John Brennan, Obama and the Central Intelligence Agency

January 6, 2017 - San Francisco, CA - - What we must presume has been a behind the scene conflict between politicized elements of America’s rather vast intelligence infrastructure [at least 17 discreet agencies, which doesn’t take “dark op” players into account] leading up to and now following the November 8 election, has ingloriously boiled over into a public cat fight.

If not for the subject matter the scene would be reminiscent of the now semi-ancient but nonetheless still hilarious Mad Magazine cartoon series, Spy vs. Spy…it’s gotten that bad.

The basic thesis, doggedly argued by the most politicized of the various intelligence agencies' nodes - John Brennan’s CIA – is that Vlad Putin’s operatives were responsible for the DNC/John Podesta hack which Hillary supporters believe threw the election into the Dem’s nightmare scenario, victory by the Blond Barbarian from New York, Donald J. Trump.

We have touched upon this topic frequently and quite recently for example [see, A Spiteful And Psychopathic Obama Tries To Start World War III , The Anti-Trump Pushback and Obama Unchained ] so readers should be well aware of our high level of skepticism over the claims - primarily by the CIA - that the election was “hacked.”

Since its inception as the Office of Strategic Services [OSS] at the start of World War II, when it was viewed a somewhat of a gentlemen’s club, albeit gentlemen licensed to administer lethal force with great prejudice, to its modern day incarnation as a behemoth with an astounding 21,000 plus employees, there have been rumors of politicization and “cooked” intelligence as well as public demonstrations of same.

According to Foreign Policy Magazine the CIA has had some really serious intelligence failures which caught the agency entirely flat footed: the Yom Kippur War, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the fall of the Soviet Union, Ayatollah Khomeini’s Iranian Revolution, India’s successful nuke test, of course 9/11 and finally, the Iraqi WMD fiasco. [see, The Ten Biggest American Intelligence Failures , FP]

To some observers the very idea that a government organization with the charter of the CIA would not INHERENTLY be politicized is foolish:

“Indeed, when a government agency relies on taxpayer funding, Congressional lawmaking, and White House politics to sustain itself, it is absurd to expect that agency to somehow remain not "politicized." That is, it's a logical impossibility to think it possible to set up a government agency that relies on government policymakers to sustain it, and then think the agency in question will not attempt to influence or curry favor with those policymakers.” [source, Has the CIA Been Politicized? , Mises Institute]

So much for background and generalizations, let’s turn to the real matter at hand, John Brennan’s performance as Obama’s lap dog, parroting [highly questionable at best] the Democrat line that Putin put Trump in the Oval Office and is therefore an illegitimate president.

This line of attack is so common within the modern progressive/Marxist Democrat Party that it would normally have little effect outside the I95 corridor except for the fact that this one has a very visible [and presumed by many to be beyond reproach] and public champion, John O. Brennan and his war-toy, the Central Intelligence Agency.

We believe for a number of reasons that in his effort to discredit Mr. Trump, Brennan is acting as an intelligence operative doing [a uniquely narcissistic] president’s bidding.

Exhibit one is obvious: Brennan is fearful of what the incoming administration might do to his porcine agency, one replete with desk jockeys rather than actual field agents so attacking the incoming CIC might prove advantageous in repelling the supposedly imminent attack on Brennan’s turf.

An above the fold feature story in the January 5 edition of the Wall Street Journal reflects this view:

“President-elect Donald Trump, a harsh critic of U.S. intelligence agencies, is working with top advisers on a plan that would restructure and pare back the nation’s top spy agency, people familiar with the planning said…advisers also are working on a plan to restructure the Central Intelligence Agency, cutting back on staffing at its Virginia headquarters and pushing more people out into field posts around the world. The CIA declined to comment.

‘The view from the Trump team is the intelligence world has become completely politicized,’ said the individual, who is close to the Trump transition. ‘They all need to be slimmed down. The focus will be on restructuring the agencies and how they interact.’” [source, Damian Paletta and Julian E. Barnes, Trump Plans Spy Agency Overhaul , Wall St. Journal, January 5, 2017]

Exhibit two might be a bit less speculative:

“In telephone conversations with Donald Trump, FBI Director James Comey assured the president-elect there was no credible evidence that Russia influenced the outcome of the recent U.S. presidential election by hacking the Democratic National Committee and the e-mails of John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign…Comey told Trump that James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, agreed with this FBI assessment.

