Thread by @OptimisticCon

This is what a lot of ppl are arguing over & it's a good moment for reflection.
"The media, intelligence community and DNC all lied in order to alter the outcome of an election."
Jeff C says exactly the right thing: we can't trust them now.
He does NOT say the wrong thing... 1/14

https://twitter.com/themarketswork/status/1505568261894594561

...which would be that there's anyone to prosecute or any statutory crime here.
Two of the groups actually get to lie to alter the outcome of an election, & do it all the time. (Media & DNC.)
3rd group, intel comm, can lie as private citizens (what they did re laptop)...2/14

...and in any case, proving *in court* that they lied w/"Russian disinfo" statement is not something a prosecutor would even attempt.
Even if they were using access to natl intel to lie to the public, this is a case of *absence* of supporting intel data - NOT... 3/14

... *presence* of counter-info that could prove their statement a lie.
Their defense in court is a slam-dunk: they may have been simply wrong on an analytical point.
That defense applies no matter what objective they may be accused of having. 4/14

Even if someone attempted an obstruction charge (i.e., they tried to discourage L/E investigation, misdirect it to natsec issue), this is not a case in which mens rea could be proven beyond doubt in court. Their analysis could just have been wrong, which is not a crime.
5/14

I keep hammering this for 3 reasons.
1. Focus on thirst for indictable acts, & suiting probes to court reqmts for evidence & evidence handling, can actively hinder revealing *full truth* during investigation.
We saw that 25-30 yrs ago when fed prosecutors ignored... 6/14

...evidence of outside collaboration in terrorism cases b/c if they brought such info in, it would hinder getting convictions of those charged. Understandable, but we lost so much valuable intel that way. We would have been better off pursuing the evidence & knowing... 7/14

...about the potentially unindictable actors.
2. We're going to find that most of what went into Russiagate/Spygate was unindictable. Pls note that doesn't mean none of it was (e.g., the falsified FISA applications). But whole chunks of it didn't violate law in any...8/14

...provable way.
We can't be satisfied w/merely finding a few indictables. I want ppl jailed too, even if it's just for lying under oath when giving a deposition.
But misuse of natl intel & L/E apparatus WILL NOT be redressed in court. It WILL NOT be. Too much is...
9/14

...legitimately subject to discretion & judgment. Ppl can be proven wrong & even unethical, but (esp. in intel) they can't be proven to have committed a crime. Devin Nunes correctly said that several times 5 yrs ago.
So it is indispensable... 10/14

...to be thinking beyond indictments now. Let Durham, the expert, find indictables. We should be focused at least as much on what needs changing about our institutions, laws, & expectations, esp. as regards govt spying on the ppl, & otherwise weaponizing govt against us. 11/14

Courts can't adjust that for us. It must be Congress.
That means not only that we need to frame the case for the biggest collective scrub of law & its premises in our history.
It means we MUST give Congress a GOP majority in 2023.
3. We'll get a lot less... 12/14

...discouraged if we realize the longer-term & more important consequences will come from Congress.
I see a lot of despondency out there b/c indictments have been so few. We should get all we can, but none of them at the expense of knowing the full story.
13/14

It's the not knowing the full truth that will kill the Republic in the end. We still have the opportunity to know what matters, & do *what matters* about it.
If we keep that in mind we don't need to lose heart. 14/14