-
I read @AndrewCMcCarthy’s nearly 3000 word take (just part 1 of 3!) on the Clinesmith plea. I agree with some of it, but think he is also serving up to readers of NR a distorted picture about certain empirical things. /1 nationalreview.com/2020/08/clinesmiths-guilty-plea-the-perfect-snapshot-of-crossfire-hurricane-duplicity/
-
.@AndrewCMcCarthy has posted another 2500 words on Clinesmith. He continues to mislead @NRO readers (if there is any real-world audience for what’s on track to be 8000 words on this by the 3rd part) about Page's 2008-13 status with the CIA. /6 nationalreview.com/2020/08/clinesmith-guilty-plea-using-a-digraph-to-conceal-a-massive-deception-of-the-court/
-
Anyway, the plausible part of his verbose analysis fits into a tweet: Clinesmith likely recognized in June 2017 that the FBI was facing a bad footnote belatedly disclosing a fact it should have included in previous applications, too, and was trying to paper over the problem. /end
-
I appreciate that @AndrewCMcCarthy has conceded error in exaggerating Page's status into a kind of spy for the US by saying the CIA tasked him to talk to Russians and report back when it actually was forbidden from tasking him to do anything, but... /1 nationalreview.com/corner/responding-to-charlie-savage-on-my-clinesmith-series/
-
he bizarrely digs in on error of calling Page an "operative" authorized by CIA to have "operational contact" with Russia, despite now acknowledging the IG footnote that makes clear the term means only that CIA was authorized to contact Page but not make operational use of him. /2
-
No quarrel with @AndrewCMcCarthy's part 3 on Clinesmith, which doesn't mention "operational contact" and avoids his earlier broader insinuations. It basically rehashes Horowitz's narrative. McCarthy's take on what was specifically going on is plausible. nationalreview.com/2020/08/kevin-clinesmith-guilty-plea-russia-probe-lying-about-lying/