Over the last several days Shipwreckedcrew—in exchanges with Russia Hoax researchers—has raised a basic question about the now famous Danchenko interview.
I cannot believe that FusionGPS/Steele targeted Carter Page serendipitously at the very moment the FBI was going apesh*t over Page telling the Russians he's the one who helped the FBI make their case against the Russian agents.
Handing the FBI Dossier material implicating Page in a Russian/Trump collusion is like dangling a candy-bar on a fishing hook over a hungry child.
I think there had to be a two way street here; FusionGPS had to have been alerted to the fact that the FBI was after Page, and that Page was a Trump campaign volunteer, and thus any half-bake allegation they could cook-up about him being in bed with Russians was going to be swallowed hook/line/ and sinker by the FBI. So FusionGPS dutifully worked up a fantastical story woven around open source facts, including Page's trip to Russia that summer, in which they claim he's the go-between in this collusion with the Trump campaign, replete with 19% commission for page if he get Trump to lift sanctions on Russia.
Gobble, gobble, gobble goes the FBI, and voila -- a FISA warrant on Page is obtained.
FusionGPS and Steele getting up on Page at that moment was the roast pigeon flying into the FBI's mouth. Somebody had to tell Hillary's campaign/Elias/Sussmann/FusionGPS/Steele/Danchenko that CP was target numero uno for FBI. So they delivered him on a platter.
I've wrestled with that in the past. My suspicion is that to find that link it's necessary to go through DoJ. Of course, at the top of the FBI there were definitely plenty of people who could fit that bill, and Weissmann at DoJ had also done two stints at the FBI.
... and to Steele, Fusion (via his wife,) Weissmann, and many other potential miscreants, including a few at State (Nuland?). And State Department leads to....
.... Cody Shearer, who leads to Strobe Talbot, who lead to Brookings, which leads to Danchenko, Fiona Hill, Dolan, and back to Steele again.
J.E. Dyer put out an article that connects many dots back to 2009. With your analysis thrown in, it's apparent that Obama admin corrupted our IC and DOJ for their own gain, and Biden reinstituted the gang back.
Okay, I'm dense. I've been trying to keep a mental 'dictionary' of initials in regard to the many covid and vaccine terms, i.e., ADE, antibody dependent enhancement because I want to understand and learn. So, here we have another seemingly important two initials -- EC. I can't figure out what EC stands for in this column. I knew what a 302 was, but I kept wondering 'does EC mean 'electronic communication'? Because, to me, totally ignorant of so many terms, and unable to find the meaning or source (I actually ended up at justice.gov looking for abbreviations in FBI reports) -- I keep wondering why EC is so important. Please excuse my ignorance, but I am still so, so interested in this case, I want to understand everything about it.
I'm still 50/50 on Page being an honest advisor for Trump or a CHI plant by the IC into the campaign. It fits the left / right hand issues we see elsewhere. The guy is just slimy and greasy like that.
SD ran a posting yesterday about Page's current lawsuit and the fact that the honorable (using that term loosely) James Boasberg has now been assigned to Page's civil case against James Comey. Mostly putting emphasis on the fact that James Boasberg comes up in the circle of Flynn, Page, FISA, saga 6 or 8 different times. Though SD lends to the conflict of interest he never mentions the high probability of instant reclusion.
I'm saying if James Boasberg doesn't recluse ,Page's council will absolutely demand it. That seems to be a theme to Page's cases where rather than traction they keep getting bounced or reassigned. DC is a small circuit and I doubt anything happens there out of coincidence.
I think Carter Page is exactly who he says he is. The FBI definitely wanted to screw Page around for his foolish--but not criminal--actions. I'm republishing 3 two and a half year old posts re all that history of Page with the FBI. The FBI's actions to target Page are IMO totally inconsistent with CP being a "plant" in the Trump campaign. No doubt the FBI would have been elated at CP's new position and put it to good use against Trump, but I see nothing to indicate the FBI instigated CP joining the Trump campaign. One caveat to that. In saying this, I'm NOT saying that someone else within the Trump campaign and who also had connections to the Deep State may not have steered CP to the campaign. Reread my repubs and see what you think.
Whatever you may think of CP, his appointment to the campaign was clearly a disaster for Trump. That alone should start anyone thinking. The fact that Trump wasn't briefed in on that is also disturbing, especially because most of the info was clearly being filtered through an unreliable oppo research shop. So, I'm saying that I don't think the FBI got that ball rolling, but that they took full advantage of it. Which leaves one to speculate whether there were people at the very top who were in on it.
