John Brennan: When I called Trump treasonous, I didn’t mean “treason” treason
“I said it was nothing short of treasonous. I didn’t mean that he committed treason.”
Former CIA Director John Brennan has been suggesting for months that he has undisclosed information implicating Donald Trump in wrongdoing.
I wrote about it on March 18, 2018, Who elected John Brennan?
Former CIA Director John Brennan, who is as anti-Trump as they come, suggested that he knew information about Trump that was not yet public. Information, of course, he would have learned in his role at the CIA or through his connections:
When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America…America will triumph over you.
This is chilling stuff. Our intelligence services scoop up an incredible amount of information about all of us. There are limits on how it is supposed to be used, but when the former Director of the CIA suggests that there is undisclosed information about a President, it’s an abuse of power and a not-so-veiled threat.
Brennan recently had his security clearance revoked, Senator Rand Paul suggested the move to Trump and supported it:
“I applaud President Trump for his revoking of John Brennan’s security clearance. I urged the President to do this. I filibustered Brennan’s nomination to head the CIA in 2013, and his behavior in government and out of it demonstrate why he should not be allowed near classified information. He participated in a shredding of constitutional rights, lied to Congress, and has been monetizing and making partisan political use of his clearance since his departure.”
A part of Brennan’s irresponsible actions was his accusation Trump engaged in conduct that was “nothing short of treasonous” after the Trump-Putin summit in July:
Depending on who you ask, Brennan either doubled-down on that accusation of treason, or walked it back, in an interview with Rachel Maddow:
Here’s what Brennan said, in an interview with Rachel Maddow (transcript)(emphasis added):
MADDOW: – …. Your criticism of President Trump is – rises above that type. Despite what you just articulated here. You’ve gone further than that. After Helsinki, you were stark and even a little bit scary in your criticism of his behavior. You said it rose to treason.
BRENNAN: I said it was says nothing short of treasonous.
MADDOW: In this current controversy, that specific comment has been singled out by a number of people as a comment that may be by you crossed the line. That was maybe in –
BRENNAN: Crossed what line? Freedom of speech?
(CROSSTALK)
MADDOW: No, I’ m not saying that you don’t have a right to say it. But do you stand by that consideration and can you explain? Can you elaborate what you mean by treasonous? It’s a very serious allegation.
BRENNAN: I know what the Russians did in interfering in the election. I have – you know, I’m 100 percent confidence in what they did.
And for Mr. Trump to stand on that stage in Helsinki, with all the world’s eyes upon him and to basically said he wouldn’t – he doesn’t understand why would the Russians interfere in the election, he’s given Mr. Putin, the Russians, a pass time after time after time, and he keeps referring to this whole investigation as a witch-hunt, as, you know, bogus, as you know – and, to me, this was an attack against the foundational principle of our great republic, which is the right of all Americans to choose their elected leaders.
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. It should never, ever happen, again. And if Russia tries at all to do it, they’re going to pay serious price for it.
I don’t expect Mr. Putin to acknowledge it. He is – you know, he’s going to deny, deny, deny. But for the president of the United States to continue to prevaricate on this issue, I think, does a great injustice and a disservice to the men and women of the intelligence law enforcement community and does a great disservice to the citizens of the United States.
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.
MADDOW: But you didn’t mean that he committed treason, though?
BRENNAN: I said it was nothing short of treasonous. That was the term I used, yes.
MADDOW: That’s the – if we – if we diagram the sentence, nothing short of treasonous means it’s treason.
I mean, the reason – the reason I’m bringing this out is because when you say, I know what the Russians did and when you – knowing what the Russians did, observing the president’s behavior, you go to the word “treason” suggests that you think the president may be –
BRENNAN: The president –
MADDOW: – serving a foreign country rather than our own.
BRENNAN: Well, yes. I think he has crossed the line repeatedly in terms of his failure to fulfill the responsibility of the office. And to look Putin square in the eye and say, this should never, ever happen again.
MADDOW: Do you think that he is knowingly serving the interest of the Russian government instead of the U.S. government?
BRENNAN: You know, I scratch my head a lot. I’m puzzled over why Mr. Trump acts this week with such obsequiousness to Mr. Putin. I don’t – I don’t know. And I’m not going to try to pretend that I know.
But there is something that is very disconcerting, very worrisome about how an individual who occupies the Oval Office interacts with Mr. Putin.
I’m a great advocate of improving relations between Moscow and Washington, don’t get me wrong. I was a strong supporter of that during the Obama administration. And I went – I stuck my neck out a number of times particularly on Syria to say, no, we need to be able to work with the Russians to be able to bring this mass carnage to a halt.
But time after time, the Russians, you know, would feign sincerity better than anybody I’ve ever know, but I do believe we need to get this behind us. I don’t want this to, you know, roil the waters forever. But we need to have a president who is going to acknowledge this and make sure that he is able to then move on.
It was one thing for the chorus of #TheResistance to make such an outlandish accusation of treason, it is another thing for the former CIA Director who at the time maintained a security clearance that potentially gave him access to information unknown to the public. That access gave an undeserved credibility to Brennan’s punditry and political posturing.
As shown above, Brennan dangled his access to national security information out before for political purposes. He won’t be able to do that anymore.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Brennan is toast if Rachael Maddow has abandoned him.
Has Madcow abandoned him?
She didn’t abandon him. She was trying to save him from himself. That was the mother of all softball interviews. At the end she’s almost literally BEGGING him to provide her with SOME evidence of the Trump treason claim.
