Mike Rogers ..., the former US Representative., was a Special Agent for the FBI in Chicago from 1989 - 1994 (I didn't know him, but recall hearing the office buzz when Rogers resigned to go into politics). More to the point, after leaving the House in 2014, having served as Chairman of the Permanent Select Committe on Intelligence, Rogers joined the Trump campaign in 2016 as national security adviser. (You can locate other references to this Mike Rogers here.)
By the way--you won't find any mention of the six months Rogers spent on the Trump campaign on his Wikipedia page. Interesting, isn't that? But look here and here. It appears Rogers came on board the Trump campaign in May, 2016, once it became clear that Trump would be the GOP nominee. Again, it's difficult to imagine a more sensitive position in a presidential campaign--especially one that was being targeted for destruction by the Deep State--than national security adviser. And Rogers' Deep State ties were well known to DC insiders. Which led sundance to ask, way back then, "So how did Decepticon Rogers come to be an advisor to the Trump campaign?"
Late yesterday, sundance again drew attention to Rogers, noting that footnote 474 in the OIG FISA report may refer to Rogers, although without naming him. If true, this would mean that Rogers was an FBI Confidential Human Source (CHS - informant) while he was working for the Trump campaign as its national security adviser.
Before we delve into that a bit further, lets get some of the previous background on record again. Some of this was and remains speculative, but is highly suggestive:
Rogers was abruptly terminated within days after the election--much to the dismay of the Washington DC establishment. For example, in the Washington Post David Ignatius reported the dismissal in telling terms:
Just how far the new administration may depart from long-standing U.S. national-security policies was demonstrated by Rogers’s own departure.
You could imagine the jaws dropping Tuesday across the intelligence community when people heard the news of Rogers’s ouster. ... the intelligence agencies literally don’t know what to expect next.
Sundance himself ties Rogers' dismissal to the well known visit of Admiral Mike Rogers to Trump Tower a few days after the election, which led to the move of the Trump transition team headquarters from Trump Tower to a Trump golf resort in Bedminster, New Jersey. However, once again, sundance offers no further details.
The question, then, becomes: What would the NSA Director have to do with a human source inside the Trump campaign? Wouldn't that be the purview of the FBI? Would the NSA Director even know of the existence, much less the identity, of such a source? And even supposing that Admiral Rogers disclosed the existence and identity of a human source inside the Trump campaign, why would that necessitate a removal of the Trump transition team from Manhattan to rural New Jersey? Wouldn't removal of the source from the transition team solve the problem, without the need for a disruptive move?
I can only offer speculation. My speculation is that the paperwork flow for FISA orders includes a copy being sent to NSA, since in the modern FISA regime NSA plays a central role even on domestic FISA coverage. If that were the case--if, I repeat--and if the human source in the Trump campaign was used to support the predication for the Carter Page FISA, which was approved in late October, 2016, then Admiral Rogers could have become aware of the existence of that human source and may even have been able to determine the identity of the source from the characterization of the source in the FISA application. That information, of course, would be in the redacted portions of the FISA application which we have yet to see. At this point, all we can do is wait. Interestingly, Mike Rogers (the former Rep.) was one of the persons interviewed for the position of FBI Director after James Comey was fired. However, that interview was conducted at DoJ, so presumably the White House put the kibosh on that move.
UPDATE: H/T Gateway Pundit. GP points out this morning that Jeff Sessions was chairman of candidate Trump's National Security Advisory Committee (NSAC). Does that answer sundance's question: "So how did Decepticon [former US Representative, Mike] Rogers come to be an advisor to the Trump campaign?" If so, this certainly helps to explain the depths of Trump's obvious feelings of aggrievement against Sessions, the roots of which include other factors than Sessions' recusal. The recusal may, in fact, have been in Trump's view the straw that broke the camel's back--following on from the hiring of Rogers.
Let's also add some information from the CTH post that illustrates just how much of a Deep State actor Rogers was--and probably still is:
The modern intelligence apparatus has a history of leveraging/turning compromised politicians into assets for an agenda most Americans are only now starting to grasp. Former HPSCI Chairman Mike Rogers was in place during the 2012 joint CIA/State Department Benghazi operation controlled by Hillary Clinton and Leon Panetta, code name: Operation Zero Footprint.
