Talk:John O. Brennan

Recent edits

Recent edits by Alainlambert appear to be undue emphasis on a broad investigation into 2016 by a US attorney, and are worded to imply that Brennan is being specifically investigated. This is not appropriate in a BLP, unless more specific charges are being made, and the net effect is a set of vague aspersions that breach BLP. Acroterion (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I concur. The use of the word "criminal" in the section header is especially telling, and a clear violation of BLP policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Dear Acroterion, It is against Wikipedia rules for you to ascribe motives to my edits. It is extremely offensive to me and it is an attack on my honesty, integrity and good faith to distort my edits to attack me personally. I kindly accept your apology ahead of your apology. Wikipedia is a serious undertaking with a serious need for credibility. We all need to focus on that common goal, not personal goals. Agreed? Best regards. Alainlambert (talk) 05:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Dear Cullen, so we need to call things differently than reality? For what purpose? Point of View? Point of View is a clear violation of Wikipedia rules. So yes, let's discuss and start here: (i) were any of my sources not Reliable Sources?, (ii) did I inaccurately quote the sources, (iii) were my edit fully supported by Reliable Sources, and (iv) are you ready to take the exact same stance and go edit the Rudy Giuliani page for the exact same reason you are taking here, and (v) if not, why not? Best regards, Alain Alainlambert (talk) 06:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

John Brennan was not the 5th CIA directory

the info under his photo states Brennan was the 5th CIA directory that is not correct old man george bush was the 11th cia director brennan was after that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.240.20.196 (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Bush 41 was the 11th Director of Central Intelligence. Brennan was the 5th Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. It is confusing. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Hunter Biden Laptop/Email declared Disinformation

Hat thread from indeffed user The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Certainly one of the central names on

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-russian-disinfo-430276

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-579f9b330000

March 2022, this data point is historically relevant.. The Hunter Biden Foreign dealings article is in flux as the investigation, the retired intelligence officials is not one that is subject to change but it not listed in his bio. The fact that this former CIA official signed onto a campaign ask is relevant to post CIA history. Linking that in an elegant way is requested.

Loopbackdude (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay. I think that can be done. Would you like to propose text to be added to see if we can agree on wording? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Loopbackdude, just like at Talk:Steele dossier, your choice of tortured language is confusing. What do you mean? It's as if there are missing words, incorrect grammar and punctuation, and/or assumptions we can read your mind going on. Is English not your first language? That could explain it. That's okay, but we need to understand you before proceeding. -- Valjean (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Brennan signed a now discreated document that was immediately used a press weapon, ascribing a laptop unknown to him as certainly of Russian disinformation despite the history of presidents son leaving a trail of unaccounted for possessions. This is just a sample of John Brennan being a political figure and not a fountain of intelligence information.

In the role of CIA administrator he could have been provided signals intelligence across multiple three letter agencies to back that up and until January 20, 2017. If information before January 20, 2017 the biden admin would have leaked it to take pressure off ukraine questions.

By the biographies of former CIA officials signals intelligence is not shared with former CIA officers unlike the working of national security analyst briefings given to current and former government officials. But the CIA has unable to provide that information in past year and the laptop information is widely accepted as reliable, the Bidens trade on brandons...err joes name.

Valjean, We can be sure the Laptop plays no role in the current investigations of Hunter Biden as it was "widely discredited". What the story lacks is anyone claiming any one item in the "dossier" of emails is that there has been addition, omission, editing changing any of the charitersations of the emails release. Oh anyone know why this sounds so familiar?

We can discuss why the NYTimes and MSNBC repeatedly falls into reporting exactly what political biased figureheads tell them to report in another discussion. Loopbackdude (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

This comment shows some poor POV on your part. ascribing a laptop unknown to him as certainly of Russian disinformation: not true. The direct quotes from the Natasha Bertrand article from the letter is that it has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation, and deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case. Suspicions, not certainty. I have no idea what you're trying to get at about at In the role of CIA administrator, which ended over three years before the laptop was produced. And even joking uttering that Let's Go Brandon malarkey is unbecoming and not going to lead to collaboration so I don't know why you did it. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2023

Please add a comma after "Kyle" in the personal life section. Colemal (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Instead of doing that, I have removed the names of all three children as they are all non-notable. For such a notable and hated man (by the fringes), their privacy is important. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2023

Hunter Biden email controversy was in October 2020, not October 2000. Johndoe11232316 (talk) 07:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Typo fixed. (bojo)(they/them)(talk) 07:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 9 July 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 06:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