Rephrase: She did not abandon him *totally*
If there is some case in the near future where he can be portrayed as The One True Honest Man Speaking Truth to Power in a way that will make Trump look bad, she will happily trot him right back out in front of the cameras and completely ignore this obvious collapse of his credibility.
The Leftist press does this all the time. If a Republican can be criticized once, that event will stick with them forever, but if a Dem screws up bigtime, it only takes a month or two for the memory hole to make them once again Pure As The Wind-Driven Snow.
Minnesota’s Keith Ellison has been all but rehabilitated in less than two weeks. The FemDems have to act quicker than normal due to the rapidly approaching elections.
She supported him by her inaction.
When he mentioned Trump’s acquiescence to Putin, the follow up question should have been either A) How was his behavior so damaging to the US when the sale of the yellow cake to Russia was not, or B) Why was Trump’s behavior so bad in light of that of Obama in dealing with the Iranians? If she really wanted to hammer Brennan she would have asked him for a comparative body count between Helsinki and Benghazi.
Refresh my memory … what is the meaning of “is”?
“rape rape”…”treason treason”…. walking back has a whole new meaning if you forget which direction you are on the plank.
It is all about money and cashing in on the revolving door of the government/industrial complex. It wasn’t just “military” that was a nexus for corruption. The welfare state and global commerce of secrets weren’t on the radar with Eisenhower.
Those security clearances are cash in the bank. They been cashin’ in on em.
Trump is smoking out the commies.
Ohhhhh I see… guess Brennan is not a communist communist then, eh
got it…
No, he’s never been any kind of communist, at least as far as anyone knows.
No. He only said he voted for Communist Party candidate for POTUS Gus Hall, just like lots of other well meaning non-Communist Americans did. But he’s not a Communist, no sir, not at all. Not even a fellow traveler! He’s a 100% supporter of the American system! Just thinks it could be improved a bit with a Communist in charge, you know. Maybe we could even reach Venezuela’s current standard of living if we did that.
He should never have received a security clearance.
Apparently you missed the “excuse”! It was a protest vote because he didn’t like the establishment candidates.
It wasn’t an excuse; it came in the very same statement which is the only evidence that he voted for Hall in the first place. Therefore we must accept it as the truth, or else reject the whole story. It is dishonest to accept his word that he voted for Hall but not the reason he gave for it.
I voted for a Communist too, but I can’t tell you which one. In 1976, I lived in New York and went to vote in the Republican Primary, but I was told there wasn’t one and that the candidates were picked at the Party Conventions (that I wasn’t invited to).
In the General Election, I saw that there were more than a dozen parties on the ballot (most also nominated someone that the Republicans or Democrats had also nominated). So, I didn’t vote for any “Republicans”, but I made sure I voted for at least one from every other party, including one Communist candidate that was also nominated by the Democrats. It was someone whose name I forgot long ago! That was my protest vote.
There is nothing at all dishonest, Milhous, in accepting the fact that someone committed a bad act and at the same time rejecting the blatantly self-serving excuse that individual gives for doing so.
Example: in his 2002 NYT Op-Ed titled, “The News We Kept To Ourselves” former CNN Chief News Executive Eason Jordan wrote that they had to both keep quiet about the real news in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and report verbatim the propaganda the dictator’s Orwellian-named Ministry of Information handed them as if it was hard news. The reason why, he claimed, was to put CNN’s local Iraqi employees at risk.
It’s ridiculous on its face. Everyone in the news industry knew that the price CNN had to pay for the tagline, “This is CNN, Baghdad” was to openly sell their souls to the devil. It was easy enough to avoid putting ordinary Iraqis in danger. Don’t have a Baghdad bureau where all you are going to be is the Western propaganda arm for a dictator. Don’t willingly hand a dictator human shields.
There were four other candidates besides the communist if Brennan wanted to cast a protest vote against the two major party candidates. If he didn’t like any of those Brennan couldn’t write in a candidate? Not buying the “protest vote” excuse. Including writing in a candidate there were six protest vote options available in 1976 and Brennan chose the communist. I can only conclude that was the option Brennan had the most affinity toward.
Of course he’s a commie.
Why “of course”? Where’s the evidence, or even the indications?
If you’d said “Moslem”, I’d still ask where’s the evidence, because if there is any I’d like to know of it. The indications are there.
“Last week, however, CNN reporter Tal Kopan found a striking admission from CIA Director John Brennan. When he first applied to join the CIA, and received his polygraph test, he was asked this standard question:
Have you ever worked with or for a group that was dedicated to overthrowing the US?
Remarking on this last week during a panel discussion at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s annual conference, Brennan said: “I froze…. This was back in 1980, and I thought back to a previous election where I voted, and I voted for the Communist Party candidate.”
https://pjmedia.com/ronradosh/2016/09/21/cia-brennan-voted-for-communist/
Yes, he voted for Gus Hall in 1976. So ****ing what? How is that evidence of his being a communist? In the very same statement in which he made this public he explained why he had done so, and it is strong evidence against his having been a communist.
I have the evidence. Im keeping it in a jar on my porch. Dont tell anybody.
If you vote for communists, you vote to install the communist as the party in power. It makes the voter a communist.
Quit being stupid.
You’re only shot would be to suggest he was, but no longer is, a commie. To that I would retort everything about the man backs up the assertion he is still a commie, including working for commie Obama.
Milhous- this is being absurdly pedantic even for you.
It’s not pedantic at all. Voting for a communist does not make one a communist, and it certainly does not make one an official member of the communist party, which is what Elzorro alleged.