Mark, school me up a bit. I’ve read FBI 302 reports so I know what they are, but what is an EC “electronic communication?” Is that a fancy way of saying email?
I honestly thought I could find a easy definition or link to post and answer that question and it turns out, nope! So, damn good question from the outside looking in.
I've always assumed an EC is an intelligence report / doc that's more of an informational FYI vs a 302 that's used as an investigation tool in case fact finding interviews.
See the other replies. The two forms are really not that different for practical purposes. EC's can serve many admin purposes as well as recording investigative actions. The use of the 302 indicates that the agents conducted the investigation with the understanding that it might at some point figure in a prosecution. That might or might not happen. There used to be another form called an "insert" that was sometimes used in criminal investigative files for matters that were not pertinent to prosecution. The insert tended to be rarely used by agents in my experience.
Mark, do you know? Has the FBI ever gotten around to recording interviews or are they still relying on agent notes to prepare their 302’s? In Broward County FL our States Attorney had us recording most interviews as far back as the ‘80’s. In the 90’s all life or Capital Felonies had to be videotaped as well.
"Even when those sources tell pretty consequential untruths, the FBI avoids those types of prosecutions. For starters, it’s not a good way to encourage other people to share information with the FBI." Given their recent actions, who in their right mind would be willing to share anything with the FBI.
As I write at greater length elsewhere, no, the case itself wasn't threatened. My belief is that the FBI was concerned--and outraged--that Page's action may have disclosed sensitive investigative techniques of some sort. IOW, if the Russians reviewed events with the understanding that Page was working for the FBI--as they would--they might realize the full extent of Page's cooperation.
If so, the FBI's concern--and anger--is understandable. From my perspective Page's action was foolish at best. The reality, however, is that the Russians would have had to have been brain dead not to have realized in retrospect that Page was working for the FBI.
Once you decide to prosecute all sources and methods are jeopardized, especially if you're up against a smart and highly professional opponent like the Russian intel services. That's one of the reasons intel cases tend not to get prosecuted, and it's a decision you need to make consciously.
I suspect that this case was driven politically to a great extent to send a message to the Russians. So, while I understand the anger toward Page, it probably wasn't just his actions that would have jeopardized sources and methods. In any event, his actions do not logically tend to prove that he was a Russian agent and it was wrong to twist them in that direction. The fact that he has come out of this unblemished in a legal sense speaks volumes.
Yes you guys should! It would be a VERY interesting run though of something like the Page subject from two very different standpoints of federal experience.
You guys are often in the same orb but frequently thinking from two different perspectives and with different motivations.
Mark, when you go back to the Clinesmith case and the filings there, and draw upon everything that is publicly available now from the IG reports and the 2 Durham indictments, the Crossfire Hurricane team members trying to claim Clinesmith was the **only person** inside the FBI who knew about Carter Page's work for the CIA is going to be tough row to hoe. I don't believe it can be done. Now, to prosecute a criminal case, Durham needs to **document** that other members of Crossfire knew the truth about Page/CIA and were deliberately hiding it from the FISA Court, just as Clinesmith did. I did Substack column where I showed the section in the DOJ IG report from Dec. 2019 how Case Agent-1, Somma, gave untruthful answers to questions about Page's relationship to the CIA: https://briancates.substack.com/p/danchenko-lied-to-the-fbi-to-cover. That's at least one documented instance of a Crossfire team member trying to hide this.
It would seem that other than direct documentation, could you not also use sworn testimony - either a whistleblower, a witness, or someone squeezed with another crime?
I've always assumed that there are people involved that were involved by position rather than motivated by malice, at least until the entire cabal was assembled or self-selected.
True, but I would add that the FISC was not given the full story on Page's previous cooperation with the FBI itself. That is, IMO, even more damaging than the CIA information because more recent.
I cannot believe that FusionGPS/Steele targeted Carter Page serendipitously at the very moment the FBI was going apesh*t over Page telling the Russians he's the one who helped the FBI make their case against the Russian agents.
Handing the FBI Dossier material implicating Page in a Russian/Trump collusion is like dangling a candy-bar on a fishing hook over a hungry child.
I think there had to be a two way street here; FusionGPS had to have been alerted to the fact that the FBI was after Page, and that Page was a Trump campaign volunteer, and thus any half-bake allegation they could cook-up about him being in bed with Russians was going to be swallowed hook/line/ and sinker by the FBI. So FusionGPS dutifully worked up a fantastical story woven around open source facts, including Page's trip to Russia that summer, in which they claim he's the go-between in this collusion with the Trump campaign, replete with 19% commission for page if he get Trump to lift sanctions on Russia.
