« The GRU and Turkish MI -The ties that bind ... | Main | Syria Notes - 8 february 2018 »

07 February 2018


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

patrick lang

all What was Carter Page's status in all this? He is reported to have been cooperating with the FBI against the SVR, and yet the FBI obtained a FISA warrant against him? If it was a title 1 warrant, they could use that as justification for surveilling anyone in contact with him? pl


It definitely was a title 1 warrant and that presumably opened up anyone he was communicating with to surveillance. Kid of convenient for Trump campaign access...

And as noted earlier, he appeared to still be supporting the SVR case through March of 2016 and then in October 2016 a title 1 FISA warrant is approved - so from "spy catcher" to foreign spy in six months??


If it happened, the motivation would have been to curry favour with HRC, whom everybody assumed would be elected.

Of course, we are only getting a partial view of what happened. Clinton family retainers also had contaacts with Russia; it's just not been reported much. And Russia was unlikely to have been the only nation to break the unwritten rule that only Israel is allowed to interfere in US politics - Saudi Arabia, Germany, France, Ukraine etc were almost certainly doing it too.


Steele became the “go-to person on Russia in the commercial sector” following his retirement from the Secret Intelligence Service. He described the reputations of Steele and his business partner, fellow intelligence veteran Christopher Burrows, as “superb.”

London-Russian "oligarchy" there, with a very specific outlook on Russia-UK's track record in anti-Russian activities---> hence Steele's sources. Anything Russia-related in Anglo-American IC can not be treated as "superb" or even moderately "good" at all. I am waiting for Nunes memo on State Department. I am in no position to pass judgements on any legal, let alone operational "superbity" of, say MI-6 but and if it had intentions of influencing US elections (which is scandalous in itself) it is one thing, but in circles it all comes back to this Dossier which stunk to heaven from the get go. In circles less sophisticated than MI-6 it is known as disinformation, which, of course, the first indication of operation of influence. The decision to "believe" in this cocktail of rumors, lies and hearsay was made in Washington, not London.


Typo/spell checker error?

acting on his on or had a "wink-and-a-nod"

I think should be:

acting on his o(w)n or had a "wink-and-a-nod"

Just trying to prevent confusion for the non-native English speakers.

Eric Newhill

I don't know how all this works in terms of who they could be surveilling under the warrant. My only observation is that C. Page was not in direct contact w/ Trump at any time. Trump says that and Page says that. I have to believe it's true or they would have nabbed Page for lying by now.

Could the warrant permit spying on Trump himself by extension? legally? Or perhaps they illegally spied on Trump directly and then figured that would get lost in all the wildness and then transition once trump was impeached?

That page was never in contact w/ Trump and that the warrant was issued and continued after Page left his very periphery position in the Trump campaign is a mystery to me, unless FISA does allow extremely broad application of the spying to even periphery contacts (or the other thing I mentioned).

Or, beyond the illegality of the application for the warrant and beyond the fact that it used the same dossier that was aimed at Trump - there is no real connection to Trump himself and both sides are playing up Page's unfortunate situation to promote or attack trump.

Or there are other warrants, yet disclosed, based on the Steele material.

or I'm missing something obvious

Eric Newhill

Pardon me, "Or there are other warrants, yet UNdisclosed, based on the Steele material."

Clueless Joe

Trump had planned to visit UK this month but cancelled it a few weeks ago. Any possibility that might not just be due to expected protests and lack of British enthusiasm, but also as retaliation after he learned the MI6 and/or GCHQ involvement in this affair? (apparently he's considering a visit late this year, in which case he might have got some assurances that British agencies will stop messing up, or UK authorities will now collaborate with his team)

Publius Tacitus

Thanks. You get an Editor award. My appreciation.

blue peacock

Col. Lang,

He is reported to have been cooperating with the FBI against the SVR, and yet the FBI obtained a FISA warrant against him? If it was a title 1 warrant, they could use that as justification for surveilling anyone in contact with him


The FISA application was for a Title 1 warrant which was granted by FISC, as noted in the Nunes memo. This is why the role of Carter Page is important to know.

I have been speculating in my exchanges with TTG, that Carter Page was an FBI "accomplice", to provide retroactive cover for the surveillance of Trump and his campaign without any warrants. This is probably why there were FISA violations which were discovered by Admiral Rogers.

