Tim Brown uses an article by the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel
to extrapolate the notion former CIA Director John Brennan (See
Also HERE)
was an Obamunist traitor. The notion arises because Brennan accused President
Trump of Treason for merely meeting with Putin in Helsinki.
********************
WSJ: Was John Brennan The One Who Actually Engaged In
"Treason"?
When men like John Brennan point their finger at
others and cry "treason," they are attempting to pin the very crime
they are guilty of on someone else.
By TIM BROWN
JULY 21, 2018
Well, Sebastian Gorka
has been upfront that former Obama CIA Director John Brennan is both a
"Communist" and a "traitor." Now, it
appears that the Wall Street Journal's Kimberley Strassel may be following that
path without coming right out and saying it.
In a recent
column, Strassel seems to take issue with Brennan's
tweets from earlier this week when he tore into President
Donald Trump over his actions in Helsinki with Russian President Vladimir
Putin.
“Donald Trump’s press conference performance in Helsinki
rises to & exceeds the threshold of ‘high crimes & misdemeanors,’”
tweeted Brennan.
“It was nothing short of treasonous,” added Brennan, who
worked for what could
be argued was the most treasonous person to sit in the Oval Office.
“Not only were Trump’s comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin.
Republican Patriots: Where are you???”
Donald Trump’s press conference performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of “high crimes & misdemeanors.” It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump’s comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots: Where are you???— John O. Brennan (@JohnBrennan) July 16, 2018
According to Ms. Strassel, "This is rough stuff, even
for an Obama partisan."
She then wrote:
That’s what Mr. Brennan is—a
partisan—and it is why his role in the 2016 scandal is in some ways more
concerning than the FBI’s. Mr. Comey stands accused of flouting the rules,
breaking the chain of command, abusing investigatory powers. Yet it seems far likelier
that the FBI’s Trump investigation was a function of arrogance and
overconfidence than some partisan plot. No such case can be made for Mr.
Brennan. Before his nomination as CIA director, he served as a close Obama
adviser. And the record shows he went on to use his position—as head of the
most powerful spy agency in the world—to assist Hillary Clinton’s campaign (and
keep his job).
Mr. Brennan has taken credit for
launching the Trump investigation. At a House Intelligence Committee hearing in
May 2017, he explained that he became “aware of intelligence and information
about contacts between Russian officials and U.S. persons.” The CIA can’t
investigate U.S. citizens, but he made sure that “every information and bit of
intelligence” was “shared with the bureau,” meaning the FBI. This information,
he said, “served as the basis for the FBI investigation.” My sources suggest
Mr. Brennan was overstating his initial role, but either way, by his own
testimony, he as an Obama-Clinton partisan was pushing information to the FBI
and pressuring it to act.
More notable, Mr. Brennan then
took the lead on shaping the narrative that Russia was interfering in the
election specifically to help Mr. Trump—which quickly evolved into the
Trump-collusion narrative. Team Clinton was eager to make the claim, especially
in light of the Democratic National Committee server hack. Numerous reports
show Mr. Brennan aggressively pushing the same line internally. Their problem
was that as of July 2016 even then-Director of National Intelligence James
Clapper didn’t buy it. He publicly refused to say who was responsible for the
hack, or ascribe motivation. Mr. Brennan also couldn’t get the FBI to sign on
to the view; the bureau continued to believe Russian cyberattacks were aimed at
disrupting the U.S. political system generally, not aiding Mr. Trump.
Think about that just a moment because on Saturday I reported on
the fact that sources have claimed that former FBI attorney Lisa Page has begun
to testify under oath that there was absolutely no basis for the Mueller
investigation into Trump. In that report, I referenced John
Solomon's claim that:
For any American who wants an
answer sooner, there are just five words, among the thousands of suggestive
texts Page and Strzok exchanged, that you should read.
That passage was transmitted on
May 19, 2017. “There’s no big there there,” Strzok texted.
