This website is best experienced in Internet Explorer versions 7 and up
 

How NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers Saved The U.S. From a Massive Constitutional Crisis

By Capt Joseph R. John, January 9, 2018: Op Ed # 378 

The below listed material exposes how political appointees of the Obama administration weaponized the intelligence community, the FBI, and the Department of Justice to spy on a US Presidential candidate before he was elected, and for the first time in US History, attempted to initiate the removal of a the duly elected US President from office, creating a Constitutional Crisis and by so doing, dangerously dividing the American electorate, by charging that Donald Trump collude with Russia to win the presidential election, when the truth is that Hillary Clinton colluded with Russia to create and pay for a false Steele Dossier on Donald Trump.    

 

The article further exposes how the political appointees in the Obama administration in the intelligence community, employed the fraudulently created Steele Dossier, funded by the Hillary Presidential Campaign and the Democratic Party, whose content were never verified by the political appointees at FBI Headquarters and US Justice Department Headquarters to obtain FISA Warrants.  The goal was to unmask hundreds of American citizens, and to also surveil and intercept communications, phone calls, and conversations of members of the Trump Campaign and the Trump Presidential Transition Team in Trump Tower.  

 

The hero in putting an end to these illegal and treasonous actions, at personal risk to his survival, was NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers, USN, who James Clapper tried to prevent from revealing the depth of the conspiracy, and then tried to have him removed from office.   

 

Copyright by Capt Joseph R. John.  All Rights Reserved.  The material can only posted on another Web site or distributed on the Internet by giving full credit to the author.  It may not be published, broadcast, or rewritten without the permission from the author. 

 

This outline is the story of how the FBI Counterintelligence Division and DOJ National Security Division were weaponized. This outline is the full story of what House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes is currently working to expose.  This outline exposes the biggest political scandal in U.S. history.  This outline is also the story of how one man’s action likely saved our constitutional republic.

His name is Admiral Mike Rogers.

I’m calling the back-story to the 2016 FISA 702(16)(17) political corruption by the Obama administration “Operation Condor”.  Those of you familiar with the film “Three Days of The Condor” will note how the real life storyline almost mirrors the Hollywood film. For the real life version, NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers plays the role of “Condor”.

 

“SCIF” – a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility. To understand the larger FISA 702(16)(17) issues in 2016 it is important to focus on the word “compartmented”.

Intelligence information is housed by compartments within the larger intelligence community network. Each intelligence unit holds intelligence unique to that compartment and task. The FBI Counterintelligence unit would hold the intelligence information specific to their task or assignment; the DOJ National Security Division would hold their own compartmented intelligence; again, specific to their task and objectives. So too would the DOJ, DoD (Pentagon), State Dept., or CIA.

This compartmented structure is what led to the creation of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, ODNI. The 911 commission recommended the office to serve as a hub able to ensure intelligence sharing; that is – to ensure intelligence was not intentionally withheld from other compartments when needed.

In 2016 the ODNI for President Obama was James Clapper.

It is doubtful the 911 commission ever gave thought to what might happen when intelligence is weaponized as a political tool. The DNI is a political appointment, a cabinet member, of the President.  If the executive branch, the President, wanted to weaponize intelligence as a political tool, he/she would have control over such weaponization as an outcome of their political appointees within the: FBI (Comey, McCabe), DOJ (Lynch/Yates), CIA (Brennan), DNI (Clapper), or DoD (Ash Carter), etc.

The civilian (representative) oversight into the compartmented intelligence falls to a very select group known as the Intelligence Gang of Eight.

Four Democrats and Four Republicans (four minority party and four majority party political leaders) for a total of eight. Four from the House and Four from the Senate. –Understand the Gang of Eight Here– The Gang-of-Eight can, if they choose, interact with the intelligence product with the same level of security clearance as the compartment being reviewed.

Only these eight members can interact with the intelligence product in this way. This ensures their ability to conduct oversight.

It is critical to understand the difference between the House Intelligence Committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Gang of Eight. Only two members from the House Intelligence Committee (chair and minority), and two members of the Senate Intelligence Committee (chair and vice-chair) are participants. The other four are Speaker of the House, minority leader of House, Leader of Senate and Minority leader of Senate. The latter four are not part of any other intel committee.

