Page FISA application.

 Well, that's certainly a vital issue that needs to be investigated right now!

The Prez is flexing his dictator muscles, but the Senate has to examine bad paperwork.

drummerboy said:

jamie said:

I would say a big part of it is the approval of the Carter Page FISA application.

 Well, that's certainly a vital issue that needs to be investigated right now!

The Prez is flexing his dictator muscles, but the Senate has to examine bad paperwork.

This is the hottest of takes.  Lying repeatedly to a secret court to spy on a political adversary?   Generating leaks to the press(which is legally questionable on its own) and then using those leaks as corroboration?  I know, I know allegedly.  

terp said:

drummerboy said:

jamie said:

I would say a big part of it is the approval of the Carter Page FISA application.

 Well, that's certainly a vital issue that needs to be investigated right now!

The Prez is flexing his dictator muscles, but the Senate has to examine bad paperwork.

This is the hottest of takes.  Lying repeatedly to a secret court to spy on a political adversary?   Generating leaks to the press(which is legally questionable on its own) and then using those leaks as corroboration?  I know, I know allegedly.  

It's already been investigated. It's hardly a priority anymore. Especially given current events.

If they actually wanted to do something about it, they'd propose legislation.

Also, "political adversary"? Who was the adversary? And to whom?

drummerboy said:

terp said:

This is the hottest of takes.  Lying repeatedly to a secret court to spy on a political adversary?   Generating leaks to the press(which is legally questionable on its own) and then using those leaks as corroboration?  I know, I know allegedly.  

It's already been investigated. It's hardly a priority anymore. Especially given current events.

If they actually wanted to do something about it, they'd propose legislation.

Also, "political adversary"? Who was the adversary? And to whom?

All good questions. 

drummerboy said:

terp said:

drummerboy said:

jamie said:

I would say a big part of it is the approval of the Carter Page FISA application.

 Well, that's certainly a vital issue that needs to be investigated right now!

The Prez is flexing his dictator muscles, but the Senate has to examine bad paperwork.

This is the hottest of takes.  Lying repeatedly to a secret court to spy on a political adversary?   Generating leaks to the press(which is legally questionable on its own) and then using those leaks as corroboration?  I know, I know allegedly.  

It's already been investigated. It's hardly a priority anymore. Especially given current events.

If they actually wanted to do something about it, they'd propose legislation.

Also, "political adversary"? Who was the adversary? And to whom?

 It has not been investigated.  It is currently being investigated.   

Carter Page was a member of the Trump Campaign who was being spied on during a presidential campaign by an administration of the opposing party and seemingly hostile to that campaign.  They forged an email where the CIA said he was an asset.  I can only imagine your reaction if we were just to rearrange the R's and the D's in this scenario. 

Not investigated? That'll be news to Michael Horowitz.

terp said:

 Carter Page was a member of the Trump Campaign who was being spied on during a presidential campaign by an administration of the opposing party and seemingly hostile to that campaign.  They forged an email where the CIA said he was an asset.  I can only imagine your reaction if we were just to rearrange the R's and the D's in this scenario. 

 I do not recall the forgery.

Suppose the Trump administration had reason to suspect that an advisor to the Biden campaign was trying to arrange a secret meeting with representatives of the Chinese Government. Would they be justified in having that person surveiled?

I decided to educate myself. I read this quickly but did not see a reference to a "forgery".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Page#Horowitz_Report_findings

drummerboy said:

Not investigated? That'll be news to Michael Horowitz.

 He has a report about it and everything. https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf

STANV said:

I decided to educate myself. I read this quickly but did not see a reference to a "forgery".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Page#Horowitz_Report_findings

 This is a good analysis of the findings re: Carter Page -

https://www.lawfareblog.com/thoughts-horowitz-report-part-iii-fisa-findings

nohero said:

 This is a good analysis of the findings re: Carter Page -

https://www.lawfareblog.com/thoughts-horowitz-report-part-iii-fisa-findings

 Terp would be pleased with much of that article such as:

The prospect that the Horowitz report raises is, however, arguably worse: that there is nothing singular about the problems that took place in the Carter Page FISA applications and, therefore, that the FISA process on average performs significantly less rigorously than those of us who have defended it have believed.

