By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Former CIA Director John Brennan has filed a lawsuit demanding the preservation of government records related to investigations he contends are politically motivated and targeting him. The suit argues these records are crucial for his defense against potential charges, alleging that President Trump’s public statements and directives to the Justice Department demonstrate a pattern of vindictive prosecution. Brennan’s legal team asserts there is a significant risk of these records being lost or deleted, necessitating a court order to ensure their availability for scrutiny.
Read the original article here
It’s a decidedly smart move, really. When you think about it, who *really* knows what kind of crucial information might have already vanished into thin air at this point? The urgency to get this court order in place, to preserve any remaining records from various investigations, makes a lot of sense, especially before anything else could potentially be… *disappeared*. It suggests a deep understanding of the landscape and the individuals involved, leading to the question: why wasn’t this standard procedure all along? After all, what is the fundamental purpose of records if not to serve as evidence and a historical account?
There’s a prevailing sentiment that even with a court order, the outcome might not be what’s intended. A nagging feeling persists that records will inevitably be missing, incomplete, or selectively omitted, regardless of what a judge dictates. It’s almost as if the concept of “showing your work” – a basic tenet in many disciplines – is viewed as an alien notion in certain circles. The fear is that crucial evidence might be deliberately flushed down a metaphorical toilet, or worse, outright stolen. It feels like this action might be a little too late in the game.
The first term was reportedly a period of intense activity, focused on things like the alleged disappearance of Russian benefactors, claims of voter fraud, and the conspicuous scrubbing of income tax returns. The second term, according to this perspective, has been equally busy, dedicated to erasing evidence of other alleged transgressions. It raises a broader point about the very nature of record-keeping and the potential for its deliberate dismantling.
The underlying concern is whether there are even any substantial records left to preserve at this juncture. It’s suggested that the criminality of certain actions wouldn’t necessarily deter individuals from destroying evidence. However, the idea is that imposing strict legal requirements, even if late, could create a more unambiguous situation when those involved are eventually held accountable for the numerous alleged offenses. The irony of a former CIA director spearheading such a call for transparency is noted, with some observing it could provide material for a compelling new television series.
The scope of what might be considered for preservation is also a point of discussion. Questions arise about whether these requests would extend to past complaints, such as those related to sexual assault that were reportedly dismissed, or even to investigations into torture programs that were once overseen. It’s framed as a broad inquiry, seeking to understand the potential reach of such a preservation order.
There’s a strong conviction that any appointees brought in by former administrations to lead various agencies have likely already made concerted efforts to destroy both physical and electronic files that could implicate them in alleged crimes and corruption. This belief underscores a deep-seated skepticism about the integrity of the remaining evidence.
The sheer scale of alleged document destruction is a significant concern. Specific examples are cited, like the purportedly hidden or destroyed Epstein files, and the vanishing video and audio recordings, even in cases that have been under intense public scrutiny. This leads to speculation about what other potentially incriminating information might be deliberately concealed or annihilated to cover up further wrongdoing. The notion of a president allegedly profiting from a massive cryptocurrency scheme, described as one of history’s most blatant money laundering operations, further fuels these concerns.
The practical methods of destruction are also imagined, from simply dropping digital files into a recycle bin and considering the matter closed, to the more tangible act of flushing incriminating paperwork. The idea of deliberately redacting electronic records through subtle means, like font choices, which can be undone, is also mentioned as a past tactic. The concern is that any delay in a court order could be used as an opportunity to shred and delete further, followed by feigned ignorance.
The possibility of physically consuming documents is also raised, referencing a reported incident. The dramatic wiping of Secret Service phones following a significant event, attributed to an “update,” is presented as another example of how evidence might be compromised. This incident is linked to allegations of a conspiracy surrounding the mishoanding of confidential and top-secret documents after an election loss, with claims of attempts to hide them even from legal counsel and efforts to destroy security footage.
The response to such alleged actions, particularly from a subsequent administration, is also a subject of debate. There are claims that no accountability was pursued for individuals within the Secret Service, even by potentially reassigning them. This is contrasted with the idea that when presidents historically sought resignations to make way for new appointments, those requests were generally honored. However, it’s argued that under a different administration, many nominees were blocked by the opposing party, leading to hundreds of unconfirmed appointments.
The issue of appointees refusing to resign is also highlighted, with an example of a Postmaster General who reportedly ignored a resignation request and continued to pursue policies seen as detrimental to the postal service. This is presented as a separate issue from blocked nominees. The focus then returns to the Secret Service, suggesting that many individuals involved in or covering up alleged events could have been dismissed, yet this action was not taken, with the administration opting to “dilute the rot” rather than remove it.
The principle of maintaining the independence of federal watchdogs and law enforcement is invoked, suggesting that executive branches historically avoid conflicts of interest and do not micromanage investigations. This is contrasted with allegations of a former administration weaponizing various agencies to target political opponents. The conclusion is that rather than taking a “high road,” the Department of Justice should have been ordered to investigate and criminally prosecute those involved in alleged cover-ups.