On March 20th 2017 congressional testimony, James Comey was asked why the FBI Director did not inform congressional oversight about the counterintelligence operation that began in July 2016.

FBI Director Comey said he did not tell congressional oversight he was investigating presidential candidate Donald Trump because the Director of Counterintelligence suggested he not do so. *Very important detail.*

I cannot emphasize this enough. *VERY* important detail. Again, notice how Comey doesn’t use FBI Counterintelligence Director WH “Bill” Priestap’s actual name, but refers to his position and title. Again, watch the first three minutes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=HlXXZQgh72Y

FBI Director James Comey was caught entirely off guard by that first three minutes of that questioning. He simply didn’t anticipate it.

Oversight protocol requires the FBI Director to tell the congressional intelligence “Gang of Eight” of any counterintelligence operations. The Go8 has oversight into these ops at the highest level of classification. In July 2016 the time the operation began, oversight was the responsibility of this group, the Gang of Eight:

Obviously, based on what we have learned since March 2017, and what has surfaced recently, we can all see why the FBI would want to keep it hidden that they were running a counterintelligence operation against a presidential candidate. After all, as FBI Agent Peter Strzok said it in his text messages, it was an “insurance policy”.

REMINDER – FBI Agent Strzok to FBI Attorney Page:

“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office that there’s no way he gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”

FBI Director James Comey told congress on March 20th, 2017, the reason he didn’t inform the statutory oversight “Gang of Eight” was because Bill Priestap (Director of Counterintelligence) recommended he didn’t do it.

The originating intelligence agency agency, in these examples the DOJ National Security Division and/or FBI Counterintelligence Division, holds the proprietary intelligence they create in their SCIF.  They may also receive intelligence products created for them, which they will also host in their unique SCIF. Thus, intelligence is compartmentalized.

In 2015 Sally Yates blocked any inspector general oversight of the DOJ National Security Division (SEE Pdf HERE).  The Office of Inspector General. Michael Horowitz, requested oversight over the DOJ National Security Division and it was Sally Yates who responded with a lengthy 58-page legal explanation saying, essentially, ‘nope – not allowed.’ (PDF HERE) All of the DOJ is subject to oversight, except the NSD.

The White House -the executive branch- is also a host of intelligence information and consequently the White House has their own SCIF which holds intelligence products they would create (very little), or intelligence products created for them (the vast majority).

An example of a product created for the executive branch would be the President’s Daily Briefing (PDB).

The PDB as a whole product would only exist in the White House SCIF. Parts of the PDB would be hosted by the originating participant, ex. NSA, FBI, DOJ, DoD, CIA State Dept. etc., but only the White House would have the fully assembled product. After all, it’s assembled for the President.

Putting the “Oversight” structure together with the “Compartmented” intelligence security you will note that only a few people ‘could’ traditionally access the full PDB.  However, under President Obama the President’s Daily Brief went to almost everyone at top levels in his administration.  Regarding the Obama PDB:

[…]  But while through most of its history the document has been marked “For the President’s Eyes Only,” the PDB has never gone to the president alone. The most restricted dissemination was in the early 1970s, when the book went only to President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, who was dual-hatted as national security adviser and secretary of state.

In other administrations, the circle of readers has also included the vice president, the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with additional White House staffers.

By 2013, Obama’s PDB was making its way to more than 30 recipients, including the president’s top strategic communications aide and speechwriter, and deputy secretaries of national security departments. (link)

Pay attention to that last part.  According to the Washington Post outline Obama’s PDB’s were going to more than 30 recipients including: “Deputy Secretaries of national security departments”.

During an MSNBC interview about her unmasking U.S. citizens within intelligence reports, in April 2017, President Obama’s National Security Adviser, Susan Rice, defined the Obama national security departments to include: “State” – “Defense” (Pentagon includes NSA) and “CIA”….
 

So under President Obama’s watch Deputy Asst. Secretaries of Defense had daily access to the PDB.  An example of an Obama Deputy Asst. Secretary of Defense, Evelyn Farkas.