You can be a communist without joining the communist party.
1. Indeed you can, but there’s no evidence or reason to suppose Brennan was one.
2. You can’t be a card-carrying one without joining the party. That’s what “card-carrying” means. For instance, there is good evidence that Barack 0bama was a card-carrying member of the New Party. That means, by definition, that he filled in and signed a membership application, paid dues, and the party voted to accept him as a member. I can state with complete confidence that Brennan was never a card-carrying communist, and Elzorro has no right to accuse him of it. I can also state with reasonable confidence that if Brennan was ever a communist of any kind there is no evidence of it.
Brennan wins the prize as the most transparently self-aggrandizing, self-serving, mendacious, duplicitous and self-promoting Leftist apparatchik in United States intelligence history. A man so brimming with sanctimonious spite and hyperbolic rage, it defies belief that he ever was hired for any government post, to say nothing of CIA chief. And, don’t get me started on his communist and jihadist dalliances and sympathies.
This twit is such an utter embarrassment to the political party which he so slavishly carries water for. And, yet, the Brennan persona so aptly represent the narcissism, messianic self-reverence and lawlessness which are the hallmarks of the contemporary Dumb-o-crat ethos.
The rotten apple doesn’t fall far from the rotting Obama tree. I am sick and tired of seeing this dope’s ugly mug all over the place.
Never appoint a card carrying communist as CIA Director. This might lead to problems.
Not to worry one of my trolls has followed me here. Note the thumbs down arrow.
He was never any kind of communist, and certainly not a card-carrying member of CPUSA. Where did you get the idea that he was one?
Well he claimed it himself.
No, he didn’t.
Source CNN
Polygraph panic: CIA director fretted his vote for communist
https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/15/politics/john-brennan-cia-communist-vote/index.html
Source CNN
Polygraph panic: CIA director fretted his vote for communist
https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/15/politics/john-brennan-cia-communist-vote/index.html
Milhouse once again nitpicking.
Of course Brennan’s a commie. It oozes out of his pores, his politics, his speech. He has self identified as one. How hard is it to figure out?
Your cited source does not support your claim at all. There is not one shred of support for your claim, there or anywhere else. Citing it as if it did support your claim is deeply, thoroughly dishonest, and amounts to a deliberate lie.
This is being absurdly fantasist even for you Milhous. Why do you go through such contortions to try to support the ridiculous?
What contortions? You are the one going through incredible contortions to support Elzorro’s utterly unsupportable and libellous claim that Brennan was a card-carrying communist. There is simply no possible way to derive such a thing from the fact that he once cast a protest vote. It is a deliberate lie, and anyone who makes it is a dishonorable person, just like Brennan himself.
Milhouse, you’re being ridiculous. Not once does he say he cast a protest vote. At least, not against the Democratic or Republican parties. It was a protest vote against the United States itself.
“I said I was neither Democratic or Republican, but it was my way, as I was going to college, of signaling my unhappiness with the system, and the need for change. I said I’m not a member of the Communist Party, so the polygrapher looked at me and said, ‘OK,’ and when I was finished with the polygraph and I left and said, ‘Well, I’m screwed.'”
And he should have been screwed. It is axiomatic that if a subversive organization or hostile foreign power wants to infiltrate the US government that they plant someone with no traceable connections to the group/foreign power.
So of course he wasn’t a “card carrying” member of the CPUSA. That would have been incredibly stupid at the hight of the cold war to attempt that. Frankly, subversive groups have admitted that they can advance their agendas more effectively through people who are in agreement with the group’s goals but are not “officially” members of the group. The Muslim Brotherhood is another such group; in fact, if they believe someone can infiltrate the USG they actively discourage Muslims (particularly college students, as Brennan was a the time, as the MSA is one of the Ikhwan’s most important recruiting grounds in the West) from having any formal association with the group.
Which is all Brennan denied; that he wasn’t a member of the CPUSA. He never denied he himself was a communist or being affiliated with the communists. In fact, he had to admit to being affiliated with the communist party through his vote. He was certainly aware, as soon as he heard the question, “Have you ever worked with or for a group that was dedicated to overthrowing the US?,” exactly what the goal of the communist party is. Overthrowing the system he admitted he didn’t like. And he voted for that.
As I explain in an earlier comment, in 1976 he had six choices If he wanted to merely register a protest vote. Five minor party choices, or write in. Really, seven choices, as he simply could have not voted for President at all. Instead he voted for the communist, the party he was well aware is dedicated to overthrowing our Constitutional and our (not so much anymore) free market system. The system he admitted he didn’t like.
Occam’s razor; he was favorably inclined toward the communist system rather than our own. There were plenty of people in 1980 could have recruited who never voted for a communist. He never should have been hired by the CIA, he never should have gotten a clearance, and he wouldn’t have if I had been making those decisions.
And anyone who would disagree with me is a dishonorable person just like John Brennan, and is demonstrating a cavalier disregard for national security.
Arminius, I appreciate your taking the time to explain it, to have the patience to do so. Your comment is perfect.
Milhouse, the nitpicking idiot will run and hide. It’s what he does.
Okay, you demand total semantic accuracy. Let’s clarify, then — Brennan was merely a youthful “communist sympathizer.” Or, if you quibble with that phrasing — he had some affinity for a communist presidential candidate, such that he voted for said candidate in a U.S. presidential election. Or, alternately, he found communism intriguing and alluring, as a socioeconomic philosophy.
