John Brennan, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency under Barack Obama, could be facing charges of lying to Congress as Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) digs deeper. As Constitutional law expert Robert Barnes reports, “Nunes is reportedly also investigating whether Brennan perjured himself,” and other investigations may follow as the details emerge.
Some people think Brennan’s “big mouth” got him trapped in big trouble. The Obama sycophant is believed to have “knowingly and willfully” concealed the “material fact” that he knew who “commissioned the Steele dossier” when asked under oath by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.). He also denied knowing “if the bureau ever relied on the Steele dossier” as part of any “court filings” or “applications.”
Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee paid for the dossier, and it was used to get a ‘secret’ FISA warrant on Carter Page. Brennan had to know where the material he was hyping came from, Washington, D.C. insiders assert.
“Several Capitol Hill sources say Brennan, a fiercely loyal Obama appointee, talked up the dossier to Democratic leaders, as well as the press, during the campaign,” Real Clear Investigations confirms.
As an anonymous aide told reporter Paul Sperry, “John Brennan did more than anyone to promulgate the dirty dossier. He politicized and effectively weaponized what was false intelligence against Trump.”
Dan Bongino, a former Secret Service agent, agrees. Bongino is convinced that when Brennan testified he didn’t know who commissioned the dossier, it wasn’t plausible. “The CIA has a central role in the verification of foreign assets and information we get from foreign assets.”
Falling under the category of “perjury” charges, U.S. Code Title 18, section 1001 declares a “material fact” that falls within “the jurisdiction of the legislative branch” is a crime. Basically, it means you can’t lie to Congress about something important.
Even worse, RCI writes that “Capitol Hill sources” say Brennan “also fed allegations about Trump-Russia contacts directly to the FBI, while pressuring the bureau to conduct an investigation of several Trump campaign figures starting in the summer of 2016.”
That would be a separate crime.
Improperly using loopholes in the law to “reverse target” U.S. citizens is illegal. By “searching” through information already legitimately collected from foreign targets “using terms that relate to U.S. citizens,” data can be improperly harvested.
Ever since late summer in 2016, Rep. Nunes has been suggesting that Brennan was up to something sneaky. When Brennan came to brief him “on Russian interference,” alarm bells went off, “why now?”
Nunes wasn’t even slightly surprised to hear that Vladimir Putin might be trying to meddle in the election. He told the Washington Examiner how he had “begged the Obama administration for years” to “address Russia’s illicit activities around the globe.”
Nunes insists, he was “stiff-armed” instead.
“It wasn’t believable then, their sudden interest in this issue that they had ignored for so many years,” Nunes related on “Behind Closed Doors,” “When Brennan first came to brief me… there was really nothing new in that briefing and, in fact, it was really light on details.”
When the intelligence community made public their assessment in December of 2016 that “Russia interfered in the 2016 campaign to boost Trump’s chances in the race against Clinton,” Nunes suspicions deepened that “the intelligence community was ‘cooking’ up a narrative to cast doubt on Trump’s legitimacy,” the Examiner relates.
Brennan’s story doesn’t add up. Constitution expert Barnes describes that “if he had no knowledge of the dossier, what was he telling Senator Reid and others on the hill?”
He was apparently “relaying details from the dossier.” If what he was telling them “was such solid material, so much the FBI vouched for it to a FISA court, then why be afraid of admitting knowledge of it?”
Comments Brennan made in an MSNBC interview provide more than a few clues to answer that question.
Brennan asserts that when he left office in January, 2017, he was worried about “unresolved questions” about “whether or not any of those U.S. persons were working in support of the Russian efforts,” even though “he admitted that these contacts may have been completely innocent.”
He was very careful to call the material they used “incidental collection.” Brennan tells how anything collected on American citizens was turned over to the FBI per procedure.
“We were picking things up that was of great relevance to the FBI, and we wanted to make sure that they… could piece it together with whatever they were collecting domestically here.”
That much coordination seemed a lot like reverse targeting to news analyst Jeff Carlson. “That’s not how incidental collection is supposed to work. More importantly, the collection described by Brennan doesn’t sound incidental. The surveillance sounds targeted.”
No warrant is needed for surveillance under Section 702 of “foreign individuals located outside the United States.” However, a “significant” purpose is required and “provisions known as minimization procedures are intended to protect information “incidentally collected” on U.S. citizens.
That means the names are supposed to be blacked out. At a March 22, 2017 press conference, Devin Nunes mentioned that the collection seemed on the surface to be proper but “we’re trying to get to the bottom of it.”
Going into more detail, he added, “This appears to be all legally collected foreign intelligence under FISA, where there was incidental collection that then ended up in reporting channels and was widely disseminated. It’s official IC information. These were intelligence reports.”
There was a big if at the time, and now may be the opportunity to probe into it a lot deeper. Nunes prophetically mentioned, “It brings up a lot of concerns about whether things were properly minimized or not.”