By THE EDITORIAL BOARD MARCH 21, 2018 The former C.I.A. director John Brennan pulled no punches on Wednesday when he was asked why President Trump had congratulated his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, for his victory in a rigged election, even after Mr. Trump’s national security staff warned him not to. “I think he’s afraid of the president of Russia,” Mr. Brennan said, on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program, of the phone call on Tuesday between the two presidents. “The Russians, I think, have had long experience with Mr. Trump and may have things they could expose.” The possibility that Mr. Putin could have some hold on the American president has lurked in the background over the past year as Mr. Trump displayed a mystifying affection for the Russian leader and ignored or excused his aggressive behavior and nefarious activities, most important, his interference in the 2016 campaign, a subject of the special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. Some Trump defenders noted that President Barack Obama also called Mr. Putin when he was elected president in 2012. But the circumstances are very different. In the intervening years, Mr. Putin has become an increasingly authoritarian leader who has crushed most of his political opposition and engineered a deeply lopsided re-election this week. American intelligence officials say they are certain that he meddled in the 2016 American election on behalf of Mr. Trump and is trying to meddle again in the 2018 election, as well as in many European elections. Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, is waging war in other parts of Ukraine and is enabling President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. While the administration recently imposed its first significant sanctions on Russia for election interference and other malicious cyberattacks and has faulted Russia for the poisoning of a former Russian spy and his daughter in Britain, Mr. Trump has refrained from criticizing Mr. Putin or calling him to account. The phone call reinforced that approach. What Mr. Trump didn’t say to Mr. Putin was as significant as what he did say. He did not demand that Mr. Putin stop meddling in American elections or others, he did not even raise Moscow’s role in the poisoning. He made no mention of the unfair political system that deprives Russians of a real say in their government. The White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, later reinforced Mr. Trump’s lack of interest, telling reporters it was not America’s place to question how other countries conduct their elections. The disparity between Mr. Trump and his advisers, who seem to take threats from Russia more seriously, is becoming more pronounced. A senior administration official told The Times that Mr. Trump didn’t want to antagonize Mr. Putin because fostering rapport is the only way to improve relations between the two countries. On Tuesday, the president said he hoped to meet Mr. Putin soon and discuss preventing an arms race — an arms race both leaders have encouraged with loose talk and investment in new weapons. Engaging Russia and preventing an arms race are undeniably important. But it’s hard to see how praising and appeasing a bully will advance American interests. That’s not the approach Mr. Trump has taken with adversaries like North Korea or Iran, or, for that matter, even with some allies. While Mr. Trump panders to Mr. Putin, his criticism of Mr. Mueller, is becoming harsher, as the investigation raises increasingly serious concerns about a web of ties connecting Mr. Trump’s associates to Russia. Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, has pleaded guilty to lying about his involvement with Russia. A former foreign policy adviser, George Papadopoulos, has pleaded guilty to lying about his involvement with Russians. A former deputy campaign chairman, Rick Gates, who had his own Russian connections along with a now-indicted former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, has pleaded guilty to lying about Russian-related matters. Mr. Mueller has subpoenaed Mr. Trump’s company for any documents involving Russia. Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee say Mr. Trump was “actively negotiating a business deal in Moscow with a sanctioned Russian bank” during the 2016 campaign season. And Mr. Mueller has charged 13 Russians with conspiring to subvert the 2016 election and put Mr. Trump in the White House. Mr. Brennan’s fears clearly arise from some of these elements. Mr. Brennan knows more than most about possible threats to America, but he is not the only one speaking out. Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, slammed Mr. Trump, saying “an American president does not lead the free world by congratulating dictators on winning sham elections.” Even the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, who rarely crosses Mr. Trump, said calling Mr. Putin “wouldn’t have been high on my list.” If Mr. Trump isn’t Mr. Putin’s lackey, it’s past time for him to prove it. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/21/opinion/donald-trump-russia-putin.html
