The Other Mike Rogers--Again?

To my mind, one of the most important contributions that CTH has made to uncovering the overall nature and scope of the Russia Hoax--the Deep State's effort to thwart the election of Donald Trump and, when that failed, to oust him--was drawing attention to the presence of Mike Rogers in the Trump campaign. No, not Mike Rogers the admiral, who headed NSA and played an heroic role (DiGenova: Mike Rogers Is The "Rosetta Stone" For John Durham). As I explained in The Spy In The Trump Campaign, this Mike Rogers was formerly the head chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), before Devin Nunes' time. It's hard to imagine a much more strategic position for a Deep State operative--which Rogers surely was:

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:

UPDATED: Merry Christmas!

Thanks to everyone for their support and for all the valuable contributions.

Chant--Puer Natus Est:

Polyphony: Hodie Christus Natus Est:

UPDATE: You just knew the Dems would pull something to spoil Christmas--Santa Claus Accused Of Quid Pro Quo For Giving Children Gifts In Exchange For Good Behavior:

U.S.—Legislators have begun to hold hearings on impeaching Santa Claus after an overheard conversation seemed to imply he was offering a quid pro quo: gifts in exchange for good behavior. 

FBI agents spied on Claus at various malls as he repeatedly said things like, "Sure, I'll get you a pony. But first, I need you to do something for me... be a good little boy!" The FBI was able to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on Claus, because it's easier to get a FISA warrant than to get a Costco membership. 

"Ho ho noooooo!" Santa Claus cried as investigators leaped out and cuffed him at a Dayton, OH mall. "Not good! Sad!"

DiGenova: Mike Rogers Is The "Rosetta Stone" For John Durham

Joe diGenova did a dynamite interview yesterday that puts a lot of things in perspective. In the first half of his interview he addresses the recent news that Admiral Mike Rogers, former head of NSA, is cooperating voluntarily with USA John Durham's investigation (cf. Bad News For The Deep State). DiGenova's remarks here are important for providing a glimpse at the enormous range and complexity of Durham's investigation. Consider--as wide ranging as IG Horowitz's FISA report may have appeared, it didn't even touch most of what diGenova addresses here. Yet what diGenova talks about is crucial to an understanding of the development of the Russia Hoax as we now know it, and therefore to the development of the all important conspiracy case that I've discussed. I most recently addressed the connection between these issues and the development of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation in The Devin Nunes - Dan Bongino Interview--a post that provides useful background and additional legal/administrative material on all this. The scope of it all is almost mind boggling.

In the partial transcript that follows the host questions and comments are paraphrased, but diGenova's words are very literal. He misspeaks a few times, but I've left that as is--although I've interjected some explanatory comments.

The Rushed Impeachment--Now We Know Why

Today we learn definitively that what we've suspected is the truth. Impeachment is being used in what I termed yesterday as a "cart before the horse" manner. In other words, impeachment is being used by the Dem House as the justification for demanding testimony and, most importantly, the Mueller grand jury records. CTH has the story, but it's straightforward enough.

Basically, the House lawyers have filed a brief in the case in which they're attempting to compel the testimony of former WH Counsel Dan McGahn. The rationale that the Dem House presents is that, now that the House has impeached President Trump, they need McGahn's testimony to use as evidence in the impeachment trial!

But wait, you say. How could there have been an impeachment without evidence? Well, that's a point. House Dems are claiming, in effect, that they can impeach and then investigate to find the evidence to justify the impeachment. Remember when Maxine Waters said impeachment is whatever the House says it is? The Dems really meant that. Fox News quotes the Dem brief to point out that the Dems are actually suggesting that they could add new articles to their impeachment--implying that, in spite of their vote--impeachment remains a work in progress:

“If McGahn’s testimony produces new evidence supporting the conclusion that President Trump committed impeachable offenses that are not covered by the Articles approved by the House, the Committee will proceed accordingly---including, if necessary, by considering whether to recommend new articles of impeachment,” the brief stated, noting that they still have “ongoing impeachment investigations.”

This is exactly why I've been on the side of McConnell taking the articles up immediately.

