Carter Page recently made headlines when it was determined that while the FBI investigation into his involvement with Russia was warranted, the FBI’s application to the FISA court was severely flawed. The Republicans are trying to blame this on the Democrats and are suddenly very concerned about the FISA court and civil liberties. However, this does not seem to be the Democrats doing; rather it is a long-term problem with the FISA court that civil liberties advocates have been warning America about since its inception. Before the Carter Page episode, the Republicans actively defended FISA and it was the ACLU that was concerned about this court, bringing an unsuccessful lawsuit in 2012.
To infer that the Republicans are wrong now because they previously defended FISA and law enforcement against liberal critics would be to fall into an ad hominem tu quoque fallacy. In one version of this fallacy, it is concluded that what a person claims now is false because they previously claimed the opposite. While both claims (the current and the past) cannot be true at the same time, this does not show which one is false (and both might be false).
I hold that the Republicans and the ACLU are both right—there are problems with FISA. The Republicans and long-time liberal critics of the FBI and police are also right—there are problems with the FBI. As such, my issue with the Republicans is not that they are in error—I agree that the case of Carter Page was handled badly. My issue with the Republicans is that they are professing false motivations.
False motivation is a rhetorical tactic in which a person professes a laudable and credible motive for taking an action or holding a belief when this is not their real motive. This tactic is used to cast the person in a good light and to persuade others to accept their claim or actions. The idea is that if they convince others they are acting from a laudable and credible motive, then they will also persuade them they are doing right for the right reasons. The problem is, of course, that the professed motive is not the real motive. As such, they do not deserve any praise for acting from a laudable or credible motive and any persuasive power derived from claiming such a motive is thus earned by deceit.
It is important to note that a person’s motives do not affect the truth of a claim or the rightness of their action (or the morality of its consequences). For example, sugar companies have a strong profit motive to lie about negative effects of sugar, but this motive does not prove that their claims about sugar are not true. As another example, a person might give money to a charity to improve their reputation for an upcoming political campaign; but this does not make the act of giving the money or its consequences bad.
The Republicans are obviously not going to say that they are only concerned because they want to protect Trump and score political points by going after FISA and the FBI. While the Republicans profess that their concern with FISA and the FBI arise from concerns about constitutional rights and justice, the facts of the matter say otherwise.
As noted above, Republicans have consistently defended FISA and law enforcement against liberal critics and the ACLU. See, for example, the conservative view of Black Lives Matter. The Republican view suddenly changed when they learned what happened to Carter Page and realized they had been handed a chance to score political points. All the previous problems with FISA and law enforcement largely did not concern the Republicans—presumably because these problems involved people they did not like, mostly minorities. If the Republicans were motivated by a general concern about constitutional rights and justice, then they would have been on board with the ACLU lawsuit—the ACLU is consistently motivated by these concerns. Instead, the Republicans only discovered a concern for FISA and law enforcement when Carter Page (and others in the Trump orbit) have become the subject of investigations.
I want to stress again, that the Republicans are right that Carter Page was wronged and that FISA and law enforcement need to be reformed. Their motivations are irrelevant to the truth of their claims. However, their motivations are relevant to assessing their ethics and in assessing their rhetorical strategy. If they, like the ACLU, were champions of constitutional rights, then they would be worthy of praise. But they are clearly operating from different motives and only deserve whatever faint praise one earns by finally doing some small right from selfish motives.
It could be argued that Carter Page was the come to Jesus moment for the Republicans; that they had been staunchly defending FISA and law enforcement against liberal critics and the cruel oppression of a rich, white man finally made the scales fall from their eyes. They should, of course, be given a fair evaluation here. If this is the case, then one would expect them to play out the tale of Saul becoming Paul: they should change their ways and broadly defend constitutional rights and engage in constructive, but stern, criticism of abuses by law enforcement. If this happens, then I will admit that their professed motives are their real motives. If their concern begins and ends with rich, white guys (associated with Trump) then their true motives will be evident.
It could also be claimed that the Republicans are rationalizing. Rationalizing does have some similarity to the false motive strategy, but there is an important difference. When someone uses the false motive tactic, they are aware of their real motive and a lying when they profess a laudable or credible motive in its place. When someone rationalizes, they also present a laudable or credible motive in place of their real motive, but they are not only trying to deceive others—they are also striving to deceive themselves. If they succeed, it could be claimed that they are no longer lying—they are saying what they believe to be true. As such, rationalization might be seen as morally superior to the use of false motive; or perhaps it is worse, since it involves lying to one more person (themselves).
