Recently John Brennan, Obama’s counter-terrorism czar, former de facto head of the U.S. intelligence community, and then Obama's final CIA director, has been squealing in a panic about the characterization of his operations against candidate Trump as "spying."
On a side note, "spying" is probably the least of Brennan's concerns.
The very definition of treason and sedition, or maybe the worst possible example of treason and sedition, is conspiring with foreign powers to destabilize, delegitimize, and overthrow an American president.
Understanding the relationships and processes of the American intelligence bureaucracy in foreign countries helps to shine light on the likely events that led to the unprecedented use of the intelligence community and law enforcement counter-intelligence operations against an American presidential candidate.
Based on reporting and analysis of the get Trump operation, it's becoming clear that there were extensive operations against the Trump campaign, including in foreign countries, using assets that were likely linked to the CIA, and foreign officials — including intelligence officers.
The CIA director has absolute control over actions of CIA officers, and all American intelligence operations overseas. Through the operations bureaucracy, the director approves all operations in foreign countries. An operation at this level — targeting an American presidential candidate — would require CIA director's approval for every action.
Knowing Brennan, and his level of perfidy (see here, here, here, here) it is very likely that Brennan was closely involved in brainstorming actions, making decisions, and operational planning.
It's important to understand the bureaucratic inner workings involved when the CIA, America's foreign intelligence agency, encounters what looks like, or may be, activities that violate American criminal law. Remember, the CIA does not investigate crimes.
The CIA only carries out foreign intelligence operations and analysis, counterintellignce operations, and foreign covert action.
The CIA must, as soon as possible, report any apparently criminal activities to the American federal law enforcement agency, the FBI.
This is known as a "crimes report."
After making a crimes report to the FBI, the matter is out of the CIA's control.
The CIA then follows the FBI's lead in dealing with the issue.
The FBI may suggest joint operations against the target, if it's overseas. The CIA could use its extensive operational network in foreign countries, its officers, its technical abilities, and its liaison relationships with foreign intelligence entities to pursue the operation. It could also call in other members of the intellgence community to assist (the NSA, or NGA, for example).
Were a CIA director to be a corrupt political operator, the crimes report process could be manipulated to great effect. A crimes report could be generated on the word of any intelligence officer, subject to the DCIA’s approval. The case would then be taken up by federal law enforcement, and the crimes report (and other CIA information) would become part of the law enforcement operation.
The FBI operates inside the USA, and has extensive capabilities — see the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) — at its disposal for use against American citizens in the United States.
Another important consideration is the CIA's relationships with foreign intelligence agencies. A large part of CIA's responsibility is to develop and maintain relationships with foreign intelligence entities.
In some areas, this effort dominates CIA activities. In many places, foreign entities are quite savvy in manipulating CIA through this relationship.
At the same time, the CIA can use these relations to achieve its own goals.
An excellent indicator that such liaison relations were involved in the operation against the Trump campaign was Trump’s decision to deny declassifying documents related to the operation, because " . . . several close allies had called to raise concerns about his decision to order the release of unredacted documents. . . . "
This reason for denying the declassification could appear strange, but understanding the close liaison relations, and the willingness of liaison partners to cooperate with American intel and law enforcment requests, things are a bit clearer.
It appears that some foreign entities are panicking that they are about to be exposed in a political operation against a now-sitting American president.
Back to the stuck pig squealing: Brennan and company's outrage over criticism of their "spying" operations against the Trump campaign and administration. The key to understanding the template for this operation is found in the extensive counterterrorism operations we've seen in the U.S. since 9/11.
The headlines usually read something like: "Agents Foil Bomb Plot by Muslim Man." Once you’re familiar with this operational approach, the spying operation against Trump’s campaign looks familiar.
In an attempt to interdict terrorist attacks before they happen, U.S. counterterorrism operations have perfected a technique that relies on undercover assets enticing likely suspects into terrorist plots.
As a critic says, "They're manufacturing terrorism cases," Michael German, a former undercover agent with the FBI who now researches national-security law at New York University's Brennan Center for Justice, told The New York Times. "These people are five steps away from being a danger to the United States. They target people who are genuinely psychotic."
Regardless of the link to counterterrorism operations, it's clear that this operational technique is now tried and true: Controlled assets ("undercover") begin contact with the target.
They insert topics of interest into the conversation. They claim power, money, or influence to attract the target.
They provide cash, travel, or other incentives that appeal to the target. They slowly bring the target around to breaking the law, or considering breaking the law. Then they spring the trap, pounce, and arrest the target. Then they question him. If nothing else, the target is subject to charges of lying to the federal law enforcement.
This appears to be the exact technique used against Trump's campaign team.
As further details continue to trickle out, the question is what did then CIA Director John Brennan know, and when did he know it?
Someone at CIA approved of the comprehensive electronic surveillance of the Trump campaign. It is difficult to see how Brennan was not involved.
But a Congressional or DOJ probe of U.S. efforts to spy on Trump’s campaign should ferret out the truth.
Likely, he set the operation in motion.
Now he's squealing. Time will tell if the worm will turn.
One can only hope justice will prevail.
Kent Clizbe is a former CIA ops officer, and expert in counter-terrorism and Islamic extremism, credibility assessment, and fraud detection. He is an historian of anti-American espionage operations, and author of "Willing Accomplices: How KGB Covert Influence Ops Created Political Correctness." His website is KentClizbe.com. Read more of his reports — Go Here Now.
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.