Former CIA Director Brennan subpoenaed to testify in federal Trump conspiracy case

Good thing its Florida. If it were DC, it would get quashed or dimissed.

Given the way things have come out of DC (among other jurisdictions, like SDNY) its becoming easy to expect a certian outcome based on where a person's political proclivities lie.

Let me guess....5th amendment invocation?

That would not surprise me one bit.

Of course he pleads the 5th. And after that, nothing else happens. Another POS who is not held accountable.

Can’t do the blanket 5th Amendment stuff at a grand jury.

Let me guess....5th amendment invocation?

Either that or he’ll lie with impunity. After all, the entire deep state will back him up.

Exactly, he will take a page out of the playbook of Dr. Anthony Faucci.

Sudden heart attack in 3, 2, 1.

It was so unexpected! 😢

Then the old Steve Martin “I forgot!” routine.

Yes, the biden admin, law enforcement & intel officials did indeed conspire against our great President. That’s a fact.

In a just world that POS would hang .

I didn’t do anything. You can’t touch me. I plead the 5th etc.../Brennan

Professor ChatGPT,

At a U.S. federal grand jury, a witness generally cannot invoke the Fifth Amendment as a blanket refusal to answer every question. The privilege is asserted question by question when a particular answer could reasonably tend to incriminate the witness.

A witness may say, in substance, “I invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege” in response to a particular question.
The prosecutor or judge can challenge whether the privilege actually applies.
The witness generally cannot simply refuse to appear before the grand jury because they intend to invoke the Fifth.
If a witness has immunity that satisfies the Fifth Amendment, the government can generally compel testimony despite the witness’s assertion of the privilege.
The Fifth Amendment protects against compelled testimonial self-incrimination; it isn’t a general right to ignore a grand-jury subpoena.

So if you’re referring to someone saying “I’m taking the Fifth” to every question without even considering whether each question is incriminating, that’s generally not how the privilege operates.

the Florida federal grand jury investigating an alleged conspiracy against Trump, which is currently seeking testimony from former intelligence and law-enforcement officials. The investigation is being conducted in Florida and has recently escalated to subpoenas.

And your earlier point is particularly relevant here:

A subpoenaed witness generally can’t just say, “I take the Fifth,” and refuse the entire grand-jury examination. The Fifth Amendment privilege ordinarily has to be asserted in response to questions where the answer could incriminate the witness.

For example:

Prosecutor: “Did you attend the meeting on June 14?”
Witness: “I invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege.”

Then the judge can determine whether that particular answer is legitimately protected.

But there is an important wrinkle: if virtually every substantive question would expose the witness to potential criminal liability, the privilege can sometimes effectively cover the entire examination. That’s different from an automatic “blanket Fifth” right.

Also, this is a federal grand jury, despite being located in Florida. The Florida grand-jury statutes aren’t what primarily govern the federal investigation.

The current investigation is unusually broad: it is examining the 2016 Russia-interference intelligence assessment, subsequent investigations of Trump, and the 2022 Mar-a-Lago search, among other matters. No criminal charges have resulted from this investigation so far.

If you’re asking specifically about John Brennan’s subpoena and whether Brennan can simply take the Fifth to every question, that’s a much more interesting question—and I can explain what would likely happen if he tried.

ould Brennan simply take the Fifth on everything?

Probably not automatically.

The Fifth Amendment privilege is generally asserted when a particular answer could reasonably expose the witness to criminal prosecution. Brennan’s lawyer could tell the prosecutor that Brennan is invoking the privilege, but that doesn’t necessarily end the examination.

For example:

Q: Did you participate in the preparation of the 2017 intelligence assessment?
Brennan: I invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege.

If the prosecutor believes that answer isn’t legitimately incriminating, the government could ask the judge to resolve the dispute.

But Brennan has a stronger argument than an ordinary witness might have: because he has reportedly been told he is a target of a criminal investigation, answers about his conduct could potentially be used against him. That could make a substantial number of questions legitimately Fifth-protected.

And there’s another important distinction:

Being a target doesn’t automatically give Brennan a blanket Fifth Amendment privilege. The government can still ask questions, and the privilege ordinarily applies to the answers that create a reasonable danger of self-incrimination.

