Bizarre, Constitutional Law, Criminal law, Politics, Society, Uncategorized

Brennan: I Did Not Mean Trump Was Treasonous When I Said His Actions Are “Nothing Short Of Treason”

220px-John_Brennan_CIA_official_portraitI have been critical of the decision of President Donald Trump to rescind the clearance of former CIA Director John Brennan and to release a list of other officials to be reviewed — officials who are uniformly critics of the President.  Despite my criticism of everyone on the list, I viewed the unprecedented action to be unwarranted and retaliatory.  However, Brennan himself does not help the case for those of us opposing the action.  This weekend Brennan walked back his earlier reckless statement that Trump press conference with Russian president Vladimir Putin was treasonous.  Now Brennan insists that when he called Trump treasonous he did not mean that he actually committed treason.

Brennan showed little professionalism or judgment in proclaiming that the press conference was “nothing short of treason.” It was precisely the type of unhinged rhetoric that Trump cited in the order. While it does not justify the action taken by Trump, it does show how Brennan has lost his objective position in the ongoing controversies.  He only made it worse during an interview Friday.

Brennan told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow that he did not say that Trump committed treason but rather that the press conference “rose to treason.”

He then added

“And for Mr. Trump to so cavalierly so dismiss that, yes, sometimes my Irish comes out and in my tweets. And I did say that it rises to and exceeds the level of high crimes and misdemeanors and nothing short of treasonous, because he had the opportunity there to be able to say to the world that this is something that happened.  And that’s why I said it was nothing short of treasonous. I didn’t mean that he committed treason. But it was a term that I used, nothing short of treasonous.”

I previously criticized Anthony Scarramucci when he blamed his outburst with a reporter on his Italian upbringing.  Given the other Irish side of my family, I have take equal umbrage with the suggestion that Brennan’s reckless comments were due to his “Irish coming out.”  It was stupidity coming out since such a press conference is no more the basis for treason than it is genocide.

To now say that “nothing short of treasonous” does not mean “treasonous” suggests that Brennan has gained neither clarity nor credibility in the interim on the subject.

244 thoughts on “Brennan: I Did Not Mean Trump Was Treasonous When I Said His Actions Are “Nothing Short Of Treason””

  1. John Brennan prefers the O.B.I.T security monitoring system

    Oh, you’re a savage, despairing planet, and when we come here to live, you friendless, demoralized flotsam will fall without even a single shot being fired.

  2. “New evidence has come to light leading me to believe, that John Brennan, the former CIA chief, should be closely examined to determine whether he perjured himself when speaking to Congress about his knowledge surrounding the now infamous Steele Dossier. At the very least, new reports raise some very serious questions about whether he was less than truthful when he was under oath.

    According to an exclusive report in Real Clear Investigations, “several Capitol Hill sources say Brennan, a fiercely loyal Obama appointee, talked up the dossier to Democratic leaders, as well as the press, during the campaign. They say he also fed allegations about Trump-Russia contacts directly to the FBI, while pressuring the bureau to conduct an investigation of several Trump campaign figures starting in the summer of 2016.”

    The problem? Brennan denied knowing anything about the dossier months later in front of Congress, and made those denials under oath and under the promise of the penalty of perjury should he be caught lying again. Nunes is reportedly also investigating whether Brennan perjured himself.

    Other investigative journalists at Tablet Magazine have referred to Brennan’s denial as making “no sense” given the known facts about Brennan discussed the details of the dossier across D.C. during the election.”

    – Law and Crime

  4. New evidence has come to light leading me to believe, that John Brennan, the former CIA chief, should be closely examined to determine whether he perjured himself when speaking to Congress about his knowledge surrounding the now infamous Steele Dossier. At the very least, new reports raise some very serious questions about whether he was less than truthful when he was under oath.

    According to an exclusive report in Real Clear Investigations, “several Capitol Hill sources say Brennan, a fiercely loyal Obama appointee, talked up the dossier to Democratic leaders, as well as the press, during the campaign. They say he also fed allegations about Trump-Russia contacts directly to the FBI, while pressuring the bureau to conduct an investigation of several Trump campaign figures starting in the summer of 2016.”

    The problem? Brennan denied knowing anything about the dossier months later in front of Congress, and made those denials under oath and under the promise of the penalty of perjury should he be caught lying again. Nunes is reportedly also investigating whether Brennan perjured himself.

    Other investigative journalists at Tablet Magazine have referred to Brennan’s denial as making “no sense” given the known facts about Brennan discussed the details of the dossier across D.C. during the election.

  5. “New evidence has come to light leading me to believe, that John Brennan, the former CIA chief, should be closely examined to determine whether he perjured himself when speaking to Congress about his knowledge surrounding the now infamous Steele Dossier. At the very least, new reports raise some very serious questions about whether he was less than truthful when he was under oath.

    According to an exclusive report in Real Clear Investigations, “several Capitol Hill sources say Brennan, a fiercely loyal Obama appointee, talked up the dossier to Democratic leaders, as well as the press, during the campaign. They say he also fed allegations about Trump-Russia contacts directly to the FBI, while pressuring the bureau to conduct an investigation of several Trump campaign figures starting in the summer of 2016.”