Characterize it however you want. Chalk it up to the capriciousness and immaturity of youth. It’s still an odious mark on Brennan’s record and a revealing facet of his personal history — one that calls into question his intellect, his judgment and his political philosophy.
No, he was not a communist sympathizer. No, he did not have any affinity for the communist candidate. In the very same statement in which he revealed that he had voted for Gus Hall he said why, and it had nothing to do with the supposed intrigue or allure of communism, as a socioeconomic philosophy or in any other capacity.
But Elzorro specifically and explicitly accused him of having been an official, paid up member of the CPUSA or some other communist organization, and claimed that Brennan himself claimed to have been so. This is an outright falsehood, and Elzorro ought to admit it.
Barry is also telling falsehoods. Brennan has never self-identified as a communist, nor do his politics or speech betray any such belief.
Huh? These are idiotic statements. No affinity whatsoever? Not counting the part where he preferred the Kommie to be president of the United States? Of course there was some sort of affinity. I cannot argue the man was a card-carrying, Pravda-quoting, meeting-attending, Stalin-poster-on-the-wall-hanging Kommie. But good Lord, you are throwing all common sense out the window. Yes, there was a certain amount of affinity. How much? I cannot measure how much. All I know is that it was greater than zero affinity.
Funny. So you question those who say he’s a card-carrying Kommie, and I’ve got no problem questioning that charge because it is a fact that we do not know anything concrete about the extent of his Kommie background other than we know who he voted for in 1980. But then you yourself do the very thing you’ve been criticizing – pulling stuff out of your rear.
As far as I know, all information we have about Brennan and Kommies is his statement from a 2016 event, correct? So how on earth do you know his mindset in 1980 about communism in general? Where is your evidence that his vote had “nothing to do with the supposed intrigue or allure of communism, as a socioeconomic philosophy or in any other capacity”? I’ll help you out: You don’t have any. All we know is that in 1980 he thought a communist president would be preferable. So don’t pretend you know he had no desire to be a part of a communist system or whatever you pretend you know about Brennan then or now re communism. You do not know squat about what he was thinking back then.
Brennan said that in 1980, his vote was “signaling my unhappiness with the system.” What system did he vote in favor of? Either he was so naive about the Communist Party that he knew absolutely nothing about it or its principles, or he didn’t. For someone who graduated with a BA in political science in 1977 and a masters in government before the election of 1980, I’m going to go out on a limb and suppose that he was informed enough about the (R) and (D) parties and our system of government to decide to not support them, which should also logically mean he found reasons to turn elsewhere. Who else could he have voted for in 1980? John Anderson was an independent who got a lot of attention that year. I was a kid at the time but even I remember him. The Libertarians had a candidate, the environmental wackjobs had a candidate, there were many more people on the ballot other than Reagan and Carter. Brennan could have picked anyone, or could have written his own name, or sat out and not voted. But no. He made an active choice: vote for the Kommies.
I have no idea how much he supported communism but it is impossible to believe he was 100% naive about what he was voting for.
It was 1976, not 1980. There was no John Anderson option, so your entire thesis about that is incorrect.
And no, he did not prefer the communist to be president. He said explicitly that he voted for Gus Hall not out of any sort of affinity or support for him, but as a protest against the system. He did not think a communist president would be preferable; there was no danger whatsoever of Hall winning, so it was irrelevant what sort of president he’d have been.
But in any case we are discussing Elzorro’s utterly unfounded claim that Brennan was an actual formal member of some communist party or organization. It’s clear that he was not.
Forgive me, 1976. You are correct about that.
11 candidates got at least 40,000 votes in 1976. In 1980, 7 candidates got 40,000 votes. I can make a case that my thesis in this regard is stronger because in 1976 more people were voting for fringe candidates. Brennan was one year away from his BA in political science, to imagine he was ignorant about politics is beyond dumb. This was someone very interested in politics.
There is nothing more ridiculous than someone like you, who criticizes others for non-rigorous thinking, to then do the very thing you are critical of. Is it that hard to play by your own rules? You cannot extrapolate this from what he said. He never said anything about cheeseburgers, the color orange and motorcycles, which means we can assume he doesn’t like cheeseburgers, the color orange or motorcycles. For some inexplicable reason you cannot understand that Brennan had many choices in that election, including not even voting, yet chose the Communist party. Gee, he had no affinity whatsoever. Picked Gus Hall using a dart board. You are going out of your way to be obtuse.
No – I am saying that your claim that the man had no affinity for the Communist party or that there was no “intrigue or allure of communism” is utterly unfounded. If you hadn’t argued that I’d have no reason to comment here because otherwise we agree. You take his statement that he didn’t like how America was governed and you do not for a second think about what that statement implies. We cannot surmise everything from what Brennan has said, but we sure as hell can surmise something at the most basic level: the man had some amount of affinity toward communism in 1980. He didn’t pick Lester Maddox for his protest, he didn’t pick the Socialist Workers party candidate for his protest, he didn’t pick the other avowed socialist in the race for his protest, he didn’t pick Mickey Mouse for his protest, he didn’t sit out for his protest – he picked Gus Hall for his protest.
Colonel, it seems you agree with me that we have no basis for believing he identified with communism, and our difference is merely that you think his choice of protest candidate constituted at least some sort of endorsement, while I think it’s completely consistent with a general disgust at the two mainstream candidates, and that even someone with no affinity at all for communism might have chosen Hall merely as the symbol of opposition to the status quo.
