![\"\"](\"http:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/e634f4f5-84b6-4594-b726-e553899fbdf4.jpg\")
Former CIA Director John Brennan is sworn-in on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, May 23, 2017, prior to testifying before the House Intelligence Committee Russia Investigation Task Force. (AP Photo\/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)<\/p><\/div><\/p>\n
by Shipwreckedcrew
\nRedState<\/p>\n
John Brennan\u2019s long-time advisor Nick Shapiro put out a statement yesterday at the conclusion of Brennan\u2019s eight-hour interview with John Durham and his investigators.<\/p>\n
It might all be true.\u00a0 All I have are opinions on the text and circumstances.<\/p>\n
But I also know that the CIA is an institution designed to engage in manipulation using lies and deception \u2014 in a good way.\u00a0 It\u2019s how they accomplish their mission in defense of the country.<\/p>\n
John Brennan is an embodiment of the CIA \u2014 it\u2019s all he\u2019s ever known.\u00a0 Its ethos oozes from his pores.<\/p>\n
John Brennan wanted to send a message to the world yesterday after he finished his interview with John Durham.\u00a0 Oddly, he chose to do it through Nick Shapiro, and not himself.\u00a0 Nothing about Brennan or his history suggests Shapiro\u2019s message needs be credited with being truthful.<\/p>\n
There are several reasons to read this message with a \u201cjaundiced eye\u201d and to recognize the ulterior motives for it.<\/p>\n
First, it\u2019s not Brennan\u2019s statement.\u00a0 Shapiro issued the statement to Obama Administration scribe Natasha Bertrand at Politico \u2014 guaranteed to dutifully publish anything requested of her by a former Obama era intelligence official now living in fear.\u00a0 Shapiro then posted a string of eight Tweets on Twitter with the same text.<\/p>\n
Both are devoid of any words actually spoken by Brennan \u2014 there are no quotations \u2014 nor is there any support offered for Shapiro\u2019s claims by anyone actually in the room, such as Brennan\u2019s attorneys.<\/p>\n
Since when has Brennan been shy about saying anything on Twitter?\u00a0 Why would Brennan go \u201cthird person\u201d and have his thoughts about the interview expressed only in the words of someone else?\u00a0 The most obvious reason is the statements are not going to be exactly accurate.\u00a0 Running them through a third person builds in a level of \u201cdeniability\u201d on Brennan\u2019s part.\u00a0 Shapiro wasn\u2019t in the room for the interview.\u00a0 Shapiro is only putting out for public consumption what was told to him, and by phrasing it in the \u201cthird person\u201d the way he has, it\u2019s not a statement \u201cby John Brennan\u201d nor is it endorsed by Brennan\u2019s counsel in the room.\u00a0 It is put out by a guy who has historically been in the role of misleading and misdirecting the press and the public on John Brennan\u2019s behalf.\u00a0 Yesterday\u2019s mission was no different.<\/p>\n
Second, conducting the interview at the CIA facility is an interesting decision.\u00a0 Why not question him at DOJ or FBI HQ?\u00a0 The CIA is not a law enforcement agency.\u00a0 John Brennan no longer works for the CIA.\u00a0 Any CIA records that may have been needed over the course of the interview could have been made available in a secured facility at both those locations.<\/p>\n
But that \u201crecords\u201d excuse may have been the very justification given for the selection of the CIA HQ as the location for the interview.<\/p>\n
DOJ and the FBI HQ are in Washington DC.\u00a0 CIA Headquarters is in Langley, Virginia.<\/p>\n
If you are geographically challenged, you can read the distinction as \u201cUnited States District Court for the District of Columbia\u201d v. \u201cUnited States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.\u201d\u00a0 If John Brennan offered any false answers to the investigators during the interview, the venue for that \u201cfalse statement\u201d crime is in the EDVA, not in DC federal court.<\/p>\n
Third, Shapiro\u2019s statement claims that Brennan was told by Durham that he is neither a \u201ctarget\u201d nor \u201csubject,\u201d and that he is only a witness to events under review.\u00a0 \u00a0Maybe that\u2019s true, but it does not sound true to me.\u00a0 And the statement does not say that comment was made to Brennan yesterday before the interview took place.<\/p>\n
I can say that I had several occasions during my career as a prosecutor where criminal defense lawyers asked me similar questions about their client in response to an interview request.\u00a0 I can\u2019t say that I always refused to answer, but as a general matter my response was something that I learned when I was starting out from more experienced federal prosecutors \u2014<\/p>\n
\u201cCounsel, this interview today is voluntary.\u00a0 Your client is free to leave right now, and answer none of the questions we have.\u00a0 He\u2019s free to stop answering questions at any time while the interview is underway.\u00a0 He\u2019s free to ask to take a break, step outside the room with you, and then return to answer the question or not answer the question.\u00a0 What does he want to do?\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
John Brennan could have been questioned before a grand jury, without the presence of his attorney in the room.\u00a0 That would be true IF, as suggested by Shapiro\u2019s statement, Brennan was only a \u201cwitness\u201d.<\/p>\n
To explain that, let\u2019s take a moment to address the whole \u201cTarget\u201d v. \u201cSubject\u201d v. \u201cWitness\u201d construct the press is so happy to report about.<\/p>\n
