1. I woke up early today to watch Manchester City crush Huddersfield Town in a Premier League soccer match. While checking today’s news program line-up, I noticed that John Brennan would make an appearance.
[Yeah, right; they want to retain access to leak classified info to protect the cabal!]
T: Trump claims revoking your clearance was not about silencing or punishing, but elevating you. Is that true?
T: with Rachel Maddow, you talked about taking legal action?
B: I called it “betraying one’s trust” and “aiding the enemy” and stand very much by those comments.
T: have you said anything in the “public sphere” that has gone beyond the facts you know?
T: Would you go along with revoking the clearance?
T: So you would understand if someone objected but still stayed in their position and be a “guard rail” going forward as opposed to a public whistle-blower?
B: Not on conspiracy, Chuck, just collusion.
T: Let’s start with the NYT story. The previous legal team wanted to fully cooperate with Mueller; you and Emmett Flood have wanted to put more parameters around what Mueller can and should do.
G: you’re talking about different stages of the investigation.
G: This whole McGahn thing leaked from the SC! If they had some kind of evidence that there was collusion or obstruction, don’t you think it would have been leaked? They leak everything else?
G: because the meeting was originally for the purpose of getting info about Hillary Clinton, but the meeting turned into something else.
G: The meeting turned out to be about another subject that was not pursued at all. Any meeting to get info on an opponent is something any candidate would take.
G: she (Veselnitskaya) was a private citizen not representing the Russian government! This is much ado about nothing. Trump wasn’t even present!
G: I believe that someone got those emails, and reports I’ve read say that it was Russians who did the hacking.
G: Of course, but he’s had months to do that. This is a desperate SC who leaked the McGahn interview (and spun it wrongly) to the NYT because they’ve got nothing on Trump.
G: The only other person who could have done it was McGahn. It would be McGahn or the SC. They have to write a report and they don’t have a single bit of evidence about Trump doing anything wrong.
G: For interfering in the upcoming election when he had no reason to do that when it could have been resolved much earlier.