Congressman Rogers was part of the group who covered for Hillary Clinton and Leon Panetta in the outcome of Benghazi. Rogers motives on both fronts (cover Benghazi and surveillance of Trump) are part of the old fashioned motive, money. Mike Rogers’ wife, Kristi Clemens Rogers, was the president and CEO of Aegis LLC a “security” defense contractor – and her connections delivered a $10 billion contract with the State Dept.
In the height of the scrutiny over Benghazi HPSCI Chairman Mike Rogers and Ranking Member Dutch Ruppersberger authored a quick, and widely rebuked, intelligence committee report that provided the first line of defense for Clinton, Obama and Panetta. The media seized on the Rogers/Ruppersberger report to set the narrative.
Immediately following their efforts, Mike Rogers and Dennis Ruppersberger resigned from congress. Mike and his wife Kristi riding off into the sunset with multi-millions of wealth from the secured Aegis contract. [Oh yeah, and Kristi retired too]
Now, with that in mind let's turn to the OIG report. Remember that IG Horowitz's MO was to take everything the FBI interviewees told him pretty much at face value.
Horowitz: Did you have improper political motives for your actions?
FBI Agent: Are you kidding? Of course not!
Horowitz: OK, that's a relief!
So now we turn to p. 337 of the OIG report (p. 367 of the overall pdf). There we learn that OIG learned that the FBI had a CHS [Rogers?] who had formerly held a position in the Trump campaign. OIG asked FBI agents whether they had ever used that CHS [Rogers?] to target the Trump campaign. The agents were, very properly, horrified at the suggestion. If they'd been wearing pearls at the time the question was asked I have no doubt they would have clutched them. The very idea!
But let's read that section of the OIG report, which I found most interesting:
We also learned about a different CHS who at one point held a position in the Trump campaign. However, by the time that the CHS told his/her Handling Agent about this involvement, the CHS was no longer part of the Trump campaign. After Crossfire Hurricane team members learned about this CHS, they reviewed the CHS's file, but did not task the CHS as part of the investigation. The OGC Attorney told the OIG that he distinctly remembered the OGC Unit Chief "strongly advising [the Crossfire Hurricane agents] to be cautious with this particular CHS." Case Agent 1 recalled that, because this CHS was "at one point...part of the campaign ... we just said, hey, hands off." Documents in the CHS's Delta file reflect that the Handling Agent minimized contact with the CHS because of the CHS's campaign activities, even though the CHS was no longer involved in the Trump campaign. [footnote 474]
474: The email stating that the CHS would not be used in Crossfire Hurricane said:
"After careful consideration, the CROSSFIRE HURRICANE team has decided, at this time, it is best to utilize your CHS as a passive listening post regarding any observations [he/she] has of the campaign so far. Base[d] on current, on-going operations/developments in the CROSSFIRE HURRICANE investigation, we are not going to directly task or sensitize the CHS at this point in time. We appreciate [your] assistance in this matter and remain interested in any campaign related reporting that you guys may receive from the CHS during normal debriefs."
Case Agent 2, who wrote the email, told the OIG that the email was "incorrect" and what he was asking for was any information about attempts by Russia "to screw around with the campaign or the elections." He also acknowledged that it was "a mistake" not to make that clear in the email. The Handling Agent for this CHS told the OIG he "dismissed the e-mail...outright" because the CHS was "not even in the campaign" by that time. He added that within the field office, they had "made the decision ... that we weren't touching this ... right prior to a Presidential election." We found no evidence that the Crossfire Hurricane team received any information from this CHS in response to Case Agent 2's email.
1. The reference to the CHS's "Delta file" is readily explained by footnote 9 in the November 2019 OIG Audit of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Management of its Confidential Human Source Validation Processes:
9. (U) Delta is the FBI's official electronic record-keeping system for CHS management. According to the FBI, Delta was intended to facilitate compliance with the AG Guidelines and FBI CHS policies through automated administrative and management functions.
2. The timelines don't seem to add up. OIG tells us first:
by the time that the CHS told his/her Handling Agent about this involvement, the CHS was no longer part of the Trump campaign.
But Case Agent 2 states in the email:
it is best to utilize your CHS as a passive listening post regarding any observations [he/she] has of the campaign so far.
