Several people have inquired about the Washington DC subpoenas for former CIA Director John Brennan being withdrawn, and what does that mean. I intentionally did not write about it at the time because I wanted to look closely at the fact pattern.
The DOJ is still planning to send requests for voluntary interviews and grand jury testimony according to media reports.
From my perspective, this is a good sign. Potentially a very good sign.
The issues around the CIA targeting President Trump are extensive, attached to numerous individuals and entities, and generally complex. Normally, an investigation of this scope would begin with questions to the outer perimeter individuals who were carrying out the instructions of those above them.
CIA Director, John Brennan and CIA Analyst, Eric Ciaramella
It is from those types of lower-level interviews that material is gathered for use in examining the truthfulness of those who organized and directed the operations. In the example of John Brennan’s false statements to congress surrounding the ICA (Intelligence Community Assessment), or the inclusion of the Steele Dossier in the analytical material, there are key people within the Directorate of Analysis, National Security Agency and National Intelligence Council who can give first-hand statements about Brennan’s instructions.
Those types of interviews are just as important as questioning John Brennan himself, and for obvious reasons those interviews should come first.
♦ Here is where it becomes important to remember a key thing that happened between the time the investigation of Brennan began and the arrival of investigative Asst to the AG, Joe DiGenova.
Do you remember the recent criminal referral by DNI Tulsi Gabbard for former CIA Analyst Eric Ciaramella?






