The following is from a law firm’s website and I thought was worth sharing to clarify the terms that are being bandied about regarding Brennan. I would call attention especially to the second-from-last paragraph:
“At one end of the spectrum is a “witness.” A witness may have information that the government considers important to its investigation. She need not have actually seen or observed a crime. Typically, prosecutors do not believe a witness has committed any crime. Because the risk of criminal liability is low, a witness may often choose to cooperate with investigators and may be willing to testify before the grand jury or sit for an interview with agents.
At the opposite end of the spectrum is someone classified as a “target.” When a prosecutor deems someone a target, it means the government believes there’s substantial evidence that person has committed a crime. A person is usually named as a target only when prosecutors are ready to bring criminal charges. Thus, someone identified as a target is much more likely to take an adversarial posture toward investigators, asserting their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and refusing to cooperate.
A “subject” sits between a witness and a target. To a federal prosecutor, a subject is a person whose conduct is within the scope of a grand jury’s investigation. That typically means that the government considers the subject’s behavior suspicious, and there is some risk that the subject has engaged in illegal activity.
It’s important to remember that these classifications are fluid; they can change at any time and they are not binding on the government. The classification represents nothing more than the government’s view of a particular person at that particular moment based on the information and evidence available to it.
Prosecutors are not required by any law to tell individuals where they fit within the investigation, but DOJ policy does require that a prosecutor inform a subject or a target of their rights if called to testify before the grand jury. If an individual is a target of the grand jury investigation, prosecutors may inform that person of her status through a “target letter,” and give that person the opportunity to testify before the grand jury before seeking an indictment.”
An interesting analysis from Red State about the Brennan interview, and a possible reason for why it was done at CIA HQ in Langley VA rather than at the FBI:
Refer back to my post 784 about why in the absence of a formal letter, designation as a witness, subject, or target is meaningless and doesn’t bind the agency in any from changing it.
Considering that not a word of what his mouthpiece posted actually came from Brennan, I would take the whole thing with the same credibility as if it came from CNN or MSDNC.