John Solomon

OK, but what about the underlying question?

that the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, and the current CIA Director, John Ratcliffe, said that they had significant evidence, which they referred to the Justice Department, showing that John Brennan lied in 2023 when he told Congress he wasn't trying to get

the dirty, discredited Steele dossier into the intelligence community assessment that the Obama administration released just before Donald Trump became president.

That intelligence assessment, which was in fact based on the Steele dossier much more heavily than was admitted to at the time, claimed that Vladimir Putin had tried to help President Trump win the election.

In fact, the career people in the CIA and the other intelligence agencies didn't believe that.

They actually believed that Vladimir Putin had stopped his

active measures in October 2023 and didn't choose a candidate that he wanted to win.

But the Obama administration wanted that outcome.

And so John Brennan testified, I didn't push to have that in, then have that Steele dossier put in to get that conclusion.

In fact, John Brennan's own emails and emails of his staff suggest he did in fact.

And so that's the evidence.

That's not really addressed in the letter by these lawyers.

They are trying to fight the process

not the actual merits of the allegation.

Yeah, so I think at the end of the day, this case may be just a very simple case, which is he testified X, the documents show Y. We don't need to waste time.

Let's bring the first charge here, see if maybe we can get a deal with John Brennan, have him roll on other people that might be of interest to us, or begin this prosecution and put others on notice that they might want to make a deal before they go to John Brennan train express.

So prosecutors often have multiple strategies.

It isn't just one person that they're looking at.

They may be looking at other people.

We know about 30 or 40 grand jury subpoenas came out of this Miami district recently.