The timelines become very interesting. The FISA violations were discovered by NSA sometime around March/April 2016. Admiral Rogers orders a compliance review. He goes to FISC in October 2016 to report the outcome of his compliance review. The Title 1 FISA warrant on Carter Page was in October 2016.

Page was a volunteer at the Trump campaign. If he was a known Russian spy, as a FISA Title 1 warrant would imply, why didn't the FBI inform the Trump campaign?


Couldn’t help but notice the FBI form you used as an example disclosed the sex of the “he/she” informant.


So who signed the warrent, the Director or Deputy Director of the FBI; and who approved it: AG Lynch, Deputy AG Sally (hero of the resistance) Yates, or the guy who stepped down on October 15th, 2016, as Assistnat AG for National Security John Carlin
If it was hiim what day did he sign that and how long does it take to get the application to the court, since it looks a lot like he signed the thing then resigned to cover his ass. Where o where is Mr. Carlin now, since he doesnt (or no longer) has any page in Wikipedia? The internet wants to know. I bet the House and Senate want to know too.

Virginia Slim

Quite an intrigue, isn't it? It reminds one rather of the Tukhachevsky affair.

John Minnerath

An endlessly convoluted can of worms impossible for anyone not completely up to speed on subjects like this to get a grip on.


Reportedly, the Democrat House Intelligence Committee memo contains a great deal of information on Page’s background. It will be interesting to see if it survives the declassification process.

From the Grassley letter, it doesn’t sound like a lot of this information was included in the FISA warrant. If that is the case, one has to wonder why it wasn’t.


Quite an intrigue, isn't it? It reminds one rather of the Tukhachevsky affair.

In procedural terms, yes. On substance, no--most of it is as clear as a day. Per Tukhacevsky--his affair is not even in the same league as what is transpiring now in the US. The stakes here are immense since American statehood is under attack. As per Tuchachevsky--he wasn't that good of a general to start with (certainly technologically not astute). Plus, there is a whole other dimension to his, and others, story which should not be discussed in this thread.


Excellent summary. Obvious reasons for British meddling in U.S. elections: Trump's pre-election statements on NATO, desire to improve relations with Russia, related Russian sanctions, etc.

The Twisted Genius

blue peacock,

I don't think a Title 1 FISA warrant gives the FBI any additional surveillance capability beyond what could be gained by surveilling a controlled source. In either case the FBI would be listening to all those who came in contact with Page. That's why I have serious doubts about Page being a controlled FBI source/informant. A FISA warrant is just not necessary if the target is already a controlled source/informant. I believe I read somewhere Comey had the FBI surveil himself in order to listen in on conversations he had with White House officials. It didn't take a FISA warrant for that. (Actually, I'm surprised we haven't heard more outrage about this.) In either case I don't think the FBI gets access to retroactive surveillance except for the specific target of the surveillance.

As I mentioned in our earlier conversation, I'm surprised the SVR would try to recruit Page after their earlier experience with him. He's the reason they lost three SVR officers. He was a witness for the Federal prosecution rather than a controlled informant. Years later he looked like a dangle with his trips to Moscow. He's either a clueless idiot or an operator worthy of the title, ace of spies. The questions about his true status are legitimate and worth pursuing.

Was that compliance review you refer to the same one that was released by Coats earlier this year? That long (99 pages or so) report was an annual review conducted by the FISC of all NSA, CIA and FBI FISA activities. It wasn't anything specific initiated by Rogers.

Why was Page let go by the Trump campaign? Perhaps the FBI did tip the campaign off to his Russian connections. Obama warned Trump not to get involved with Flynn.


He may have been an accomplice for someone other than the FBI.

It might be a mistake to think that state actors would have been the only folks interested in obtaining intelligence about Trump.

It has been reported that he worked on the Clinton transition team in 1992. He was also some kind of liaison to Congress under Les Aspin. His specialty involved nuclear weapons.

The Twisted Genius

Eric Newhill,

reference your comment at #6

You make a good point about Page not having access to Trump or the Trump campaign or transition team when he was under the FISA warrant and three renewals. I think this was because the target of the Page surveillance was the Russian connection, not Trump himself. An investigation should proceed from established facts rather than some presumed and unsubstantiated conclusion. And I'm pretty sure there are other warrants. Whether they're based on the Steele material I don't know.