Without summarizing the inspector general’s findings too deeply, let me say that the findings with respect to the conduct of the Carter Page FISA applications is a genuinely disturbing read. Horowitz found that agents failed to include in their initial surveillance application information about the target that would have undermined their showing of probable cause—including that Page had previously been an operational contact of the CIA. They overstated other things that tended to support the application, including the importance and reliability of Christopher Steele’s prior work with the FBI—which had the effect of presenting the material on Page in Steele’s reporting as more reliable than it actually was. As new information emerged that further cast doubt on Steele’s reporting, they failed to include this information in the renewal applications, leading to an ever-increasing list of errors and omissions in the Justice Department’s communications with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). In the most egregious incident, an FBI attorney is alleged to have altered an email before passing it on to the Justice Department with a change that negated Page’s prior source relationship with American intelligence.

I contend that if any investigation was taken of any set of of FISA warrants picked at random, you'd find similar problems. FISA is effed up and has been for years and has never been seriously examined before. The Glenn Greenwalds of the world want to make this a story about Obama going after Trump unlawfully, but it's just a case of a corrupt process that has been institutionalized.

drummerboy said:

I contend that if any investigation was taken of any set of of FISA warrants picked at random, you'd find similar problems. FISA is effed up and has been for years and has never been seriously examined before. The Glenn Greenwalds of the world want to make this a story about Obama going after Trump unlawfully, but it's just a case of a corrupt process that has been institutionalized.

I don't think that's really fair.  When Michael Flynn was railroaded, one of the main points guys like Greenwald made were that "if they can do this to powerful individuals, what do you think they can do to you?".  You just don't like him because he always reports from the same ethical standpoint regardless of who is innvolved.

STANV said:

nohero said:

 This is a good analysis of the findings re: Carter Page -

https://www.lawfareblog.com/thoughts-horowitz-report-part-iii-fisa-findings

 Terp would be pleased with much of that article such as:

The prospect that the Horowitz report raises is, however, arguably worse: that there is nothing singular about the problems that took place in the Carter Page FISA applications and, therefore, that the FISA process on average performs significantly less rigorously than those of us who have defended it have believed.

Without summarizing the inspector general’s findings too deeply, let me say that the findings with respect to the conduct of the Carter Page FISA applications is a genuinely disturbing read. Horowitz found that agents failed to include in their initial surveillance application information about the target that would have undermined their showing of probable cause—including that Page had previously been an operational contact of the CIA. They overstated other things that tended to support the application, including the importance and reliability of Christopher Steele’s prior work with the FBI—which had the effect of presenting the material on Page in Steele’s reporting as more reliable than it actually was. As new information emerged that further cast doubt on Steele’s reporting, they failed to include this information in the renewal applications, leading to an ever-increasing list of errors and omissions in the Justice Department’s communications with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). In the most egregious incident, an FBI attorney is alleged to have altered an email before passing it on to the Justice Department with a change that negated Page’s prior source relationship with American intelligence.

 That's right.  And I think the IG report did what it was supposed to do: Namely it found irregularities.   But it does not have the power to subpoena individuals that don't or no longer work for the government. Thus, the subsequent investigations. 

terp said:

 That's right.  And I think the IG report did what it was supposed to do: Namely it found irregularities.   But it does not have the power to subpoena individuals that don't or no longer work for the government. Thus, the subsequent investigations. 

In light of the IG report findings, to what end would these "subsequent investigations" that "subpoena individuals that don't or no longer work for the government" be conducted?

nohero said:

terp said:

 That's right.  And I think the IG report did what it was supposed to do: Namely it found irregularities.   But it does not have the power to subpoena individuals that don't or no longer work for the government. Thus, the subsequent investigations. 

In light of the IG report findings, to what end would these "subsequent investigations" that "subpoena individuals that don't or no longer work for the government" be conducted?

