[New York Post] Former head of the CIA John Brennan admitted on Monday that he may have relied on "bad information" for his relentless attacks on President Trump.
Brennan ‐ who once warned that "our Nation’s future is at stake" ‐ told MSNBC’s "Morning Joe" that he may have been misled on the extent of Trump’s connections to Russia.
"Well, I don’t know if I received bad information but I think I suspected there was more than there actually was," Brennan said. "I am relieved that it’s been determined there was not a criminal conspiracy with the Russian government over our election."
The former spy chief was reacting to a summary report by Attorney General William Barr released on Saturday that states there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
Brennan still maintained that there were inappropriate attempts to communicate with the Kremlin but said he was "not all that surprised that the high bar of criminal conspiracy was not met."
#4
Would Brennan still be at CIA if Hillary had won? What other horrors might the nation have had to endure if that witch had gotten into the White House?
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
03/26/2019 9:36 Comments ||
Top||
#5
However, that may explain all the CIA failures for the last, what?, fifty years? Maybe we should be looking for people who can gather good information.
#6
You're the f*cking former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. A liar, commie, and Muzzie symp. Kill yourself
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/26/2019 9:39 Comments ||
Top||
#7
However, that may explain all the CIA failures for the last, what?, fifty years? Maybe we should be looking for people who can gather good information.
#10
Funny how the last few decades the CIA was fairly reliable as the bad guy (or full of rogue agents) in movies. Better seen as the villain than incompetent I guess.
[Right Scoop] As I’m sure you al have seen, Democrats are trying to make a big spectacle about calling for the release of the full Mueller report, even though AG Barr has already said he would release as much as possible under the rules of the DOJ.
Well today, after the House held a similar vote on a non-binding resolution calling for the report’s release, Senate Democrats tried to do the same. But they were stymied when Mitch McConnell objected to the unanimous consent request and shut it down.
Here’s more:
THE HILL ‐ Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Monday blocked a resolution calling for special counsel Robert Mueller’s report to be released publicly.
Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) asked for unanimous consent for the nonbinding resolution, which cleared the House 420-0, to be passed by the Senate following Mueller’s submission of his final report on Friday.
"Whether or not you’re a supporter of President Trump ... there is no good reason not to make the report public," Schumer said from the floor. "It’s a simple request for transparency. Nothing more, nothing less."
But McConnell objected, noting that Attorney General William Barr is working with Mueller to determine what in his report can be released publicly and what cannot.
"The special counsel and the Justice Department ought to be allowed to finish their work in a professional manner," McConnell said. "To date, the attorney general has followed through on his commitments to Congress. One of those commitments is that he intends to release as much information as possible."
Schumer added after McConnell’s objection that the resolution didn’t say the report should be released "immediately" but just that it ought to be released.
"I’m sort of befuddled by the majority leader’s reasoning in this regard because it is not in the words of this resolution," he said.
But McConnell countered that the president has had to wait two years while the investigation was ongoing and "it’s not unreasonable to give the special counsel and the Justice Department just a little time to complete their review in a professional and responsible manner."
McConnell is absolutely right here and I’m glad he blocked Schumer’s request.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
03/26/2019 10:24 Comments ||
Top||
#3
They've said they will release everything they legally can - which excludes things related to Grand Jury testimonies, and probably some names. Trump can override and release a lot, but even he can't violate Grand Jury law - maybe that's what Dems want, so they can impeach him for it.
#7
Somewhere along the line the Democrats went from playing chess and thinking a few moves ahead to just knee-jerk responses without any thought at all. I'm not sure when this actually happened but its been obvious sine Trump was elected.
[Breitbart] Former Obama CIA Director John Brennan faced a day of reckoning on Monday, after the Special Counsel investigation did not establish there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia after extensive investigation.
Although conservatives have long cast a wary eye at the former CIA director, whose hyper-partisan rants and high-profile role as a senior national security and intelligence analyst for NBC and MSNBC went beyond previous CIA chiefs in recent memory, mainstream media journalists, are now also questioning his credibility.
ABC News Senior National Correspondent Terry Moran on Sunday tweeted, along with a clip of a March 6 interview on MSNBC, "John Brennan has a lot to answer for ‐ going before the American public for months, cloaked with CIA authority and openly suggesting he’s got secret info, and repeatedly turning in performances like this."
