If US counterintelligence agents have evidence indicating an American citizen is acting as the agent of a foreign adversary, they should... do nothing. Don't look into it. Let it go. -Actual position* of multiple Congressman, including the House Intel Chair *applied selectively
-
-
Based on public knowledge, Carter Page definitely should have had his emails or phone calls eavesdropped on. FBI counter intel believed it had enough evidence for probable cause. So did the FBI Director. So did the Deputy Attorney General. So did a FISA judge. That's not common.
Show this thread -
But maybe you distrust FBI, Justice Department, and the John Roberts-appointed FISA judge. There's still: -Counter intel first suspected Page back in 2013 -Reports Russia tried to recruit Page years ago and found him susceptible -Page publicly bragging about advising the Kremlin
Show this thread -
I'm not saying Page should be jailed. That requires a fair trial--I've never chanted "lock [him/her] up" about anyone--and I don't know if there's enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he committed a crime. I'm not even saying he should be indicted. Just investigated
Show this thread -
It was reasonable to suspect Page might be acting as a foreign agent. It was therefore reasonable to investigate him. Nunes et. al. are saying US counter intel shouldn't have looked into Page at all. It's a ridiculous thing to argue. But here we are. (END)
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Nunes is pathetic.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If Carter Page did not want his emails or phone calls to be the subject of an investigation he should not have had those contacts with Russians. If you take the czars roubles you bow to the czar.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The premise is flawed. US intel agents don't have that sort of evidence against Page. They lied to a Federal Judge about that.
-
You are stating as fact something you have no idea about. You haven't seen the evidence. You haven't seen the application. You haven't seen the Intel. collecting between renewals.
-
You’re correct. I’m expressing (what I believe is) a highly informed opinion... but an opinion nevertheless. I do that a lot, here on Twitter.
-
... and not for nothing but I would push back on your “you have no idea about.” and instead suggest I’m in the top 10% of read-in-on-this, people. Certainly more so than anyone you’ll see on TV. So mine is more than just any old opinion. fwiw
-
I appreciate your response but the statement of fact is both misleading and incorrect based on both the pushback and standard requirements for FISC
-
Yes James but no one believes those “standard requirements” were being met. These things (FISA warrant & 3 re-ups) were in all likelihood, “pencil-whipped.” We can say this with a reasonable amount of certainty, now.
-
By no one you are referring to Nunes et. al. The Senate Intelligence committee has refuted the crackpot claims beginning last Feb. The Freedom caucus is promoting a premise that FISC applications can be produced with a page of paper documenting unverified claims. Preposterous.
-
Do you know what's preposterous? Of the 35,529 FISA requests from 1978 to 2013 (35yrs) only 12 warrants have ever been denied. TWELVE!
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.