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/31/cia-director-john-brennan-lied-senate https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/07/31/obama-should-fire-john-brennan/ https://www.theguardian.com/comment...hn-brennan-dishonesty-cia-director-nomination Disgraced criminal John Brennan, whose illegal domestic spying and interference in foreign elections was as dire a threat to our country's security as any world power, doesn't mention that Obama literally IGNORED AND ABETTED PUTIN for 8 years, deserting our allies and allowing Russia to invade and conquer countries, interfere heavily in our 2012 Presidential election (assuring Obama's re-election), and allowed our military to become second rate and rusting to an unusable degree. JB should be rotting in Leavenworth, and may very well end up there as we get closer and closer to exposing and prosecuting these traitors. https://consortiumnews.com/2018/03/19/former-cia-chief-brennan-running-scared/ Former CIA Chief Brennan Running Scared March 19, 2018 threatening tweet: “You may scapegoat Andy McCabe [former FBI Deputy Director fired Friday night] but you will not destroy America…America will triumph over you.” <img class="size-full wp-image-7494" src="https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/johnbrennan.jpg" alt="" width="220" height="279" /> Former CIA Director John Brennan It is easy to see why Brennan lost it. The Attorney General fired McCabe, denying him full retirement benefits, because McCabe “had made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked candor — including under oath — on multiple occasions.” There but for the grace of God go I, Brennan must have thought, whose stock in trade has been unauthorized disclosures. In fact, Brennan can take but small, short-lived consolation in the fact that he succeeded in leaving with a full government pension. His own unauthorized disclosures and leaks probably dwarf in number, importance, and sensitivity those of McCabe. And many of those leaks appear to have been based on sensitive intercepted conversations from which the names of American citizens were unmasked for political purposes. Not to mention the leaks of faux intelligence like that contained in the dubious “dossier” cobbled together for the Democrats by British ex-spy Christopher Steele. It is an open secret that the CIA has been leaking like the proverbial sieve over the last two years or so to its favorite stenographers at the New York Times and Washington Post. (At one point, the obvious whispering reached the point that the Wall Street Journal saw fit to complain that it was being neglected.) The leaking can be traced way back — at least as far as the Clinton campaign’s decision to blame the Russians for the publication of very damning DNC emails by WikiLeaks just three days before the Democratic National Convention. This blame game turned out to be a hugely successful effort to divert attention from the content of the emails, which showed in bas relief the dirty tricks the DNC played on Bernie Sanders. The media readily fell in line, and all attention was deflected from the substance of the DNC emails to the question as to why the Russians supposedly “hacked into the DNC and gave the emails to WikiLeaks.” This media operation worked like a charm, but even Secretary Clinton’s PR person, Jennifer Palmieri, conceded later that at first it strained credulity that the Russians would be doing what they were being accused of doing. Magnificent Diversion On April 6, 2017 I attended a panel discussion on “Russia’s interference in our democracy” at the Clinton/Podesta Center for American Progress Fund. In my subsequent write-up I noted that panelist Palmieri had inadvertently dropped tidbits of evidence that I suggested “could get some former officials in deep kimchi – if a serious investigation of leaking, for example, were to be conducted.” (That time seems to be coming soon.) Palmieri was asked to comment on “what was actually going on in late summer/early fall [2016].” She answered: “It was a surreal experience … so I did appreciate that for the press to absorb … the idea that behind the stage that the Trump campaign was coordinating with Russia to defeat Hillary Clinton was too fantastic for people to, um, for the press to process, to absorb…. “But then we go back to Brooklyn [Clinton headquarters] and heard from the — mostly our sources were other intelligence, with the press who work in the intelligence sphere, and that’s where we heard things and that’s where we learned about the dossier and the other story lines that were swirling about; and how to process … And along the way the administration started confirming various pieces of what they were concerned about what Russia was doing. … So I do think that the answer for the Democrats now … in both the House and the Senate is to talk about it more and make it more real.” So the leaking had an early start, and went on steroids during the months following the Democratic Convention up to the election — and beyond. As a Reminder None of the leaking, unmasking, surveillance, or other activities directed against the Trump campaign can be properly understood, if one does not bear in mind that it was considered a sure thing that Secretary Clinton would become President, at which point illegal and extralegal activities undertaken to help her win would garner praise, not prison. But she lost. And a month ago, House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes (R-CA) threw down the gauntlet, indicating that there could be legal consequences, for example, for officials who misled the FISA court in order to enable surveillance on Trump and associates. His words are likely to have sent chills