Trump Ally Tapped to Lead DOJ Probe Against Ex-CIA Chief Brennan

Trump Administration Uses Justice Department Against Former CIA Director

The Trump administration is using the Justice Department to investigate former CIA Director John Brennan. This comes as former President Donald Trump remains focused on punishing officials who raised alarms about his 2016 campaign’s ties to Russia.

The Justice Department has subpoenaed witnesses to testify before a federal grand jury in Washington as part of this investigation into Brennan. This move is according to three people familiar with the matter.

Prosecutor Raises Doubts, Leaves Brennan Case

Adding to the unusual nature of the probe, the lead prosecutor in a separate investigation into John Brennan has been dismissed. This occurred in the Southern District of Florida after she voiced concerns about the legal basis for the case.

A source stated that veteran prosecutor Maria Medidas Long had repeatedly told colleagues that there was not enough justification to bring criminal charges against Brennan. The Department of Justice, however, called the reassignment of attorneys a “routine practice.”

Trump Loyalist Takes Over Brennan Investigation

Donald Trump has appointed Joseph DeGenova, a known Trump loyalist and former campaign lawyer, to lead the Brennan case. DeGenova will now oversee this investigation, which is part of Trump’s broader inquiry into alleged “grand conspiracies.” This focus on Brennan is seen as a continuation of Trump’s long-standing grievances, dating back to 2017.

“I encountered and I’m aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign.”

– Source recounting early 2017 intelligence findings

Early Warnings About Russian Interference

In 2017, intelligence revealed contacts between Russian officials and individuals connected to the Trump campaign. This led to questions about whether U.S. persons involved in the campaign were working with Russia, either knowingly or unknowingly.

The FBI investigation into these matters was considered well-founded and necessary to examine these issues. The term “wittingly or unwittingly” became widely used following these revelations.

Findings Affirmed by Multiple Investigations

These early findings were supported by several investigations. Special Counsel John Durham, appointed during the Trump administration, affirmed them. So did Trump’s hand-picked Attorney General Bill Barr.

Then-Senator Marco Rubio, head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, affirmed them separately. Robert Mueller’s nearly two-year investigation also detailed these findings in its report.

John Brennan Maintains Innocence

John Brennan, now a senior national security analyst, has consistently stated that he has done nothing wrong. He has explained that the initial review was conducted to ensure a thorough examination of Russian interference in the 2016 election, as requested by President Obama. The goal was to understand and counter ongoing Russian efforts to influence subsequent elections.

Critics View Probe as Political Weaponization

Critics view the Trump administration’s actions as wielding the Justice Department as a political weapon. This is aimed at an official who initially alerted the public to the 2016 Trump campaign’s potential connections to Russia. The lengthy duration of these investigations, nearly nine years, is seen as remarkable and indicative of Trump’s persistent focus on punishing perceived enemies.

“Personalization” of Justice System

Journalist Glenn Thrush described the situation as a “personalization” of the justice system, likening it to a reality TV show with a limited cast. He noted that the investigation into Brennan, particularly the aspect concerning alleged false statements to Congress, is seen as the easiest path for prosecutors. However, the larger “grand conspiracy” case in Florida is mired in controversy, with the lead prosecutor leaving due to legal viability concerns.

Lack of Evidence Cited by Resigning Prosecutor

The prosecutor who resigned, Maria Medidas Long, reportedly told her superiors that there was not enough evidence to pursue charges against Brennan. This is similar to what happened in a previous investigation in the Eastern District of Virginia concerning former FBI Director James Comey. In that case, prosecutors reportedly left their positions when facts did not support indictments sought by political figures.

Grand Juries Hesitate on Weak Cases

Even in jurisdictions considered more favorable to Trump, grand juries may be reluctant to indict without sufficient evidence. The article highlights that grand juries, which decide if there’s enough evidence to bring charges, have issued “no true bills” (meaning no indictment) multiple times in recent years. This is particularly true in Washington D.C., where such decisions have become more common under the Trump Justice Department.

“There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever anywhere in the public record that John Brennan did anything wrong.”

– Michael Feinberg, Former Assistant Special Agent in Charge, FBI

Question of Credibility

Former FBI official Michael Feinberg emphasized that there is no public evidence of Brennan doing anything wrong. He pointed to extensive documentation showing Russia’s attempts to influence the 2016 election, and that individuals in Trump’s orbit were convicted or pleaded guilty for lying to investigators or hiding communications with Russians. Feinberg stated that the current situation involves trying to use the legal process to rewrite history.

Looking Ahead

The focus now shifts to whether the appointed prosecutor, Joseph DeGenova, will proceed with charges despite the concerns raised by the previous lead prosecutor and the apparent lack of evidence. The Justice Department’s actions will be closely watched to see if they continue to pursue this investigation against John Brennan.

Source: ‘No evidence WHATSOEVER’: Trump CRONY tapped to lead DOJ probe against Ex-CIA chief John Brennan (YouTube)