Posted originally on the CTH on March 11, 2024 | Sundance
I’m not knowledgeable enough about all the candidates running for the Senate seat in Michigan, but if the most likely candidates to exit the Republican primary are Justin Amash, Pete Meijer or Mike Rogers, then the ‘hold your nose’ and choose Mike move might make sense. Other than that, Mitch McConnell is likely smiling because Senator Mike Rogers and Senator Adam Schiff will likely be two more arrows in the SSCI ‘Stop Trump’ quiver for 2025.
Former House Intel Chairman Mike Rogers has picked up the endorsement of President Trump; essentially sealing his likelihood to win the Michigan senate primary. Unfortunately, Rogers is very connected to the Deep State intelligence community apparatus. Devin Nunes replaced Rogers after the Michigan representative retired from congress in ’14.
Mike Rogers together with Democrat Rep Dutch Ruppersberger, were infamous for generating the report that defended the CIA and Deep State during the Benghazi aftermath and protecting Hillary Clinton {GO DEEP}. CTH took apart the report that was created by Rogers and Ruppersberger without the other members of the intelligence committee participating.
Annoyingly, Rogers has a long history of helping to assist and create the national security “surveillance state.” SEE HERE and SEE HERE and SEE HERE. Perhaps he has changed in the decade since he was one of the primary advocates for the Deep State and the creation of the 4th branch of government; however, I doubt it.
I also doubt that President Trump was advised about the nature of Mike Rogers and his ideological outlook toward supporting the National Security state. Rogers has a life-long history of supporting the very institutional actors who targeted President Trump, so it’s a little hard to see him supporting President Trump in the second term.
The 2014 Rogers/Ruppersberger Report was specifically designed, by wording, to provide political cover to both parties – Republicans and Democrats within the Gang of Eight particularly included and protected.
It is professional obfuscation in structure, content and wording. Here’s an example: Page #2
This is an excellent paragraph to show how the entire 37 page document is strategically worded.
…” no evidence […] wrongly forced to sign a nondisclosure agreement“
This wording intimates that none were signed. Not correct. We know nondisclosures were required. This phrasing simply says none were “wrongly forced“. Where the intelligence community/committee determines rightly and wrongly.
…”or polygraphed because of their presence in Benghazi“
Again, this doesn’t say that intelligence officials were not polygraphed, only that the auspices for their polygraphs was not a result of their knowledge in Benghazi. Again where the intelligence community (IC) determines the valid auspices.
…”The committee also found no evidence that the CIA conducted unauthorized activities in Benghazi”…
Parseltongue. The word emphasized is “unauthorized“, meaning all of the activity was known, active, and authorized. As expected, and outlined within The Brief.
…”and no evidence that the IC shipped arms to Syria“.
BIG parseltongue. Note the absence of the word “direct” or “directly“.
Of course we sent arms to Syria, the administration admitted to sending arms to Syria, just not “directly”, which is the keen distinction within the paragraph. This aspect was also critical to include because Hillary Clinton testified to a Rand Paul question about it.
The entire Rogers/Ruppersberger “Panel Report”, which is not to say the report was done by the entire House Intelligence Committee – because it was not, was similarly worded.
Mike Rogers and Dutch Ruppersberger together, and alone, pulled data from all of the various committee reports and assembled their own “panel report”. This key aspect was lost in the Benghazi conversation, only Rogers and Ruppersberger authored this report.
The reason for that key aspect of authorship missing, within analytical discussion of the content therein, begins the conversation of motive.
With Senate committees in 2014 about to come under Republican leadership, Rogers and Ruppersberger had a motivation to put out a report which could be used by their party allies to avoid scrutiny.
In addition, with Rep Trey Gowdy’s Chairmanship of a Select Committee on Benghazi starting up in January 2015, and with House Intel Chair Rogers exiting from congress, the authors of the report held a motive to proactively undercut Gowdy’s investigation into missing oversight that would normally be part of Rogers/Ruppersberger’s responsibility.
For the Democrats, Hillary Clinton was given a talking point shield she utilized for her future political ambitions; and boy howdy did she use it.
In exchange, for Republicans, House and Senate leadership gained a shield of avoidance from sunlight upon their own complicit knowledge.
In addition, it was reported in 2014 that Mike Rogers had ambitions to launch a talk radio show – this report allowed him to retain credibility and avoid sunlight upon his own complicity as a member of the “Gang of Eight”, and chair of the House Intelligence Committee during the State/CIA Benghazi operation. In short: Mike Rogers hid his willful blindness.
If you read the Rogers/Ruppersberger report, we invite you to look at the factual constructs of The Full Benghazi Brief. Within the brief you will see the fully connected dots which explain the risks, liabilities and willful blindness, trying to be hidden by publication of the Rogers report. CTH predicted exactly that outcome at the end of the brief.
Centinel2012 