---

John Brennan (CIA officer) → John O. Brennan – Non-parenthetical name that is used by Brennan himself. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:47, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

• Support - more concise, avoids needing the parenthetical. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:41, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support Speedy move; incomprehnsible moved in 2019 seemingly based on cable news appearances. Curbon7 (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hunter Biden laptop - missing context

@Bobfrombrockley: You removed "portions of the laptop's contents were later verified as authentic with no Russian linkage found" as "Synth - no mention of Brennan." Brennan doesn't need to be named in every source. He signed the letter; the NYT documents the letter's claims were contradicted. That's follow-up on the same subject, not synthesis. WP:SYNTH applies to combining unrelated facts to reach a novel conclusion. Per WP:NPOV, we can't report the allegation without the outcome. Bladerunner24 (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Let's look at the content under discussion (diff):

In October 2020, Brennan was among 51 former intelligence officials who signed an open letter stating that the Hunter Biden laptop controversy had "earmarks of a Russian information operation"; portions of the laptop's contents were later verified as authentic with no Russian linkage found.

Compare that with what we have in the lead of the super controversial Hunter Biden laptop controversy article, written as two sentences. Since that article has undergone the most discussion about exactly this topic, I suspect it is the most accurate and is supported by the strongest consensus (and therefore not one word should be altered without a consensus):

On October 19, 2020, an open letter signed by 51 former US intelligence officials warned that the laptop "has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation." By May 2023, no evidence had publicly surfaced to support suspicions that the laptop was part of a Russian disinformation scheme.

I can't speak for Bob, but I can see a problem with that form of construction in the same sentence. You have juxtaposed two unrelated facts in a manner that makes them appear to contradict each other. Whether that's a SYNTH violation or not, it's bad writing and misleading. Both can be true but not related to each other, so at least put them in separate sentences. The two statements are speaking about different things, so should not be juxtaposed in that manner. Also "portions of the laptop's contents were later verified" is far from every piece of content on that laptop. What if other parts were not verified or were actually damaged goods? There is a problem there.

Context matters. The whole way the controversy broke, with the story based on information provided to Rudy Giuliani, who had been shopping around in Ukraine where embarrassing hacked laptop contents were being offered for sale, possibly from Russian agents, made the whole situation stink of a Russian operation to damage Biden. U.S. intelligence had good reason to be cautious. There was uncertainty about whether the laptop was even Hunter's, and evidence the contents had been accessed. Had it been seeded with tampered data and misinformation? It did have "all the earmarks..." Even if everything on that laptop later proved to be accurate, the circumstances were fishy.

If that second part has to be mentioned in the lead, I suggest just using the version from the main article, sources and all. OTOH, does that part have due weight for inclusion in the lead of an article not about the subject? We can safely leave it out of the lead. The first sentence about him signing the document is enough. Their suspicions were justified at the time. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:32, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

The letter itself states: "We do not have evidence of Russian involvement -- just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious." They admitted it was speculation, not an intelligence assessment. The FBI had already concluded in 2019 the laptop was genuine.

These facts are directly related: speculative claim of Russian operation, later refuted by verification. You call accurate juxtaposition of claim and outcome "misleading." It's not. Reporting the claim without the outcome would be misleading.

The main article you cite includes this context. For a former CIA Director, a public intervention in a presidential election based on admitted speculation, later refuted, is notable enough for the lead. Bladerunner24 (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a source saying the letter was based on speculation, reliable enough that we can use its framing to report in an NPOV way? BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:10, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@BobFromBrockley: You asked for a source. The letter itself states: "We do not have evidence of Russian involvement — just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious."

CNN (January 2025 https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/20/politics/trump-revokes-security-clearances-former-officials-hunter-biden-laptop-letter) quotes this language and adds: "Since then, the laptop and its contents have been recognized as legitimate. It played a role in the younger Biden's prosecution on felony drug charges, with special counsel David Weiss calling questions about the laptop's authenticity a 'conspiracy theory.'"

That's a tier-1 RS connecting the letter's admission of no evidence with subsequent verification. Not synthesis. Bladerunner24 (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I complained about the juxtaposition in the same sentence. One is about the whole situation, the other about the laptop itself. Parts of the laptop contents were confirmed to be accurate. Lots of it was not confirmed. Since they are about different things, that was misleading. It's okay to mention each in its own sentence. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:55, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

To clarify: it sounds like the SYNTH objection is withdrawn, since you acknowledge this may not be a SYNTH violation.