There are a lot of legal and, especially, constitutional issues here. One, of course, which I've offered an opinion on, is whether the Senate has to wait for the House to "transmit" the articles before it can act. I side with those like Alan Dershowitz who maintain that the Dem House vote is the act of impeachment. That being the case, the Senate is now the actor. The House's role is finished. But the Dem House is claiming that we've only just begun. It's all just part of a process and we define the parameters of that process.

In addition to throwing the very constitutional meaning of "impeachment" totally up for grabs, this tactic is an end run around the constitutional restriction of House investigations to matters of oversight and legislation. Now, having constituted themselves as an investigative entity, an impeachment tribunal, they claim to have full investigative powers. They are now claiming to be, in effect, more than a legislative body. They are an investigative body like the FBI. Or so they claim.

The Devin Nunes - Dan Bongino Interview

Dan Bongino's latest weekend interview, linked below, was with Rep. Devin Nunes. At nearly an hour long, the interview contains a pretty fair amount of substance. Nunes, I believe, still shies away from certain topics, but has enough to say to make the whole worth listening to. In what follows I'll focus on the issues that interested me most. Not surprisingly to regular readers, that means the origin of the Russia Hoax investigation ("predication") and possible prosecutive theories ("conspiracy"), which were both addressed at some length by Nunes.

The first thing that caught my attention was when Nunes stated that, while the whole ball of the Russia Hoax had started rolling in late 2015 to early 2016, at a certain point the conspirators "really needed the umbrella investigation." That "umbrella investigation," of course, was Crossfire Hurricane, the "enterprise CI investigation" of "four Americans" (Manafort, Flynn, Page, Papadopoulos) that Comey referred to in his Congressional testimony in March, 2017.

In evaluating Nunes' statement, it's important to understand that Nunes is very clear that the FBI began it's investigation before Crossfire Hurricane was opened. In essence, he confirms what I've long maintained, that Crossfire Hurricane was, in fact, an "umbrella" that took under it earlier investigations. Whether those investigations were preliminary or ful investigations made little difference, at least initially, because a "full" was only needed for the purpose of obtaining a FISA--otherwise, the same investigative techniques could be used. I was at pains, back when this was a hot topic, to insist that the FBI had almost certainly followed the rules by insuring that it had open case files before conducting investigative activities--they were always going to cover their behinds administratively.

But, says Nunes, at a certain point--sometime between early May and the end of July when Crossfire Hurricane was actually opened, that framework--separate investigations on each of the Trump campaign associates were no longer enough. Was there some precipitating event that led to this change of perspective? It stands to reason that there was, and I believe that we can tentatively identify that event as the action Admiral Mike Rogers of NSA took to shut down the FBI's unauthorized "about" queries of 702 material. It was at this time that Strzok complained to Lisa Page that their investigation was now restricted to what are known as "consensual" recordings--informants recording conversations with targets. This development meant that the FBI would need to get a standard FISA on an investigative subject, going through the painstaking application process, if they wanted to get a broader look inside the Trump campaign. They could no longer rely on datamining NSA records.

Dmitri Alperovitch, Founder Of CrowdStrike, Was A "Special Government Employee"

This is being reported by The Epoch Times: CrowdStrike Co-Founder Held Special Government Employee Status. And nobody responsible wants to comment about this. Go figure, hey? If I were the suspicious kind I'd say he was helping the Obama administration to prepare for the 2016 election in some way. Excerpt:

The Department of Defense granted Dmitri Alperovitch, the co-founder of cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, the status of a special government employee in 2013, a Pentagon spokesperson confirmed to The Epoch Times. 

Alperovitch held the status for one year starting on Nov. 23, 2013. 

“He was an unpaid consultant limited to 60 total days in a year and has not provided any consulting services since that time,” Lt. Col. Carla Gleason, a Pentagon press spokesperson, wrote in an email. 

“In his role as a special government employee, Alpervotich provided services in cybersecurity, forensic cyber analysis, and post-incident remediation.” 

In 2013 and 2014, the U.S. government relied in part on CrowdStrike’s reports to identify China and North Korea as the culprits of state-sponsored hacks.

CrowdStrike did not respond to a request for comment. 

The “cyber-czar” at the defense department at the time, Eric Rosenbach, requested for Alperovtich to be brought on as a special government employee, according to a former official familiar with the matter. Steven Schleien, who is now the chief operating officer at the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, directed the onboarding process, the source said. 

Rosenbach did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 

Alperovitch’s status as a special government employee has not been previously reported.