Gobble, gobble, gobble goes the FBI, and voila -- a FISA warrant on Page is obtained.
FusionGPS and Steele getting up on Page at that moment was the roast pigeon flying into the FBI's mouth. Somebody had to tell Hillary's campaign/Elias/Sussmann/FusionGPS/Steele/Danchenko that CP was target numero uno for FBI. So they delivered him on a platter.
Gobble, gobble, gobble goes the FBI ...
Am I missing something?
Was Baker the "two way" street?
I've wrestled with that in the past. My suspicion is that to find that link it's necessary to go through DoJ. Of course, at the top of the FBI there were definitely plenty of people who could fit that bill, and Weissmann at DoJ had also done two stints at the FBI.
Oh, and then there are the Ohrs, Bruce (DOJ) and Nellie "Morse Code Goddess" (FusionGPS.)
Can't discount them!
Absolutely not. Bruce had deep ties to influential people at the FBI.
... and to Steele, Fusion (via his wife,) Weissmann, and many other potential miscreants, including a few at State (Nuland?). And State Department leads to....
.... Cody Shearer, who leads to Strobe Talbot, who lead to Brookings, which leads to Danchenko, Fiona Hill, Dolan, and back to Steele again.
The cozy circle of chaos is complete.
... with Bruce Ohr (perhaps) at the epicenter.
J.E. Dyer put out an article that connects many dots back to 2009. With your analysis thrown in, it's apparent that Obama admin corrupted our IC and DOJ for their own gain, and Biden reinstituted the gang back.
https://theoptimisticconservative.wordpress.com/2021/11/16/the-importance-of-background-and-danchenkos-primary-russian-sub-source/
Okay, I'm dense. I've been trying to keep a mental 'dictionary' of initials in regard to the many covid and vaccine terms, i.e., ADE, antibody dependent enhancement because I want to understand and learn. So, here we have another seemingly important two initials -- EC. I can't figure out what EC stands for in this column. I knew what a 302 was, but I kept wondering 'does EC mean 'electronic communication'? Because, to me, totally ignorant of so many terms, and unable to find the meaning or source (I actually ended up at justice.gov looking for abbreviations in FBI reports) -- I keep wondering why EC is so important. Please excuse my ignorance, but I am still so, so interested in this case, I want to understand everything about it.
EC = Electronic Communication = Memorandum
Thank you.
I'm still 50/50 on Page being an honest advisor for Trump or a CHI plant by the IC into the campaign. It fits the left / right hand issues we see elsewhere. The guy is just slimy and greasy like that.
SD ran a posting yesterday about Page's current lawsuit and the fact that the honorable (using that term loosely) James Boasberg has now been assigned to Page's civil case against James Comey. Mostly putting emphasis on the fact that James Boasberg comes up in the circle of Flynn, Page, FISA, saga 6 or 8 different times. Though SD lends to the conflict of interest he never mentions the high probability of instant reclusion.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2021/11/16/a-curiously-random-coincidence-keeps-repeating/
I'm saying if James Boasberg doesn't recluse ,Page's council will absolutely demand it. That seems to be a theme to Page's cases where rather than traction they keep getting bounced or reassigned. DC is a small circuit and I doubt anything happens there out of coincidence.
Any thoughts on that jibberish Mark?
I think Carter Page is exactly who he says he is. The FBI definitely wanted to screw Page around for his foolish--but not criminal--actions. I'm republishing 3 two and a half year old posts re all that history of Page with the FBI. The FBI's actions to target Page are IMO totally inconsistent with CP being a "plant" in the Trump campaign. No doubt the FBI would have been elated at CP's new position and put it to good use against Trump, but I see nothing to indicate the FBI instigated CP joining the Trump campaign. One caveat to that. In saying this, I'm NOT saying that someone else within the Trump campaign and who also had connections to the Deep State may not have steered CP to the campaign. Reread my repubs and see what you think.
"I'm NOT saying that someone else within the Trump campaign and who also had connections to the Deep State may not have steered CP to the campaign."
Agreed, that's a high probability especially knowing what we know about the Cambridge clan.