Your remaining argument is WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. But context means reporting what happened, not just what was claimed. The letter made a speculative claim while admitting "we do not have evidence of Russian involvement." The FBI had concluded in 2019 the laptop was genuine. In June 2024, federal prosecutors used the laptop as evidence in Hunter Biden's criminal trial, with an FBI agent testifying about its authentication. Omitting these outcomes removes context.

Wikipedia doesn't editorialize about whether suspicions were "justified." We report facts. The letter claimed Russian earmarks while admitting no evidence. The laptop was authenticated and used in federal court. Both belong in the article. Bladerunner24 (talk) 03:27, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

The wonderful thing about Wikipedia is how articles link to other articles so we don’t need to provide all the facts about related things in each article. Readers can click on the hunter Biden laptop controversy article and get the full context. This, however, is an article about Brennan, in which this letter is one very minor detail. The letter is quite trivial; the only reason it might be due in the lead is it led to loss of security clearance. That it was or wasn’t speculation is irrelevant to that development. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:21, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: You call the letter "trivial" but then say it "led to loss of security clearance." A letter signed by a former CIA Director, cited in a presidential debate, that resulted in executive action revoking his clearance isn't trivial. Per WP:WEIGHT, consequences that significant warrant context about why the letter became controversial - namely, that its claims were not borne out. Bladerunner24 (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

The letter itself is insignificant. We might want to mention it (probably in body, possibly in lead) only because it was the justification for the (purely symbolic) security clearance revocation some years later by a vindictive president. The content of the letter really doesn’t need to be fact checked by us. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

It’s absolutely undue in the lead. We can’t use the lead to refer to something that isn’t directly about the subject of the article! BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:11, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Valjean. This is totally undue in the lead. In the body, we can give fuller context and skate more into synth territory if needed to give the enough context. The semi colon formulation is basically saying they were wrong, even though the source we use doesn’t mention the letter, so it’s using synth to give a POV account, rather than simple contextualisation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:17, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. In the lead, that wikilink to the other article should be enough. The mention of the letter from a group of 51 former senior intelligence officials in the lead and body is about right for this article. No more is needed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:03, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@Valjean: You suggested using the version from the main article. CNN's framing is even better since it directly addresses the letter:

"Since then, the laptop and its contents have been recognized as legitimate. It played a role in the younger Biden's prosecution on felony drug charges, with special counsel David Weiss calling questions about the laptop's authenticity a 'conspiracy theory.'"

Tier-1, directly addresses the letter's claims, includes federal prosecution. If the letter warrants mention, so does the outcome.

On the lead: Your essay states "If a subject is worth a whole section, then it deserves short mention in the lead according to its real due weight."

The letter led to Brennan's security clearance revocation.

If that consequence warrants lead mention, so does the context that the letter's claims were not borne out. Bladerunner24 (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

The “since then” comment is not context for the letter. It’s context for understanding the laptop affair, not necessary for understanding the revocation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

CNN connects all three in the same article: the letter, the verification, and the revocation. Are you saying CNN is wrong to make that connection? Bladerunner24 (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

CNN makes many other points in the article:

that the revocation may have limited practical impact on the signatories’ careers

that several Obama and Bush era officials signed it, including Clapper, McLaughlin, Morrell

that since 2020 its authors have become a key target for Republican lawmakers and Trump’s allies

that Bolton has been a particular target (Bolton is the main subject of the CNN article, with Brennan mentioned only briefly in a list)

that right-wing media widely published the laptop’s contents

that the concerns expressed in the letter were widely shared in the mainstream

that the letter used wording that was explicitly speculative and refrained from making a definitive accusation

that the signatories were private citizens, many without security clearance

that the revocation is historically unprecedented

that a legal expert said the letter was properly cleared by CIA prepub review staff not to contain classified info

Obviously we can’t say all this in the body, let alone the lead; we have to decide which facts if any are due. In an article about Brennan (as opposed to about the laptop controversy or trump’s war on the “deep state”) I’d argue none are due. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:14, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

It seems we agree:

1. The letter was explicitly speculative.

2. The laptop is now widely recognized as legitimate.

3. This was then cited as justification for revoking signatories' security clearances.

That CNN also covers other topics in the same article is irrelevant. The question is whether points 1-2 provide context for point 3.

They obviously do. Bladerunner24 (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

References