Another example of no consequences when Obama adm did something wrong. Does John Brennan staying on as CIA Director mean that Obama approved of CIA spying on Senate?

This appears to be yet another example where the Obama administration did something outrageously bad and there were no consequences.  Senators are angry that Brennan first denied that the spying was occurring and then refused to acknowledge any real wrongdoing.  If Obama really believed that Brennan didn't understand or appreciate the seriousness of the spying, isn't it likely that he would have removed Brennan?  If Obama really believed that such spying was wrong, wouldn't removing Brennan have been a good signal of that disagreement?  If only to placate angry senators who view the executive branch spying on their overseers in congress as an outrage, you should think that Obama would remove Brennan.   From The Hill newspaper:

. . . "The CIA's spying on its overseers in Congress and Brennan's failure to acknowledge any serious wrongdoing by the agency demonstrate a tremendous failure of leadership,” he added.  

“There are still significant unanswered questions about the search of the Senate Intelligence Committee's computers — and Director Brennan and CIA leadership must be accountable to Congress on this matter," said Udall. 

The CIA’s inspector general caused a shockwave on Capitol Hill a month ago, when it concluded that five agency officials had “improperly accessed” Senate Intelligence Committee computers to review staffers’ files and emails. 

The snooping was conducted through a network to share files for the Senate committee’s report on the CIA’s history of “enhanced interrogation” techniques, such as waterboarding. 

The admission set off a whirlwind of criticism for the agency and validated charges from committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who accused the CIA of unconstitutionally violating the separation of powers during a March floor speech. 

It was especially bad news for Brennan, who had flatly denied Feinstein’s allegation as groundless and “beyond the scope of reason in terms of what we’d do.” . . .