Andy, this is ridiculous. Page was not “labeled a spy” by the Obama administration or the #FISA Court.
You may think, per your column, that the nomenclature is in the eye of the beholder, but that belief is not a license to say other institutions used labels that they didn’t.https://twitter.com/andrewcmccarthy/status/1000736681421672450 …
-
-
Replying to @steve_vladeck
Steve, they had to argue probable cause that he was knowingly engaged in clandestine activities on behalf of a government (Russia) against another country (ours). Otherwise they don’t get any of the 4 warrants. If you don’t think that’s labeling him a spy, we’ll have to disagree.
15 replies 59 retweets 236 likes -
Replying to @AndrewCMcCarthy @steve_vladeck
@steve_vladeck - please tell me the difference between the two. Spy take from the dictionary; the other from the Attorney General’s guidelines on ‘confidential human source’ utilization.pic.twitter.com/lFrxrUTGod
4 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
It's what is called "a distinction without a difference." And don't hold your breath waiting for
@steve_vladeck to provide a rational answer (or even a load of sophistry). You got him cornered, outnumbered, and outwitted.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
No. Andy and I are disagreeing about when it’s appropriate to put words into other people’s mouths. My point is simply that it’s not accurate to assert that the Obama administration and
#FISA Court themselves “labeled” Carter Page a spy. Andy says it is. But you do you.1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @steve_vladeck @JosephEToomey and
Put another way, Andy is basically arguing that, if the government successfully applies for a search warrant, it’s the same thing as saying that the government “labeled” the target a criminal. If you agree, fair enough. I rather thoroughly disagree.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @steve_vladeck @JosephEToomey and
Am I missing where Andy explained why it was fair to treat "clandestine collection of info FOR OUR COUNTRY" the same way we treat "clandestine collection of info FOR AN ADVERSARY"? Bc that's what he's arguing: that "spying" for FBI is exactly the same as "spying" for Russia.
1 reply 2 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @steve_vladeck and
I see your logic: As long as the government contends
@emptywheel was colluding with a foreign power, it's okay to obtain a warrant and search her house, even in the absence of probable cause or evidence of criminal wrongdoing, and despite statutory language requiring evidence.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JosephEToomey @steve_vladeck and
That's actually not the logic here. FBI rules say if you want to ask questions -- w/o PC -- you send an informant. Andy knows that (and never had a problem with that when he was a prosecutor). It's in the DIOG. However ... 1/2
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @JosephEToomey and
If you want to wiretap someone under FISA (not TIII) you need probable cause they're helping foreign spies (which is different from being one), knowing that they are foreign spies. 4 Republican judges say FBI had that.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
My underlying point in all this is that according to DIOG (which Andy never objected to in the past), and informant is WAYYYYYYYYYY less intrusive than many other techniques.
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.