Why Hasn’t John Brennan Resigned?

[finehoe]

I offer you a simple set of facts: under the Bush administration, the CIA set up a program that indisputably contained torture techniques; in due course, the Senate Intelligence Committee investigated the program in order to get some clarity as to its intent, its techniques, its authorization and its results; as the Committee was doing its work, the CIA hacked its computers in order to craft its own defense and suss out what the Committee had discovered. When Senator Feinstein publicly accused the CIA of this grotesque interference in its affairs, and assault on the constitutional separation of powers, the CIA chief, John Brennan said:

As far as the allegations of, you know, CIA hacking into, you know, Senate computers, nothing could be further from the truth. I mean, we wouldn't do that. I mean, that's—that's just beyond the—you know, the scope of reason in terms of what we would do.

At the time I wrote: "Either Brennan or Feinstein isn't telling the truth. " We now know it was Brennan who wasn't telling the truth, as the CIA itself has now acknowledged in its own internal report that it did exactly that – something "beyond the scope of reason". Indeed it is beyond the scope of reason. It was also beyond the scope of reason that the CIA would import the torture and brain-washing techniques of Communist China in order to glean intelligence from captured enemy combatants. And yet they did that as well. But the attempt to obstruct justice by hacking into the Senate's computers adds something else to the original crime. Let's recall what DiFi said back in March:

I have grave concerns that the CIA's search may well have violated the separation of powers principles embodied in the United States Constitution, including the speech and debate clause. It may have undermined the constitutional framework essential to effective congressional oversight of intelligence activities or any other government function. ... The CIA's search may also have violated the Fourth Amendment, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act as well as Executive Order 120003, which prohibits the CIA from conducting domestic searches or surveillance.

This is not a minor matter – it is a hugely important matter in terms of the constitution and the rule of law. We're talking here about crimes and deception. How are we supposed to believe another word that comes out of Brennan's mouth? And how desperate must the CIA have been to cover up its crimes that it took this extraordinary step of spying on the Senate that oversees it?

I submit that either Brennan knew nothing of what was going on and had no grip on his own agency; or he knew full well and was brazenly lying in public. In either case, under his watch, the CIA tried to subvert a critical Congressional report on its own criminal history.

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/07/31/why-hasnt-john-brennan-resigned/

[finehoe]

[Jameson]

finehoe, you've admitted that you're anti-Republican above all else. And this is a glaring example of that. You bash Brennan because he's a Bush appointee. Over 5 years later and you're one of those still on the "blame Bush" kick.

In full disclosure, yes, I believe that Brennan should resign so we agree on that.

Panetta, Brennan and Bush have all admitted that torture (i.e. waterboarding) helped lead to critical information that helped us to bin Laden. But since Obama the narcissist denounced the tactic(s) when he took office and bin Laden was caught on his watch, he doesn't want to give someone he despises so much any credit at all. So he refuses to acknowledge that torture/waterboarding helped to gather some of the intelligence that led to bin Laden. Nope, it was all Obama's doing. He gathered all of the intelligence some other way or something after he took office in 2008. The left wants it both ways. They want to rave about how Obama caught bin Laden and Bush didn't, but they also want to denounce that torture had any part of the intelligence gathering process because their beloved Obama is so against it.

My favorite line might be this:
"This is not a minor matter – it is a hugely important matter in terms of the constitution and the rule of law."

A liberal, an Obama supporter, citing "the constitution and the rule of law" LOL.

How many "adjustments" has Obama made to the Obamacare law without congressional approval? 27.

Mr. "Pen and a Phone" also criticized Bush for executive orders while running for President. My how that has changed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsRfrcit05M

And he also claimed in 2011 that he would not use executive orders on immigration because he has to follow the law of the land. But that no longer holds true as almost daily now he threatens to use executive orders on immigration and has already promised some democrats in Congress that he would do so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfZ3kaKZoIw

This post is merely another "blame Bush / Bush is bad / Republicans are evil" thread. Save the faux outrage over the fact that the CIA hacked the gov't. while at the same time those on the left seem to have no problem at all with the Obama Administration's expanded NSA operations that target innocent Americans while attempting to hide behind the guise (lie) that they're using it in an attempt to thwart terror.

[finehoe]

A liberal, an Obama supporter, citing "the constitution and the rule of law" LOL.

The piece was written by a conservative.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Conservative-Soul-Fundamentalism-Freedom/dp/B002ECEIVO

[Jameson]

A liberal, an Obama supporter, citing "the constitution and the rule of law" LOL.

The piece was written by a conservative.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Conservative-Soul-Fundamentalism-Freedom/dp/B002ECEIVO

Forgive me as I thought they were your views.