We can entertain only two possibilities--Jim Comey is a monumental dunce or he is a liar.

All these guys were certain Hillary would win the election. They were convinced their lawlessness would be rewarded and their subterfuge would be conveniently buried.

Unfortunately for them the voters in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin decided otherwise. So they tried to create the casus belli for impeachment. That has now failed. Where this leads to is anyone's guess.

wisedupearly Ceo

So, the Brits passing GCHQ intel that they are seeing suspicious indicators re. TRUMP - Russian contacts to us via long-established channels is now seen as "interfering with our elections"? Not realistic.
Preliminary intel is always 99% uncorroborated. Sad, but true.
Should the Brits have waited for full corroboration before informing us? Hell, no. As I understand it we get everything automatically. Nothing is withheld, that is the nature of the special relationship.

So to answer the title, if Brit intel fabricated the indicators then yes, they did try to destroy the Trump Campaign. Otherwise no.
Is Steele an FBI spy or is he a source? Unclear.
If Steele is a still active Brit spy then he should have been declared as such under existing MOA. Could he be NOC for the Brits? Unlikely given his direct involvement with IC on intel matters.
Did Steele leak the story to Yahoo News? Steele says he briefed several newspapers, only Yahoo published.
The Yahoo article, written by Isikoff September 24, states "The activities of Trump adviser Carter Page, who has extensive business interests in Russia, have been discussed with senior members of Congress during recent briefings about suspected efforts by Moscow to influence the presidential election, the sources said. "
So the number of people read into the STEELE reports is significant.

So the questions should be
Did Brit intel fabricate the initial indicators?
Did Steele fabricate his findings?
Was Steele played by material released by third parties?
How many other FISA warrants are there?

Has Gowdy stated that the PAGE warrant was issued illegally?

Account Deleted

And equally obvious that getting caught meddling in US elections would have catastrophic consequences for all involved, as we may shortly witness. If the British IC did have anything to do with this, it begs the question; what was worth the colossal risk?

wisedupearly Ceo

Addendum: can we all agree that if the STEELE intel was a genuine attempt to ensure Trump's failure in the election then the effort was the most inept operation in a long time?
The only STEELE memo that had any chance of doing any material damage was the pee-pee tapes. Trump supporters thought it was "cute".
As Trump himself said "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters," Trump said at a campaign rally. He was not joking and who knows his supporters better than Trump.

Eric Newhill

TTG #20

Thx for the reply. As you know I like Trump a lot and I don't like all I have seen going on to subvert his presidency (e.g. the MSM 24/7 fake news bashing on him, Soros organized riots). That said, I try to be as objective as possible.

I am simply not seeing the connection between spying on Page and spying on Trump. There has been no evidence released that even suggests it happened. I watched Tucker Carlson and Hannity this week and both are saying that the FBI spied on a POTUS candidate and on a sitting president (Trump in both instances, of course). I had to stop myself, clear my head and think for minute. I don't see it. They spied on Page and most likely anyone he talked to/met with, but that's not Trump nor anyone in Trump's inner circle.

Maybe it will come out that Trump and his inner circle were spied on. Maybe the FISA warrant was construed to permit that. Maybe they just did it regardless of legality. Maybe that's what all these GOP releases are leading up to.

However, at this point, I see a lot of smoke and mirrors on both sides. The GOP is using the Page warrant to damage the FBI (well deserved, apparently) and Mueller's investigation. The dems are using the existence of the warrant on Page to insinuate that Trump campaign needs to be investigated b/c they had a Ruskie mole amongst them and a bunch of other stuff about collusion that Clinton and Steele pulled out of their asses.

In the midst of this is Carter Page, an obviously self-absorbed/self-promoting goofy homosexual that is always trying to get close to power and failing, who never met Trump and who never has yet been shown to have contributed anything to the Trump campaign - and who has an annoying habit of pretending to connections and knowledge that he doesn't really have; and getting himself in hot water in the course of doing so.

Until more is revealed - or someone explains how it could be otherwise - I am beginning to think that the entire focus on Page means nothing more than the exposure of a corrupt FBI playing fast and loose w/ FISA. All of the recently revealed FBI invective toward Trump and talk of "insurance policies" is highly suggestive, but that's it [at this point].

My spider sense says it will be revealed that Trump himself was sureveilled - that and a buck 50 gets me a ride on the cross town bus.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad