Updated,
10.24.19:
Bongino has more on this today. It looks like Brennan was keeping the FBI and Clapper out of the loop, and that could have been the reason for this:
Bongino isn't getting rose colored glasses on Comey and Clapper. They should have known better. It looks like Comey and Clapper have cover stories and Brennan is out on a limb.
10.23.19:
3:00 pm:
How Brennan could be in trouble. It is how he handled the so-called Steele Dossier. Bongino says Brennan's lying. The FBI wanted to wire PappaD in his talks with Mifsud. Why would they do that? Bongino speculates that the FBI didn't know that the CIA was engaging Mifsud in a rogue operation. Otherwise, why would they want to wire PappaD to record their own guy?
7:30 am:
I got lazy last night and didn't properly mention that Bertrand got something else wrong, and it is big.
She seems to be perpetuating the notion that Mifsud is a Russian agent, which is almost certainly false.
That is two keystones of the Russian collusion hoax. The third one is the so-called Steele dossier, which is what may be the thing that gets Brennan into legal trouble.
It is not a vendetta, nor a conspiracy theory. Not a conspiracy theory on the Trump side of the story, that is.
10.22.19:
When you are using somebody as a source for information, it may be useful sometimes to check out what they are saying, so as to determine if their information is accurate.
It makes sense to do that, I would think.
That could be especially true during a time of great controversies, such as the ones that exist today.
One thing about Bertrand. She makes light of the Crowdstrike finding of a hack into the DNC servers with respect to the emails. Those emails are the heart of the controversy involving alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. It so happens that I have looked at this and there is definitely a problem with how the FBI handled that. They never looked at the DNC servers. The FBI never checked out the Crowdstrike story. All we have on that claim then is Crowdstrike's claim and the DNC's word on it. This doesn't pass muster for an investigation, in my opinion. But Bertrand seems to be okay with it.
There are other things that lead me to believe she has a political ax to grind. She claims in this Politico article that Trump is conducting a
vendetta against Brennan because of Brennan's rhetoric against him. That is probably a prejudicial statement there. A lot of the article falls into that pattern. This would include the use of Crowdstrike's claims of Russian hacking of the DNC. If you are going to really investigate a thing, you have to look at all of the facts, especially those that are not convenient to your preconceived notions. If the hack wasn't a hack, there are big problems with the Russian collusion allegations.
But this is only the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. If you are only going to consider those things that fit your preferred story, then how can you be taken as anything but a propagandist? You are pushing "a" story, not "the" story.
It is hard to tell based upon one article such as this, but her bad reputation amongst the Trump supporters appears to have been earned.
