To quote an oft-used phrase in Washington, DC … “No one is above the law.”
Despite compelling evidence suggesting that John Brennan, former CIA Director, may have committed perjury by providing false testimony under oath to Congress about the Steele Dossier and the CIA’s spying on Senate staffers, both the media and the Biden Administration have notably ignored this information. Rather than delving into these serious allegations, which could have significant implications for national security and the integrity of government oversight, there has been a conspicuous refusal to even initiate an investigation or to report on these issues with the scrutiny they demand. This joint silence raises questions about accountability, transparency, and the extent to which political affiliations influence the pursuit of truth in matters of national importance.
Background:
John Brennan, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), has been accused of providing false testimony to Congress concerning two significant issues: his knowledge of the Steele Dossier and the CIA’s spying activities on Senate staffers. Here is the legal argument for pursuing perjury charges based on these accusations:
1. Legal Framework for Perjury:
18 U.S.C. § 1621: Defines perjury as willfully and knowingly making a false statement under oath or affirmation in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States. This statute extends to Congressional hearings where witnesses are sworn in before testifying.
Elements of Perjury:
• The statement must be material to the matter under inquiry.
• The statement must be false.
• The witness must have known the statement was false at the time it was made.
• The statement must have been made under oath.
2. Case for Perjury Concerning the Steele Dossier:
False Testimony: In May 2017, Brennan testified before the House Intelligence Committee. He claimed he did not know who commissioned the Steele Dossier and denied its involvement in the Intelligence Community Assessment regarding Russian interference. However, reports from outlets like Law & Crime and RealClearInvestigations suggest Brennan was aware of the dossier and had discussed it with various parties within and outside the government.
Materiality: Knowledge about the dossier’s origin and its use in intelligence assessments was central to the committee’s investigation into Russian election interference and potential political bias in intelligence operations.
Falsity and Knowledge: Documents and testimonies from other officials indicate Brennan was briefed on the dossier, contradicting his sworn statements. The discrepancy between his testimony and these reports suggests he knowingly provided false information.
3. Case for Perjury Regarding Spying on Senate Staffers:
False Denial of Spying: In March 2014, Brennan denied allegations that the CIA was spying on Senate Intelligence Committee staff working on the CIA torture report. However, an internal CIA investigation later confirmed that CIA employees had indeed improperly accessed a computer network used by Senate staff.
Materiality: The CIA’s actions were directly relevant to the Senate’s oversight role and the constitutional separation of powers, making Brennan’s statements crucial to the Committee’s work.
Falsity and Knowledge: The CIA Inspector General’s report found that not only had the spying occurred, but Brennan was briefed on these activities. His subsequent apology to Senate leaders after the report’s release indicates he was or should have been aware of the actions at the time of his testimony.
4. Legal Precedents and Considerations:
Historical Prosecutions: There have been instances where high-ranking officials faced perjury charges, such as Scooter Libby, who was convicted for perjury related to statements made during the investigation of the leak of a CIA operative’s identity.
Congressional Authority: Congress has the power to investigate and can refer matters to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution. The Senate and House Intelligence Committees have previously recommended legal actions against officials for misleading Congress.
5. Challenges and Defenses:
Proving Intent: The prosecution would need to demonstrate Brennan knew his statements were false at the time of testimony, which might be challenging without direct evidence of his knowledge.
Defensive Arguments: Brennan could argue he was misinformed or lacked knowledge at the time of his statements, although this would be weakened by evidence of briefings he received.
Based on the public record, there is substantial evidence suggesting John Brennan provided false testimony under oath to Congress on matters pertinent to their oversight responsibilities. Given the legal definitions of perjury, the material nature of the statements, and the potential for Brennan to have known these statements were false, there is a compelling case for bringing charges. However, any prosecution would require thorough investigation, possibly involving further testimonies, document reviews, and potentially declassified materials to conclusively establish intent and knowledge.