    The problem? Brennan denied knowing anything about the dossier months later in front of Congress, and made those denials under oath and under the promise of the penalty of perjury should he be caught lying again. Nunes is reportedly also investigating whether Brennan perjured himself.

    Other investigative journalists at Tablet Magazine have referred to Brennan’s denial as making “no sense” given the known facts about Brennan discussed the details of the dossier across D.C. during the election.”

    – Law & Crime

  6. There may be reasons not to revoke clearance but when a high profile guy with it accuses cheif executive of treason, leads a concerted campaign to discredit the executive at every turn with a variety analogous tropes—including that Trump is guilty of criminal conspiracy, saying the notion he isn’t is hogwash—and then by his tv gig(s) earns scratch off all that, well then I say that since discretion involves weighing pros and cons the argument for him keeping his clearance—essentially so he can be consulted on upcoming problems within his expertise—is easily outweighed by the cons, whatever the president’s innermost motivations may be.

    2. And, he is monetizing his “inside knowledge” in a partisan political way. One thing he said in the interview was that he “knows” what the Russians were doing regarding interfering in our elections but at another point he claimed no knowledge of any American political operatives in collusion.

  7. Why would revoking clearance be a free speech issue? The First Amendment protects the right of free speech, not the right to classified information by a former employee of the Federal Government.

    John Brennan was and is free to say whatever he wants as long as it does not violate the law on the handling of classified information. It has always seemed strange for former employees to retain clearance when they are not serving as consultants, contractors, or some other basis that would require access.

  9. Why do former employees of the US government retain clearance?

    When you leave Apple, do you have access to their internal files? If you left Apple, went to work for Microsoft, and subsequently bashed Apple based on your access, should you have access to their internal files?

    Why does this question change from private industry to government?

    There have been credible allegations of the Deep State working against conservatives in America. It has already been proven that the IRS targeted conservatives. There is documented evidence that the FBI gave Hillary Clinton preferential treatment. There is far more, but the essence is that when government agencies weaponize against its political opponents, the first place that you begin is by revoking access to former employees who are no longer in a legitimate consulting or advisory position with the US government.

    Oversight committees are current employees of the government or elected officials often spar with intelligence communities over clearance for classified information required to do their jobs. They are the watchdogs. And yet they retain access for former employees who are part of the insider clique?

  10. If Feinstein & Udall had been successful he’d be in jail for spying on the Senate. But Obama protected him. Trump manned up revoked his clearance and that’s that. Now can we move on?

  11. John Brennan has some skeletons in his closet. During the height of U.S. embassy bombings, but before 9/11, John advised Bill Clinton not to strike back:

    He also told the Senate Intelligence Committee the information supporting the attack was “not well grounded.” He said he was among numerous intelligence officials who urged “against” such an attack. Their advice was followed. Brennan was the CIA station chief in Saudi Arabia at the time.

    1. Isaac,…
      Agreed…..and fortunately with Natacha, we see a model of one who avoids vitriol and exaggeration.😊😀😂

  13. Did anybody see Rudy G go off the rails today on Meet The Press? The court jester cannot help himself. Talk about twisting words.

    1. I saw that, Fishwings. Oddly enough I can’t find any media coverage on that statement.

  14. Unhinged behavior suggests a personality that cannot be trusted with a security clearance.

    1. If that’s the case then Trump is a very good example of unhinged behavior, that should not have a security clearance.

  15. EASY-TO-READ CHART:

    TRUMP’S SHIFTING EXPLANATIONS ON PUTIN & RUSSUA

    On Friday The Washington Post published this graphic presentation to illustrate Trump’s constantly shifting explanations regarding Russia & Putin. Chart goes back 5 years to show us what Trump has said over time.

    The chart examines Trump’s statements regarding 4 areas of concern:

    Trump’s relationship with Putin.

    Trump’s stance on Russian interference in the 2016 election.

    Trump’s knowledge of Trump Tower Meeting.

    Trump’s business interests in Russia.

    Explanations are posted and dated in simple boxes to show readers that Trump has been all over the map with regards to his explanations. Trump’s answers vary so widely that Brennan’s distrust of Trump is absolutely justified!

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/politics/trump-on-russia/?utm_term=.c84bf97e1344

  16. Darren, I don’t think I am being notified of new comments via email. I know last night the site was down so maybe certain names were removed from the blog list. Can you help? Thanks in advance.

      1. OLLY – #METOO. I have sent an email to JT but who know when it will get to him.

      2. That makes things difficult. I tried my alternate address which I use when my posts don’t make it to the list but the problem persists on alternate addresses.

    2. Something is broken in the WordPress system. But it is not something our host or I can address.

      1. Darren Smith, is the site having posting and log on problems? I’ve attempted to post 5 or 6 times and my e-mail address and nom de plume were required every time. I still don’t see my last post.