 If there was an attempt to mislead the American people, which IMO is extremely likely, it will result in the indictments of James Clapper, James Brennan, Peter Strzok, etc.  Then we will need to reform the intelligence community.  The FISC needs serious reform. To drummerboy's point, it wasn't like this was fair and equitable prior, but the fact that it can be gamed for so long by the Intelligence Community is really disconcerting.  It would be good to get our 4th Amendment rights back while we're at it.   One can dream, can't he?

terp said:

 If there was an attempt to mislead the American people, which IMO is extremely likely, it will result in the indictments of James Clapper, James Brennan, Peter Strzok, etc.  Then we will need to reform the intelligence community.  The FISC needs serious reform. To drummerboy's point, it wasn't like this was fair and equitable prior, but the fact that it can be gamed for so long by the Intelligence Community is really disconcerting.  It would be good to get our 4th Amendment rights back while we're at it.   One can dream, can't he?

 More like hallucinating !

terp said:

nohero said:

terp said:

 That's right.  And I think the IG report did what it was supposed to do: Namely it found irregularities.   But it does not have the power to subpoena individuals that don't or no longer work for the government. Thus, the subsequent investigations. 

In light of the IG report findings, to what end would these "subsequent investigations" that "subpoena individuals that don't or no longer work for the government" be conducted?

 If there was an attempt to mislead the American people, which IMO is extremely likely, it will result in the indictments of James Clapper, James Brennan, Peter Strzok, etc.  Then we will need to reform the intelligence community.  The FISC needs serious reform. To drummerboy's point, it wasn't like this was fair and equitable prior, but the fact that it can be gamed for so long by the Intelligence Community is really disconcerting.  It would be good to get our 4th Amendment rights back while we're at it.   One can dream, can't he?

 That's why I asked "in light of the IG report findings".  Other than Trumpist rantings, there's no basis for the whole "attempt to mislead the American people" allegation.

Flynn was not "railroaded". He was a 4 Star General a close friend to the POTUS and certainly had the resources to hire the best legal talent. He violated at least one law by failing to register as an agent of Turkey. In that capacity his main job was to help "railroad" the Turkish Cleric who lives in Pennsylvania who Edrogan scapegoats for his problems.

I do not believe that the evidence will show that Clapper, Brennan, Strzok  intentionally misled the public. If they did so they are no more likely to be indicted than Dick Cheney who actually misled us into a war.

They released the notes where the FBI discussed the approach to interview Flynn. He was definitely set up.  When they debriefed they didn't seem to think he was lying.  He even told them to check the transcripts of the call w/ the Russian contact because he knew they recorded the call. 

You are probably right about jail. Clapper lied under oath to Congress about illegal activity in a spying program and instead of rotting away in prison has a sweet CNN gig. 

Strzok? How is he on that list? What did he do?

Not registering as a foreign agent for Turkey was still a crime, as I understand. And he was working for Turkey at the same time he was working for Trump.

I would hope that a Presidential candidate would fire a Campaign official or advisor if he found that the person was getting paid secretly by a foreign government.

terp said:

You are probably right about jail. Clapper lied under oath to Congress about illegal activity in a spying program and instead of rotting away in prison has a sweet CNN gig. 

 Thanks. I googled for a reference:

On March 12, 2013, during a United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearing, Senator Ron Wyden quoted NSA director Keith B. Alexander's keynote speech at the 2012 DEF CON. Alexander had stated that "Our job is foreign intelligence" and that "those who would want to weave the story that we have millions or hundreds of millions of dossiers on people, is absolutely false.... From my perspective, this is absolute nonsense." Wyden then asked Clapper, "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" He responded, "No, sir." Wyden asked "It does not?" and Clapper said, "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly."^[47]

When Edward Snowden was asked during a January 26, 2014, television interview in Moscow on what the decisive moment was or what caused him to whistle-blow, he replied: "Sort of the breaking point was seeing the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, directly lie under oath to Congress. ... Seeing that really meant for me there was no going back."^[48]