A point I gesture at here but don’t really get into: The structure of the redacted Page application suggests one way FBI may have tried to bolster their case beyond the Steele reporting.https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/24/opinion/trump-carter-page-fisa-application.html …
-
-
I read section IV as bringing to the court's attention all the facts that counterweight the FBI's argument. There are three public ones: * Yahoo article w highlights that campaign claims Page was a nobody * Page's denial letter * Another article where Page says claims are garbage
-
I know you read it that way. It's a misreading of the Yahoo article (particularly the part that uses anonymous sourcing to talk about worries about this), and what people who've read the section the Yahoo letter is in there for.
-
I get that you have it in your head that they must have included a separate exonerating section, but your argument here doesn't make any sense, bc that section doesn't do that, even if they would have one in an affy, which I've never ever seen.
-
Well, split the difference: I would expect them to bring to the court’s attention the fact that Page had disputed the claims. But the section is titled “Page’s public denials,” and the redacted half page at the end of it has to be something other than a further public denial.
-
I can’t think of what non-public information would fit into the end of that section other than: intel suggesting some portion of the preceding information was false.
-
I've done 10 page analysis to explain it that I will, once finalized, make available to the non-adversarial powers who will actually use it. NGOs and journalists, however, should start paying for the work they're not doing themselves.
-
I’m a little confused, I thought our analysis of that section was more or less in agreement—that it’s about showing Page’s effort to conceal conduct.
-
Yes. I'm a bit stronger than you. That section might be a "we take from this it's evidence of denial and deception and therefore clandestine" explaining the (7E). Prolly not specific intel given ONLY 7 exemptions.
- 10 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.