AG Barr Calls Out Soros Subversion

I'll admit I didn't listen to the whole interview, as I found the questioning less than scintillating. However, this illustrates the things that an AG should speak out about--and this AG does. He's constantly monitoring the justicial pulse of the nation, looking for opportunities to speak to the public about important issues within his purview. For anyone who hasn't been aware of this, George Soros has been pouring huge amounts of money into local district attorney races, seeking to get radicals elected who will then stop enforcing criminal laws, leading to chaos:

AG Barr calls out how Soros is subverting our legal system and leading to more crime and violence pic.twitter.com/fAdCQY6BEi

— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) December 21, 2019

Sounds Like Putin Is Blackmailing Trump!

It looks like we'll have to be content with insane conspiracy theories for the time being, since there doesn't seem to be any actual news. Listen to these two rocket scientists expounding on the Trump/Russia meme. It's as if they never heard of the Mueller Dossier. And they sound about stupid enough that they just might believe what they're saying--amazing:

pic.twitter.com/zL10eaeo7Y

— Ron_H🇺🇸🦅 (@Rabid_AU) December 21, 2019

Bad News For The Deep State

We've all heard of Adm. Mike Rogers, former head of the NSA, who played a key role in alerting the FISC of FBI abuses of the 702 databases. Rogers' action possibly forced the FBI to seek out a FISA based on fraudulent sourcing as an alternative to mining NSA databases for political purposes. In news that is surely an indication of the depth of the Barr/Durham investigation, The Intercept is reporting that Rogers is voluntarily cooperating with USA John Durham. That has to be very bad news for the Deep State generally. Rogers would be far and away the highest placed Deep State cooperator. He also would have information that could lead back into Obama administration weaponizing of the Intel Community as far back as 2012.

Notably, Rogers is one of two IC officials who have contradicted John Brennan's denial that the Clinton/Steele "dossier" factored into the ICA that established the narrative of "Russian meddling". As reported by Paul Sperry:

Recently retired National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers stated in a classified letter to Congress that the Clinton campaign-funded memos did factor into the ICA. And James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence under President Obama, conceded in a recent CNN interview that the assessment was based on “some of the substantive content of the dossier.” Without elaborating, he maintained that “we were able to corroborate” certain allegations.

These accounts are at odds with Brennan’s May 2017 testimony before the House Intelligence Committee that the Steele dossier  was "not in any way used as the basis for the intelligence community's assessment" that Russia interfered in the election to help elect Donald Trump. Brennan has repeated this claim numerous times, including in February on “Meet the Press.”

I offer hear the portions of the article that pertain to Rogers--note that he's not a reflexive Trump supporter. The rest can be found here--FORMER NSA DIRECTOR IS COOPERATING WITH PROBE OF TRUMP-RUSSIA INVESTIGATION:

Is Guccifer 2.0 A CIA Creation?

We've all heard about the deep interest that Barr/Durham have in the basis for the so-called Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA)--the IC "analytical" product that established the narrative that "the Russians" tried to throw the 2016 election to Trump. Today former CIA analyst Larry Johnson examines the sourcing for the key claim in the ICA, which is that an internet persona and entity called, respectively, Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks were GRU (Russian military intel) operations that relayed DNC materials to Wikileaks.

Johnson's article is long and detailed, yet pretty readable: Did John Brennan's CIA Create Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks? I'll paste in the beginning to give you a flavor for where Johnson is headed, but don't stop there--read it all:

Some Clarity On An Impeachment Trial

Since the House impeachment vote, coupled with Pelosi's decision not to appoint "managers" for the House's case, we've been treated to a series of arguments about what has just happened. Some--including one of the Dem legal witnesses--have argued that Trump wasn't "really" impeached. Some conservatives have toyed with that idea, as well. The other part of the argument is: How should the Senate treat what has just occurred? My position has been that the House vote ipso facto accomplishes impeachment and that the ball in now in the Senate's court. We get some clarity on that issue today from two sources.

