A New Farmer & Pigs Squeal

Caution, Not Celebration: A Professional Analysis of the Brennan-Biden-Epstein Fallout

Saturday, July 26, 2025 – Recent developments involving the RussiaGate narrative, intelligence community overreach, and the long-dormant Epstein case are converging in a way that demands methodical, fact-based analysis. This is not the time for hysteria, speculation, or extreme rhetoric. It is a time for calm observation and careful judgment. For those who value the rule of law and institutional integrity, the events now unfolding represent both a risk and an opportunity.

The New York Times recently published a significant shift in tone regarding the origins of the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) that underpinned allegations of Russian election interference. In a marked departure from earlier reporting, the article admits previously undisclosed information about how the assessment was produced during the closing months of the Obama administration. The process was characterized as “hurried,” “tightly controlled,” and atypically shaped by direct involvement from top officials, including then-CIA Director John Brennan and FBI Director James Comey.

This is not a minor editorial change. When a major outlet like the Times publicly revisits the credibility of intelligence assessments, it signals that the underlying facts have shifted far enough to justify political recalibration.

More critically, Brennan previously testified under oath that the discredited Steele dossier was not part of the ICA process. However, documents show that the dossier was included in the annex of the final report. In any legal setting, attaching material to an official document contradicts claims of non-usage. Whether that contradiction rises to the level of perjury is a question that may now be formally reviewed. If the roles were reversed and the testimony had come from a Trump administration official, one can only imagine the scale of media scrutiny and prosecutorial action that would follow.

Meanwhile, the Department of Justice has quietly taken steps that suggest a renewed interest in the Epstein-Maxwell matter. Ghislaine Maxwell was recently interviewed over two days by none other than Todd Blanche, currently serving as Deputy Attorney General and formerly personal defense counsel to President Trump. Such a high-level meeting is not casual. It signals priority.

Her counsel stated that over 100 names were discussed during the extensive session, and Maxwell answered every question without objection. The timing is remarkable: within three weeks of the DOJ issuing a “case closed” letter (case one, now comes case two), its second-highest official is sitting down with the one person known to have firsthand knowledge of Epstein’s client network. That does not suggest indecision. It suggests a coordinated strategy.

Naturally, political opponents are now attempting to frame the interview as a precursor to a potential pardon, not as a lawful investigatory process. However, raising the specter of a pardon is a calculated move to discredit the content of Maxwell’s testimony before any of it becomes public. This is classic narrative control and should be recognized as such.

If Maxwell’s testimony contains credible allegations, prosecutors may use it to reopen grand jury proceedings under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e). Grand jury activity, by law, remains sealed. Thus, any parallel investigations arising from Maxwell’s statements could already be underway, without public knowledge.

This is not conjecture. It is standard legal procedure. A Rule 6(e) motion allows the Department of Justice to legally disclose grand jury materials to investigators while maintaining operational secrecy. The existence of such a motion—if granted—could be the procedural foundation for re-opening (case two) what had appeared to be a politically frozen case.

Those who spent years obstructing the Epstein investigation or shaping the RussiaGate narrative now face potential consequences. That possibility explains the sudden pivot in media coverage and the renewed urgency in political messaging. Calls for transparency have been replaced with claims of impropriety—because the process is no longer under their control.

For those aligned with President Trump or simply seeking institutional accountability, now is not the time to gloat or presume victory (close your pie hole Marjorie). It is a moment that demands restraint. The political process remains highly unstable, and both the intelligence and legal systems are still influenced by legacy actors. A rush to judgment could jeopardize what appears to be a rare opportunity for real institutional correction.

The United States has been governed for too long by insiders who view transparency as a threat and the public as a liability. The same individuals who once demanded full exposure are now resisting any inquiry that threatens their interests. That reversal alone is revealing.

In closing, the appropriate mindset today is not revenge or speculation. It is strategic patience. Many Americans—regardless of party—are tired of watching one standard applied to political allies and another to opponents. What comes next must be lawful, deliberate, and fact-driven.

Let the system operate. Let the truth emerge.

There is indeed a new farmer in the pigsty. And the pigs are squealing. Let us see what happens next.