(National Sentinel)Â Congress: During public testimony to the House Intelligence Committee TuesdayÂ former CIA Director John Brennan had no trouble at all telling panel members in a public forum that he was “concerned” about collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.
However, when it came to discussing what the Russians might have had on Hillary Clinton, Brennan suddenly lost his zest for disclosure.
â€œI encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals,â€ he said, adding, â€œIt raised questions in my mind about whether Russia was able to gain the cooperation of those individuals.â€
Right. What about Clinton? Did the Ruskies have anything on her? And if so, what were they going to do with it had she won the election – even though, you know, they were trying to help Donald Trump…even though, you know, they expectedÂ her to win.
As Aaron Kline atÂ Breitbart News reported, inquiring minds on the House panel wanted to know – and they wanted to know it in public. But Brennan was mute:
Brennan further testified that, in his assessment, the Russians favored Donald Trump over Clinton largely because they despised Clinton and would generally prefer dealing with a businessman.
This is a far cry from the unsubstantiated conspiracy theory that the Russians possessed damaging information on Trump. Brennan did not even imply that this was the case. Indeed, the discussion about the Russians potentially holding negative information on a politician centered around Clinton.
The exchange came after Brennan made his assessment about the Russians hoping for a businessman to lead the U.S. government, explaining that Moscow â€œin the past had â€“ had some good relations with businessmen who happened to elevate into positions of government authorityâ€ and Russia believed it was easier from a negotiating standpoint to deal with a businessman.
This prompted Rep. Tom Rooney (R-Fla) to ask Brennan whether he found in his review of the evidence that there was â€œmore damaging evidence of Secretary Clinton that was not revealed?â€
â€œAnd if it wasnâ€™t revealed, what does that say about their â€“ the Russian ability to be actually rooting for her to win?â€ he asked.
Brennan replied: â€œWell, yeah, we can talk about it in closed, but, as I said, I think that they anticipated that Secretary Clinton was going to win the election. And so they â€“ I believe that they tried to damage and bloody her before the election.â€
â€œBut also, I would have anticipated that, had she been elected, that their efforts to denigrate her and hurt her would have continued during her presidency. So if they did collect more information about her that they did not release, I think they were probably husbanding it for a â€“ another day.â€
Brennan similarly pushed back against Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., who picked up Toomey’s line of questioning when it was his turn to address the former CIA director.
â€œCongressman Rooney and you were discussing, generally, the motive and I think it is â€“ letâ€™s just assume itâ€™s a given that the Russians did not like Secretary Clinton â€“ did not like President Obama, for that matter â€“ and desired negative things for her,” said Gowdy.
â€œBut they also thought she was going to win. Was it your testimony that all of the information stolen was not publicly disseminated?â€
BRENNAN: No. I said, if they had collected additional information, as I think was implied, that the â€“ the effort to try to further hurt her if she became president â€“ that information â€“ any type of derogatory information about her could have been husbanded for post-election period.
GOWDY: All right. But do you know if negative information was husbanded, to use your word, and not disseminated?
BRENNAN: Again, I â€“ I â€“ I think that would be inappropriate to talk about in an â€“ in an open session like this.
GOWDY: Is it inappropriate to both â€“ I get not asking you about the nature of it. Is it inappropriate to answer yes or no, whether or not that information was husbanded but not disseminated?
BRENNAN: My â€“ my request would be that we could talk about that in closed session.
GOWDY: OK. Iâ€™ll honor your request, and weâ€™ll talk about that in a little bit.
SoÂ why does Brennan have no trouble at all discussing “information” he had on so-calledÂ Trump “collusion” in a public forum, but he justÂ can’t talk about any Clinton-related info the Russians [very likely] have in a public forum?
First of all, this assumes that the information on Clinton that was leaked to, and then by, WikiLeaks,Â came from Russia. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says it did not.
Secondly, this entire narrative that Moscow “hated” Clinton and that Trump would be a better guy to deal with because he’s a businessmanÂ – or something – is as thin as prisoner soup. Moscow – and Beijing, and Tehran, and Pyongyang, and… – no doubt have reams of data on Clinton, lifted from her unsecured email server she just had to have so she could skirt public disclosure laws.
Whether Moscow really wanted Trump to win or not is, at this point, conjecture. The intelligence community has been at war with Trump since before he took office; it is not beyond the pale to assume that they are doing their level best to continue marginalizing and undermining him.
What isn’t conjecture is that classified data and Clinton Foundation dirty work was compromised seven ways to Sunday by Queen Hillary, and through her own incompetence, and it’s a very safe bet that Moscow has that information.
If you were Putin, which American president do you think would be easier to manipulate?