When the Gatekeeper Becomes the Defendant
After years of wielding institutions as weapons and hiding behind “process,” is now trying to put the justice system itself on a leash. Not to correct an abuse. Not to defend against charges. But to pre-emptively control who is allowed to scrutinize him. That alone tells you everything you need to know.
Ex CIA Director John Brennan has moved to block the Department of Justice from proceeding in a venue that could place his case before . This is happening before any indictment, before any factual findings, before any courtroom test of evidence. It is not a defense; it is an attempt to shape the battlefield before the game starts.
The argument rests on accusations of “judge shopping.” That claim is revealing, because it openly concedes what Brennan’s circle long pretended didn’t matter: that judges matter, outcomes vary, and control of venue can determine exposure. The difference now is simple—the uncertainty no longer favors him.
This is not a principled stand for neutrality. It is a demand for predictability and insulation. Brennan is not objecting to misconduct; he is objecting to risk. He is attempting to convert prosecutorial discretion into something that requires his approval, and to redefine judicial independence as acceptable only when it is comfortable.
Strip away the legal jargon and the move is pure self-preservation. The institutions that once protected him are no longer guaranteed to do so, and instead of letting the process run, he is trying to fence it in. That is not confidence in the rule of law. It is fear of losing control over it.
In the end, the hypocrisy is stark. The man who spent years invoking institutional authority now seeks to disqualify parts of that same system before it can touch him. Not because justice would be wrong—but because it might be unmanaged.
Leave a Reply