Since we can only discern motives from words and deeds, it can be hard to sort out when someone is engaged in a false motive tactic, rationalizing or telling the truth. However, we can try to sort things out. As noted above, if the Republicans profess, they are motivated by a concern for constitutional rights and justice, then this can be tested by observing how they act in other cases. If they are not consistent, then it is worth considering that they are engaged in using the false motivation method. It is also worth noting that people often fail to act consistently on their principles—so one can be sincere but flawed. If they seem to be struggling to convince themselves as well, then rationalization could be a possibility.
My view is, of course, that the Republicans generally do not care about the broader issues raised by the Carter Page case in terms of constitutional rights and problems with law enforcement. Their real motive, which can be assessed by their actions, seems to be to score political points and protect Trump. If they did, in fact, come to Jesus, then I will happily accept that they have had a Grinch like experience and their hearts have grown. In fact, I promise to write essays praising them should they engage in broad reforms of the courts and law enforcement that go beyond merely protecting Page, Trump and other rich white guys.
Way to blame the victim, Mike.
This is my shocked face. 😐
The only entity or alleged entity Mike is blaming here is “the Republicans”, and I don’t see “the Republicans” as a victim here. Carter Page, Mike Flynn, Donaly Trump, and others were all victims, sure, but they can’t be “the Republicans” that supported FISA. Mike specifically headlines that Carter Page was a victim, but he is not blaming Carter Page.
My problem with this essay is perhaps due to my unfamiliarity. I have always had the general sense that while Republicans are in general more law-and-order focused than Democrats, national security issues were pretty much bipartisan.
And so I find when I search. FISA was introduced by Ted Kennedy, signed by Jimmy Carter. Ot has been amended a few times, but not in any way that points to party differences. Democrats had plenty of opportunity to squelch it during the Obama years if they objected. And, of course, it was the Obama DOJ that misused it here.
This essay is written as though “the Republicans” have maintained this law in the face of Democrat opposition, but I don’t see any. Certainly the ACLU raised problems with it – and good for them! – but those problems were raised to a system used and supported by Democrats as well as Republicans.
So which “the Republicans” are we actually talking about?
True, the Democrats also had a hand in FISA, but they are not the ones who suddenly found Jesus. The Democrats also tend to be more critical of abuses by law enforcement; though it must be noted that they also do not do much about it.
If the Democrats suddenly found Jesus when one of their guys or gals got stung, I’d write the same sort of thing. In fact, let me make that statement now:
When the Democrats suddenly find Jesus on an issue they have been ignoring because doing so is now politically advantageous and there is no evidence they underwent a meaningful conversion, then they are to be condemned for using the false motivation tactic and are not to be lauded.
“A Conservative is a Liberal who has just been mugged. A Liberal is a Conservative who has just been arrested.”
Picking on the fact that the Republicans have “just been arrested” on FISA seems partisan, and not especially informative.
If all you want is an example of this form of hypocrisy, which you labelled false motivation, I think you would have done better to look at both the Republican and Democrat reactions to Comey. The Republicans defended and praised him when his actions hurt Clinton’s image, and vilified him when he opposed Trump, The Democrats vilified him after the Clinton incident, and damnear canonised him after Trump fired him.
Actually, I thought that mutual U-turn was really very funny, if we can look past the seriousness of the situation. Worthy of Chaplin, or Laurel and Hardy. Rowan Atkinson could probably have made a craftsmanlike Blackadder sketch out of it. Sadly, the US “comedy” programmes passed.
True, Comey is a good example of how both parties have used False Motivation.
I came across another one recently, in the opposite direction.
Apparently, Chuck Schumer has been talking about how Senate trials should be conducted unbiased, non-partisan, without pre-judgment, or co-ordination with the White House, and should call many witnesses, even those not used in the impeachment proceedings. Apparently, Teh Interwebz, bless their little hearts, have dug up all manner of interesting video clips of him expressing the opposite opinions at the Clinton impeachment, citing the framers’ intent.
I’ll leave you to look them up, if interested, with the terms Schumer+Clinton+impeachment, but really, the sight of a politicial opportunistically embracing convenient motivations that sound high-minded is too common to need emphasis.
OT a bit, but thought you might enjoy this recently (re)discoverd clip from back in the day of Joe Bribem bragging about prostituting himself. But of course it’s not his fault. Never is…
https://pjmedia.com/trending/i-was-ready-to-prostitute-myself-to-big-donors-says-joe-biden-in-newly-uncovered-video/
He’s not wrong, though. That’s the system.
Candidates need money. People who give money want something for it, whether they are corporates or unions.