Or perhaps our difference is even narrower, and you take issue only with my asserting certainty that he did not have such an affinity, when I should be arguing merely that we have no information on his affinities. If so I would concede that; of course I am not a mind reader and don’t really know what was in his heart, especially that long ago. My assertion of certainty was mostly rhetorical.
But also, in the absence of any evidence of wrongdoing on someone’s part it’s wrong to suspect them of it. We should give Brennan the benefit of our complete lack of knowledge regarding his political ideas back then, and not accuse him of things we have no reason to suspect were true. The fact that his hostility to the US system seems to have evolved later into sympathy for Islam (and perhaps more than that) doesn’t tell us anything about his feelings back then about communism as an ideology.
Milhouse, you’re nuts. Everyone here can see it.
It’s Rags Jr. Treat accordingly.
It’s a question of objective fact, and you are not entitled to your own facts.
Rags Milhouse / Milhouse Rags
Last week it was Rags on the Manafort post by Prof. J.
This week it is Milhouse on Prof. J’s post today on Brennan
As the postings so mirror each other in that they are all combative,disparaging in content and compulsive in presentation, have to ask….
One in the same person ?
Brennan isn’t a ‘Communist’ communist just like he didn’t really call President Trump a ‘Traitor’ traitor. Got it.
I dunno John Brennan—when I called you an A Hole, I sure meant that you were at least as big as a bull bison’s A Hole–and smelled worse.
Coming soon on CNN the Brennan Omarosa Show.
His distinction between “nothing short of treasonous” and “treason” is not completely unfounded. The Supreme Court explicitly held in Letter Carriers v Austin that calling someone a “traitor” does not necessarily mean one is accusing them of committing treason. “Traitor” can simply mean that the person has betrayed a trust, or a friendship, or just is a dirty rotten scoundrel. It all depends on how a reasonable listener would understand it. See the EFF and Eugene Volokh’s amicus brief in Abourezk v ProBush.com.
So the question is whether someone hearing Brennan say the President’s behavior was “nothing short of treasonous” would understand him to mean that it was actually and literally treasonous. I think many people not only would but did understand him that way, but I can see his argument that that’s not how he meant it.
I still say Brennan is the last person in the world who has the right to fling accusations of treason, whether literal or figurative. While I don’t have sufficient evidence to make out a formal case of treason against him I’m personally fairly sure that he did in fact adhere to the US’s enemies, giving them aid and comfort. That’s a high bar, but I think he cleared it. I don’t know what his motive was, and in particular I know of no evidence that he is a secret Moslem, but if that were to turn out to be the case I wouldn’t die of shock.
He took the Brown Acid and is finally crashing…in to reality.
He sanitized Obamas passport records.
What the hell are you talking about now? More falsehoods and fantasies. In this universe he did no such thing.
Good god, nitpick. The man said Trump was guilty of “high crimes and misdemeanors”, exceeded them in fact, just prior to the treasonous statement.
He never used the word traitor making your point meaningless.
He’s a commie and all around bad guy. I hope he ends his life in a jail cell.
He’s definitely a bad guy. I only take issue with “communist”. I’d like to see some evidence first, and his statement about having voted for Gus Hall in 1976 is the very opposite of evidence.
So Brennan’s statement that he voted for a Communist for POTUS isn’t evidence that’s he’s a Communist or Communist sympathize nor has he ever been a Communist of Communist sympathizer.
Right. Uh-huh.
Well, I guess the many Democrats who were KKK members in the not real distant past got away with it and it cast no disparagement upon their otherwise disgusting careers.
So voting for a Communist as recently as the ’70’s doesn’t really make one a Communist.
Just a Good Progressive who would be a great Candidate for Head of the CIA!
And the MSM thinks that is just swell!
LOL
That’s right. Brennan’s statement that he voted for a Communist for POTUS isn’t evidence that’s he’s a Communist or Communist sympathize nor has he ever been a Communist of Communist sympathizer. In fact it’s evidence of the exact opposite, since he said he did so not out of support for Hall, but as a protest against the system.
Yes, franker, voting for a communist does not make one a communist, just as writing in Mickey Mouse does not make one a mouse. It doesn’t even make one a progressive. Have you seriously never heard of protest votes?
So Brennan’s statement that he voted for a Communist for POTUS isn’t evidence that’s he’s a Communist or Communist sympathize nor has he ever been a Communist of Communist sympathizer.
No, it’s evidence that he’s a jerk. Most jerks aren’t Communists, they’re basically freelance.
“…since he said he did so not out of support for Hall, but as a protest against the system.”
Does Brennan tell lies? Why would you believe that “protest” BS?
Brennan is as communist as his boss, Obama is. That’s pretty damn deep communist.
Milhouse, when I get on your case about your situational integrity, this is a good example. Your points above about Brennan’s alleged communism are valid and precise.
But then you get inconsistent, comparing the traitor/treason definition to “nothing short of treason”. It doesn’t transfer, and thus your point is neither valid nor precise.
Do you see that? How can he be such a stickler but then, in your very next comment, be so loose and sloppy with the facts?
Please don’t be offended, I’m honestly trying to understand
you here, and I’m not sure you are aware of how much these kind of inconsistencies undermine you.
Brennan is saying that when he described Trump’s behavior as “nothing short of treason” he meant it the same way ProBush meant it when it called a whole list of people, including James Abourezk, “traitors”. He didn’t mean that Trump had actually committed the crime of treason as defined in the constitution.
I wrote that the distinction he draws is valid, and supported by the Supreme Court, but that the test is not how he meant it but how the reasonable listener would understand it, and many very reasonable listeners did understand him to be accusing Trump of actual treason. Therefore his defense fails. Not because it’s invalid but because it doesn’t apply in his case.
