(UPDATE) I just now saw these responses from @mkhammer. What I think she understands is that law enforcement uses certain terminology for its operations, whereas political pundits use different terminology. We have NEVER seen an AG say "spying" when he meant "legal surveillance."
1/ Mary Kate and I agree that surveillance is serious. But when Dems said the AG calling legal surveillance "spying" was a risible political act, they were right, and yes, I think @mkhammer knew they were right. Making it about her or my opinions on surveillance is a red herring.
2/ Clapper is likewise a red herring—for two reasons: 1) what Barr did wrong has nothing to do with what Clapper did wrong (and the latter's actions can't cleanse the former's); 2) Clapper was talking about *illegal* surveillance—which *everyone* agrees should be called "spying."
3/ There is—whatever @mkhammer says—*zero* evidence federal agents lacked probable cause to get the warrants they got in 2016, and *zero* evidence those warrants *affected* the Trump campaign *whatsoever*. The argument otherwise relies on lies about where the probable cause lay.
4/ Probable cause—even elevated to acknowledge a U.S. FISA target—is a low standard, and intel from five allied agencies, past experiences with Manafort and Page, information from Downer about Papadopoulos, *and* raw intel from an FBI-partner ex-MI6 agent was *more* than enough.
5/ Meanwhile—and I apologize if I've missed this—I have not seen @mkhammer express any interest in leaks to media by the FBI's NYC field office in October 2016, which leaks (a) *profoundly* affected the election result and (b) are *uncontested* as to whether they occurred or not.
You can follow @SethAbramson.