More on the Same Topic or Why I Hate Google

Not that long ago, really, Lindsey Graham came out with a tweet storm denouncing the Democrats for hiring a FOREIGNER (Christopher Steele) to work for the campaign accepting information from a FOREIGNER and how much worse this was than the Trump campaign merely talking to the Russians about possible dirt on Hillary and learning there was nothing to it.  Any number of people then came forward to show that campaign finance law does not ban hiring a foreign contractor, only accepting foreign donations.  Indeed, the Trump campaign hired a British contractor in the form of Cambridge Analytica,* so how is that different.  But in the short time that has passed, I can no longer find any of that on Google, so this is going by memory.

The general response was to backtrack and admit that OK, maybe it is allowed to hire a foreign contractor, but Steele was a foreign SPY who talked to RUSSIANS and was hostile to Trump, all of which should definitely have barred anyone from looking at his information.

Can we break this down for a minute.

First of all, yes, it is certainly true that investigating a presidential candidate is a big deal.  Abuses by Nixon at a minimum and probably other presidents going back to FDR or even earlier make that clear.  But a blanket view that an opposition candidate may never be investigated is to put presidential candidate above the law, and even encourage targets of federal investigation to run for President to stop investigations.

Second, can we consider for five minutes what it means to say that it was illegitimate to investigate Trump, much less get a wiretap on a former foreign policy adviser based on information from RUSSIANS.

Let's start with the obvious.  Our intelligence service cultivates Russian sources inside the Russian government for information.  Indeed, it is alleged that one reason the Obama Administration took Russian interference in the election so seriously was that US intelligence had a source in the Kremlin telling them that Vladimir Putin was directly behind the hacks, and that the purpose was to elect Trump as President.  If the same source had alleged that Trump was in on the plot (which, just to be clear, the source did not) would anyone claim that we should not investigate because the information came from a RUSSIAN?  The question is ridiculous.  Obviously RUSSIANS are going to know the most about what goes in in RUSSIA. 

But that is from our own intelligence community.  What about a FOREIGN intelligence service?  Much the same applies.  Friendly intelligence services cooperate all the time.  The British intelligence service is as friendly a service as there is.  If the active British intelligence had cultivated a Russian source who claimed that Trump was in on the plot.**  Would it have been illegitimate to investigate because the source came to us through a FOREIGN intelligence service instead of our own?  Again, the question is ridiculous.  We accept tips through British and other friendly intelligence services; that is one of the advantages of having allies.  The real question would be whether the source was generally reliable, and here admittedly the British would be better judges than we are.  But we would not distrust their judgment simply because FOREIGN SPIES.***

So, what about Christopher Steele, a retired British spy who had cultivated sources in Russia?  Well, the FBI did not consider Steele's retired status to disqualify him from begin a source (among many) in its FIFA Corruption investigation, and no one seems to have seen anything wrong with that. This would be the equivalent of a retired law enforcement officer working as a private investigator and seeking information from sources he cultivated while working in law enforcement.  Retirement would mean that it was no longer his job to investigate crimes, but if a more private investigation uncovered evidence of real criminality, should the police be barred from investigating simply because it was a RETIRED copy who uncovered the evidence?  Police begin investigations based on information from private citizens all the time.  And, yes, I realize that investigating a candidate for President is rather a different matter and raises the specter of political persecution.  But once again, I see no reason why Steele's retired status would taint him any more than an ordinary private investigator, or any private citizen, would be tainted.

And what of the argument that Steele was doing OPPOSITION RESEARCH for the DEMOCRATS and that therefore anything he uncovered was hopelessly tainted with partisan bias and could not have been investigated?  That argument has always just seemed bizarre.  The investigation of Hillary Clinton's notorious e-mails arose out of hearings by the Benghazi investigation.  Yes, Democrats did participate, but the Congressional Republican leadership made fairly clear that their purpose was to hamper Hillary Clinton's future campaign for President.  The committee ultimately found no wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton or her State Department, but did learn that Hillary had sent State Department e-mails on a private server.  This was taken seriously enough to launch an FBI investigation that dogged Hillary throughout her campaign.  

I suppose Republicans may say that even that is different because it was never seriously disputed that Hillary Clinton really did send State Department e-mails on a private server, but any Trump conspiracy with the Russians was very much in doubt.  But can we be serious here.  The simple fact is that anyone digging dirt on another person will probably be acting out of hostile motives.  (Duh!).  Partisan motives are no different than more personal hostility.  Suppose opposition researchers on some hypothetical candidate had limited themselves to open sources and discovered evidence that suggested a pattern of criminal conduct.  Should investigators refrain from looking into the conduct even though they had access to the same open sources simply because the first investigation was partisan?  I would say the decision to investigate should depend on how serious the apparent criminal conduct was.  If it was only a minor matter, I would let it go.  But if something really sinister seemed to be afoot, then yes, it should be investigated, regardless of the partisan origins of the investigation.

And I have explained at length why covert sources, including covert foreign sources, are not by themselves disqualifying.

I think most Republicans would concede these points, at least if the shoe was on the other foot.  What a lot of them seem to be arguing is not that there was anything wrong with Steele being a British contractor, or talking with people in the know, but that he fabricated the information.  There is no evidence of that whatever.

The strongest argument against using Steele as a source is not that he was a foreigner, or a former spy, or that he talked to Russians, or that he was working for the Democrats, but that his retired status prevented him from contacting his sources directly, and instead made him work through intermediaries.  In other words, he was passing on third-hand rumors, never a very reliable source of information.   And the risk is real that the Russians figured out what was going on and deliberately planted false rumors.  Rumors from sources that have been reliable in the past have their place in an investigation, but only if corroborated by more immediate sources.

And let us face it.  To this day we really don't know whether there was adequate corroboration of Steele's information.  The secret to that lies under the two redacted pages of the Page warrant.****

______________________________________________
*And, I will admit, our side has had its own conspiracy theories, never proved, about that.
**In fact, cooperation with friendly intelligence services seems to have played a major part in the investigation, although the details are kept secret for obvious reasons.
***Then there is the little bit about denouncing Steele as a SPY as well as foreign.  The implication here is that he was spying on the US and the Trump campaign, which is not true.  He was activating his sources in Russia, which is legitimate for the reasons I have gone over. 
****Emptywheel makes the case that there were sufficient grounds to order a wiretap on Carter Page based on what we currently know:  (1) Page had formerly been a target for recruitment as a Russian spy, (2) when Page was investigated as a target, he said that it was good to share low-grade secret information with the Russians and boasted to the Russians that he did not fully cooperate with the FBI, (3) Carter Page and George Papadopoulos were hired as foreign advisers to the Trump campaign at about the same time, (4) in March, Russian agent Joseph Mifsud told Papadopoulos that Russia had damaging information on Hillary Clinton in the form of e-mails and intended to release them, (5) in July, early Page visited Russia and, according to the Steele Dossier, was told that the Russians had damaging information on Hillary Clinton and might share it if the Trump campaign adopted a more Russia-friendly policy, (6) the Trump campaign did, in fact, adopt a more Russia-friendly policy, (7) the first Wikileaks release of DNC e-mails occurred on July 22, (8) the earlier Steele report about Page's activities in Russia was dated July 19, i.e., before the Wikileaks release.  To which I can only say that this may be true.  But it seems to me more like an example of how always looking for connections between disparate events can lead into complete paranoia.