With dozens of people having access to President Obama’s PDB, Rice’s unmasking of names within the intelligence product gave dozens of people direct access to unmasked intelligence – including Obama officials who could, likely did, use the PDB for specific and intentional political purposes.  This political outcome was essentially confirmed by Evelyn Farkas who was one of the downstream recipients of the unmasked intelligence.

If the House Intelligence Committee, or Senate Intelligence Committee, as a whole – wanted to see the President’s Daily Briefing, they would have to request the individual components from the individual intelligence agencies because the PDB product was not created for them; it was created for the Office of The President.

Only the Chairman and Minority leader from each Intel committee could go to the White House to see the PDB end product. [Remember, they alone are four of the Gang-of-Eight.]

This is why Devin Nunes, who is a Go8 member, has to request the intelligence from each department (NSA, DOJ, FBI etc.) in order to share it with the oversight committee. Nunes can review the ‘executive SCIF product’ but cannot export or import intelligence product he did not create.

The Congressional SCIF would then hold the compartmented information after delivery for the committee members to review under very tight controls. The intelligence is removed/deleted after review. No systems are connected.

Our research indicates that in February and March 2017 Chairman Devin Nunes, a gang of eight member, reviewed intelligence reports (most likely PDB’s) that were assembled exclusively for the office of the former President (Obama). That is why he went to the Eisenhower Executive Office Building (EEOB) Information Facility to review.

The intelligence product would be delivered to that SCIF system for his review, most likely by the ODNI (Dan Coats) or NSA (Mike Rogers).   It would be removed from that SCIF system after Nunes review, (no systems are connected).  It is important to note here that President Trump nominated Senator Dan Coats as ODNI on January 5th, 2017 – however, Democrats held up that nomination until March 16th, 2017.

It is not coincidental that immediately following DNI Dan Coat’s ability to provide that information Chairman Devin Nunes first reported his concerns. After Devin Nunes review the information March 22nd 2017, Nunes stated the intelligence product he reviewed was “not related to Russia, or the FBI Russian counter-intelligence investigation”.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman, Devin Nunes, then held a brief press conference  and stated he has been provided intelligence reports brought to him by unnamed sources that include ‘significant information’ about President-Elect Trump and his transition team.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=VtEz57_KZGk

1.) …”On numerous occasions the [Obama] intelligence community incidentally collected information about U.S. citizens involved in the Trump transition.”

2.)  “Details about U.S. persons associated with the incoming administration; details with little or no apparent foreign intelligence value were widely disseminated in intelligence community reporting.”

3.) “Third, I have confirmed that additional names of Trump transition members were unmasked.”

4.) “Fourth and finally, I want to be clear; none of this surveillance was related to Russia, or the investigation of Russian activities.

“The House Intelligence Committee will thoroughly investigate surveillance and its subsequent dissemination, to determine a few things here that I want to read off:”

•“Who was aware of it?”

•“Why it was not disclosed to congress?”

•“Who requested and authorized the additional unmasking?”

•“Whether anyone directed the intelligence community to focus on Trump associates?”

•“And whether any laws, regulations or procedures were violated?”

“I have asked the Directors of the FBI, NSA and CIA to expeditiously comply with my March 15th (2017) letter -that you all received a couple of weeks ago- and to provide a full account of these surveillance activities.”

Again, this is why the intelligence reports seem likely to have been political opposition research -that was part of Obama’s PDB– unless it was a separate intelligence product, apart from the PDB, which was created for the Office of the President.  [I view the latter as highly doubtful because it would be too risky for the President to be asking for specific ‘stand alone’ intelligence against political adversaries, ie candidate Donald Trump.]

…Here’s where all the dots connect:

Fast forward to 2018 – Aside from the larger Russian conspiracy narrative, up to now the controversial media story has been around the origin of the 2016 FISA warrant(s).

As previously stated by all reporting there was a June 2016 FISA application that was denied, and an October 2016 application that was approved.  The current line of congressional inquiry surrounds the underlying content of the requested FISA warrant, and whether it was built upon fraud and manipulated content (the ‘Steele Dossier’) presented to the FISA Court (FISC).