Whatever you may think of CP, his appointment to the campaign was clearly a disaster for Trump. That alone should start anyone thinking. The fact that Trump wasn't briefed in on that is also disturbing, especially because most of the info was clearly being filtered through an unreliable oppo research shop. So, I'm saying that I don't think the FBI got that ball rolling, but that they took full advantage of it. Which leaves one to speculate whether there were people at the very top who were in on it.
Mark, school me up a bit. I’ve read FBI 302 reports so I know what they are, but what is an EC “electronic communication?” Is that a fancy way of saying email?
A fancy way of saying "memo". When the FBI finally went digital the old Memorandums were renamed. That's all.
I honestly thought I could find a easy definition or link to post and answer that question and it turns out, nope! So, damn good question from the outside looking in.
I've always assumed an EC is an intelligence report / doc that's more of an informational FYI vs a 302 that's used as an investigation tool in case fact finding interviews.
Now I'm curious to know how bad my ASSuming is. 😁
See the other replies. The two forms are really not that different for practical purposes. EC's can serve many admin purposes as well as recording investigative actions. The use of the 302 indicates that the agents conducted the investigation with the understanding that it might at some point figure in a prosecution. That might or might not happen. There used to be another form called an "insert" that was sometimes used in criminal investigative files for matters that were not pertinent to prosecution. The insert tended to be rarely used by agents in my experience.
Mark, do you know? Has the FBI ever gotten around to recording interviews or are they still relying on agent notes to prepare their 302’s? In Broward County FL our States Attorney had us recording most interviews as far back as the ‘80’s. In the 90’s all life or Capital Felonies had to be videotaped as well.
Don't know how this works in practice:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140609/10344327526/why-fbis-new-interview-recording-policy-probably-wont-change-anything.shtml
"Even when those sources tell pretty consequential untruths, the FBI avoids those types of prosecutions. For starters, it’s not a good way to encourage other people to share information with the FBI." Given their recent actions, who in their right mind would be willing to share anything with the FBI.
Why did the FBI go ballistic when Page disclosed his role? Does that threaten the case?
As I write at greater length elsewhere, no, the case itself wasn't threatened. My belief is that the FBI was concerned--and outraged--that Page's action may have disclosed sensitive investigative techniques of some sort. IOW, if the Russians reviewed events with the understanding that Page was working for the FBI--as they would--they might realize the full extent of Page's cooperation.
If so, the FBI's concern--and anger--is understandable. From my perspective Page's action was foolish at best. The reality, however, is that the Russians would have had to have been brain dead not to have realized in retrospect that Page was working for the FBI.
Once you decide to prosecute all sources and methods are jeopardized, especially if you're up against a smart and highly professional opponent like the Russian intel services. That's one of the reasons intel cases tend not to get prosecuted, and it's a decision you need to make consciously.
I suspect that this case was driven politically to a great extent to send a message to the Russians. So, while I understand the anger toward Page, it probably wasn't just his actions that would have jeopardized sources and methods. In any event, his actions do not logically tend to prove that he was a Russian agent and it was wrong to twist them in that direction. The fact that he has come out of this unblemished in a legal sense speaks volumes.
We should compare notes. This could be fun. Maybe even a podcast or a few.
Yes you guys should! It would be a VERY interesting run though of something like the Page subject from two very different standpoints of federal experience.
You guys are often in the same orb but frequently thinking from two different perspectives and with different motivations.
Mark, when you go back to the Clinesmith case and the filings there, and draw upon everything that is publicly available now from the IG reports and the 2 Durham indictments, the Crossfire Hurricane team members trying to claim Clinesmith was the **only person** inside the FBI who knew about Carter Page's work for the CIA is going to be tough row to hoe. I don't believe it can be done. Now, to prosecute a criminal case, Durham needs to **document** that other members of Crossfire knew the truth about Page/CIA and were deliberately hiding it from the FISA Court, just as Clinesmith did. I did Substack column where I showed the section in the DOJ IG report from Dec. 2019 how Case Agent-1, Somma, gave untruthful answers to questions about Page's relationship to the CIA: https://briancates.substack.com/p/danchenko-lied-to-the-fbi-to-cover. That's at least one documented instance of a Crossfire team member trying to hide this.
It would seem that other than direct documentation, could you not also use sworn testimony - either a whistleblower, a witness, or someone squeezed with another crime?
I've always assumed that there are people involved that were involved by position rather than motivated by malice, at least until the entire cabal was assembled or self-selected.
True, but I would add that the FISC was not given the full story on Page's previous cooperation with the FBI itself. That is, IMO, even more damaging than the CIA information because more recent.
Good point!
No.