I suppose former CIA Director John Brennan doesn't really have a ton of options at this point regarding the Russia Collusion revelations that continue to roll out — he could either clam up and await his fate in silence, or he could go on offense and spin things as best he can in the hopes that the court of public opinion will save him from more serious repercussions. It's a roll of the dice either way, and, frankly, I can't blame him for opting to spin as best he can.
Spin was what he was about Thursday, while speaking with MSNBC's Ana Cabrera just around the time (or shortly after) the latest document trove dropped, compliments of the Durham Annex.
READ MORE: NEW: The Durham Annex Is Out and It's a Doozy
Truth Matters: Whistleblower Defies Threats to Expose Russia Hoax
I'm just going to dissect the clip in chronlogical order here. Credit where it's due — in this first part, Brennan's doing a passable job of projecting an air of reasonable assuredness.
BRENNAN: Well, if the director of [the] CIA and the director of national intelligence make referrals to the Department of Justice, I think the Department of Justice has to do something to respond to it. So, putting together an internal strike force, whatever, to take a look at this information is certainly, I think, understandable. But also I’d like to think that professionals in the Department of Justice will dismiss any of these referrals because they're baseless — they really are. So, again, I stand ready to continue to talk about the assessment and what we did during that period of time. There was absolutely no conspiracy and we continue to stand behind what it is that we have said publicly.
In case you were wondering, John Brennan assures us that there was no conspiracy, folks. I'm sure he'd appreciate it if we'd just take him at his word.
A couple of things to note:
- He appears to be speaking purely to "the assessment" — presumably meaning the January 6, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment — not earlier (or subsequent) actions taken.
- I bolded "professionals in the Department of Justice" for a reason — stick with me on this.
Next Cabrera asks a leading question signaling her bias (not wholely out of bounds in this context, just noting), but also exposes the fact that she's missed out on a key piece of information regarding former CIA officer Susan Miller:
CABRERA: But do you worry at all that the Trump loyalists who were installed in those key positions could find a way, would find a way, to punish you regardless of what the evidence reveals?
BRENNAN: Well, I guess they’re going to do what they were going to do, Ana. I just feel as though what we did was right, it was legitimate, it was based on our authorities and responsibilities. We would’ve been derelict if we didn’t do these things. So, again, I'd just like to think that, again, professionals in the Department of Justice, FBI, and other places are not going to carry on this, you know, what I think is an absurd effort to try to denigrate the work of intelligence professionals, as well as the former leaders.
CABRERA: Speaking of intelligence professionals, NBC News spoke to the former CIA officer who helped oversee that 2017 assessment on Russian interference, and she bluntly says of the current administration, "The director of national intelligence and the White House are lying, again. We definitely had the intel to show with high probability that the specific goal of the Russians was to get Trump elected." And she added that, you know, Putin and his friends in the Kremlin are probably “toasting vodka shots" as we speak at the turmoil that this is creating. What are your thoughts on that? Is this all giving Putin cover even as the president seems to be souring on him a little bit?
BRENNAN: I think it has. But what I'm most concerned about is the impact on the professionals within the CIA, within the intelligence community — this is not something that they deserve to have to deal with. For a current CIA director and a former director basically at odds with one another — I really hope that the leadership is not going to continue along this very political, partisan path in terms of defending Donald Trump and doing what they can to deflect from his problems. So, we have so many challenges on the national security front, internationally, the men and women of the CIA, the ODNI, all the other intelligence agencies, really need to be focused on what is going on around the globe to keep this country as well as global peace and security.
Okay, first, let's deal with Susan Miller. As I noted in my Morning Minute (and full credit here goes to Matt Taibbi for his Substack on this), Miller was neither the author of, nor the person who led the effort on the ICA, so referring to her as "the former CIA officer who helped oversee that 2017 assessment on Russian interference," is flat-out erroneous and/or an attempt to bolster her credibility. But the legacy media sure do love them some Miller time.
In response to last week’s damning official document release about a now-infamous intelligence document that helped launch years of Russiagate madness, CNN wrote:
Retired CIA official Susan Miller, an author of the agency’s 2017 intelligence report on Russian election meddling…
No, she’s not.
“Not an author. Not involved,” says a senior intelligence official.
“There’s a chance she’s on some emails or something like that,” adds another person familiar with the investigation. “But she’s not the author of the ICA… she wasn’t leading this effort. So it’s just totally bizarre that she claims the opposite.”
READ MORE: Thursday Morning Minute: Beware the Susans
And if, as Miller claims, the IC "had the intel to show with high probability that the specific goal of the Russians was to get Trump elected," I sure would love to see it. Out with it, Susan — show us the goods!
Now, then, as to the portions of Brennan's comments that I bolded: It may just be me, but I picked up on a distinct pattern there. In just a very short clip, Brennan repeatedly referred to — one might even say appealed to — "the professionals" in the intelligence community. And it occurs to me that they're really his only hope at this point — those still in the agencies who might be able to assist in some form or fashion. His security clearance is gone. He has no direct access anymore. And frankly, he's in a situation now, under the microscope and knowing that the DOJ is assessing a potential conspiracy angle, where anything he might overtly say or do now could further expose him criminally. So, he can blink emphatically during media hits at "the professionals" in the intelligence community who may still have some affinity for him and his compadres and try to find a way to cover his rear.
Okay, maybe that's just my imagination running away with me. But then again, maybe not.