The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss a New York Times report claiming that U.S. Attorney John Durham is examining the role former CIA director John Brennan played in the early stages of the Russian investigation.
Durham has requested Mr. Brennan’s call logs, emails and other documents from the CIA, and is said to be interested in Brennan’s views of the discredited and unverified dossier compiled by British ex-spy Christopher Steele.
Durham is also reportedly looking into conversations Brennan had with other top officials, including ex-FBI Director James Comey about the Steele dossier, as well as examining Brennan’s private statements contradicted his public comments.
The U.S. attorney investigating the origins of the intelligence community’s investigation into Russia’s 2016 meddling, and President Trump’s connection to it, has a new target: former CIA Director John Brennan.
John Durham, the federal prosecutor hand-picked by Attorney General William Barr to look into potential misconduct in the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation, has reportedly asked for Brennan’s emails, call logs, and other documents, according to three officials briefed on the matter.
The report confirms what has long been speculated: The deep-rooted irresponsibility uncovered by Inspector General Michael Horowitz extends far beyond the FBI, and Brennan had something to do with it. In fact, it’s possible Brennan led the FBI down the rabbit hole that was the Russia hoax, feeding the agency foreign intelligence while distancing himself from the problematic Steele dossier.
Now, Durham wants to know what Brennan thought about Christopher Steele, the former British spy who was on the Democratic National Committee’s payroll, and whether Brennan’s private comments about this intelligence contradicted with his public statements.
We know the Steele dossier played a “central and essential role” in the FBI’s Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant application to surveil Trump campaign aide Carter Page. We also know the CIA had “expressed concern” about Steele’s unverified allegations and dismissed them as “internet rumor.” What we do not know is whether Brennan had been influenced by the Steele dossier and whether he used it as an excuse to launch an intelligence community assessment into Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia — an allegation that proved to be false.
Brennan certainly doesn’t seem to think the allegation is false. Even as late as August, many months after publication of the Mueller report, he was asserting that Trump had acted in a “treasonous manner.” (These kinds of comments are in part why Brennan’s security clearance was pulled.) Brennan had clearly made up his mind about Trump’s actions before the investigation had begun, so it’s not unreasonable to think he might have used tainted intelligence to push the intelligence community in an anti-Trump direction.
Brennan, who has demonstrably lied to Congress on at least one occasion, has said he will cooperate with investigators, and he should. Refusing to do so could carry steep penalties, since Durham’s role as an appointed investigator is more authoritative than Horowitz’s. Durham can call a grand jury and file indictments, whereas Horowitz was limited to procedural matters within the Justice Department.
The disgraced former CIA director was a biased actor from the get-go. And to those familiar with the ins-and-outs of the Russia hoax, it’s obvious he kickstarted the collusion theory (he’s still pushing it, for goodness sake!). It’s past time he answers for his role in this mess.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Duran.