The only member of the U.S. intelligence community who was ready to assert that the Russians sanctioned the hacking was John Brennan, the director of the CIA, according to sources who were briefed on Comey’s conversations with Trump.

‘And Brennan takes his marching orders from President Obama,’ the sources quoted Comey as saying.” [source, Ed Klein, Comey to Trump: The Russians Didn’t Influence the Election ]

Bolstering the image of a CIA director willing to grovel to curry favor with the administration, to the detriment of American interests, in 2010 we wrote about what was a firestorm at the time, an address by Brennan, then one of Obama’s national security advisors, at an NYU event called, "A Dialogue on our National Security," which was organized by then president of the Hamas linked Islamic Society of North America, Ingrid Mattson.

During the 34 minute speech [video below] Brennan rendered his bizarre - near love affair - with Islam.

[approximately 5:40 into the speech]

"...And as part of that experience, to learn about the goodness and beauty of Islam....I came to see Islam not as it is often misrepresented, but for what it is...a faith of peace and tolerance and great diversity...[breaks into spoken Arabic]

[approximately 7:30 into the speech]

"...But I did spend time as an undergraduate at the American University in Cairo in the 1970s. And time spent with classmates from Egypt, from Jordan, from Palestine, and around the world who taught me that whatever our differences of nationality or race or religion or language, there are certain aspirations that we all share. To get an education. To provide for our families. To practice our faith freely. To live in peace and security. And during a 25-year career in government, I was privileged to serve in positions across the Middle a political officer with the State Department and as a CIA station chief in Saudi Arabia. In Saudi Arabia, I saw how our Saudi partners fulfilled their duty as custodians of the two holy mosques of Mecca and Medina. I marveled at the majesty of the Hajj and the devotion of those who fulfilled their duty as Muslims by making that privilege [he corrects himself] that pilgrimage. And in all my travels, the city I have come to love most is Al Quds ...Jerusalem, where three great faiths come together..." [see, William Mayer, John Brennan's "Al Quds" NYU Address - Providing Aid and Comfort to the Islamists ]

The use of the Arabic term - Al Quds - for the capital of Israel, Jerusalem by such a high ranking member of any American administration is really without precedent, leading one to view with great suspicion the allegiance of Brennan as well as raising substantial questions about his boss.

For our fourth exhibit, we turn simply to the career of Mr. Brennan. He was recruited by the CIA straight out of college, proceeded to then serve for 25 years as a field agent followed by a long list of high level intel type government jobs. It’s our judgment that though the CIA director really doesn’t come across as the brightest bulb in the box, that persona is a façade hiding a very skilled operator who views his current attack on the incoming president as if it were a clandestine assignment in some godforsaken part of the planet.

In short Brennan is a man on a mission, Obama’s bagman.

And finally, as our fifth exhibit let’s examine the logic, or lack thereof of why someone like Vlad Putin would prefer Trump over Hillary, thus providing him with motive.

Let us stipulate for the sake of argument that Putin directed a group of Russia’s best programmers to hack into the DNC’s Internet network knowing that internal email would make Hillary Clinton and the entire Democrat Party look so bad that voters would decide to award the election to Trump.

What on earth would motivate the wily Russian strongman to prefer Trump over Hillary, consider the facts.

1. It’s common knowledge that Hillary’s bathroom server network was hacked at least 5 times by foreign intelligence agencies. Thus, her trading access for money through the Clinton Foundation would be well known to a group of individuals eager to exploit such weaknesses. So it follows that if Putin was clever enough to hack into the DNC which had a more secure computer network than Hillary’s, he had at the same time a literal encyclopedia of dirt on the Clintons.

This of course would make Hillary, as president an obvious target for blackmail.

Think of what a crafty ex-KGB officer could do with only 1% of the type of information which was so inelegantly stored on the Clinton email server, let alone the whole enchilada.

It would have made Hillary literally a puppet of Vlad Putin.

2. Contrast this with Trump’s promise to rebuild the military as well as America’s infrastructure and take an aggressive stance against America’s foes.

Sorry, it just doesn’t fly. The idea of Putin hacking Trump to victory is absurd and just the last in a very long list of excuses why one of the worst candidates for president in modern American history lost on November 8.

The prosecution rests…

2017 LLC. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law.