Two Very Different Takes on the Same Information

The American Spectator has been developing a report from the UK's Guardian. The information in the stories is substantially the same, but the impression you get about what the story actually is will differ wildly depending on which publication you read. The Guardian report is another "Trump (or at least some people with his campaign) colluded with Russia" story. The Spectator story is not.
...John Brennan was the American progenitor of political espionage aimed at defeating Donald Trump. One side did collude with foreign powers to tip the election — Hillary’s.

Seeking to retain his position as CIA director under Hillary, Brennan teamed up with British spies and Estonian spies to cripple Trump’s candidacy. He used their phony intelligence as a pretext for a multi-agency investigation into Trump, which led the FBI to probe a computer server connected to Trump Tower and gave cover to Susan Rice, among other Hillary supporters, to spy on Trump and his people.

John Brennan’s CIA operated like a branch office of the Hillary campaign, leaking out mentions of this bogus investigation to the press in the hopes of inflicting maximum political damage on Trump. An official in the intelligence community tells TAS that Brennan’s retinue of political radicals didn’t even bother to hide their activism, decorating offices with “Hillary for president cups” and other campaign paraphernalia.

A supporter of the American Communist Party at the height of the Cold War, Brennan brought into the CIA a raft of subversives and gave them plum positions from which to gather and leak political espionage on Trump. He bastardized standards so that these left-wing activists could burrow in and take career positions.
Is it possible that both papers are correct in their take? The claim that Brennan was a "supporter" of CPUSA does at least track to his admission that he voted for the CPUSA candidate in 1976. He was also the CIA director when the Agency hacked the US Senate, which should have been a red line for anyone who respected democratic limits on the powers of spying.


raven said...

How in the hell does a person like that ever get to a position as CIA director? How? BTW, is he really a muslim convert?

Grim said...

Not that I know of; that claim tracks to one guy (former FBI agent and former Marine John Guandolo), but has never been corroborated. I wouldn't worry too much about him converting to Islam anyway, except that it was supposedly (if the story were true) part of him being recruited by the Saudis as an agent. That aspect would be alarming in a CIA director!

However, again, it's a single-source report without any confirmation from anywhere else.

Ymar Sakar said...

The Deep State is far too powerful for a single person like Trum to be King and Savior as Americans expect of him. They will be disappointed, even assuming Trum makes a solid attempt and lives to tell of it.

"In Trum We Trust" should be on some kind of US currency now a days.

Ymar Sakar said...

Commies have been in high US positions since FDR. It is not all that surprisingly. Public education has allowed people to be surprised at it.

Btw, there are black ops programs not even the US President and CIA directors are told about, because they lack the clearance and need to know.