Joe DiGenova: John Brennan has been referred to John Huber for criminal prosecution (yuge if true)

HomerThompson said:
Does the DOJ have oversight over the CIA?
Click to expand...

I think the CIA is unique compared to the other agencies. Like they report to a specific appointed official in the cabinet than a department.

Edit- and I'm almost sure it isn't the DOJ. It doesn't make sense on it's face at least.
 
StickAndMove said:
I don't see why that would be the case. Sure he might be guilty but why would that involve the entire "left"?
Click to expand...

The mainstream Left has embraced Brennan and federal law enforcement bureaucrats, ostensibly because of their shared distaste for President Trump. MSNBC hired Brennan, CNN hired Clapper, and Comey / McCabe / Strzok / Page are generally treated as whistleblowers rather than leakers / criminals. Similarly, Democrats have also embraced this "Russia collusion" narrative which can be traced back conclusively to the aforementioned persons (among others). If it turns out that Brennan and other federal bureaucrats broke the law in order to jump-start an investigation connecting Trump to Russia, the Left pretty much has to own it. It will vindicate a lot of the so-called "conspiracy theories" espoused by people like Joe DiGenova, Roger Stone, etc.

If the Left doesn't want to catch political AIDS from Brennan, Clapper, Comey, the time to disassociate / disavow was last year. It's too late to backtrack and say "I personally though the Russia investigation was bogus..."
 
HomerThompson said:
Does the DOJ have oversight over the CIA?
Click to expand...

Suddenly aware and uncomfortable that I don’t know this answer in the slightest

No idea who CIA oversight is, but I’m sure they’re a paper tiger at absolute most in terms of accountability
 
JamesRussler said:
The mainstream Left has embraced Brennan and federal law enforcement bureaucrats, ostensibly because of their shared distaste for President Trump. MSNBC hired Brennan, CNN hired Clapper, and Comey / McCabe / Strzok / Page are generally treated as whistleblowers rather than leakers / criminals. Similarly, Democrats have also embraced this "Russia collusion" narrative which can be traced back conclusively to the aforementioned persons (among others). If it turns out that Brennan and other federal bureaucrats broke the law in order to jump-start an investigation connecting Trump to Russia, the Left pretty much has to own it. It will vindicate a lot of the so-called "conspiracy theories" espoused by people like Joe DiGenova, Roger Stone, etc.

If the Left doesn't want to catch political AIDS from Brennan, Clapper, Comey, the time to disassociate / disavow was last year. It's too late to backtrack and say "I personally though the Russia investigation was bogus..."
Click to expand...
I understand you but disagree a bit. Let's let everyone be investigated. Without any obstruction. Ok, investigate this and if he's guilty send him to jail. But let's also allow the Trump investigation to conclude. That Trump has been trying to undermine his investigation by attempting to discredit and undermine Mueller seems to be obstruction.
 
Rebound59 said:
Really? If I had more time and a better memory I would have no trouble finding multiple instances of it.
Click to expand...

Let's focus on the single instance you've alleged, which is the topic of this thread. If DiGenova turns out to be correct that Brennan has been referred for criminal prosecution, then clearly his words deserve more weight than you're giving them.
 
Last edited:
HockeyBjj said:
Suddenly aware and uncomfortable that I don’t know this answer in the slightest

No idea who CIA oversight is, but I’m sure they’re a paper tiger at absolute most in terms of accountability
Click to expand...
You're sure based on?
 
JamesRussler said:
Let's focus on the single instance you've alleged, which is the topic of this thread. If DiGenova turns out to be correct that Clapper has been referred for criminal prosecution, then clearly his words deserve more weight than you're giving them.
Click to expand...
No, let's not focus on one single thing, let's look at everything and make a conclusion then.
 
JamesRussler said:
Let's focus on the single instance you've alleged, which is the topic of this thread. If DiGenova turns out to be correct that Clapper has been referred for criminal prosecution, then clearly his words deserve more weight than you're giving them.
Click to expand...
I thought it was Brennan?
 
StickAndMove said:
I understand you but disagree a bit. Let's let everyone be investigated. Without any obstruction. Ok, investigate this and if he's guilty send him to jail. But let's also allow the Trump investigation to conclude. That Trump has been trying to undermine his investigation by attempting to discredit and undermine Mueller seems to be obstruction.
Click to expand...

That's one of the big questions here. If there's no substantive underlying crime, and the POTUS has executive privilege in addition to Constitutional protections as a citizen, how can he be obstructing the investigation? IMO it would have to be something pretty substantial, like destroying evidence of an actual crime. What he's done so far (i.e. disparaging Mueller, refusing to meet with him, etc.) is perfectly lawful. I might have agreed with you two years ago, but these days I really am concerned that a determined prosecutor can find a way to convict anyone for "obstruction of justice." That's not something that should be possible in a fair system of laws.
 
StickAndMove said:
No, let's not focus on one single thing, let's look at everything and make a conclusion then.
Click to expand...

