Sunday, October 6, 2019

John Brennan: Presumption Of What?

Yeah, John Brennan enunciates for all the world and all posterity the presumption that Liberals apply to deplorables. This will be the presumption in the type of One Party State they're wishing on us. Can you believe a bozo like this rose to head the CIA? Well, I gues I can. From Zerohedge:

Former CIA Chief Brennan Unblinkingly Rewrites Entire Basis Of US Judicial System In One Short Sentence 
The presumption of innocence, as a foundation of the US judicial system, has seemingly been under attack since November 8th 2016. An allegation is made, media runs with the narrative, the seed of possibility of guilt is implanted in the minds of zombie Americans, and the accused is maligned forever - no court required. Simple. 
And now, none other than former CIA Director John Brennan clarifies exactly how the deep state sees "due process"... 
In an interview on MSNBC, Brennan, unblinkingly states that "people are innocent, you know, until alleged to be involved in some kind of criminal activity."


  1. As you know, I think very little of all these perpetrators and it's hard to pick a "favorite." Brennan has to be in anyone's top three list. But then I look at Clinton, Weissmann, Barack, Comey, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Clapper, Yates, McCord, Mueller, Little Adam, Rod, and I think how do I pick?

    They're all so creepy and morally deficient.

  2. Modern Democrats: Are they actually worse than George Orwell's version? It's a close call.

  3. Well, let him live by his own rules.

  4. Beria would smile to know his protégé has such a firm grasp of Party legal theory.
    Tom S.

  5. Anybody who would see John Brennan hanging around a playground would call the police.


    Apologies in advance if y'all already understand what I'm about to say.

    Looks to me like Horowitz will soon report that the FISA warrants were unfounded. Barr is in the process of establishing (beyond any doubt) that (i) Mifsud is a Western agent and PapaD was entrapped and framed by Brennan et al and (ii) of critical importance, the Russian 'hack' of the DNC server never happened.

    If Barr does this and publishes his findings he will (in my estimation) prove beyond question that the Russia Hoax was a failed Obama/Clinton hit job.

    So, not only did Trump not 'collude' with Russia (as Mewler, remarkably, has established) but Obama and Clinton conspired to falsely and corruptly fabricate the story of Russian interference to defeat their political opponent. In doing so they perverted the awesome power of the American national security, counter-intelligence and law enforcement apparatus to their corrupt ends.

    To me, this goes a long way towards explaining the apparently crazy behavior of the Dems. For example: Brennan's repeated assertions of Trump's 'treason', Rice's CYA email, Schiff's insistence that there is evidence of 'collusion', the insistent Democrat impeachment drumbeat since Trump's victory, Pelosi's incoherent impeachment strategy, the involvement of Lawfare mercenaries in the impeachment strategy, the hail-mary Ukraine allegations...and on and on.

    Its all an attempt to deflect the enormous and historically unprecedented wrong-doing of Obama and Clinton.

    Its a coverup.

    And, as is the case in all coverups, it will be their downfall.

    Which does, admittedly, leave open the question why they would resort to crime to defeat and destroy Trump.

    I will suggest that this story is just beginning to emerge. It is beginning to look like there was a sea of corruption underneath Obama's 'scandal-free' administration...I suspect we will discover Biden's influence peddling in Ukraine and China is merely the tip of the iceberg. Wait until Barr revisits the Clinton Foundation...

    Hillary may or may not have said in the heat of anger, “If I lose, we all go down and that Fascist Fuck will have us swinging from nooses! What the fuck is wrong with you idiots?”

    But she hasn't really denied it either.

    1. Nice big picture. It does explain the particular focus of their desperation.

    2. On the narrow point of Mifsud being a Western agent who helped set up P, I of course don't know what really happened any more than anyone else. But it's worth a mention that Stephen McIntyre of and @climateaudit on twitter is as good a sleuth on these things as they come, IMO. For any who don’t know, McIntyre is the guy many years ago (early 2000s) who, along with economist Ross McKitrick, brilliantly demonstrated beyond doubt that Michael Mann's Hockey Stick temperature reconstruction is unadulterated scientific fraud. He’s also the one most responsible for ferreting out last week the post-facto changes on the whistleblower form. (I watched him work it out in real time on twitter - which was actually more fun that it probably sounds!)

