'I don't think he fully understands': Former CIA chief doubts Trump knows seriousness of document scandal
Former CIA director John Brennan addressed the national security implications of Donald Trump's documents scandal Thursday – particularly after the Washington Post's reporting that the former president had his staff move the files the day before the FBI searched his Mar-a-Lago home.
Sue Gordon, the former deputy director of National Intelligence, told MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace in Aug. 2022, that Trump has an agenda, in her experience with him.
"And he will use whatever is at his disposal to advance that," she said. "The problem we have here is that, depending on what agenda issues forth, he has had at his disposal, for a long period of time, information that if he used that information to advance an agenda item, it could have devastating consequences to national security.
"But I can't think of a simpler way to say why I think that this moment is so difficult. That's because there is no justification and knowing who he is, and that he doesn't fully understand, but he may not decide to protect if he wanted to do something different."
Brennan agreed, saying that the stakes are extremely high in this case. The concern that the panel discussed is the "why" factor in the Trump document scandal. One panelist said that at the same time, Trump's lawyer, Boris Epshteyn, tried to stop Tim Parlatore from checking for documents at Trump's Bedminster golf course – months before Trump was set to hold the first LIV golf tournament there.
"It is quite clear that Donald Trump's retention of these documents was quite purposeful," Brennan said. "And with an aim that is still unknown. How he was going to leverage the information in those documents that contain some of the most sensitive secrets of the U.S. intelligence and government. What would he do? What has he done already?
"The potential compromise of sources and methods, if you look at the classification markings, the code words on those documents. Some of the most sensitive — extremely sensitive – that we have. There are the collections systems, other things."
One thing about Trump, he continued, is that he doesn't care about the implications and the consequences of his actions.
"I don't think he fully understands. He was never really a student of the intelligence profession itself," Brennan continued.
"So, therefore, who knows what he might have done. And I do hope, in addition to holding him accountable for the unlawful retention of these documents, that we really do get to the bottom of what he planned to do, what he might have already done, and go who might have had access to these documents that could have seriously compromised national security."
Watch:'We better look': Counter-intel expert says Jack Smith may have new info on Trump
Frank Figliuzzi, former FBI assistant director for counter-intelligence, highlighted the recent report that special counsel Jack Smith is looking into financial information for Donald Trump's international businesses in seven countries, and said it's possible Smith has additional info about information sharing.
Speaking to MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace on Tuesday, Figliuzzi explained that the statements from Trump in the CNN town hall were more admissions, in a line of confessions, that he took the documents he should not have.
"But that crucial period after that sobering subpoena is slapped on you is that I have a choice," explained Figliuzzi. "I'll either comply with the law, or I'm not. And everything he's done after that has involved non-compliance with the law, and, in fact, thumbing his nose at the law. And as recently as the CNN town hall meeting, he actually said, 'I took those documents. I had every right to. And if I did show them to somebody, and I can't remember if I did or not, I had every right to.' This is defiance that goes towards criminal intention. It is there. And, by the way, if the reports are accurate, this case is all but done."
Figliuzzi's reference was to the Wall Street Journal reporting that Smith is finishing up his probe and all interviews have been done.
Wallace walked through the timeline of how much Trump handed over and when. She pointed to the New York Times reporting of the foreign Trump businesses and recalled that it was part of the documents case at the DOJ.
"Do we assume that people we maybe haven't heard about, going in to talk to Jack Smith and his investigators, are part of the fabric of this part of the probe — foreign business dealings and Trump classified documents?" she asked.
He explained the depth of the collection of intelligence that would surround the Trump documents case.
"We know Trump doesn't use email, but he is a prolific user of the phones, right?" explained Figliuzzi. "And so, guaranteed there have been subpoenas for phone carriers for his phone records throughout this period and watching his response to a visit from the head of the National Security Secretary, DOJ, then here come FBI agents, and there's a subpoena. And you're watching this, they call it 'tickling the wire.' See what responses — who is he calling? Who's calling each other?"
He said that it isn't about the protected privilege content of lawyers' conversations, but it outlines who else he's speaking with.
"So, you can develop sources," Figliuzzi continued. "So, when there is great confidence that they have the goods on him, it is because they are targeting people who know for a fact what is going on. Now, let's fast forward and tie that into this subpoena for whether or not the Trump Organization was doing any business with one or more, or seven nations. There is an interesting piece in the Washington Post that actually puts a post on it. And it is last month. If that is true, that is intriguing because it may imply that this is a pro forma routine thing. Let's make sure there's no surprises because the defense will say, 'Look, you have no evidence that committed espionage, right? That he actually disseminated national security information to a foreign country?' Well, we better look."
The alternative is that one could be reading the story and think that some intelligence may have recently "maybe from those phone calls, maybe from those from sources, where we think, no, we better look at Saudi, or China, or Turkey. I don't know. But it would go toward motive," he closed. "And it would be explosive if he would have actually shown documents, and what if those documents involved those very countries that are on the list? It's even more concerning. And now you're looking at maybe real-life espionage."
Watch:
