Brennen says: “I didn’t mean he committed treason...”

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I just watched this vid... In this instance, it seemed like a “he said, he said” situation... no?
The interviewed party (supposedly) believes “their truth,” even though the host presents another side’s version as “the truth,” which was then defended against by what amounts to, “what you’re presenting is not the actual truth, but what we are is,” or maybe “it all depends on perspective...” What’s the jab supposed to be?

So basically he said:

The truth isn’t the truth

Isn’t their a post about people being mad at this and other people defending that statement. I bet this post has most of those people reversed

I understand not watching disney’s Star Wars but if any one say the original trilogy, they should know what obi-wan said

So what I told you was true, from a certain point of view. you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.

a reply to: norhoc

So if all of Obama's Intel agencies and Justice Department "KNEW" Trump was colluding with Russia why did they do nothing to stop it when they were still in power?

4D chess obviously, they were allowing Trump to incriminate himself.

Oh wait, that only works for Trump, only Trump can play 4D chess. Nevermind, that cop-out would never work.

a reply to: Deetermined


Sorry, your link doesn't prove anything.

Indeed, a former high-level CIA analyst (who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials) says that falsified documents which were meant to show that Iraq’s Saddam Hussein regime had been trying to procure yellowcake uranium from Niger can be traced back to Dick Cheney

And

Bush administration had information from a top Iraqi intelligence official “that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq – intelligence they received in plenty of time to stop an invasion.”

washingtonsblog.com...

a reply to: network dude


Citing Rudy Giuliani and what he said today, is NOT off topic in a discussion about Trump's collusion in the Russia "thing". Trump said he revoked Brenan's security clearance because of the Russia investigation. Rudy Giuliani says "truth isn't truth". pretending he means "he said/he said, when we already heard him claim that he's out to change public opinion. And, we have Trump telling us what we hear and see are not real.

What's fair for the goose (Trump and Guiliani) is fair for the gander (Brenan).

So, you got Brenan doubling down on his claims too, that Trump's behavior is treasonous. Rudy says truth isn't truth. Trumps says don't believe your own eyes and ears.

a reply to: japhrimu

I just watched this vid... In this instance, it seemed like a “he said, he said” situation... no?

If you really believe that Mueller is poised to indict Trump on perjury charges over a he said/he said thing, with no other evidence, I've got a bridge in Italy to sell ya!

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Sorry, your link doesn't prove anything.

Sorry, your link to some blog post doesn't prove anything either.

a reply to: japhrimu

Brennan has nothing, and the liar knows it.

If the CIA or any other agency had anything substantive, it would long ago have been passed along to the FBI and Mueller.

Furthermore, before Trump was even sworn in, Mike Rodgers, NSA Chief, against Obama orders, spilled on the beans To Trump on the treasonous attempt by Obama, Comey, Brennan and Hillary to overthrow the results of the 2016 elections.

a reply to: Deetermined


Don't attack the source, attack the substance of the info provided. Your source provided no information to prove your assertion that that person was responsible for the yellow cake and WMD intel. My source lays it all out, timeline, memos, etc. It was the Bush Administration, not the INTEL community. This is history,

Guy implies heavily that the president was a traitor and then acts surprised when the president revokes his security clearance.
If he is so radically against the president why should I believe he wouldnt be a risk to foreign influence if it menat a chance to strike back at the president?

The fact he is walking back his statement, and that even Clapper has said he went to far is pretty telling to me and possibly an indicator that something is moving behind the scenes.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: neo96


Neo, it wasn't the INTEL community that lied to the American people, or to the Bush Adminstration It was the Bush Administration that leid to the American People.

The INTEL community tried to speak out. Remember Valerie Plame?

We got our intel from the Brits. Hmmmmm.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Deetermined


Don't attack the source, attack the substance of the info provided. Your source provided no information to prove your assertion that that person was responsible for the yellow cake and WMD intel. My source lays it all out, timeline, memos, etc. It was the Bush Administration, not the INTEL community. This is history,

Then don't ever attack Zerohedge.

Oh wait, you have.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Then don't ever attack Zerohedge.

Oh wait, you have.

Uh, no I haven't.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Yes, that double-talking James Clapper.

a reply to: drewlander


LOL

Okay. Just checking.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

treasonous
ADJECTIVE
1Involving or guilty of the crime of betraying one's country.

So what else could he have meant?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04


What else? How about the 2nd part of that definition you looked up?

1.1 Involving or guilty of the betrayal of someone or something.

‘he never paid for his treasonous act against Valerie’
‘dropping out of school was considered downright treasonous’
‘it seems almost treasonous to criticize the film’

As in.....When Trump acquiesced to Putin's strong claim that he didn't interfere in the 2016 US election, contrary to the US INTEL community's assertion that they have hard proof that he did, is nothing short of treasonous.

en.oxforddictionaries.com...

originally posted by: japhrimu
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I just watched this vid... In this instance, it seemed like a “he said, he said” situation... no?
The interviewed party (supposedly) believes “their truth,” even though the host presents another side’s version as “the truth,” which was then defended against by what amounts to, “what you’re presenting is not the actual truth, but what we are is,” or maybe “it all depends on perspective...” What’s the jab supposed to be?

RG’s tweet today: mobile.twitter.com...

I was close.