UPDATED: What Actually Is Sundance's Big Theory?

Commenter Mike Sylwester explains sundance's theory pretty well. Here's Mike's statement of the facts as I understand sundance to be presenting them. I'll add a bit more:

It seems that Senator Mark Warner told James Wolfe to leak the Page FISA warrant to the New York Times. Wolfe (and Warner) were caught by the FBI, but then DOJ/FBI covered up the crime. Wolfe was not charged for leaking the top-secret FISA warrant. Rather, he was charged only for lying to the FBI.

Exactly who made the decision to reduce the charge against Wolfe from leaking to merely lying? Who approved that decision? What was the justification?

There are three additional contentions that sundance is making in connection with the Wolfe case, and they all suffer from the same problem.

First, sundance also maintains that DoJ/FBI have an official position that the Page FISA wasn't leaked by Wolfe. To support that he cites the Wolfe sentencing memo:

The very obvious problem with this--as Shipwreckedcrew is quick to point out--is that the FBI (and DoJ) are NOT saying they don't believe Wolfe did the leak. They're only saying, in effect, that they don't have the evidence to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. I happen to believe that sundance is right, that Wolfe did the leak. The circumstantial evidence is very strong. And although I'm not a betting person, I would happily bet that every single FBI agent who worked that case also believes Wolfe did it. The problem is the lack of physical evidence--destroyed by Wolfe. Here's SWC's explanation:

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.

UPDATED: I Believe Andrew Weissmann

There are currently two narratives making the rounds about AG Bill Barr. Both portray Barr as a bit of an evil genius, but from distinctively different perspectives.

The first narrative is put forward by former Mueller consigliere, Andrew Weissmann:

One of Robert Mueller's former top prosecutors said the outside prosecutor picked to review the case against retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn is a ruse to investigate President Trump's perceived enemies. 

Andrew Weissmann, a former Justice Department official who was known as Mueller's "pit bull" during the Russia investigation, said the Justice Department swapped out the "loser case" of Andrew McCabe, who escaped criminal charges on Friday for allegedly lying to investigators about authorizing media disclosures, for a fresh one targeting top former FBI officials, including McCabe, led by Jeffrey Jensen, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri. 

"All they did was swapped out a loser case for starting an investigation that is going to be of Comey, McCabe, Pete Strzok," Weissmann told MSNBC host Chuck Todd. 

All three officials were involved in the investigation into the Trump 2016 campaign's alleged ties to Russia, which Trump and his allies have called a "witch hunt." Mueller, who took over the inquiry after FBI Director James Comey was fired in May 2017, found no criminal conspiracy when the investigation ended last year. 

Attorney General William Barr picked Jensen, the top federal prosecutor in St. Louis, to work alongside the Flynn case's lead prosecutor Brandon Van Grack one month after the former Trump national security adviser filed to withdraw his guilty plea in Mueller's investigation. 

... Barr is also under intense scrutiny for U.S. Attorney John Durham's inquiry into the origins of the Russia investigation, which critics claim is meant to discredit Mueller's work.

Are You Kidding Me?

It's hard to overstate the debt of gratitude that conservatives owe to sundance at Conservative Tree House for the quantity and quality of information he has brought to bear on the Russia Hoax. Just yesterday he had an excellent reprise, tying various threads together: Why Flynn? – A Confluence of Highly Charged Political Events … Therefore to read the very same day such a ... I want to choose the right word ... deeply unserious blog by the same author is beyond disappointing. Way beyond. And yet that's truly about the kindest thing I can say about Solutions?

The problem for which sundance claims to have a solution is the institutional corruption of our federal justice system, specifically the politicization of the DoJ and FBI:

The institutions of the DOJ and FBI are corrupted; not just a few people within it, but rather the entire apparatus has been weaponized, over time, by participating political members who have politicized every function within the institution.

Let's grant the premise for the sake of the argument. What is sundance's solution?

Any solution has to come from a position external to the organization or the cycle will simply continue.

Putting a former U.S. DOJ official in charge of the DOJ, regardless of former term or professional/honorable intent, only maintains the status quo. The career mechanisms inside the organization will expel any action adverse to their interests, and the rules are set to aide their retention.

He's speaking here of Bill Barr, Trump's nominee to replace Jeff Sessions as AG. And so there's no chance that you'll mistake who he has in mind, he has a picture: