With the latest revelations from the Durham Annex casting even more doubt on the origins of the Russia collusion hoax, former CIA Director John Brennan is on a mission: spin, deflect, and hope someone—anyone—is still buying it. On Thursday, Brennan took to MSNBC’s airwaves, leaning on friendly host Ana Cabrera to make his case, even as bombshells keep dropping around him.

Brennan’s appearance came on the heels of yet another tranche of damning documents confirming the intelligence community’s coordination in advancing the false Trump-Russia narrative. Instead of confronting those facts, Brennan projected calm, framing the whole mess as routine DOJ protocol. Referring to new DOJ referrals for potential prosecution, he said, “I’d like to think that professionals in the Department of Justice will dismiss any of these referrals because they’re baseless.”

That word—professionals—became Brennan’s anchor. He used it repeatedly, invoking the idea of career intelligence agents to deflect accountability. In reality, those same “professionals” are now under scrutiny, with some facing questions about coordination, bias, and manipulation of evidence.

Brennan also made a point to defend his work on the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), calling it “legitimate” and “based on our authorities.” But notably, he avoided talking about earlier moves—like the infamous summer 2016 “fusion cell” meetings or the Obama White House briefings on the Clinton campaign’s plans to link Trump to Russia.

When Cabrera asked if Trump loyalists might come after him, Brennan played the martyr card, claiming he simply “did what was right.” But what stood out was his subtle appeal—not to the public, not to the law—but to his former agency insiders. With no security clearance, no official role, and growing pressure, Brennan’s only remaining lifeline may be the loyalty of sympathetic intel officers.

Cabrera, for her part, lobbed softballs, even citing CIA officer Susan Miller as a supposed authority who claimed the U.S. had “high probability” intelligence that Russia wanted Trump to win. But here’s the kicker: Miller had nothing to do with authoring the ICA. As investigative journalists like Matt Taibbi have revealed, her role in the 2017 report was minimal, if it existed at all.

A senior intel official flatly told reporters: “Not an author. Not involved.” So why is she suddenly treated like a lead analyst? Simple—she’s willing to carry water for the collapsing narrative, and the media is desperate for a lifeline.

If Miller truly has ironclad evidence that Russia tried to elect Trump, she should release it. But after eight years, multiple investigations, and millions in taxpayer dollars, no such smoking gun has ever materialized. All we’ve seen are coordinated leaks, selective intelligence, and political weaponization.

Brennan’s media blitz isn’t about truth—it’s damage control. With whistleblowers coming forward, the DOJ examining potential conspiracies, and public trust eroding fast, the Russiagate architects are out of runway.

Brennan may hope the “professionals” will still protect their own, but public patience is wearing thin. The more they spin, the more Americans realize how deep the deception ran—and how many were complicit. The reckoning may not come from MSNBC, but it’s coming nonetheless.