Recently the media have been working frantically, against an entire year of prior support for the Steele Dossier, to distance the origin of the FBI counterintelligence operation from the dossier.   The reason why reveals the bigger underlying story.

When Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes explained his concern in March 2017 about what he saw from a review of 2016 intelligence gathering, reporting and subsequent unmasking, the issue behind his concern was clouded in mystery. Indeed the larger headlines at the time were about demanding a special prosecutor and driving the Russia conspiracy narrative.

In hindsight, and with information from our assembled timelines of 2016 though today, we can now revisit that concern expressed by Chairman Nunes with a great deal more perspective and information. Understanding the latest information will help us all understand the totality of Nunes original frame of reference.

As many of you are aware, immediately following the 2016 presidential election NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers traveled to Trump Tower to meet with president-elect Donald Trump. The day AFTER the Rogers visit, President-elect Trump moved his transition team out of Trump Tower to Bedminister New Jersey.

We always suspected NSA Director Rogers gave President-elect Trump a head’s up of sorts.

Later, during the December 2016 and Jan, Feb, March, April 2017 Russian Conspiracy frenzy, when the entire intelligence community seemed to be collectively leaking against Trump’s interests, those suspicions gained even greater likelihood. However, what we learned in 2017 about the activity in 2016 almost guarantees that was exactly what happened. That back-story also ties into both the FISA issue and the Devin Nunes concern.

Admiral Mike Rogers became NSA director in April 2014.

Sometime in early 2016 Admiral Rogers became aware of “ongoing” and “intentional” violations of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), Section 702 surveillance. Specifically item #17 which includes the unauthorized upstream data collection of U.S. individuals within NSA surveillance.

Section 702 – Item #17 “About Queries” is specifically the collection of emails, and phone call surveillance of U.S. persons.

The public doesn’t discover this issue, and NSA Director Rogers action, until May 2017when we learn that Rogers told the FISA court he became aware of unlawful surveillance and collection of U.S. persons. Put into context, with the full back-story, it appears that 2016 surveillance was the political surveillance now in the headlines; the stuff Chairman Nunes is currently questioning.

The dates here are important as they tell a story.

As a result of Rogers suspecting [FISA 702 (#17 – email and phone calls)] surveillance activity was being used for reasons he deemed unlawful, in mid 2016 Rogers ordered the NSA compliance officer to run a full audit on 702 NSA compliance.

Again, 702 is basically spying on Americans; the actual “spying” part is 702. Item 17 is “About Queries“, which allows queries or searches of content of email and phone conversations based on any subject matter put into the search field.

The NSA compliance officer identified several strange 702 “About Queries” that were being conducted. These were violations of the fourth amendment (search and seizure), ie. unlawful surveillance and gathering. Admiral Rogers was briefed by the compliance officer on October 20th, 2016.

Admiral Mike Rogers ordered the “About Query” activity to stop, reported the activity to the DOJ, and then went to the FISA court.

On October 26th, 2016, full FISC assembly, NSA Director Rogers personally informed the court of the 702(17) violations. Additionally, Rogers also stopped “About Query” permanently.

[Things to note: Note the sequencing; note that Rogers a career military person, followed the chain of command; note the dates as they align with the Trump FISA application from the FBI and DOJ-NSD, (ie. early October 2016); and note amid this sequence/time-line the head of DOJ-National Security Divsion, John P Carlin resigns.]

IMPORTANT – WATCH The first two and a half minutes of this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=CIJGH9RS2Fc

The DOJ National Security Division set Admiral Mike Rogers up to take the fall for their unlawful conduct. They preempted Rogers by filing a notification with the FISA Court on 26th September 2016 (look at the pdf). DOJ-NSD head John P Carlin was setting up Rogers as the scapegoat while knowing the NSA FISA compliance officer was still reviewing their conduct. Carlin wouldn’t notify the court unless he was trying to cover something. Carlin then announced his resignation. The NSA compliance officer did not brief Admiral Rogers until 20th Oct 2016. Admiral Rogers notified the FISC on 26th Oct 2016.