So where’s the inconsistency?
Alternate-Milhouse would argue that traitor and treason are not synonymous. All apples are fruits but not all fruits are apples. And you are comparing apples to oranges.
“Nothing short of treason” does not mean “something just short of treason”. It means treason.
And I can’t understand why that’s not readily apparent to someone of your intelligence. If you’re going to be a stickler, fine, be one. I can grudgingly accept that while it’s sometimes annoying, you are sacrificing fraternity here for the sake of Truth.
But these convenient lapses, when it just happens that your usual pricincpled stand would undermine your position, to be situational.
It’s as if you throw the flag for face mask when my team even gets their hands near the other teams helmet. But when they grabbed me by the face mask and throw me to the ground, you want to argue the nuances of the rule.
“Traitor” literally means someone who has committed treason. That’s what the word means. But as the Supreme Court found in Austin, when someone is called a traitor, i.e. is accused of treason, it doesn’t necessarily mean that he has committed the crime of treason as defined by the constitution. Just as calling someone a thief doesn’t necessarily mean he has committed the crime of theft, and could simply mean he has unfairly taken something (e.g. a game, or an election) that ought not to be his, so also calling someone a traitor could simply mean that he’s betrayed a friendship, or some perceived duty of loyalty.
It depends entirely on how a reasonable listener would understand it. In this case Brennan seems to be claiming that a reasonable listener would not understand him to have been accusing Trump of literal treason. I think the fact that many reasonable people did understand him that way disproves his claim. All I’m saying is that it’s not an inherently ridiculous claim; in other circumstances it could be true.
For another example, when people call 0bama a traitor I usually object that he hasn’t technically committed treason; I do so because from the context it seems they mean it literally. But if it’s clearly meant figuratively, I have no objection. In fact I think he came so close to literal treason that if the founders had anticipated him they would have rewritten the definition to include him. Or rewritten the qualifications for the office to exclude him.
Please, we all know what Brennan meant when he said that President Trump’s actions were ‘nothing short of treasonous’, please quit pretending that he really meant something else.
Maddow:”Did you cross the line?”
Brennan:”What line?”
…
Brennan:”Trump crossed the line.”
Uhmm. What line MR. Brennan.
He should have waited an hour and gone on the fellow communist show.
Brennan is an Islamic Communist.
There is no such thing as an Islamic communist, and nothing Brennan has said or done indicates that he’s a communist.
https://proletarianislam.wordpress.com
Obama is a communist/
Well, 0bama was raised as a communist. I doubt he still is one, though. But he’s not and has never been a Moslem.
Brennan, on the other hand, at least based on the known evidence, doesn’t seem ever to have been a communist.
Never has been? That remains to be seen. He did go to school in a Muslim madras, no? All of the school, government and passport records he has suppressed likely have a reference to his religion. Someday they will emerge.
No, he never attended a madrassa. During the few years he lived in Indonesia he attended two schools: one was Catholic, the other was a secular public school.
None of his records have been suppressed. He has of course declined to release those personal records that nobody releases, and that there’s no reason for him to release because they’re none of anybody’s business, and nobody else is ever asked for.
Mohammed John Brennansky
Even Clapper is distancing himself from Brennan’s tirades. Case closed – send it to the jury.
When I see this—
When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America…America will triumph over you.
—I see pure 100% bluff. It’s a card game, and he’s saying to Trump, “I have the absolute mother of all hands here, and when I show my cards, you’ll lose your shirt,” all in hopes that Trump will take him seriously and fold, even though he hasn’t shown a single card to lend credence to his threat. Classic card-game stuff, albeit somewhat more primitive than anything a really good player would try. But his hand is crap; worse, he doesn’t hold any hand at all. Oh, he’s been shining up his clearance and looking for some decent cards, for sure. The fact that he hasn’t managed to find one implies either that Brennan and the CIA are so incompetent that they couldn’t find a social disease in Tijuana . . . or that they’ve found everything there is to find, and all it shows is that Trump is Mister Clean. Hard to believe they can’t find something … a ticket for crossing the yellow line, maybe … but if they had something, they’d give us enough to make us think that maybe they do have something serious. But all we get is this empty bluster. Yeah, color me unimpressed.
As I settle in to watch the newest ep, I wanted to give a heads-up that TV’s best lawyer ever (step aside Perry), Cleaver Greene, is back. Cleaver is Rumpole on crack! The show is called Rake (AU) and ignore the Hollyweird abortion version (though it did fund season 4 in AU).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q38RjSOTim4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwIalPPN79w
Brennan has been pedaling his bullshit for over a year. He’s shamelessly exploited the fact that he was head of the CIA to go on the news and say, wink wink if you knew what I knew Trump would be impeached and indicted.
He’s full of shit and he knows it – there’s laws against leaking classified material. There are no laws against LYING about whether there is classified material that backs up your lunacy.
Seriously when the best excuse that liberals come up with is that it somehow violates his 1st Amendment rights, you know they have nothing.
Wait, why is this guy still speaking in public? I thought his 1st amendment rights were terminated.
Nobody claimed that. There is a decent argument to be made, however, that although the President has the right to pull his security clearance for any reason or none, doing so as punishment for his speech violated his first amendment rights. It should have been done long ago, because he can’t be trusted with the nation’s secrets, not now because of what he said.
Replace “decent” with words like “silly”, “stupid” and “moronic” and I’m right there with you!
