John Brennan really screwed the fake news pooch.
The former CIA Director told Congress on Tuesday that he has no knowledge of the Trump administration trying to strong-arm intelligence officials into dropping or "pushing back" against the Flynn investigation.
This was a major blow to the Washington Post and its juicy scoop about how "President Trump asked two of the nation's top intelligence officials in March to help him push back against an FBI investigation into possible coordination between his campaign and the Russian government".
As usual, this latest Russian atrocity was corroborated by anonymous "current and former officials".
Here's Brennan making the media look extremely foolish:
(Can we just take a moment and reflect on how Schiff spent about 40 seconds repeating himself before he finally drummed up the courage to ask an actual question?)Rep. Adam Schiff (Douchebag-California): With respect to a number of allegations that have been made recently, that the president or his aides may have sought to enlist the help of members of [intelligence community] or Director Comey himself to drop the Flynn investigation—have any members of the IC shared with you their concerns that the president was attempting to enlist the help of people within the intelligence community to drop the Flynn investigation?
Brennan: No Sir.
The Washington Post immediately went into damage control mode, ignoring Brennan's testimony and focusing instead on how Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats "declined to comment Tuesday on a report in The Washington Post that President Trump had urged him to deny publicly the existence of any evidence of collusion with Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign."Ex-CIA Chief Brennan: @POTUS has never pressured intelligence community to drop Flynn investigation. pic.twitter.com/SLht8sfQJa
— Josh Caplan (@joshdcaplan)May 23, 2017
Wow. An intelligence official who doesn't leak to the press? He's obviously hiding something!
According to Coats:
Which is why WaPo had to rely on "anonymous sources" to write a story about what he was allegedly told. Journalism! Any questions?"I have always believed that . . . it's not appropriate for me to comment publicly on any of that."
He added, "So on this topic, as well as other topics, I don't feel it's appropriate to characterize discussions with the president."
It gets better, though.
During his testimony, Brennan declined to say there was "collusion" between Trump and Russia—and instead said he was "worried" about "contacts and interactions" that people connected to Trump allegedly had with the Russians. Are these top Trump aides? His barber? A random election campaign volunteer based in Cabbage Patch, Iowa? Brennan can't say—it's confidential.
The US has the world's most comprehensive and sophisticated state surveillance system. The NSA alone has a Utah data center with servers large enough to store the entirety of humanity's electronic communications for the next 100 years.
There is nothing that a group of pasty congressmen will uncover. If there is hard evidence of collusion with Russia, the US government already has it. So let's see it. Or is evidence now confidential?
As Abraham Lincoln once said, "a lie gets halfway to Wal-Mart before the truth has a chance to put its Crocs on".