This case would serve not only to address Brennan’s actions but also to reinforce the principle that no one, not even high-ranking officials, is above providing truthful testimony to Congress.
Initiating and Proceeding with the Prosecution of John Brennan for Perjury Under the New Justice Department:
1. Preliminary Investigation:
Referral from Congress: The process could start with a formal referral from Congress, where members of the House or Senate Intelligence Committees could document discrepancies in Brennan’s testimony and formally request the DOJ to investigate for perjury.
Internal DOJ Review: The Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General or a designated special counsel could begin by reviewing existing public records, testimonies, and documents related to Brennan’s statements on the Steele Dossier and the CIA’s actions against Senate staff.
2. Opening a Formal Inquiry:
Appointment of Special Counsel: Given the political sensitivity and the high profile of the case, the Attorney General might appoint a special counsel to ensure impartiality. This person would have the authority to conduct an independent investigation.
Subpoena Power: The special counsel could subpoena documents, such as CIA internal communications, emails, and memos from the time of Brennan’s tenure, focusing on anything related to the Steele Dossier and the Senate spying issue.
3. Collection of Evidence:
Interviews and Depositions: Key witnesses, including former CIA and intelligence community members, congressional staff, and possibly Brennan himself, would be interviewed. These interviews would aim to establish Brennan’s knowledge, intent, and the truthfulness of his statements.
Document Analysis: Forensic analysis of documents could be used to ascertain the veracity of Brennan’s claims, particularly regarding what he knew about the dossier and the unauthorized access to Senate computers.
4. Legal Analysis:
Determining Materiality and Falsity: Legal teams would need to confirm that Brennan’s statements were material to the Congressional inquiries and demonstrably false. This would involve detailed legal arguments based on the transcripts of his testimony.
Intent: Establishing that Brennan knew his statements were false when he made them would be crucial. This could involve looking at contemporaneous communications, his interactions with other officials, and any benefits he might have derived from misleading Congress.
5. Decision to Prosecute:
Grand Jury: If the evidence supports a case, the special counsel would present it to a grand jury to decide if there’s probable cause to believe a crime was committed. If the grand jury returns an indictment, charges would be filed.
Charges: The specific charges would likely include perjury under 18 U.S.C. § 1621 or § 1623, depending on whether the false statements were made in written form or during sworn testimony.
6. Prosecution Process:
Arraignment: Brennan would be formally charged, made aware of the charges, and asked to enter a plea.
Discovery: Both sides would engage in discovery, exchanging evidence, where the prosecution would share all relevant information with the defense.
Pre-Trial Motions: Motions might be filed to suppress evidence, dismiss charges, or other procedural issues, with hearings to resolve these matters.
Trial: If the case goes to trial, it would be before a federal court. The prosecution would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Brennan committed perjury.
7. Potential Outcomes:
Conviction: If found guilty, Brennan could face penalties including fines, imprisonment, or both, as per the sentencing guidelines for perjury.
Acquittal or Dismissal: If the evidence does not meet the burden of proof, or if there are legal grounds for dismissal, Brennan could be acquitted or the charges could be dropped.
8. Post-Trial Considerations:
Appeals: Given the high-profile nature, an appeal would likely follow any conviction, potentially going to higher courts, including the Supreme Court.
Public and Political Impact: The outcome would have significant implications for public trust in government officials and could influence policy on oversight and accountability.
Throughout this process, the new Justice Department would need to navigate the political implications, ensure transparency, and uphold the integrity of the legal process. However, they must also be mindful of the political principle often cited by liberals, encapsulated in the phrase “The process is the punishment.” This suggests that even if Brennan were to be acquitted or charges dismissed, the lengthy and public nature of the legal proceedings could serve as a form of punishment in itself, potentially impacting his reputation and influence. Managing public perception while prosecuting a former high-ranking official would thus require careful consideration to maintain the legitimacy and fairness of the judicial process.