LOL
But Trump didn’t pull his clearance for his (Brennan) speech, he pulled it because of the color of his car.
If he’d done that there would have been no problem. But he didn’t. He did it for his speech, and that’s a potential problem.
This is a point where I disagree with you. It is in the President’s authority to revoke security clearances at the executive’s discretion, based on the executive’s authority in matters of security. There is no provision in law that holds this must be for the right reason – if the President does such things improperly, then the only legal recourse is Impeachment.
A similar principle came out in the legal case against Rick Perry at the end of his governorship, in which the Travis County prosecutor charged him with a crime for withholding funds (which he had the legal right to do) for what was claimed to be an improper reason. Eventually thrown out of court when the Appeals Court ruled that if the executive has the inherent authority to carry out an act, the Courts cannot set themselves over the Executive by questioning the motives for that act. Although that was a decision based on Texas law, I believe the same principle would apply in Federal Court. (Also, see the Supreme Court reasoning used in the Travel Ban ruling)
Good point about the Travis County case, but if I recall correctly the Travis County prosecutor didn’t claim it was retaliation for her protected speech, but for her refusal to resign her office. Had she claimed that it was for her speech, the court would have had to consider it seriously (and then reject it, because it was obviously not for that). It’s well established that pulling funding for protected speech violates the first amendment. See the example when Giuliani tried to pull funding from the Brooklyn Museum.
1.) There is no First Amendment right to security clearance. Otherwise, you and me and everyone else in America would know every speck of every level of classified information.
2.) His speech has been so hampered he cannot shut up on multiple TV networks about how hampered his speech is.
Nobody claims there is a first amendment right to security clearance. The argument is merely that if someone has clearance, no matter why they have it or whether they should have had it in the first place, the first amendment forbids withdrawing it as punishment for their protected speech.
Nor is he claiming his speech has been hampered. He’s claiming that punishing him for his speech violates the first amendment, because it has a chilling effect on such speech by other people with clearances, who might now watch what they say about the President.
When the people elect a new president the allegiance of these agencies moves to the agenda the people voted for and the man they elected as COC. You do not seem to be able to grasp this simple concept. These agents serve at the pleasure of the people through their elected president. They are not ‘independent’ actors. In the end the president has total say over them.
Let the Congress try to impeach him if they can. They are elected too. That is how it works.
“There is a decent argument to be made, however, that although the President has the right to pull his security clearance for any reason or none, doing so as punishment for his speech violated his first amendment rights.”
It’s a weak argument. Brennan’s clearance was indeed pulled because of his speech, not because he was critical of the President, but because his speech revealed him to be unstable, a security risk.
He shouldn’t be trusted with any sensitive information.
Indeed he shouldn’t, but that didn’t become apparent now, it’s been apparent for years. Had that been Trump’s reason for doing this, he should have done it as soon as he took office.
Milhous … what an utterly ridiculous argument. There is literally no case whatsoever in which removing his security clearance is a violation of free speech. None. He is perfectly free to spout – and has been spouting -off at length on major media. He is in no way whatsoever being silenced. What possesses you to be so ridiculous?
I’m afraid you don’t understand first amendment law. Punishing someone in any way for their protected speech violates their freedom of speech. It doesn’t matter if they don’t shut up; the punishment inherently violates their freedom, and also constitutes a warning to others not to say similar things.
To see how ridiculous your position is, imagine that Trump had had him arrested for his speech, and he still refused to shut up. Would that mean his freedom of speech had not been violated?! Of course not. That someone continues to speak despite punishment doesn’t change the fact that they have been punished, and that inherently violates their right to speak their mind without fear of government consequences.
I do know there is a first amendment. It is the supreme law of the land embedded in our constitution. What exactly is this first amendment law you speak of?
Every day we get more evidence that Brennan is a dumb sunavabitch!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VQbAhqHoAo
Brennan certainly is dumb; he can’t imagine why Trump didn’t publicly berate Putin at Helsinki, two years after Putin’s supposed offense.
Brennan’s real problem is that Trump wouldn’t take Brennan’s word over that of Putin. Does the CIA have a functioning organization of any sort?
The CIA are all Democrats.
Obviously it’s not “treason” treason.
The most startling relevation in all of this is that a man of Brennan’s low character, fragile ego and stupidity was chosen to lead the Central Intelligence Agency. WTF?
I guess the only explanation someone like Brennan was selected would be “white privilege “.
He should be dangling on the same rope as hillary klinton and obama.
Why is it Romney (yuck!) can be held accountable for what he did in the 1960s yet Brennan voting for a communist in 1976 is just hunky-dory because it was long ago? Robert Byrd Syndrome?
Stupid Simpsons character….first rule of holes!
Should one so obviously afflicted with Trump Derangement Syndrome be trusted with America’s secrets?
Step back from this specific issue and consider what the Left has bequeathed us.
Call it the Whoopi Waffle, after the pseudo-distinction she coined. Roman Polanski raped a child actress, but the harridans of “The View” defended him, claiming it wasn’t really “rape-rape.” In what warped moral universe do they defend child rapists? It’s “not rape when we do it?!”
So now with Brennan. He didn’t really mean “treason-treason.”
Such memes tell us all we need to know about their shameless immorality and Humpty-Dumpty abuse of meaning.
Let’s examine what this idiomatic phrase “nothing short of means” –
English Idioms, Nothing Short Of…
Yup. What he said, what his words mean is….WHAT TRUM DID WAS TREASONOUS. It met the threshold.