Surely this must mean that the campaign is still ongoing and that the CHS remains part of it?
And the Handling Agent, presumably working out of the Washington, DC, Field Office, states:
within the field office, they had "made the decision ... that we weren't touching this ... right prior to a Presidential election."
The most obvious reading of this is that the CHS was still part of the Trump campaign and, contrary to the claim that "by the time that the CHS told his/her Handling Agent about this involvement, the CHS was no longer part of the Trump campaign," the Handling Agent was in fact aware of the CHS's involvement in the campaign and that it was ongoing. Any other reading seems forced.
3. The protestations of the FBI agents are difficult to accept on their face. Consider the claim that the Handling Agent had a source who was working for the Trump campaign, but the CHS never told the Handling Agent what he was doing. I find that hard to believe. Source information is normally dependent upon the source's occupation. Further, FBI agents are required to meet CHS's on a regular basis and are expected to inquire into the source's current activities and access. This CHS obviously had high level connections, so the Handling Agent should have been eager to meet and to make such inquiries. If the CHS was Rogers, we know that Rogers worked for the Trump campaign from May to November. The likelihood is that the Handling Agent met with the CHS (Rogers?) at least once during those six months. That the topic of the CHS's current employment never came up seems unbelievable.
4. Again, with regard to using the CHS to target the Trump campaign, Case Agent 2's statements appear inconsistent. Here are the three relevant statements, the first two from the email:
it is best to utilize your CHS as a passive listening post regarding any observations [he/she] has of the campaign so far.
we are not going to directly task or sensitize the CHS at this point in time.
what he was asking for was any information about attempts by Russia "to screw around with the campaign or the elections."
Despite protestations to the contrary, it certainly appears that the CHS was being asked to be alert for information about the Trump campaign--"the campaign." You could argue that the CHS is being asked to be alert for Russian activities rather than campaign activities, yet it does appear that the CHS is being tasked in a much more general sense: to be "a passive listening post" inside "the campaign."
Here's my point: The Crossfire Hurricane investigation claimed that there was a "group in fact" within the Trump campaign that constituted a separate "enterprise." Yet the CHS wasn't being targeted at such a group or enterprise but, instead, at "the campaign" in general: be on the lookout for Russian activity with regard to "the campaign."
I believe that Durham and Barr are very alive to this distinction, and that they will regard any targeting of a CHS against a political campaign in so broad a sense to be highly suspect.
5. OIG states that they
"found no evidence that the Crossfire Hurricane team received any information from this CHS in response to Case Agent 2's email."
No harm, no foul? Proof that the Handling Agent was telling the truth about not directing the CHS against the campaign?
That's entirely possible. But here's the problem. If an FBI OGC attorney modified a document that was submitted to the FISC, can we assume that all CHS contacts were properly documented to the file? IMO, Barr/Durham would be foolish to assume anything of the sort.
6. Many of the difficulties that I've outlined above could be taken to argue that the CHS is not actually Rogers. Certainly if the CHS was no longer with the campaign by the time of the election, that would most likely mean that Rogers is not the CHS in question. But, as we've seen, that's exactly what's murky in the varying accounts.
However you look at this, I have to assume that Barr/Durham have examined this issue carefully.
"So how did Decepticon Rogers come to be an advisor to the Trump campaign?"ReplyDelete
Decepticon Rogers??? is that this year's hot toy like Tickle Me Elmo was from a few years past?
Mike Rogers is not Admiral Rogers. GeezDelete
Decepticons were transformers, but Sundance has used the term to tag Uniparty types (RINOS, whatever) who are actively against President Trump.ReplyDelete
"Barr/Durham would be foolish to assume anything of the sort."ReplyDelete
In fact, Barr/Durham would be foolish to assume anything...
This is criminal investigation 101 stuff. Subpoena the handling FBI agents before a Grand Jury, then follow with the CHS, be it Rogers or someone else. Start low and turn the screws. No low-level FBI agent is going to risk prison time to protect Comey/McCabe. The canaries will sing.ReplyDelete
Not particularly on topic, but I just saw this:ReplyDelete
What a rat.