And so, you have legalised bribery.
CT, you are missing the big picture. These FISA violations are just the tip of the iceberg. What has happened is that a Democratic administration weaponized the FBI and other three letter agencies to surveil the Trump campaign and damage the Trump administration.
So the Dems abuse FISA, and Mike blames the Republicans.
Someone telling me to “look at the big picture” is nearly as scary as someone telling me to “do the right thing”.
An old boss of mine used to tell a story every time someone suggested there was a “big picture” he was missing. A company was presenting an expansion plan to their union rep, and after the union guy had been pelted with narratives and factoids and projections, he sat back and said “OK. Let’s look at the big picture … what’s in it for ME?” And so, when someone would present a business proposal, and talk about “the big picture”, he would uncork the story, and the line. It was one of his favourites. It usually put him in a great mood all day!
I don’t disagree with you about the general gist. What was done to Trump & Co. was as bad, or worse, than Watergate – though perhaps Mike doesn’t see it that way, since Trump was on the receiving end. But when you say “a Democratic administration”, you mean what, exactly? Was the then-President in on it? His CoS? AG? Or was it a private Clinton production? Whan you say “weaponized the FBI” do you mean that the FBI were given orders from the administration – and if so, who in the administration? Or did Hillary and the DNC (which were pretty much one and the same at the time – just ask Bernie) just leave out some bait they knew some folks in the FBI could not ignore?
We really haven’t seen all the wheels and levers about how this happened. Maybe Durham will clean off some of the grime to expose the machinery underneath, but maybe not.
Anyway, Mike’s point was about the flavour of hypocrisy he is calling false motivation, and he’s entitled to make that point. He’s even entitled to choose his favoured example, which, to nobody’s surprise, digs at the Republicans.
Hang on, CT, but there is even a bigger picture to see.
One of the sources of anger that drove the election of Trump is the perception that “accountability is for the little people” and that the rules most of us have to play by are routinely ignored by the elites.
For example, why did none of the people running the megabanks responsible for the financial crisis go to jail, even though financial crimes were committed? Remember Eric Holder saying they were “too big to jail?”
Now we have a case where the FISA process was deliberately abused. False statements were knowingly made to the FISA court and documents were falsified. This is totally outrageous behavior and heads need to roll.
But will they? I am not holding my breath.
there is even a bigger picture to see.
That’s another nice thing about Big Pictures; no matter how many of them you have enumerated, there is always a bigger one to see. Like Integers or Reals. I suppose we could get in to the question of whether the infinity of Big Pictures is countable or uncountable, but in the long run, we’re all dead.
Are you advancing that Deep State conspiracy? That the Democrats (or those behind them) are somehow how masters of a vast and powerful conspiracy, yet could not prevent Trump from winning and will fail to impeach him? That sort of conspiracy theory always requires people to hold two conflicting views of the enemy: they are powerful and supremely dangerous, yet also bumbling, inferior and never seem to actually succeed in their alleged plots.
There doesn’t seem to be any actual evidence that the Democrats abused FISA to go after Trump; but the Republicans were staunch defenders of FISA until the Page episode.
Two words, Mike. Joseph Mifsud. He is the first domino in the chain, and he has disappeared.
This is why they went after Carter Page.
In the case of a subject like Carter Page, that means investigators who obtain a warrant in October 2016 can hunt through his communications going back several years before that date—and can use their “license to hop” to probe the first and second order of correspondents linked to him at any point during that period in the same fashion. (As mentioned at links above—here and here—analysts working national-security surveillance without a targeted warrant can routinely go back for an 18-month haul.) Links from the past can then be exploited going forward.
What this means in practice is that, under a single warrant, anyone Page had a text or phone call with in the Trump campaign during the brief months of his association with it in 2016, was fair game, as a direct connection, all the way through the end of the last warrant-extension period on Page in October 2017. The second-hop connections of those initial contacts—meaning everyone that those people had contact with—are also fair game. In other words, it’s likely that almost everyone on the Trump campaign staff was included in the universe of first- and second-order contacts of Carter Page. The entirety of their correspondence is therefore also covered by the initial warrant, regardless of whether or not they ever met or corresponded with Carter Page, or whether that correspondence referred to him in any way, directly or indirectly.
We got a glimpse of that reality from the recent report that Carter Page was in contact with Trump adviser Steve Bannon in January 2017, which could have allowed the FBI to look further into Bannon’s communications through October 2017. But it also allowed a probe of Bannon’s communications going back years before January 2017—as well as a probe of anyone Bannon was in contact with throughout that same period.
