Skip to comments.John Brennan Was Put in a Perjury Trap Yesterday — A Completely Legitimate One
Posted on 08/22/2020 2:07:19 PM PDT by billorites
John Brennans long-time advisor Nick Shapiro put out a statement yesterday at the conclusion of Brennans eight-hour interview with John Durham and his investigators.
It might all be true. All I have are opinions on the text and circumstances.
But I also know that the CIA is an institution designed to engage in manipulation using lies and deception in a good way. Its how they accomplish their mission in defense of the country.
John Brennan is an embodiment of the CIA its all hes ever known. Its ethos oozes from his pores.
John Brennan wanted to send a message to the world yesterday after he finished his interview with John Durham. Oddly, he chose to do it through Nick Shapiro, and not himself. Nothing about Brennan or his history suggests Shapiros message needs be credited with being truthful.
There are several reasons to read this message with a jaundiced eye and to recognize the ulterior motives for it.
First, its not Brennans statement. Shapiro issued the statement to Obama Administration scribe Natasha Bertrand at Politico guaranteed to dutifully publish anything requested of her by a former Obama era intelligence official now living in fear. Shapiro then posted a string of eight Tweets on Twitter with the same text.
Both are devoid of any words actually spoken by Brennan there are no quotations nor is there any support offered for Shapiros claims by anyone actually in the room, such as Brennans attorneys.
Since when has Brennan been shy about saying anything on Twitter? Why would Brennan go third person and have his thoughts about the interview expressed only in the words of someone else? The most obvious reason is the statements are not going to be exactly accurate. Running them through a third person builds in a level of deniability on Brennans part. Shapiro wasnt in the room for the interview. Shapiro is only putting out for public consumption what was told to him, and by phrasing it in the third person the way he has, its not a statement by John Brennan nor is it endorsed by Brennans counsel in the room. It is put out by a guy who has historically been in the role of misleading and misdirecting the press and the public on John Brennans behalf. Yesterdays mission was no different.
Second, conducting the interview at the CIA facility is an interesting decision. Why not question him at DOJ or FBI HQ? The CIA is not a law enforcement agency. John Brennan no longer works for the CIA. Any CIA records that may have been needed over the course of the interview could have been made available in a secured facility at both those locations.
But that records excuse may have been the very justification given for the selection of the CIA HQ as the location for the interview.
DOJ and the FBI HQ are in Washington DC. CIA Headquarters is in Langley, Virginia.
If you are geographically challenged, you can read the distinction as United States District Court for the District of Columbia v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. If John Brennan offered any false answers to the investigators during the interview, the venue for that false statement crime is in the EDVA, not in DC federal court.
Third, Shapiros statement claims that Brennan was told by Durham that he is neither a target nor subject, and that he is only a witness to events under review. Maybe thats true, but it does not sound true to me. And the statement does not say that comment was made to Brennan yesterday before the interview took place.
I can say that I had several occasions during my career as a prosecutor where criminal defense lawyers asked me similar questions about their client in response to an interview request. I cant say that I always refused to answer, but as a general matter my response was something that I learned when I was starting out from more experienced federal prosecutors
Counsel, this interview today is voluntary. Your client is free to leave right now, and answer none of the questions we have. Hes free to stop answering questions at any time while the interview is underway. Hes free to ask to take a break, step outside the room with you, and then return to answer the question or not answer the question. What does he want to do?
John Brennan could have been questioned before a grand jury, without the presence of his attorney in the room. That would be true IF, as suggested by Shapiros statement, Brennan was only a witness.
To explain that, lets take a moment to address the whole Target v. Subject v. Witness construct the press is so happy to report about.
Labeling an individual a target has a clear meaning in federal criminal prosecutions. It refers to someone about whom the prosecutor believes there is already sufficient admissible evidence to seek an indictment from a grand jury, and obtain a conviction at trial. The investigation is ongoing, but the grand jury already has identified a target for eventual prosecution.
Anyone who is not a target is not a target. There is no other classification of individuals with meaning. Many people in the business toss around the term subject, but that is a made-up classification that does not exist. I have received Subject letters from prosecutors on behalf of clients, but those all involve a request to interview my client.
A Target letter is different. When you receive a Target letter it advises you that a federal grand jury has already received evidence upon which criminal charges may be issued in the future. It advises the Target that they should seek counsel, and if they cannot afford counsel they should contact the Federal Defenders Office in their district for legal representation. Once they have secured counsel, their lawyer should contact the prosecutor to discuss the matter.
The purpose behind a subject letter is merely to instill fear in the recipient and to encourage them to talk about others before others talk about them as information from others might push them closer to the target category. Unwitting lawyers think there is meaning behind the subject designation but there is not. Fear is a great motivator. Doing unto others before they do unto you is sort of a universal maxim among the idiot criminal class.
So if you are not a target meaning there isnt sufficient evidence at this time to charge you with a crime then by default you are a witness.
But witnesses can, and often do talk themselves into being targets during such interviews. That was the purpose of the interview, Mr. Brennan, not because you have some wonderful insights to provide Mr. Durham and his investigators to make their job easier.
One important distinction between target and witness that is not well understood, but might be in play here, is that it is against DOJ policy to issue a grand jury subpoena to someone who is already a target.
A grand jury subpoena is a court order, under threat of contempt, to appear and answer questions under oath without the presence of counsel. If a person is already a Target, the subpoena intrudes upon their Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and to be represented by counsel while undergoing custodial interrogation they are under subpoena after all. Witnesses before the grand jury are allowed to assert their Fifth Amendment right, but it forces them to assert that right before the grand jurors considering charges against them. The government is not allowed to call a criminal defendant to take the stand in his trial and force him to assert his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent in front of the jury. It is deemed prejudicial, and suggest to the jury that the defendant has something to hide. The same principle applies to calling a Target in front of a grand jury and forcing them to assert their right to remain silent in front of the grand jurors without counsel present.