Spent a couple of decades in Naval aviation from early 70's through early 90's. Knew a number of people that had served with John McCain, before he was shot down, both officer and enlisted, in various commands/capacities. None had anything good to say about him, as an officer or aviator. Adm Stockdale, on the other hand, was universally looked up to as a virtual god. Puts me in a very ill temper when I hear or read something lionizing McCain (his children I forgive for we don't get to pick our parents) while Stockdale's name rarely comes up without some dweeb "journalist" making a smirking insult. Inarguable evidence that life is not fair.
Yeah, apparently McCain's poor rep is what Trump referred to, earning McCain's undying hatred--not a difficult thing to do. It was undoubtedly bad taste coming from Trump, but those stories have been out there for a long time. Sadly, McCain did absolutely nothing to live them down in later life.Delete
Do not know about McCain as a Naval Aviator, but the smear about the USS Forrestal is bunk. It was a training film for all enlisted sailors, as I was one once.ReplyDelete
However, the fact McCain passed on the Steele Dossier is common knowledge and something he admitted to. Granted, he stated it was just something he passed on, which did not pass the smell test and is now verified.
McCain was part of Savings and Loan Keating 5. He was absolved as just having bad judgement. Thing is, he was personal, familial, and business friends with Keating. For eff's sake, McCain's wife and father in law invested in a Keating property development. No other member of the Keating 5 had this close of ties to Keating.
It should be noted, the press ran wild with this even though 4 of the 5 were Democrats and the most harshest punished were Democrats.
Part of that long ago bad judgement surfaced in Ukraine and Syria.
Oh, I voted for Palin, not McCain.
Tx for the further info and reminders.Delete
My comment had nothing to do with the Forrestal fire, but comments and conversations I overheard, and some I was party to, over the years. In particular was a conversation overheard between four aviators some of which had served with ‘Maverick’, in one capacity or another, prior to his shoot-down in ’67. The Tonkin Gulf Yacht Club was a more inter-connected group than one might suppose just looking at raw numbers. The occasion was an article in either the Navy Times or Stars & Stripes concerning his running for Congress in the election of ’82. One aviator commented that he thought they’d dodged a bullet when McCain retired, another said he only ‘put in his papers’ after he had to be told point-blank that he would never be selected for Flag, then it devolved to anecdotes. The picture painted was of a petty, spiteful, insecure bully that held grudges (sounds so unlike our Johnny doesn’t it?) and didn’t hesitate to throw down the ‘Daddy’s an Admiral’ card when in a tight place; and yes, pre-Zumwalt that was an important card to play, but even more important to have the courage to refrain from playing. Heard many similar stories from enlisted that had crossed his path so it wasn’t news to me, nor what he evolved into.Delete
It was no surprise that he came to love the faux adulation of media toadies that political power accrues.
I heard similar stories.Delete
Noticed you were discussing Mike "FBI Can Do No Wrong" Rogers. I can add some troubling derog, but first I'll need you to ensure no media is present. Wouldn't want the public to see— wait, is this thing on? Oh sh—ReplyDelete
Well it happened. Sitting with my 67 year old sister and her adult son this evening the elephant in the room escaped his cage.ReplyDelete
My sister and her son live in the elite NYC bubble of investment bankers, real estate developers, and private equity investors. Clinton Country. According to my sister, Hillary Clinton is ok because she is actually quite nice when you actually talk to her. I doubt they know a single registered Republican any more. (Our parents were devout Republicans.)
My wife and I live in a red state deep in flyover country.
As the 'discussion' literally erupted, I heard that there was nothing wrong with either Biden's behavior, that Trump's family is equally conflicted, but in fact truly corrupt (because the Trumps were trying to build an office building in Moscow), and that anyway Trump colluded with Russia (proof: the Steele Dossier which is true because it has not been proven conclusively and absolutely to be false). I told them that Mueller found no collusion and that Horowitz has found extensive and 'inexplicable' wrongdoing in the FBI and DOJ. They seemed unaware.
I said that my deep disgust with the actions of officials in the Obama Administration is wholly separate from any support I might have for Trump and his policies.
I said that the mounting evidence increasingly indicates widespread surveillance of the Trump campaign by the Obama Administration which led to government attempts to spy on and undermine his campaign which has led to attempts to overthrow his presidency by impeachment. I said that it is likely that theses actions will result in criminal conspiracy charges against numerous high officials of the Obama Administration.