#1
...He's also now suggesting that he's not surprised by the report results. Myself, I suggest that he gets audited - by the Agency and the IRS - with a carrot peeler.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
03/26/2019 4:26 Comments ||
Top||
#2
No Mike. I think a box grater would work better followed by a H2 O2 shower. Finished off with burying in an ant hill while slathered in honey.
#3
It's extremely disingenuous for Moran to say something that self-serving - the MSM actively encouraged Brennan, Clapper, et. al. to pig pile on Trump and now they're trying to make Brennan a scapegoat?
"We can never let this happen to another president again. I can tell you that. I say it very strongly. Very few people I know could have handled it.” -- Trump on Mueller probe
Posted by: Fred ||
03/26/2019 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11140 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
...DJT's got a point; I can't think of any other Republican who would have ridden this out the way he has - a McCain or Romney would have 'stepped aside for the good of the nation' long before.
President Trump drives me right up a wall sometimes. But when it comes down to it, I'd much rather have a man like him who takes the 'all enemies, foreign and domestic' part of The Oath seriously.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
03/26/2019 6:23 Comments ||
Top||
#2
An amen to that Mike. DJT is what we need now--someone who doesn't fold when the Demonrats sneeze. I really believe he puts the country first and not himself or party. Moreover, he is rich enough that he doesn't think he is entitled to steal.
#3
People complain that Trump is rude, crude and disrespectful. Maybe that goes with the territory of street fighter. I think that if people are civil to him he can probably be civil in return. But when was John McCain ever civil to him?
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
03/26/2019 9:42 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Trump is a man of substance over style. I'll take that any day.
#7
I don't care who DJT gives a tummy ache to. He's the Real Deal...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
03/26/2019 16:40 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Trump is an obnoxious jerk, an egomaniac, and a liar. That said, he still beats all the rest of the DC establishment because he does not OWE them anything, nor does he/want need anything from them. If only we could have hundreds more egomaniacal, lying jerks like him - we'd be so much better off.
#1
I have stated here and idea on SCOTUS that I liked. Expand the court to 50. Each state appoints one justice to the court for a term of one year (judges can be appointed multiple years) and in case of a tie, the vice-president gets the tie breaker vote.
Keeps things nice and Republic like and good luck stuffing that court. Since it has become a stage to set social policy into rights and laws that never existed, let each state get its say.
[The Hill] The Department of Justice (DOJ) on Monday announced that it is siding with a district court ruling that found the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional.
The move is an escalation of the Trump administration's legal battle against the health care law.
The DOJ previously argued in court that the law's pre-existing condition protections should be struck down. Now, the administration argues the entire law should be invalidated.
U.S. District Court Judge Reed O'Connor ruled in December that the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate is unconstitutional and that the rest of law is therefore invalid.
The DOJ said Monday that it agrees the decision should stand as the case works its way through the appeals process in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.
"The Department of Justice has determined that the district court’s judgement should be affirmed," the department said in a short letter to the appeals court.
The move is certain to prompt new denunciations from Democrats, who had already seized on the Trump administration's earlier call for the pre-existing condition protections to be struck down.
[Daily Caller] House Democrats nixed Republicans’ request for unanimous consent to bring the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act to a vote for a 20th time Monday.
Republican Georgia Rep. Rick Allen made the call for unanimous consent Monday. Numerous Republican representatives have made the same petition to consider the bill. A failed Senate vote on a counterpart bill drew major attention in late February.
After the 17th rejection, House Republican leaders announced their strategy to bring the anti-infanticide legislation to the floor March 13. They plan to bypass Democrats with a discharge petition, which would allow the House to vote with only an absolute majority, Minority Whip Steve Scalise said. (RELATED: Democratic Senator Declines To Seek 2020 Re-Election)
"I’m calling on every member of Congress to sign the discharge petition when it ripens in a few weeks so that we can bring this bill to the floor, have this debate where all the country can see that this process, this grisly process, barbaric process of murdering babies when they are born alive is legal in many states and, in fact, needs to be stopped," Scalise said.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[Daily Caller] House Democrats nixed Republicans’ request for unanimous consent to bring the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act to a vote for a 20th time Monday.