Will it matter? Of COURSE NOT! He is a leftist fellow-traveler and the media, as always, will give him a pass.
It is nothing short of appalling how the media will cover for those the agree with……
John Brennan is obviously unfit mentally, morally, and ethically to have a U.S. Security Clearance. We applaud the President’s decision to void his security clearance and hope President Trump will consider yanking the privilege that IS NOT A RIGHT nor anthing to do with the First Amendment as the Fake News Media would like us to believe as they pound away on that theme. Once former employees leave government service, their security clearances should be similarly revoked.
It clear that John Brennan should have never been the “Director” of anything, much less the CIA albeit the reason to make him CIA director is clear: He’s a Useful Idiot. The joke read elsewhere about how Mr. Brennan moved up through the ranks to be CIA director started with the question:
Question: Why hasn’t there ever been a picture of George Tenent (former CIA director under Clinton and Bush II) from behind?
Answer: Because nobody could pry John Brennans nose from the rearend of George Tenent.
John Brennan by all accounts and along with others, is an architect of the “Fake Russian Collusion Attempt” to smear and frame Donald Trump; set into motion a Coup D’Eta Impeachment with the great help of a biased and malicious Media; and carry out the treasonable act of disenfranchising 60+ million American voters of their free election choice. Mr. Brennan with his cohorts deserve to be put on a scaffod, blindfolded, and hung for their acts of treason; the electric chair that was given to the Goldbergs, is too good for them.
Given the revelations THAT WERE NEVER SUPPOSE TO BE REVEALED AND WOULD NOT HAVE IF HILLARY CLINTON HAD BEEN ELECTED, MAKES REALITY STRANGER THAN FICTION. We should rightfully consider the kinds of activities seen in Hollywood thrillers like, “Clear and Present Danger”, “The Pelican Brief”, and “Enemy of the State” as being not so far fetched or fiction anymore.
The so called “collusion” occurred under his watch, while Trump was only a candidate. What was he doing? Either he didn’t know about it (ineptitude and incompetence) or he was part of it (dare I say “collusion?).
As Gingrich said, an Obama toadie.
Didn’t he help bury Benghazi too?
“…suggesting for months that he has undisclosed information implicating Donald Trump in wrongdoing.”
And I’ve seen a video of Brennan in drag with little boys. (no)
I’m waiting for the right time to get it released.
Brennan: “I voted Communist because I’m tired of Establishment candidates.”
Yah, I tried that one on the wife last night:
“Honey, I’m only watching porn because I’m tired of HBO”
It didn’t go over well either. Thankfully, I lost my security clearance back in 97 when I left the Marine Corps. Also, we own a very comfy couch.
He huffed and he puffed and he blew his own house down.
His own evidence is clear. He has stated that when taking his lie detector test for his clearance he was asked if he ever was involed or supported efforst to overthrow the government of the USA. He froze and disclosed he has supported Gus Hall and the communist party candidate. As long as there is full disclosure even a communist can get clearance if the CIA wants them. Why they wanted him is another story.
He did not say he supported Hall, merely that he had voted for him as a protest against the system. But even had he supported Hall, that would not support your libelous accusation that he had been a card-carrying communist.
It will come to be shown that he and Comey, along with various underlings. ‘colluded’ in illegal ‘parallel construction’ schemes to get Trump. These schemes were handed off to RR and Mueller and this is where we are today. They also planted the seeds of the Russia Hoax themselves in collusion with other 5 eye spooks and their agents in the MSM. In other words it is a coup attempt. Ongoing. The evidence to convict them is classified. To charge these traitors under the current rules would require CIPA procedures and is untenable on this scale. Much open source evidence is still classified for no good reason other that to protect the guilty and not available even though it is laying around in plain sight. This is a legal travesty and tragedy.
Brennan on Twitter: “When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America…America will triumph over you.”
Sounds like he has bought into the lie that every allegation in the Trump Dossier is accurate and corroborated, as well as the purity of Andy McCabe’s intentions. This, in and of itself, is enough to jerk the Jerk’c credentials.
And wile I’m at it, just remember that according to Josh Earnest, Brennan took his oath on the U.S. Constitution, not a Bible or Koran. Joshy said “Brennan had asked for a document from the National Archives that would demonstrate the U.S. is a nation of laws, just not election laws.”
OK. I added that last part and its fake but accurate.
Nikita Brennan
I don’t think “nothing short of treasonous” means what he thinks it means.
Let’s just say he was/is a fellow traveler. Or a communist sympathizer. Or a would-be communist enabler. Agreed?
No, I don’t think he ever was. I’ve never seen any evidence of his ever having had such sympathies. If you are aware of such evidence, kindly bring it to my attention.
You are aware, are you not, that communism and Islam are not the same thing?
With any luck, this clearance-less toad will be radioactive (i.e. useless) to any future potential employers, and live in obscurity.
“BRENNAN: I know what the Russians did in interfering in the election. I have – you know, I’m 100 percent confidence in what they did.”
You don’t don’t know diddly.
And I don’t know what’s worse that you are a corrupt liar, or that a former CIA Director is such a *poor* liar.
I just saw the Yahoo spin. “Brennan doubles down on ‘treasonous’ claim” No mention of backing off “treason” at all.
His status with the left is safe. He can breathe easy.
I read that 5 million Americans have some form of security clearance. Trump should eliminate all security clearances on both parties, to the few people who need them.
Brennan is such a lying sack of crap. I love it when he has to eat his own words. This political hack should never have been made the head of the CIA. Muzslime scumbag.