They said that Trump must have colluded with Russia because he hired Manafort.
They said that withholding foreign aid authorized by Congress for personal political gain is clearly an impeachable offense and Trump should be impeached.
The argument continued but nothing good thereafter happened. Voices were raised, expletives were dropped, and the living room was vacated.
I don't know how we can come together and resolve this thing if we cannot agree on basic facts. Its one thing to disagree on policy but we can't even agree on the plain facts.
I don't have any answers but I have to believe that the MSM is deeply responsible since it has abdicated any responsibility for reporting objective facts. My sister and nephew are simply repeating what they hear inside their bubble.
O.M.G.! Compare and contrast: Bebe's Tale, from Deep Blue CA.Delete
Our family has some of those problems, too.
Mindless regurgitation of democrat talking points that knowingly, deliberately and persistently disregard the conclusions of multiple DOJ investigations thus far. There's no fixing that kind of stupid. Did you look to see if any of the usual MSM suspects had their hands up your relatives' posteriors?Delete
My relatives' POV mirrors the overwhelming majority of American power holders in media, law, tech, finance, education and government. The elites in NYC, DC, LA and SF.
They may be 'that kind of stupid' but don't sell them short. This is war to them.
Hate is energizing, but rots the soul.Delete
I read Bebe's Tale and it does give me some hope, at least in places where people's lives are tethered to some baseline reality.
In the case of my sister and nephew however, who live in the Land of Oz known as NYC, and which does not seem to have any connection to the material concerns of millions of 'normal' Americans, I do still despair.
I can spout 'talking points' regarding stock market highs, low unemployment, relative peace and absence of American military casualties, GDP growth, absence of recession, and NONE of these matter! They just don't matter! Because Orange Man Bad and he colluded with Russia (!) and is racist, nationalist, homophobic, abusive, and whatever else comes to mind. Never mind that all of these criticisms were simply made up by Trump's morally challenged opponents and their media megaphones to use against him.
And since the elites who hold these views have taken control of our financial institutions, tech companies, communications apparatus, law firms, academic institutions and permanent government bureaucracy, and have become extraordinarily rich in so doing, and seem prepared to fight to the death to retain their control (cf. Schiff, Nadler, Pelosi, Brennan, Comey, Clapper, Mueller, Weissmann, Lawfare, etc), I guess I still more or less come out on the despair side.
Cassander, my sense of things is, that c. 1/3 of the public are like your sister and nephew.Delete
I recommend saving your breath on them.
Another 1/3+ is solidly with DJT, and much of the middle 1/3- is at least somewhat open to reason/ facts about him, and about what Obummer's gang has been trying to pull against him, esp. thru FISA.
If the middle 1/3 drifts more toward PJT, the ones like your sister and nephew can end up "isolated", rather like FDR-haters were isolated in the 30s.
I usually am able to outright avoid those like your sister and nephew, partly because theses types are so often radioactive about other (non-political) things.Delete
If I'm in the mood, I might make clear to them, that they're just plain not worth talking to at all.
But with the middle 1/3, I strive to really hear them out, to gauge how open they are, and, if they seem in an open mood, to gently nudge them toward crucial truths (e.g. on Horowitz/ FISA, and on SJW fanaticism, esp. toward Sandman), e.g. via reference to the film No Safe Spaces, and to sites like Mark's.
Hard to outright avoid my extended family at Christmastime.
Even if you are right about 1/3, 1/3, 1/3, we are one Trump misstep away from a Democratic president. Big picture, given what we've seen these last three years from the 'elites', this would be an absolute disaster.
I hear you about the extended family.Delete
I'd still be tempted to tell them, that you'll hear zip on politics from them.
"If you can't do me the courtesy of talking about something else, I'll move away from your earshot.
If you follow me (e.g. out of the room, or the house), need I call the cops?
On the election, yeah, it'd be an absolute disaster.
That's one reason why the Republic's fate hinges so much, on what Barr does in coming months.
Here's a link to a series of WaPo (!) articles trashing the media's coverage of the Steele dossier: Washington Post Eviscerates Rachel Maddow For Steele Dossier CoverageReplyDelete