The date of the text long has
intrigued investigators: It is two days after Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein named special counsel Robert Mueller to
oversee an investigation into alleged collusion between Trump and the Russia
campaign.
Since the text was turned over
to Congress, investigators wondered whether it referred to the evidence against
the Trump campaign.
This month, they finally got the
chance to ask. Strzok declined to say — but Page, during a closed-door
interview with lawmakers, confirmed in the most pained and contorted way that
the message in fact referred to the quality of the Russia case, according to
multiple eyewitnesses.
The admission is deeply
consequential. It means Rosenstein unleashed the most awesome powers of a
special counsel to investigate an allegation that the key FBI officials,
driving the investigation for 10 months beforehand, did not think was “there.”
Strassel continues:
The CIA director couldn’t himself
go public with his Clinton spin—he lacked the support of the intelligence
community and had to be careful not to be seen interfering in U.S. politics. So
what to do? He called Harry Reid. In a late August briefing, he told the Senate
minority leader that Russia was trying to help Mr. Trump win the election, and that
Trump advisers might be colluding with Russia. (Two years later, no public
evidence has emerged to support such a claim.)
But the truth was irrelevant. On
cue, within a few days of the briefing, Mr. Reid wrote a letter to Mr. Comey,
which of course immediately became public. “The evidence of a direct connection
between the Russian government and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign
continues to mount,” wrote Mr. Reid, going on to float Team Clinton’s
Russians-are-helping-Trump theory. Mr. Reid publicly divulged at least one of
the allegations contained in the infamous Steele dossier, insisting that the
FBI use “every resource available to investigate this matter.”
The Reid letter marked the first
official blast of the Brennan-Clinton collusion narrative into the open.
Clinton opposition-research firm Fusion GPS followed up by briefing its media
allies about the dossier it had dropped off at the FBI. On Sept. 23, Yahoo
News’s Michael Isikoff ran the headline: “U.S. intel officials probe ties
between Trump adviser and Kremlin.” Voilà. Not only was the collusion narrative
out there, but so was evidence that the FBI was investigating.
In their recent book “Russian Roulette
,” Mr. Isikoff and David Corn say
even Mr. Reid believed Mr. Brennan had an “ulterior motive” with the briefing,
and “concluded the CIA chief believed the public needed to know about the
Russia operation, including the information about the possible links to the
Trump campaign.” (Brennan allies have denied his aim was to leak damaging
information.)
,” Mr. Isikoff and David Corn say
even Mr. Reid believed Mr. Brennan had an “ulterior motive” with the briefing,
and “concluded the CIA chief believed the public needed to know about the
Russia operation, including the information about the possible links to the
Trump campaign.” (Brennan allies have denied his aim was to leak damaging
information.)
Clinton supporters have a plausible
case that Mr. Comey’s late-October announcement that the FBI had reopened its
investigation into the candidate affected the election. But Trump supporters
have a claim that the public outing of the collusion narrative and FBI
investigation took a toll on their candidate. Politics was at the center of
that outing, and Mr. Brennan was a ringmaster. Remember that when reading his
next “treason” tweet.
Indeed, remember it. Brennan
was Obama's Muslim convert for jihad here in the US.
When men like John Brennan point their finger at others and
cry "treason," they are attempting to pin the very crime they are
guilty of on someone else. Ms. Strassel, while not being as forthright as
Gorka about Brennan's treason, nevertheless, seems to be saying just that in
what she wrote. America would do well to listen and bring justice to bear
upon this traitor and the traitors surrounding him, but I have my doubts that
anyone in this life will actually hold him accountable.
Article posted with permission from The Washington Standard
__________________________
Tim Brown is an author and
Editor at FreedomOutpost.com, SonsOfLibertyMedia.com, GunsInTheNews.com and TheWashingtonStandard.com. He is husband to his "more precious than
rubies" wife, father of 10 "mighty arrows", jack of all trades,
Christian and lover of liberty. He resides in the U.S. occupied Great State of
South Carolina. . Follow Tim on Twitter.
Also check him out on Gab and Steemit
