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
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???
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.
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.”
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
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.)
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
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.