Brennan Testimony – Farcical

“I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals,” Brennan said.

What this statement means… and what it doesn’t mean.

Head of the CIA during the Obama administration, Brennan claims he ‘encountered’ information. Odd choice of words, typically you encounter a person.   So he didn’t read the words, he didn’t create the words, he ‘met’ with the information. Which implies a third person making an assertion to which Brennan listened and nodded his head.

The information ‘revealed contacts and interactions’, well we already know that business dealings were conducted and made known during the course of the campaign. This has nothing to do with Trump or his campaign.  It involves business.  “…Russian officials and US persons involved in the Trump campaign…” Again this is information we already knew about and was revealed regarding Manafort and Bannon.

Brennan was ‘concerned’ but apparently not enough to say or do anything about it.   And then he makes a statement that bears no substance or evidence whatsoever, “known Russian efforts to suborn, (or induce to commit an unlawful act), such individuals”. Had that been the case, wouldn’t an investigation have been opened historically?  Isn’t that the job of the CIA?

“It raised questions in my mind…”. But apparently he quickly laid those questions to rest because he did – nothing.  Why?  Because pools of politicians have questionable business dealings.  It’s the called the swamp.

The testimony is meaningless. There is absolutely no substance. Brennan is merely stating that someone talked to him about contacts and interactions between Russian officials and US persons involved in the Trump campaign.  That’s not even admissible in court.  The someone could have been Hillary or Soros or McCain, and Brennan would be stating the truth.

What he didn’t say as CIA Director was that he was aware of proof positive evidence that Trump colluded with the Russians. Period.  In fact he said the exact opposite.

He did say that Russians were “rooting for Trump over Hillary”, which is not a crime in any judicial proceeding I am aware of.  Rooting for a win?  That’s pretty much what we all do!   Taking down governments in coups?  We do that too!  Like it or not, look at Syria.

Here’s the gist:

  1. Manafort had business dealings with Ukraine beginning a decade ago. No one raised an eyebrow until now.
  2. Hunter Biden had business dealings with Ukraine during Obama’s tenure. No one raised an eyebrow despite the obvious political connection
  3. Michael Flynn was hired to give a speaking engagement in Russia and worked as a lobbyist on behalf of Turkey. He reported the Turkey engagement, but not the speaking engagement.
  4. Hillary and Billy were both entwined in Russian money, selling American uranium rights to Russia, and accepted speaking fees from an investment bank tied to Putin.  Where’s the investigation?

No wonder the media reports Putin is laughing. He’s laughing at how ridiculous our judicial system has become, how cronyoid our media has become, and how corrupt our government has become.  This is pathetic.

Brennan’s testimony – insert Flynn and Manafort – and it’s old news, we already knew about that, he is simply playing word games. Or insert – Hillary and Bill – and we have the same outcome.

What Brennan did NOT do is 1) implicate anyone by name, 2) provide any source or evidence, 3) explain why he didn’t think it was worthy for him to report, 4) explain what was contained in the ‘information’. In fact, what Brennan really said is – absolutely nothing.

Leave a Reply