The ICA is a false political document used as the basis for underlying Trump-Russia expansion. However, by defining his DOJ rules of politics Barr has set up the ICA to be defined as a "political document" and precluded criminal accountability for its content. twitter.com/TheLastRefuge2…
Please explain the mechanism for making someone "criminally accountable" for the "content" of the ICA.
You continue to talk in terms that have no meaning in the real world.
Accountability is found in the Title 18. What crime do you think was involved in producing the ICA?
Yes, sundance has a point: The ICA IS a false political document. But few things in life are that simple. What do we know about it's production? Well, we know from what has been released that the same CIA analysts who foolishly bought into some of the key Russia Hoax narratives to come to their conclusion also pushed back strongly against the FBI's insistence on including the "dossier"--which was eventually incorporated as an "annex" to the ICA. So it looks like those analysts were duped but were more or less honorable dupes--probably politically biased but not in a criminal way. Those who declined to examine the "Russian hacking" evidence and who put out the stories about Russian bots and so forth are more responsible, but we're still left with the question of evidence and intent.
Brennan, on the other hand, cleverly played the peacemaker in the ICA production process, telling his analysts, 'Look, Comey is insisting so we'll keep the peace and let the FBI have an annex.' Clever. Brennan looks to his analysts like he's on their side, but to the FBI he looks like he's giving them what they want. And that way Brennan slips out of any real responsibility--he presents himself as having no dog in the fight, as someone who just wants to keep each side happy. Meanwhile, he gets what he wants--legitimation of the dossier in a political sense, injecting it into the public debate, despite the caveats of his analysts.
This is why Durham spent so much time talking to the CIA analysts and searching emails between Comey and Brennan. Durham was trying to come up with evidence of direct intervention by Brennan--either through Comey or directly with his analysts--rather than the slippery misdirection ploy. It appears Durham has been unsuccessful in that, as of yesterday. But who knows? Maybe Durham got something useful yesterday. If he did, we won't know till later.
But then sundance totally overplays his hand. Having yesterday demonstrated that he hasn't a clue about internal operations at FBI and CIA, he returns to his favorite target, Bill Barr. Without a shred of evidence he claims that Barr has precluded "criminal accountability" for the ICA. That contention will be a hanging curveball for SWC. However, ask yourself this: If Barr "precluded criminal accountability" for the ICA, why has Durham spent so much time on the ICA? The answer that seems so obvious to sundance is that Barr and Durham are engaged in a corrupt conspiracy to delude and "betray" the nation and exonerate Brennan, Comey, and all the rest. Or ... maybe Barr and Durham are being controlled and duped by the lead investigator, William Aldenberg! Aldenberg becomes the evil genius pulling the strings!
The reality is that the ICA is basically a CIA production, with an FBI addendum that was included directly against the wishes of the CIA analysts who were the principle authors. To hold the CIA criminally accountable for the ICA, you have to show a crime and criminal intent. In these circumstances, that's not easy. Barr's statements about not criminalizing politics do not in any way preclude recognizing a criminal conspiracy. Those are boilerplate statements to reassure the nation about the rule of law. It is not kabuki.
But due to sundance's absurd overreach, SWC is able to take that hanging curveball all the way out of the park. Go ahead, he says: Name the crime. Do we charge the analysts for being duped? How do you prove intent, rather than gullibility?
Second exchange--and this one is even easier for SWC:
If anyone else on Twitter has actually talked to the Durham investigators personally please identify yourself so we can compare notes...
If not, enough said. twitter.com/pera_richard/s…
That you "talked" to an agent working with Durham does not mean you offered them anything they found meaningful, or that you came away from the conversation with any understanding greater than when you went in.
How silly can you get? The fact that William Aldenberg allowed sundance to present his theories means ... everyone who disagrees with sundance now has to shut up? I'm not following that, maybe because there's nothing to follow.
I was an investigator for 28 years. Investigation is a one way street. Investigators collect information--they don't dispense it. Did Aldenberg somehow make an exception for sundance? I very much doubt that, but there's one way to find out. Sundance is big on issuing ultimatums and demands, telling Barr and Durham what they have to reveal and when. How about if sundance tells the rest of us what information Aldenberg shared with him?
If not, enough said. Works for me.
All that said, Brennan is clearly not out of the woods yet. As others have noted, there's only one reason why Durham waited so long before interviewing Brennan--because he was trying to learn as much about Brennan's Russia Hoax related activities as possible before talking to him. And that means Brennan was right up at the top of the list of persons of interest. Maybe just below Jim Comey, who has yet to have a chat with Durham. Anyone who was involved and hasn't yet been invited to talk with Durham should be worried.