Just Released: Brennan Testimony Confirms No Evidence of Trump-Russia Collusion but ‘Abundant Evidence’ of Questionable Clinton, Obama Russian Activities! Then…Again….No One Agrees On What The Truth Really Is!

by Pamela Williams
This is just too good to be true, and the American people needed to hear something positive for a change.  It seems on Wednesday’s  Breithart News Daily, SiriusXM host Raheem Kassam talked with the Center of Security Policy President Frank Gaffney about the testimony of former CIA DIRECTOR JOHN BRENNAN on Tuesday to the House Intelligence Committee about Russian interference in the 2015 election.
We have to carve this in stone…quickly…before they turn it around!
Brennan was asked the question about whether any evidence of actual “collusion” between Trump 2016 campaign  and the Russian government has been uncovered.  I am sure Brennan had a tough time telling the truth here, but he actually did!  He said NO SUCH EVIDENCE HAD BEEN FOUND!
“What I think he’s stating there, and has elsewhere, is if there is reason to suspect that our government is now under undue influence from foreign agents – or a candidate is, or an election may be – that there is a duty to look into it,” he said of Brennan’s testimony.
This is a quite remarkable to revelation from the CIA, especially John Brennan.  So much time and funds has been put into this investigation….not only that, it has been hard to get to the truth.  Have we finally gotten there with this testimony by Brennan.  Will it stick?
Kassam made the following statement:  “One of the things I believe very much needs to be done is rather than chase the will o’ the wisps, let’s get these investigators looking into actual evidence, abundant evidence, in fact, that exists of assorted Democratic officials – including, notably, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, John Podesta, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama – who engaged in activities with the Russians,” he added.
Gaffney said. “Those should absolutely be looked at against the prism of the Russians not being our friends. I didn’t see John Brennan expressing any interest in those sorts of investigations at all, either when he was in office or now, for that matter.”
He advised the Trump administration not to attempt blocking investigations and, instead, “insist that the investigators, both Robert Mueller and the congressional investigators, broaden the focus of their investigations to ensure that we get an actual investigation into the full extent of Russian influence operations, whether they were aimed at this past election or previous elections or simply stealing our technology or otherwise subverting our national interest.”
I am just interested in the here and now.  If John Brennan has finally come clean on the  Russia/Trump hoax, we have a chance of finally stopping it.  Document everything you see on this, because their pattern is to change their words daily.
 
Source:  www.breitbart.com/radio/2017/05/24/gaffney-brennan-testimony-confirms-no-evidence-trump-russia-collusion/
 
Now, here we go again:  this is a short transcript from Fox News:
JILLIAN MELE: President Trump hiring a lawyer to represent him in the federal investigation into his campaign’s alleged ties to Russia. This, despite former CIA Director John Brennan telling lawmakers there’s no hard evidence of the Trump campaign colluding with Russia.
[BEGIN VIDEO]
REP. TREY GOWDY (R-SC): Did evidence exist of collusion, coordination, conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian state actors at the time you learned of 2016 efforts? 
JOHN BRENNAN: I don’t know whether or not such “collusion,” that’s your term, such collusion existed. 
[END VIDEO]
www.mediamatters.org/embed/clips/2017/05/24/53849/fnc-ff-20170524-brennan
 
I am growing very weary of the fact they cannot make up their minds.  Their word means nothing and changes like the daily weather.  Below is more dialogue that is just a jumbled up information we cannot trust.  President Trump did hire a lawyer today, and he is wise to do this.
 
CHRIS CUOMO: To those who do not want to believe there’s any collusion, they say ‘John Brennan just said it, there is no proof, they’ve been investigating this forever, there’s leaks all over the place. This is a hoax, the president is right.’ Your response?
[…]
PHILIP MUDD: Chris, let’s watch this over the next day or two because Sean Spicer and the White House have consistently misportrayed what intelligence officials are saying. Let me give you a clear distinction between intelligence and investigations. The intel guys are going to get the intelligence. That is, for example, intercepts of Russian communications, showing, at most, one half of the story, and more than likely significantly less than one half. They do not have visibility that is intel guys like the DNI, the director of national intelligence, and the CIA director, into the significant part of the investigation that’s conducted by the FBI. Interviews of American citizens. Looks into their travel, into their financial records. So of course the intel guys are going to say, “I saw some smoke when Russian people talked about their interactions with the Americans.” But there’s no way you can look at one half of the conversation and draw a conclusion about collusion. 
DOES THE ABOVE MAKE SENSE TO YOU?
[…]
ALISYN CAMEROTA (CO-HOST): Did collusion exist? That’s the burning question that everybody wants answered. And then Brennan says, “Well, I know of contacts and communication.”
MUDD: Well [Rep.] Trey Gowdy [(R-SC)] ought to have his ass kicked. He knows the difference between intelligence and evidence. Let me tell you something, Alisyn. If you’re an American citizen, and the National Security Agency collects intelligence that is intercepts of Russians who report what you said, do you think it’s fair to go to a court and say that’s evidence of something that you did wrong? That’s why the FBI’s going to take a year or more to investigate this because the American citizens involved in this have a right to have evidence presented in a court beyond a conversation that a Russian official reports. In my world, this distinction is black and white. It is a hard line. I know it’s frustrating for the American people, but I hope they don’t want evidence to be perceived as something that a Russian official says, and that’s it, you can be convicted on that.
Source:  www.mediamatters.org/video/2017/05/24/Foxs-alternate-universe-John-Brennan-hearing-edition/216630
 
I am not getting this, so I am going to look further.  Lets look at this from another angle.  Ex-CIA Mike Morell said the Obama did nothing to deter Russian/ US collusion.
Brennan revealed for the first time that he was so concerned about Russia’s attempts to meddle in the election that he contacted Alexander Bortnikov, Russia’s FSB chief, on Aug. 4 to warn him against continuing its active measures against the U.S.
President Obama is said to have warned Russian president Vladimir Putin the following month against interfering in the election. But the Kremlin appears to have not been deterred.
What struck me…is that the U.S. government was concerned enough last summer about Russian interference in the election that they had the CIA director make contact with his Russian counterpart and tell them to stop,” Morell said Wednesday.
“So my question is what did the Obama administration do after that, after they learned that the warning had fallen on deaf ears,” said Morell.
“Well it appears they did nothing,” host Norah O’Donnell chimed in.
“It appears they did nothing,” Morell agreed.
WATCH:

Ok…lets look further.  Lets look at how Diane Feinstein sees it:
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.), who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said she had seen no evidence of collusion between President Donald Trump’s associates and Russia during the 2016 campaign.
CNN host Wolf Blitzer recalled Feinstein previously saying she hadn’t seen any evidence of collusion and asked her on Thursday: “Has anything changed since we spoke last?”
“No it hasn’t,” Feinstein responded on Blitzer’s show “Situation Room.”
Feinstein touted newly-named special counsel Robert Mueller as “sophisticated.” Blitzer responded by continuing to press her on whether she saw any evidence of collusion.

 
In conclusion, your guess is as good as mine.  Whoever would think the truth could be that hard to decipher, and it is not even in a foreign language?  However, these officials are so used to lying, they would not know the truth from a hole in the ground.
 

1,282 views