So, if John Brennan isnt at least a potential target, why was he not called to explain historical events to the grand jury?
Finally, John Brennan has many times expressed the belief that any investigation initiated by the Trump Administration into the actions of Obama Administration officials to examine their conduct as it pertains to the investigation of the 2016 campaign, and the aftermath of Trumps election victory, is illegitimate. John Brennan has all but declared Trumps election to be illegitimate heck, he might have said so outright.
So, it is not surprising at all that Shapiro not Brennan would claim:
Brennan questioned why the analytical tradecraft and findings of the ICA are being scrutinized by the Department of Justice, especially since they have been validated by the Mueller Report as well as the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence review.
The idea that Brennan questioned Durham on this topic does not confirm that Durham had any response to offer to Brennans question. I suspect Durham did not react favorably if it happened at all to Brennans suggestion that Durhams work was illegitimate or superfluous because of what others might have done, or not done as the case may be.
But John Brennan cannot help himself in this regard. The CIA is rarely put in a position of having to explain or defend its conduct purposely and by design. But when John Brennan has been in that position in the past, hes been quite comfortable with lying in his responses. More of the same here.
John Durham and his team did not come to the decision to interview Brennan over the course of eight hours for the purpose of filling in the blanks on events that are under review.
The purpose of the interview was to get Brennan to confirm or deny information that others have provided up to this point about Brennan, and what he instructed others to do.
John Brennan was placed into a perjury trap yesterday because hes shown himself willing to perjure himself in the past in order to evade scrutiny.
Yesterday, the ability to avoid the trap was completely within his control all he had to do was tell the truth. For the most part, Durhams investigators knew the truth.
John Brennan doesnt come from a world of objective truths and lies. For Brennan, the truth is always malleable to fit his needs at any given moment.
Thats CIA tradecraft. He sees himself as a master of such dark arts based on his decades in DC. Others have long viewed him as a clown.
Thats why, as a prosecutor, you save a liar like John Brennan for last. He cant help you because you cant rely on what he tells you.
So your interview is not done for the purpose of helping your case.
And you do it in Virginia and not DC because of what you plan to do next.
Trump was not a target either....said lying Comey.
If according to AG Barr Stone’s prosecution and conviction was righteous for lying to congress, than he’s got Brennan dead to rights.
I’m willing to wait and see if Brennan gets the same treatment as Roger Stone.
But Trump told us from his own mouth. Not through a political surrogate.
Look in the Sthis is pretty simple
this is the director of the CIA !!!
He went on TV every day for two years and called Trump a traitor a Russian plant that he colluded with Russia and all kinds of lies Most importantly that he knew were lies based on his closed-door depositions Underoath now reveal
its all on tape hes exposed to all the world just like Adam chef and all these other assholes if theyre not punished for that and people dont punish them that America is lost
I dont care if you hate trump or not
We are approaching a fork in the road...take it.
Now, conjure up Yogi Berra for the correct answer.
Yeah sure.... perjury trap. Brennan going to prison... any day now. Lol
Part of me is saying “don’t hold your breath” while the other part of me is doing exactly that.
Part of me is saying “don’t hold your breath” while the other part of me is doing exactly that.
Exactly I remember when Comey said “Nothing to worry about Mr President, you are not under investigation” yet he was..I want to see all these lying scum bags in prison stripes, but the chance of that happening is slim to none
Ugh. Wishful thinking.
Do we even know if he was under oath? No oath, no trap.
Brennan is an admitted Muslim, Islam allows lying to unbelievers.
Not true. False statements to federal law enforcement is a crime, period.
“A former FBI agent said on Saturday that there were indications that President Barack Obamas CIA nominee John Brennan converted to Islam between 1996 and 1999 when he was the CIA station chief in Riyadh.
Agent John Guandolo, who retired from the FBI in 2008, told the U.S. Trento Radio Show that Brennan converted to Islam in Saudi Arabia and visited Mecca and Medina during the hajj season along with Saudi officials, who may have induced Brennan to convert.
In a Skype video interview with the radio show, Guandolo referred to a video showing Brennan saying that during his time in Saudi Arabia, he marveled at the majesty of the Hajj and the devotion of those who fulfilled their duty as Muslims by making that pilgrimage.
Guandolo concluded that this video confirms Brennan converted to Islam since non-Muslims are not allowed to visit Medina and Mecca especially during the Hajj season.
Brennan is a CIA veteran, among his previously held posts are the deputy national security advisor for homeland security and counterterrorism.
The 57-year-old was nominated by President Obama on Jan. 7 to head the CIA. He would succeed retired General David Petraeus, who resigned amid a scandal over an extramarital affair with his biographer.
Ex-FBI agent Guandolo, who is described as an anti-Islam activist by MSNBC that carried the story, said in the radio interview Brennan is un-fit to head the CIA.
The facts (are) confirmed by U.S. government officials who were also in Saudi Arabia at the time that John Brennan was serving they were direct witnesses to his growing relationships with individuals who work with the Saudi government and they witnessed his conversion to Islam, said Guandolo.”
I watched the confirmation hearings under Nobama, not one question addressing his faith....Nobama won that one, a Muslim placed in charge of the CIA, that explained a lot of events.
I don’t see how it’s a trap.
Trap means there is a predetermined unethical plan to question so as to cause statements that can entrap someone into perjury without the person being questioned meaning to perjure himself.
Was he under Oath?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.