The poster I replied to (@Rebound59 ) began by suggesting that Joe DiGenova was telling "bald face lies" about Brennan, and that his credibility / reputation should suffer as a result. When I brought up the possibility that DiGenova might be correct, he shifted the scope of his argument to encompass all of DiGenova's past statements.
 
JamesRussler said:
The poster I replied to (@Rebound59 ) began by suggesting that Joe DiGenova was telling "bald face lies" about Brennan, and that his credibility / reputation should suffer as a result. When I brought up the possibility that DiGenova might be correct, he shifted the scope of his argument to encompass all of DiGenova's past statements.
Click to expand...
No I said Faux News is guilty of peddling lies therefore their programming is suspect and so are their regulars. I can't speak for DiGenova; that was never my intent. It's a bit of a subtle distinction, beggin' yer pardon.
 
JamesRussler said:
That's one of the big questions here. If there's no substantive underlying crime, and the POTUS has executive privilege in addition to Constitutional protections as a citizen, how can he be obstructing the investigation? IMO it would have to be something pretty substantial, like destroying evidence of an actual crime. What he's done so far (i.e. disparaging Mueller, refusing to meet with him, etc.) is perfectly lawful. I might have agreed with you two years ago, but these days I really am concerned that a determined prosecutor can find a way to convict anyone for "obstruction of justice." That's not something that should be possible in a fair system of laws.
Click to expand...
No, the crime is irrelevant, if he uses his power to quash the investigation it's obstruction even if there's no crime. Which when referring to Trump is a big concession. We already know he's willing to attack anyone that says anything disparaging against him. Even porn stars that can produce NDAs.
 
JamesRussler said:
The poster I replied to (@Rebound59 ) began by suggesting that Joe DiGenova was telling "bald face lies" about Brennan, and that his credibility / reputation should suffer as a result. When I brought up the possibility that DiGenova might be correct, he shifted the scope of his argument to encompass all of DiGenova's past statements.
Click to expand...
Does DOJ have jurisdiction over the CIA?
 
JamesRussler said:
That's one of the big questions here. If there's no substantive underlying crime, and the POTUS has executive privilege in addition to Constitutional protections as a citizen, how can he be obstructing the investigation?
Click to expand...

Because even assuming for the sake of argument that there was no underlying crime relating to Russian interference with the election, Donald Trump has probably engaged in so many shady shit over the decades that he's probably scared shitless that any sort of close scrutiny of his affairs will turn up evidence of any number of prosecutable stuff.

Hence he obstructs the investigation.
 
JadeOwl said:
Because even assuming for the sake of argument that there was no underlying crime relating to Russian interference with the election, Donald Trump has probably engaged in so many shady shit over the decades that he's probably scared shitless that any sort of close scrutiny of his affairs will turn up evidence of any number of prosecutable stuff.

Hence he obstructs the investigation.
Click to expand...
Isn't it a big red flag when you need to hide your tax returns?
 
StickAndMove said:
No, the crime is irrelevant, if he uses his power to quash the investigation it's obstruction even if there's no crime. Which when referring to Trump is a big concession. We already know he's willing to attack anyone that says anything disparaging against him. Even porn stars that can produce NDAs.
Click to expand...

No, the crime is not irrelevant. To initiate an investigation, there must be a crime, or at least a good faith basis for believing a crime was committed. If there's a search, there must be probable cause to believe a crime was committed. If those threshold requirements are not met, the investigators themselves are guilty of a crime – possibly several. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 241-242. Trump isn't required to wait around until Robert Mueller figures out a way to legitimize himself. As POTUS, Trump is fully within his rights to quash a baseless investigation, and he is fully within his rights to order prosecutions of anyone who committed crimes in order to initiate the baseless investigation.

If it helps, imagine if you found out that you were under investigation for cocaine trafficking – even though you have never bought, sold, or used cocaine. Imagine that the investigation began at the request of your ex-girlfriend, whose new boyfriend is a detective with the local police department. Suppose he kicks down your door, rummages through your house, searches your car, questions your friends / relatives, reads through your e-mails (including your Sherdog messages) and still fails to find any evidence to connect you to cocaine trafficking. Should you have to wait until this dirty cop plants cocaine on you? Should you tolerate him interfering with your life activities for a few months until he concludes his "investigation?" Are you "obstructing" if you refuse to speak with him? Will you be satisfied when Internal Affairs reviews the cop's actions and clears him of wrongdoing? No, of course not. You'd want that cop (and probably your ex-girlfriend) to be thrown in jail immediately.

And that's where we are today. It looks like somebody initiated a bogus investigation of the POTUS. That much has been established. The only questions remaining are (1) who is responsible, and (2) how did this happen? DiGenova seems to think John Brennan had something to do with it. We'll see if he turns out to be correct.
 
HomerThompson said:
Does DOJ have jurisdiction over the CIA?
Click to expand...

The CIA is not a subdivision of the DOJ, if that's what you're asking. The DOJ can certainly prosecute current and former CIA employees for violations of federal law.
 
So any new developments? I am not seeing this story prominently in the mainstream news.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,881
Messages
55,451,112
Members
174,783
Latest member
notnormal

Share this page

Back
Top