Former C.I.A. Chief Tells of Concern Over Possible Russia Ties to Trump Campaign

a reply to: JHumm

So instead of trying to shed corruption we just dive further in? Break a glass, break the entire set?

originally posted by: Kali74

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: Kali74

No one has said that there is concrete proof that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to interfere with the 2016 election.

There is ZERO proof.
There is ZERO evidence.

We have top level intelligence and DOJ saying and testifying that there is evidence. That is as far we have gotten, so far. This is an ongoing, developing process.

Brennen says:
“I 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,”

"contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign"...is NOT evidence of collusion to influence an election.

Possible?

In other words NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE ABSURD CLAIM.

Anything is possible.

originally posted by: Kali74

trying to shed corruption

I'd start by scrubbing the CIA into dust if that's your goal.

a reply to: IAMTAT

We don't know whether that constitutes evidence or not. There could be recordings, pictures, money trails, paper trails. It is developing. What is with the knee jerk, we can't talk about this at all ever routine, the Right is having over this?

a reply to: Kali74

I disagree. The CIA are not cops. They are an intelligence agency. They are supposed to protect the country from outside threats. If what he suspected was accurate, then he failed in his responsibilities. Your analogy is inapt.

Is it really your opinion that if the CIA suspected Russia was attempting to influence our election through very specific individuals and they did not, in fact stop it, they did the right thing? So if they learn of a terrorist attack they should wait until it is completed to do anything.

Nothing personal, but that is not in the slightest logical.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Aww you missed my praise of the speech in Saudi Arabia. Shame.

Aren't you interested in how the investigations are going along? If you are you should pay attention to the people testifying who have knowledge on the matter otherwise how do you know for yourself? I think it would be interesting if a whole slew of evidence gets exposed in testimony, the President gets impeached and you guys have no idea why because you can't stop covering your eyes and plugging your ears.

For example, if you had bothered... Brennan did do something. How can you bitch in a thread about lack of anything if you won't even click the link to make sure what you're saying is even applicable?

Mr. Brennan became so concerned last summer about signs of Russian election meddling that he held urgent, classified briefings for eight senior members of Congress, speaking with some of them over secure phone lines while they were on recess. In those conversations, he told lawmakers there was evidence that Russia was specifically working to elect Mr. Trump as president.

NYT

I did read it. Your link is garbage and bets on its readers to be foaming from the mouth rather than critical of any actual substance. Sort of like, well... you seem to come across at times.

After all the blah blah concern about this and that he is quoted...

“I don’t know whether such collusion existed.”

But then your garbage link at the end adds with NO quotations

Mr. Trump asked two of the country’s top intelligence officials to make public statements saying there was no evidence of collusion between his campaign and Russian officials, hoping to undercut an F.B.I. investigation into meddling by Russia in the 2016 presidential election, two former American officials said.

It's not just the Liberals, this is a common trick by all sides of political MSM. But then again it is perfectly legal and encouraged in the US to use MSM to push American propaganda.

Besides all of this, we have a CIA director who has observed the last 8 years of arming terrorist, overthrowing respected governments and who knows what else. Not a reliable testimony in most courts. It's like the cops dragging a murdering meth head into a court room to finger a burglar. Doesn't hold much weight. Know what in saying?

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: Kali74

I disagree. The CIA are not cops. They are an intelligence agency. They are supposed to protect the country from outside threats. If what he suspected was accurate, then he failed in his responsibilities. Your analogy is inapt.

Is it really your opinion that if the CIA suspected Russia was attempting to influence our election through very specific individuals and they did not, in fact stop it, they did the right thing? So if they learn of a terrorist attack they should wait until it is completed to do anything.

Nothing personal, but that is not in the slightest logical.

How can they stop it if not to report to Congress?

apnews.com...

Before Trump job, Manafort worked to aid Putin

But it's all conspiracies, sure.

a reply to: Kali74


BUT , He Dosen't Do Evidence , Only Rumor and Hearsay ............Got It ......

a reply to: Kali74

Your question makes no sense. The Congress passes laws. The Executive is in charge of enforcing them. The CIA is part of the executive branch. Did they notify POTUS at that time? Did they notify FBI or HLS? Did they do anything other than making phone calls to Congress?

a reply to: TobyFlenderson

Do you not understand that Congress are the only ones that can take legal action against the Executive? Also Brennan's actions led to the FBI counter-intelligence investigation of the Trump campaign.

a reply to: Kali74

They weren't the executive yet. They were private citizens acting on behalf of a candidate.

a reply to: TobyFlenderson

He was the Republican nominee, receiving intelligence and one of two people that was going to be President.

a reply to: Kali74

Brennan is been the person suspected bringing the Trump Dossier into the news media, when it was previously ignored using the WP then they passed the whole content of the Dossier to CNN.

He also was very vocal against Trump after Trump won the elections.

Hard to trust somebody that became very vocal against Trump.

If Brennan had information of Trump collusion before he became President he never said anything about it, but only very vocally warned Trump about Russia.

Either Brennan had an agenda or he didn't see any collusion at all.

I wonder which one will be.

a reply to: marg6043

Brennan sees no collusion. Cant bring himself to say those words. He is one of dems last hope.

Is this the same John Brennon that was at one time CEO of Analysis Corp. and whose employee was caught breaching passport information regarding Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain?


Article from March 2008

The Washington Times, which broke the story Thursday night that Obama's records had been improperly accessed, reported Saturday that the State Department inquiry is focusing on the Analysis Corp. employee.

Is this the same John Brennon of said corporation that was then promptly appointed Homeland Security Advisor the week Obama took office and then made CIA Director by Barack Obama four years later?

Wouldn't you love to know what Brennon knows? Information is "gold"!

a reply to: queenofswords

Information can also be evidence.

a reply to: Kali74

Yes.