October 2016 is a very important month:

DOJ Deputy Attorney Bruce Ohr was “demoted” in the summer of 2017 after the Inspector General discovered unreported 2016 contacts between Ohr and Russian Dossier author Christopher Steele, as well as contact with Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson, in October 2016.

Also in October 2016 the DOJ lawyers formatted the FBI information (Steele Dossier etc.) for the Trump FISA application; the head of the NSD, Asst. Attorney General John P Carlin, left his job. It would have specifically been John Carlin’s responsibility to ensure a valid legal basis for the FISA application submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC).

In October 2016 the NSA compliance officer completes a review and briefs Rogers of FISA(17) violations, email collection and phone surveillance. Rogers informs FISC – [FISA Court Ruling Link]

Now Look At This – October 2016: On Friday November 18th, 2016, The Washington Post reported on a recommendation in “October” that Mike Rogers be removed from his NSA position:

The heads of the Pentagon and the nation’s intelligence community have recommended to President Obama that the director of the National Security Agency, Adm. Michael S. Rogers, be removed.

The recommendation, delivered to the White House last month, was made by Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr., according to several U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

[…] In a move apparently unprecedented for a military officer, Rogers, without notifying superiors, traveled to New York to meet with Trump on Thursday at Trump Tower. That caused consternation at senior levels of the administration, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal personnel matters. (link)

clapper-comey-rogers-brennan-1

Important reminder. Remember, in 2015 Sally Yates blocked any inspector general oversight of the DOJ National Security Division (SEE Pdf HERE). The OIG, Michael Horowitz, requested oversight and it was Sally Yates who responded with a lengthy 58-page legal explanation saying, essentially, ‘nope – not allowed.’ (PDF HERE) All of the DOJ is subject to oversight, except the NSD.

There’s a pretty clear picture here.

Obama’s political operatives within the DOJ-NSD were using FISA 702(17) surveillance “about inquiries” that would deliver email and phone communication for U.S. people (Trump campaign). The NSD unit was working in coordination with the FBI Counterintelligence Unit (Peter Strzok etc.).  In an effort to stop the activity NSA Director Mike Rogers initiated a full 702 compliance review.  However, before the review was complete the DOJ-NSD had enough information for their unlawful FISA warrant which worked retroactively to make the prior FBI surveillance (began in July ’16 per James Comey) lawful. Rogers stopped the process on October 26th 2016. As a result of his not going along, Rogers became a risk; Clapper demanded he be fired.

Ten days after the election, November 17th 2016, Admiral Rogers travels to Trump Tower without telling ODNI James Clapper. Rogers likely informs President-elect Trump of the prior activity by the FBI and DOJ, including the probability that all of Trump Tower’s email and phone communication was being collected.

 On November 17th, 2016, NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers went to see President-Elect Donald Trump in Trump Tower, New York.  –SEE HERE–  Director Rogers never told his boss DNI, James Clapper.

 On November 18th, 2016, the Trump Transition Team announced they were moving all transition activity to Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey. –SEE HERE– Where they interviewed and discussed the most sensitive positions to fill.  Defense, State, CIA, ODNI.

The transition team was set up in Trump Tower. The very next day, November 18th 2016, Trump moves the entire transition team to Bedminister New Jersey?

Does this make more sense now?

It would appear Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, is up to his eyeballs in this; though he denies participating. The FBI counterintelligence unit was monitoring Trump through FISA 702(17) upstream surveillance collected by a DOJ National Security Division that had no oversight.

The information the FBI collected, and the stuff Fusion GPS was creating via Christopher Steele, was used to create the Russian Narrative and also to manipulate the FISC into giving them a FISA warrant. ie. “The Insurance Policy”.

Ultimately, the people within all of these intercepts is what Devin Nunes discovered when he looked at the “unmasking requests” which were a result of those FISA 702(17) collections on Team Trump. That’s why Devin Nunes was so stunned at what he saw in February and March 2017.

This is why Chairman Devin Nunes is currently gathering evidence.



 

Neither military information, military branch logos, nor photographs imply endorsement of the Combat Veterans For Congress by the Department of Defense or their particular Military Departments

PAID FOR BY COMBAT VETERANS FOR CONGRESS PAC
2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184
San Diego, CA  92108