Think that over for a moment, and you can see why the Carter Page warrant is important. The possible abuse of that warrant for partisan political purposes would likely be a violation not just of Page’s rights, but of the rights of thousands of other Americans—and by extension, of the right of all Americans to be free from warrantless surveillance.
https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/256333/fisas-license-to-hop
Where was Hillary when that happened?
Mike, from the indentation, I’m not certain whether you were asking TJB or me.
My answer is: of course, as always, I see conspiracies everywhere, because they are everywhere. Companies hire groups to conspire to induce you to buy their products even if you have no need for them. Google, Facebook, et. al. conspire to predict your motivations and use them influence you, often to your (usually mild) detriment. Politicians conspire with their staffs to induce you to like them and dislike their opponents, even if their arguments are unfounded. And let’s not even start on drug companies and 21st Century mass media.
But conspiracies are hard. Few conspiracies are big, much less vast. Few conspiracies are effective. Few conspiracies have powerful effects – most of the big ones just exert a minor influence that makes a small statistical difference across a wide range.
Very, very few are vast, effective, and powerful at the same time. In fact, I can’t name any. If there are any, they would have to be run by governments, who can protect them with national security laws and threats of imprisonment.
However, conspiracies are redundant where there is a confluence of interest. Many people who were in a position to affect the course of events had reasons to throw anything they could into stopping Trump’s candidacy and/or hobbling his presidency.
I certainly don’t believe that some cabal of masterminds plotted out the whole Trump Russia hoax from start to finish. Instead, we have many small conspiracies, each taking advantage of whatever material was available.
We then construct a story by choosing which of these to talk about. In the case of the “Stop Trump” story, it starts with a small, everyday (for politics) conspiracy between HRC and Fusion GPS execs to focus opposition research on Russia. That was an interesting choice, to begin with. I wonder why. Then, of course, we have the actual Russian conspiracy to disrupt the election. Steele’s part is still murky to me. Did he know he was being set up? It’s very hard to believe he would have pursued it if he had any idea what was coming. And then we have the conspiracy to “stovepipe” the dodgy dossier straight to the upper levels of the DoJ, bypassing normal checks, and file the serial numbers off before injecting it into the FBI. Then we have the use of Carter Page as stalking-horse to get ears inside the Trump campaign. And we have the strategic leaks. And the falsification of evidence and failures in warrant backup. All small collusions of parties working with what they had.
I’m sure there were many other little conspiracies that might have turned out useful to “Stop Trump”, but didn’t, just as I am sure there were many to stop Clinton, that didn’t work out.
But the string of consequences that culminated in the Special Counsel is the sequence I find most interesting, because in the end, it had a big effect.
I’m not blaming Page for the FBI violating his rights. I agree that this was wrong. Even though Page seems to have taken actions to warrant an investigation, it was badly handled. So, he merited an investigation but had the right to one that was properly conducted.
To use an analogy, if the police pull someone over for a traffic or vehicle safety violation, that would be merited. If they then violate the person’s rights, then that would be wrong.
As far as the Republicans go, my criticism is that they have no right to present themselves as defenders of the constitution and lovers of justice; they have had years to take action. Their motivation is clearly to score points against the Democrats and protect Trump. As I noted, if they have truly come to Justice Jesus, then I will give them the praise they are due.
Good points about the Republicans only finding Jesus in civil liberties when their civil liberties are under attach.
I’m not sure about “FBI investigation into his involvement with Russia was warranted”. He was an agent of the FBI being used to trap Russians or Russian agents by the F.B.I.. The F.B.I. started spying on him only after he told them he was going to work for the Trump campaign. How was using him to spy on the Trump campaign warranted?
One might say that there was a chance that Russian agents had interests in using Trump for their own ends, but don’t they have interests in using every presidential candidate? Wouldn’t this justify spying on every presidential candidate campaign?
Just as Trump and the Republicans only because civil libertarians when their rights were abused, it seems the Democrats have only become hard Line Anti-Russian Warriors, believing Putin was the devil incarnate, since Trump adopted a “cold-war is over, make-Russia a partner” attitude in his campaign. This was essentially Obama’s policy in 2008.
It could be that is was not warranted; I was merely going with the inspector general’s report: https://www.vox.com/2019/11/22/20977630/inspector-general-report-carter-page-russia-investigation
Heh…just seeing this nonsense. That is not the Inspector General’s report. That is someone’s biased (left-wing Vox) opinion about what is in the IG report. You’re supposed to be a ‘philosopher’. Why not think for yourself and cite original sources?