The Deep State is trying to place the blame on why John Brennan has not yet been arrested on Tulsi Gabbard. This is another lie since Gabbard has little to do with when and how the DOJ indicts former CIA Director Brennan.
The New York Times is noted for being the go-to media outlet of choice when the Deep State wants a story published. The best example of this was the attempted coup of the Trump Administration by bad actors in the Deep State using the fake news story of “Russia Collusion”. The NYT was more than happy to oblige and was happy when it was awarded a Pulitzer for being so compliant.
The New York Post reported on the Russia Collusion Pulitzer received by the Times and WaPo:
“For deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest,” the citation from the Pulitzer Prize board begins, “that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the president-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration.”
Except the journalism that the Pulitzers honored — a 2018 National Reporting prize shared by the Washington Post and the New York Times for reporting on Russiagate — did no such thing.
It led to a dramatic misunderstanding, suggesting that Donald Trump colluded with Vladimir Putin to help sway the 2016 election — a grand conspiracy that we now know never existed.
Oh, it was “deeply sourced,” in that deep-state Democratic bureaucrats, furious that Trump had won the White House, were falling over themselves to talk anonymously to reporters.
And it was “relentlessly reported,” or at least just relentless, as the newspapers were obsessed with taking down the Trump administration.
Yet reading these pieces four years later, one is struck not only by how irrelevant they are, but how shlocky — tinged with a McCarthyist alarmism of a red under every bed. Two major newspapers that hold themselves up as the pinnacle of press freedom, the “truth dies in darkness” brigade and all that, pushed a conspiracy theory.
Some things never change. This past week the Times reported, that the inquiry into Obama’s C.I.A. Chief John Brennan was stalled after a purge by Tulsi Gabbard. Yahoo and other Mainstream sites repeated this report:
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard may have undermined the Trump administration’s criminal investigation of former CIA Director John Brennan when she revoked the security clearances of current and former officials who could be called as potential witnesses in the case, two senior administration officials told NBC News.
Gabbard on Aug. 19 stripped the security clearances of 37 former and current intelligence and national security officials whom she accused of manipulating or leaking intelligence or other misconduct. But her office did not properly coordinate the move with other agencies, and the Justice Department was blindsided, according to the two officials.
However, this piece doesn’t even make sense. If the NYT wanted to tell the true story, its writers would report that the holding or not holding of a security clearance doesn’t impact conversations with DOJ attorneys about ongoing investigations in the least.
The security clearance gives you only the ability to see new material. It doesn’t 1) require you to forget what’s already in your head, or 2) allow/prevent you from talking to someone about what you know – that’s based on the recipient’s clearance and need to know, not whether you hold a clearance.
If DOJ has the legal right to ask about what the interviewee knows, then the interviewee’s clearances status is irrelevant.
Sources tell us that this is the same approach with the Afghan War Commission – when they want to interview personnel who had security clearances revoked, a new clearance did not need to be issued. The person can just respond to unclassified questions with classified information, since they are repeating what they know, and the people receiving the info have the clearance. It isn’t an issue for the person speaking since they already know the information.
As ODNI Gabbard has said before, there was coordination with agencies, and the White House, ahead of the revocations letter being sent.
Our sources tell us that the person at the DOJ who is overseeing the Brennan case is blocking its release in a similar fashion to what we saw occur with Comey in the Eastern District of Virginia. Comey’s indictment was delayed because US Attorney Erik Siebert was blocking any indictments. He even went so far as to write a 51-page report on why Comey should not be arrested. We now know due to our reporting earlier today that Seibert had a material conflict of interest (his father-in-law was Jim Comey’s daughter’s godfather) that he didn’t share.
Our sources tell us that the real reason for Brennan not indicated already again lies with the person at the DOJ assigned to bring justice slow rolling any indictments.
Read the full article here