I can't believe it when prosecutors say sh*t like this:
It might end up tanking the criminal case. But building a criminal case is not what intelligence division agents are focused on when they are trying to figure out if Scientist X is a spy or not a spy. The only goal for the intelligence agent is to get an answer to that question.
The FBI has an "Intelligence Division" and a "Criminal Division" -- they do separate kinds of work. The "Intelligence Division" is not gathering evidence for purposes of a court proceeding. They have more "leeway" for their conduct. Their goal is to simply get information.
He was a prosecutor and doesn't understand that espionage is a criminal offense?
I haven't read anything SWC has written in months. Even the stuff to which you link. I know he's smart and experienced, but he so servile for his former bureaucratic buddies that he makes me sick now. He sold out to keep his access to the water cooler scuttlebutt from 950 Pennsylvania NW. Pee off, SWC.ReplyDelete
This is about a month old now but I ran across it again today. Page's case gets little coverage so I'm unsure many of seen the DOJs motion to dismiss on the grounds of "you simply can't sue us"ReplyDelete
Speaking of buying fake pictures, I have a question about SWC. Does anyone have independent knowledge that SWC really was a federal prosecutor? He/she writes under a nom de plume, and takes many strange positions on matters that seem at odds with a person with 20 years experience as federal prosecutor. Asking for a friend. Neil in SDReplyDelete
Yes, he was.Delete
Any thoughts on this comment by SWC re: the delay in any action by Durham on the Russia Collusion Delusion Hoax:
>> https://twitter.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/1408722075578114054 <<
It's the second time I've seen him make this comment -- that there is some (technical) reason why there has been a delay in action by Durham, as has been suggested to him by a source who is not completely certain if this is the reason, but if it is true, when revealed, we all all understand. Because of the uncertainty, he will not comment further.
Do you have, based on your experience, any idea what the technical cause of a delay in Durham prosecuting people might be?
I'll be happy to be proven wrong, but I remain skeptical. I agree with his views on the general approach to these types of investigations but I continue to believe that there was time to get more done. He could have had all the resources the US government could afford. How long would it take to debrief Pientka and Barnett? A week, with relays of prosecutors and investigators? The correct approach was to to ramp it up fast. Instead we're told that Durham spent most of 2020 in CT.Delete
I will say the one thing that gives me pause is that Trump hasn't trashed Barr. Or not much, really.
Assuming, arguendo, that SWC is right, any idea what sort of "technical" issue could be causing the delay?Delete
No idea at all. Also, you write--your quotes--"technical" issue. SWC nowhere uses that word. He simply says "one very compelling reason."Delete
He used "technical" in an early post on the same subject:Delete
The source had a very important reason explaining why things are the way they are, and that reason explains A LOT -- if true. But the reason isn't obvious -- it's technical. But if the reason is legit, some stuff needs to be worked out in advance. Hence the delay <<
>> https://twitter.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/1407581583406555137 <<