A followup from another Powerline post:
Consider one example of the misconduct Horowitz identified. An FBI lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, obtained information that Carter Page, the subject of a FISA order, had gathered intelligence about Russia for that agency and was reliable — a fact that would cut against the notion that Page was working for the Russians. Clinesmith doctored the email conveying this information. He inserted the words “not a source,” even though he had been told that Page was a source.
Clinesmith then passed the doctored email on to the FBI agent who was assigned to affirm under oath the FBI’s allegations to the FISA court. That agent had told Clinesmith that he wanted “a definitive answer to whether Page had ever been a source for another U.S. government agency before he signed the final renewal application.” By doctoring the email, Clinesmith definitively gave the agent an answer he knew was wrong.
We know from direct evidence that Clinesmith was aligned with the resistance to Trump. However, even without that direct evidence, one should conclude, absent a satisfactory explanation for the doctoring, that Clinesmith doctored it intentionally and for a bad motive. Even without direct evidence of bias, one should conclude that Clinesmith was out to get Trump.These are good points, highlighting the problem of how to address the shocking failures in the FBI and DOJ in the FISA warrant abuse uncovered in Crossfire Hurricane. Were the failures incompetent, or corrupt? That determination makes a difference in how you might craft reform measures.
Incompetence is something fairly easily addressed in performance reviews involving a record of success and a record of violations of policies that have been demonstrated to result in success without injustice or scandal in past investigations. Corruption might instead entail discovering whether someone's otherwise inexplicable mix of failures and successes in achieving law enforcement goals that held up on appeal corresponded with a pattern of various illicit motives. Was the agent taking bribes? Was he a victim of extortion? Was he a political operative? Was he an agent of a foreign power? Was he merely ambitious, unprincipled, and willing to do whatever his superiors wanted?--in which case the inquiry shifts to the motives of the superiors. Right up the chain of command.
We can't always roll our eyes and say we can never look into another person's soul and determine a motives with certainty. A glaring pattern of failures may be exactly what points us to criminal violations.
9 comments:
I suppose we are no more entitled to infer motives from their text messages than we were in the Pulse nightclub case.
But they, of course, are profoundly sure of Trump's unspoken motives.
Tom - precisely.
We may not be able to look into a person's soul and determine a person's motives. But we can see clearly enough when they are not good, or not what the person claims they are. People might do bad things for a variety of reasons - ideology, bribery, extortion, laziness, social pressure, ambition, revenge, meanness...bias - we don't need to know which it was.
The key item was that the explanations were unsatisfactory. If there is a good explanation, let's hear it. In the face of that, it is reasonable for IG Horowitz to conclude which is the most likely. He does not need certainty at that point.
But they, of course, are profoundly sure of Trump's unspoken motives.
And they put greater credence in those unspoken motives than they do in the same man's clearly articulated motives.
Of course these are the same ones that take seriously the NLMSM's placing greater "truth" value on its deliberately unsubstantiated rumors which are anonymously "sourced" than the NLMSM does in on-the-record sources--vanishingly rare that they are--that contradict those rumors.
Eric Hines
I'd would really enjoy hearing somebody like Andy McCarthy grill Horowitz on how to square the conclusions in his report on Mid-Year Exam (the Clinton Email investigation) with his analysis of Crossfire Hurricane, in some cases of the actions of the same group of people.
He seems to have developed Mueller disease. It's like he never even read his previous report.
"There is NO SUCH THING as co-incidence."--Jack Ryan (and millions of others)
I used to hear from push back that all the criminal conspiracies i mentioned, were just me not using occams razor. See, the razor just makes all this be incompetence. No need for anything more complicated...
I have to wonder why the o razor keeps being misused on a 90 iq level. Has anyone ever applied critical thinking to the razor?
Trum s motivations are easy to see. Hear the words of a messenger.
Trum knows some of the super tech national security gained from confiscating nikola teslas work.
This has been kept secret because of national security. You are not a patriot if you leak this. Actually you wont have a head too anymore but who is counting.
Trum wants these life changing techs to be released. He knows this will benefit the american standard of living. It is also why he thinks of america first. First in tech, first in power, but not first in charge. He wants to change that. The ds civil war xame at an excellent time for him.
The problem is we're doing what people like Comey want us to do- talk about motives. I don't care what the motives were- what was done is criminal- negligence in serious matters can be criminal (negligence) when it causes harm, and harm has been caused. Heck, I'd probably like to give harsher sentences to people who thought they were doing good, than an honest criminal who's simply doing bad and knows it- the do-gooder is more dangerous!
Post a Comment