Labeling an individual a \u201ctarget\u201d has a clear meaning in federal criminal prosecutions.\u00a0 It refers to someone about whom the prosecutor believes there is already sufficient admissible evidence to seek an indictment from a grand jury, and obtain a conviction at trial.\u00a0 The investigation is ongoing, but the grand jury already has identified a \u201ctarget\u201d for eventual prosecution.<\/p>\n
Anyone who is \u201cnot a target\u201d is \u2014 \u201cnot a target\u201d.\u00a0 There is no other \u201cclassification\u201d of individuals with meaning.\u00a0 Many people in the business toss around the term \u201csubject\u201d, but that is a \u201cmade-up\u201d classification that does not exist.\u00a0 I have received \u201cSubject\u201d letters from prosecutors on behalf of clients, but those all involve a request to interview my client.<\/p>\n
A \u201cTarget\u201d letter is different.\u00a0 When you receive a \u201cTarget\u201d letter it advises you that a federal grand jury has already received evidence upon which criminal charges may be issued in the future.\u00a0 It advises the \u201cTarget\u201d that they should seek counsel, and if they cannot afford counsel they should contact the Federal Defender\u2019s Office in their district for legal representation.\u00a0 Once they have secured counsel, their lawyer should contact the prosecutor to discuss the matter.<\/p>\n
The purpose behind a \u201csubject\u201d letter is merely to instill fear in the recipient and to \u201cencourage\u201d them to talk about others before others talk about them \u2014 as information from others might push them closer to the \u201ctarget\u201d category.\u00a0 Unwitting lawyers think there is meaning behind the \u201csubject\u201d designation but there is not.\u00a0 Fear is a great motivator.\u00a0 \u201cDoing unto others before they do unto you\u201d is sort of a universal maxim among the idiot criminal class.<\/p>\n
So if you are not a \u201ctarget\u201d \u2014 meaning there isn\u2019t sufficient evidence at this time to charge you with a crime \u2014 then by default you are a \u201cwitness.\u201d<\/p>\n
But \u201cwitnesses\u201d can, and often do talk themselves into being \u201ctargets\u201d during such interviews.\u00a0 That was the purpose of the interview, Mr. Brennan, not because you have some wonderful insights to provide Mr. Durham and his investigators to make their job easier.<\/p>\n
One important distinction between \u201ctarget\u201d and \u201cwitness\u201d that is not well understood, but might be in play here, is that it is against DOJ policy to issue a grand jury subpoena to someone who is already a \u201ctarget\u201d.<\/p>\n
A grand jury subpoena is a court order, under threat of contempt, to appear and answer questions under oath without the presence of counsel.\u00a0 If a person is already a \u201cTarget\u201d, the subpoena intrudes upon their Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and to be represented by counsel while undergoing \u201ccustodial\u201d interrogation \u2014 they are under subpoena after all.\u00a0 Witnesses before the grand jury are allowed to assert their Fifth Amendment right, but it forces them to assert that right before the grand jurors considering charges against them.\u00a0 The government is not allowed to call a criminal defendant to take the stand in his trial and force him to assert his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent in front of the jury.\u00a0 It is deemed prejudicial, and suggest to the jury that the defendant has something to hide.\u00a0 The same principle applies to calling a \u201cTarget\u201d in front of a grand jury and forcing them to assert their right to remain silent in front of the grand jurors without counsel present.<\/p>\n
So, if John Brennan isn\u2019t at least a potential \u201ctarget,\u201d why was he not called to explain historical events to the grand jury?<\/p>\n
Finally, John Brennan has many times expressed the belief that any investigation initiated by the Trump Administration into the actions of Obama Administration officials to examine their conduct as it pertains to the investigation of the 2016 campaign, and the aftermath of Trump\u2019s election victory, is illegitimate.\u00a0 John Brennan has all but declared Trump\u2019s election to be illegitimate \u2014 heck, he might have said so outright.<\/p>\n
So, it is not surprising at all that Shapiro \u2014 not Brennan \u2014 would claim:<\/p>\n
Brennan questioned why the analytical tradecraft and findings of the ICA are being scrutinized by the Department of Justice, especially since they have been validated by the Mueller Report as well as the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence review.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The idea that Brennan \u201cquestioned\u201d Durham on this topic does not confirm that Durham had any response to offer to Brennan\u2019s question.\u00a0 I suspect Durham did not react favorably \u2014 if it happened at all \u2014 to Brennan\u2019s suggestion that Durham\u2019s work was illegitimate or superfluous because of what others might have done, or not done as the case may be.<\/p>\n
But John Brennan cannot help himself in this regard.\u00a0 The CIA is rarely put in a position of having to explain or defend its conduct \u2014 purposely and by design.\u00a0 But when John Brennan has been in that position in the past, he\u2019s been\u00a0quite comfortable with lying in his responses<\/a>.\u00a0 More of\u00a0the same here<\/a>.<\/p>\n