down the spine of yet other miscreants. “If they need to be put on trial, we will put them on trial,” he said. “The reason Congress exists is to oversee these agencies that we created.” John Brennan is widely reported to be Nunes’s next target. Does one collect a full pension in jail? Unmasking: Senior national security officials are permitted to ask the National Security Agency to unmask the names of Americans in intercepted communications for national security reasons — not for domestic political purposes. Congressional committees have questioned why Obama’s UN ambassador Samantha Power (as well as his national security adviser Susan Rice) made so many unmasking requests. Power is reported to have requested the unmasking of more than 260 Americans, most of them in the final days of the administration, including the names of Trump associates. Deep State Intimidation Back to John Brennan’s bizarre tweet Saturday telling the President, “You may scapegoat Andy McCabe but you will not destroy America … America will triumph over you.” Unmasking the word “America,” so to speak, one can readily discern the name “Brennan” underneath. Brennan’s words and attitude are a not-so-subtle reminder of the heavy influence and confidence of the deep state, including the media — exercised to a fare-thee-well over the past two years. Later on Saturday, Samantha Power, with similar equities at stake, put an exclamation point behind what Brennan had tweeted earlier in the day. Power also saw fit to remind Trump where the power lies, so to speak. She warned him publicly that it is “not a good idea to piss off John Brennan.” Meanwhile, the Washington Post is dutifully playing its part in the deep-state game of intimidation. The following excerpt from Sunday’s lead article conveys the intended message: “Some Trump allies say they worry he is playing with fire by taunting the FBI. ‘This is open, all-out war. And guess what? The FBI’s going to win,’ said one ally, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to be candid. ‘You can’t fight the FBI. They’re going to torch him.’” [sic] The Post, incidentally, waited until paragraph 41 of 44 to inform readers that it was the FBI’s own Office of Professional Responsibility and the Inspector General of the Department of Justice that found McCabe guilty, and that the charge was against McCabe, not the FBI. A quite different impression was conveyed by the large headline “Trump escalates attacks on FBI” as well as the first 40 paragraphs of Sunday’s lead article. Putting Down a Marker It isn’t as though Donald Trump wasn’t warned, as are all incoming presidents, of the power of the Deep State that he needs to play ball with — or else. Recall that just three days before President-elect Trump was visited by National Intelligence Director James Clapper, FBI Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, and NSA Director Michael Rogers, Trump was put on notice by none other than the Minority Leader of the Senate, Chuck Schumer. Schumer has been around and knows the ropes; he is a veteran of 18 years in the House, and is in his 20th year in the Senate. On Jan. 3, 2017 Schumer said it all, when he told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, that President-elect Trump is “being really dumb” by taking on the intelligence community and its assessments on Russia’s cyber activities: “Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” Schumer told Maddow. “So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he’s being really dumb to do this.” Did Maddow ask Schumer if he was saying President of the United States should be afraid of the intelligence community? No, she let Schumer’s theorem stand. With gauntlets now thrown down by both sides, we may not have to wait very long to see if Schumer is correct in his blithe prediction as to how the present constitutional crisis will be resolved. Ray McGovern works for Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He served as a CIA analyst under seven Presidents and nine CIA directors and is now on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
While I normally appreciate your randomness, but I don't get what that had to do with what Maris posted.
I wonder what percent of Americans assume that Putin has incriminating evidence on Trump? I have believed so for a while and I hear this bantered about causally now.
The explanation today was that Trump did not see the DO NOT CONGRATULATE because he doesn't read briefings. He relied on someone to read to him and no one did.
Probably but that can't be all. All of THIS over that? Doesn't make sense. Has to be exponentially worse.
What exactly could he have? Something really bad? I don't see that really in the game between the two big sticks. Nope that won't do.
I'd say money laundering and tax evasion are the biggest flags for Trump's organization...Mannafort type paper trails
Never said it did...but Kushner read his briefs to him until he lost the clearance...Hicks did too and she's gone...Kelly ain't reading to him...he doesn't seem to have a long attention span
Think about it though. Billionaire, 70 years old....no reason to run especially with all the baggage he has. It just doesn't add up but then again Trump could have thrown the race a million times. I wish a guy like Ron or Rand Paul could win but somehow Trump did.
Rand was my guy going in. But it was apparent early on, not ready to deal with a bucket of balls and here we are.