      Anyway, McIntyre’s convinced that P is a serial fabulist and has reservations that Mifsud’s role was necessarily nefarious. He definitely believes P is a big talker and that he made up all the talk of emails and Russians. Time hopefully will tell, and even if he’s right on some or all of this, it certainly doesn’t change anything you’ve said here nor anything meaningful about the spygate case in general. Having followed the guy’s work since before the Climategate days, though, I’ve learned to be cautious in betting against him, so I just thought it was worth mentioning that.

    3. Brad -- A reminder to not get ahead of ourselves is always welcome. And, as Mark may attest, I have always been dubious about PapaD's bona fides. Over time, and after reading his book, I have (had) persuaded myself that he was entrapped. But I must agree that he is a most improbable character and many aspects of his story are very hard to believe. For example, the story of his meeting and marrying his now-wife. But there is also plenty of evidence to believe he was set up by various 'actors', including Mifsud. I believe Mifsud's 'lawyer', Roh, has suggested Mifsud is a Western agent. So...we shall see.

      I did also look at McIntyre's twitter thread and, FWIW, am now following him.

  7. I agree with Mr. Wauck regarding Cassander's comments.

    And regarding Clinton's crude comments in the penultimate paragraph, I can picture that said by her using the Bruno Ganz clip complete with the English subtitles.

    Something along the lines of "Hitler learns Hillary was not elected." LOL.



    In psychology and logic, rationalization or rationalisation (also known as making excuses[1]) is a defense mechanism in which controversial behaviors or feelings are justified and explained in a seemingly rational or logical manner to avoid the true explanation, and are made consciously tolerable—or even admirable and superior—by plausible means.
    My guess is Brennan has been rationalizing for so long that he couldn't find his way back even if he wanted to. I thank God for the Bible that puts the brakes on rationalization if you let it.

  9. "rationalization ... is a defense mechanism in which controversial behaviors ... are justified"


    And our prisons are filled with those who 'rationalized' their actions...

  10. You can tell that the MSM are panicking. The buzzword/phrase of the week is "spreading Trump's unfounded conspiracy theories about the 2016 election", or as per F. Chuck Todd "Fox News conspiracy theories". Today's NY Times ran two pieces on this front (in addition to a couple on the "second whistleblower". The first one ("Looking Afar to Investigate Russia Inquiry") continues the theme that Barr and Durham are on some strange mission to undermine the Mueller effort by ferreting out abuses of power by the intelligence communities. Of course, they claim there is no justification for these efforts, and attribute it all to political motives (the "Barr as lacky" theory). The second piece ("A Deep State or a Rabbit Hole? A Conspiracy Theory's Long and Winding Road") continues the them with a particular focus on Mifsud. Of course the Times finds it ludicrous that anyone could believe Mifsud was used as an asset of U.S. or foreign intelligence. My favorite section ("Why are these theories improbable?") argues with a straight face that if Mifsud were working for the CIA he would have had an obligation to tell the FBI as it investigated Papadopolous. They further state "To believe the conspiracy that Mifsud was working for the CIA is to believe that either the intelligence community withheld from prosecutors that he was one of their agents or that prosecutors conspired to deceive federal courts". also that "it is to believe that an elaborate conspiracy entirely eluded the special counsel's office in its exhaustive investigation...". This line of defense is clearly based on the assumption that most Americans would find it hard to believe that the intelligence community could ever engage in such activities. That assumption is not born out by history, and I don't think it will fly with the majority of non-NY Times readers.

    1. The American public is about to get smacked in the face with incontrovertible evidence that the conspiracies were real and aimed at the heart of our constitutional order--electoral integrity. No amount of attempted preemptive innoculation against the truth will work.

  11. "The American public is about to get smacked in the face with incontrovertible evidence that the conspiracies were real and aimed at the heart of our constitutional order--electoral integrity. No amount of attempted preemptive inoculation against the truth will work."

    I, for one, welcome that smack in the face. In fact, I've been waiting for it for over two years.

    Let's have it, as Ralph Kramden would say, "Right in the kisser."