Today, in the Daily Caller, Alan Dershowitz has called on Mitch McConnell to set the ball rolling for a Senate impeachment trial. His argument is that the House vote for impeachment places the issue ipso facto before the Senate. The House cannot stop the Senate from acting--Pelosi Doesn’t Have The Impeachment Power She Believes:

“Whether the House wants it to be in the Senate or not, the matter is now properly before the Senate,” Dershowitz said in a call with the Republican National Lawyers Association. “The presiding officer of the Senate can set a trial date, convene the chief justice and begin the trial. So I don’t think that Pelosi has the power that she thinks she has, or that my colleague Larry Tribe thinks she has.”

...

“I can imagine nothing more unconstitutional than a House impeachment without sending it to the Senate,” Dershowitz said. “It’s just unheard of. The Constitution provides that it is a two-step process, not a one-step process. It doesn’t say the president may be impeached, period, that’s the end of the matter. It says the president may be impeached, and if he’s impeached by the House, the Senate then gets to decide whether he should be removed.

“The idea that a stain would remain on the books, that the president would remain impeached, without an opportunity for the president to get acquitted by the Senate, is plainly unconstitutional,” he added. “It would be as if a prosecutor decided he had insufficient evidence to get a conviction, so he went after an ordinary citizen and said, ‘Look, I’m just going to indict him. Let the public know he’s indicted. For the rest of his life, he will stand indicted. But I have no intention of bringing him to trial. I will deny him his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. I’m going to let the indictment just hang out there.’ Obviously, no judge would tolerate that.”

Dershowitz said the president could seek to have the matter dismissed if it did not proceed to trial, but that it would “probably be a mistake” at this stage. ...

The WSJ's lead editorial makes the same basic argument: McConnell should set a trial date. If House managers don't show, then the Senate can appoint lawyers to present the case and proceed to a trial.

However, GianCarlo Canaparo--a legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies--makes an important point in an article for Fox News: Pelosi powerless to delay Trump impeachment trial if Senate does THIS. Canaparo's point adds to Dershowitz's argument by covering a key procedural detail.

Canaparo basically agrees with Dershowitz--the articles of impeachment are now before the Senate. The House vote accomplished that and there's no taking it back or delaying it--if the Senate doesn't want a delay. The hangup comes with the current state of Senate impeachment rules, which provide that the Senate will not act on an impeachment until the House sends to the Senate its appointed “managers”--prosecutors. Here's Canaparo's solution:

Is the impeachment process truly on hold until Pelosi decides to transmit the articles to the Senate?

Let’s start with the Constitution. Article 1, Section 2 states that the House “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” Section 3 states that the Senate “shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” 

Critically, there is no mention of procedure here. So where does this supposed transmittal requirement come from? The answer is the Senate’s own rules. Specifically, its rules governing impeachment procedure. 

The [Senate's] first rule of impeachment procedure states that the Senate will not act on an impeachment until the House sends to the Senate its appointed “managers”— the representatives who will act as the lawyers during the impeachment trial. After the House has presented its managers to the Senate, then the Senate takes the reins and launches its trial. 

So can Pelosi delay an impeachment trial? Yes, as long as the Senate doesn’t change its current rules. But there’s absolutely nothing stopping it from changing this rule, and the Senate should change the rule to prevent this sort of gamesmanship. 

... 

So the Senate should change its impeachment rules as follows: once the House has impeached the president, the Senate shall set a date for trial and shall set a deadline for the House to present its managers to the Senate. If the House fails to meet that deadline, the Senate will either dismiss the articles of impeachment for lack of prosecution or, better yet, vote on the articles immediately in light of the evidence presented to it — in this case, no evidence. 

Having set this boulder rolling, House Democrats should not be allowed now to hold it up. They started this process. It’s up to the Senate to finish it on its terms alone. Not Pelosi’s.

In some ways, I think the WSJ solution may be the best. Present the articles and vote to acquit. That vote would be a judgment on the merit or lack of merit in the articles, rather than a purely procedural move. But I'd be happy with any of these alternatives.

Pelosi Invites Trump To Deliver SOTU

This surprises me. I expected some drama at a minimum. Via FR:

Pelosi invites Trump to deliver State of the Union on Feb. 4

The Hill ^ | December 20, 2019 | Cristina Marcos

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Friday invited President Trump to deliver his State of the Union address on Feb. 4.

"In their great wisdom, our Founders crafted a Constitution based on a system of separation of powers: three co-equal branches acting as checks on each other. To ensure that balance of powers, the Constitution calls for the president to 'from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union,'" Pelosi wrote in a letter to Trump.