  17. I have to agree with Olly here. Judgment is everything in positions of trust, including stewardship over classified information.

    There is an issue here no one’s really spoken about – officials at the National Archives are complaining about disappearance of records of actions taken during the Obama administration to a degree unprecedented since Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger was caught removing such files from the National Archive (concealed in his underwear on one occasion), and later convicted of the offense.

    It WOULD be a reasonable exercise of executive power if the President were to withdraw or suspend clearances of Obama administration officials on the theory that such drastic measures was necessary to prevent further shrinkage of the official classified record of the Obama administration.

    That would not necessarily prevent the current making of John Brennan into a martyr by his admirers, but it would be rational to suppose that people capable of such overwhelming hyperbole about serving Presidents might abuse their security clearance to destroy or modify the evidentiary record of our nation’s secret diplomacy, intelligence and law enforcement work to settle scores with the current administration.

    It would be an entirely different situation than the vicious revocation of Manhattan Project scientific director J, Robert Oppenheimer’s Atomic Energy Commission clearance to be aware of classified nuclear data based on his social contacts with present and former Communists (and, admittedly, his record of evasive answers and outright lies when questioned about those contacts). It would be very clear that a real situation exists which is ameliorated at least partly by revocation of security clearances.

  18. All of these people on the list for review have mislead (lied) Congress. That alone should be cause for revokation and a ban. Some have exposed confidential information by using illegal servers. Some have actively worked to literally bring an elected president down. Nobody has a right to a clearance and many have been denied. With it comes a responsibility to behave in a manor that does not compromise or jeopardize the people and the Constitution.

  19. Why does anyone, yes anyone, who no longer works for the government, have a maximum security clearance? What is a “clearance”?
    Does it mean that he can go out in public and report things which are supposed to be secured? Does it mean that some international corporation can hire him and he can go back to other current government agents and get classified information to share with his new employer?
    Jeso. If they quit the government the “clearance” or access or whatever should cease. Cease and desist.

    1. OK, for those who only obtain their information from Hannity, Rush and Tucker, here’s why security clearances are maintained after leaving an Administration : because these people know what went down previously, they know who the players are, whom and what their connections are, what they are suspected of or known to be involved with, and what may be coming down next and how these people and their activities might affect America. There is simply no substitute for such institutional knowledge and insight, gleaned over years of service and experience.

      What I find amazing is that Trump supporters aren’t offended by yet another lie and misuse of power: Brennan’s clearance wasn’t revoked for national security reasons –it was revoked because Brennan criticized the fat rodeo clown. Like most Americans, he sees fatso for the incompetent, petty, unfit loser he really is. Huckabee couldn’t cite anything Brennan said that constitutes disclosure of classified information.

      What disappoints me is that Turley wrote this piece solely to get in a dig at a credible Trump critic, instead of commenting on the flagrant lying and misuse of power to silence valid criticism.

      1. Accusing of Treason, when completely unfounded, is “valid criticism?”

        1. goodbeavis – I think it is hyperventilating, but that is just me. 😉

          1. Good Beavis and PC Schulte,
            – To Natacha, ANY criticism of Trump is valid criticism.
            Nearly two years after Trump was elected, she’s still fuming😡
            I don’t know if one could blame her mindless rants soley on TDS, because I think Natacha was probably bonkers even before the election.

            1. Tom Nash – you don’t suppose she started to come unglued when Trump was nominated?

              1. PC Schulte,…
                That might have done it….although like just about everyone else, she probably didn’t think Trump had a snowball’s chance in hell of being elected.
                Would have been interesting to hear the screaming and cursing from her house on election night if you live on the same block……or maybe even in the same city.

      2. ” There is simply no substitute for such institutional knowledge and insight, gleaned over years of service and experience.”

        you mean torture, kill lists, droning of civilians, spying on the Senate, lying lying and lying?

        That’s “institutional knowledge” that ideally would lead to prosecutions and life behind bars.

  20. Brennan showed little professionalism or judgment in proclaiming that the press conference was “nothing short of treason.” It was precisely the type of unhinged rhetoric that Trump cited in the order. While it does not justify the action taken by Trump, it does show how Brennan has lost his objective position in the ongoing controversies.

    Let’s see now; little professionalism or judgment and unhinged rhetoric. Not the finer qualities of anyone entrusted with access to classified information. What are some basic guidelines used to review and deny a clearance?

    Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:
    – A pattern of high-risk, irresponsible, aggressive, anti-social or emotionally unstable behavior;
    – Information that suggests that the individual’s current behavior indicates a defect in his or her judgment or reliability.
    Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:
    – Allegations or admissions of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the person was formally charged;
    – A single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses.
    Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:
    – Unauthorized disclosure of classified information;
    – Violations that are deliberate or multiple or due to negligence.
    https://www.military.com/veteran-jobs/security-clearance-jobs/security-clearance-eligibility.html

    Without citing a reference, Turley opines the President’s action was not justified. Brennan is a textbook example of why this nation needs to be highly selective and vigilant in the granting and rescinding of security clearances.

Comments are closed.