Sundance's Chat With Bill Aldenberg

Earlier today in Shipwreckedcrew Goes Toe To Toe With Sundance I quoted a sundance tweet in which he invited anyone who hadn't spoken, as he has, with John Durham's lead investigator--William "Bill" Aldenberg--to basically just shut up when it comes to evaluating the Durham investigation: 

@TheLastRefuge2

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… 

I offered some comments and a suggestion:

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?

Sundance has now posted My Discussion With John Durham’s Lead Investigator, William Aldenberg. It's one of his trademark long-as-your-arm posts. However, it turns out that there actually was no discussion to speak of. Instead, Aldenberg politely allowed sundance to harangue him about what sundance has posted, and reposted and reposted. That was basically it. As for Aldenberg sharing information about his investigation? Not so much:

Mr. Aldenberg could not affirm or attest to the implications of the information as provided; however, he did accept the briefing was clear and articulately grounded on the evidence within the documents provided.

...

Mr Aldenberg and I exchanged direct contact information, and concluded our conversation.

So there you have it. As expected.

Shipwreckedcrew Goes Toe To Toe With Sundance

This Twitter matchup has been going on for a week or so, off and on, and has been pretty entertaining as SWC scores easy points against a wildly flailing sundance. It continues today, including two exchanges that are good for us, as we try to understand what's going on with John Brennan's interview yesterday with John Durham. First let's look at the Twitter exchanges. First:

@TheLastRefuge2 

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…

@shipwreckedcrew 

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.