The really important issue

If prosecutors want Brennan to testify about the Russia intelligence assessment, they could potentially seek immunity.

If the government gives him immunity sufficient to satisfy the Fifth Amendment, it can generally compel his testimony despite his refusal to answer on Fifth Amendment grounds. His compelled testimony generally cannot then be used against him in a criminal case, subject to the applicable immunity rules.

So Brennan has several possible paths:

Answer questions that don’t pose a reasonable danger of incrimination.
Invoke the Fifth on particular questions.
Assert the privilege very broadly if his lawyers believe virtually any substantive answer could incriminate him.
Fight the government’s attempt to compel particular answers.
If the government grants proper immunity, he could potentially be compelled to testify.

One additional wrinkle is especially significant here: Brennan’s lawyers are already arguing that the investigation itself may be vindictive and politically motivated, and they have filed litigation seeking preservation of government records that could support that defense.

So if Brennan walks into that grand jury on October 15 and says “I take the Fifth,” that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s finished—but it also doesn’t mean prosecutors can simply force him to answer every question. The details of each question and the danger of self-incrimination will matter.

If Brennan invokes the Fifth, is ordered to answer, and then refuses, there are several steps—but jail is possible.

What could happen to Brennan
Brennan invokes the Fifth.
The government can challenge whether the particular questions actually create a reasonable danger of self-incrimination.
The government could seek immunity.
Under 18 U.S.C. §§ 6002–6003, the government can ask a federal court for an order compelling his testimony despite his Fifth Amendment claim.
If properly immunized and ordered to testify, Brennan can’t continue relying on the Fifth for those questions.
The compelled testimony generally can’t be used against him in a criminal case, including information derived from it, with exceptions such as perjury or failure to comply with the order.
If he still refuses, contempt becomes a real possibility.
Federal law allows a grand-jury witness who refuses to testify after an immunity order to be held in civil contempt and confined for the life of the grand-jury proceeding, subject to the applicable statutory limits.
Criminal contempt is also possible, but the procedure is different for a grand-jury witness. DOJ’s guidance specifically distinguishes grand-jury refusals from a witness refusing to testify at trial.
But Brennan has an important advantage

The fact that prosecutors have reportedly told Brennan that he is a target matters enormously. DOJ’s own Justice Manual recognizes that a target may have legitimate Fifth Amendment concerns and says prosecutors should consider the applicability of the privilege to the likely areas of questioning.

And there’s a very important fact in the current Brennan situation: his lawyer says Brennan is being subpoenaed for the Florida investigation while he is separately a target in the investigation concerning alleged false statements to Congress. He is scheduled to appear before the Florida grand jury October 15, 2026.

So I would not expect this to be as simple as:

“Brennan takes the Fifth → judge orders him to answer → Brennan goes to jail.”

The big legal fight would likely be which questions actually implicate Brennan, and whether prosecutors seek immunity to eliminate the Fifth Amendment barrier.

And here’s the fascinating part: if prosecutors give Brennan immunity, they could potentially force him to testify—but they would also be giving him significant protection against using that testimony to prosecute him. That could make the government’s decision to immunize him strategically complicated.

John “Penitentiary Face” Brennan didn’t kill himself!

(too soon?)

“Can’t do the blanket 5th Amendment stuff at a grand jury.”

*************

So his recollection of events will be vague and he will recall nothing.

Brennan belongs in jail.

Remember months ago when Tulsi publicized the goods she had on Obam/Biden/Brennan setting up the Russia Hoax to take down Trump.

Maybe she has testified already. Don’t know.

<>So his recollection of events will be vague and he will recall nothing.<>

All of which the Grand Jury can take into consideration. Credibility matters a lot in front of a Grand Jury.

And we don’t know what other witnesses have testified to the Grand Jury.

Doesn’t make any difference if he takes the 5th; a Federal Grand Jury must indict before he can be charged.

The Prosecutor already has plenty of evidence to get an indictment. Having Burger assert his 5th Amendment right removes any and all doubt for the Grand Jury.

I meant Brennan