Was NSA Director Mike Rogers aware that political spying was conducted through the use of searches on the NSA database? Yes. Did NSA Director Mike Rogers take action in April 2016 to stop the searches within the NSA database that were entirely due to political surveillance? Yes.
Six months later, October 20, 2016, the extensive review of all the political surveillance searches done from November of 2015 to April of 2016 was completed; the NSA compliance officer briefed Director Rogers. Six days later on October 26, 2016, NSA Director Mike Rogers then informed the FISA court of the unlawful searches and his action to address the issue.
One month later 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. The very next day, Friday November 18, 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.”
Notice how the WaPo conflates the two issues. (1) Meeting with Trump (Nov), and (2) the recommendation to fire him (Oct). The October recommendation to fire Rogers was likely based on the outcome of his decision to fully stop “about queries” of the NSA database and speak to the FISA court.
The recommendation to fire Rogers preceded his visit to Donald Trump, though the IC effort may have provided some additional motivation for the Rogers visit itself.
NSA Director Mike Rogers traveled to New York November 17, 2016, when a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility) was set up for President-elect Trump to use following the November 8, 2016, election.
The next day, November 18, 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. Specifically, Defense, State, CIA and ODNI.
There was a great deal of speculation at the time surrounding the visit by Director Rogers and the move from Trump Tower to New Jersey. Did Rogers tell President Trump about the political surveillance from November 2015 to April 2016? We now know the answer is no, he did not.
Director Rogers did recommend an easier venue for the SCIF to operate with secured communication channels; but Rogers did not notify President Trump about the use of the NSA database for political spying.
It is worth noting other events in/around this timeline. The NSA compliance officer did not brief Admiral Rogers until 20th Oct 2016. The next day, October 21 the FISA application against Carter Page was approved by the FISA Court; Rogers would be unaware of this submission and issuance. Admiral Rogers then notified the FISC Oct 26, 2016, about the NSA database issue. [In October of 2016 James Clapper and Ash Carter were recommending Rogers’s firing.]
The issue of the “FBI Contractors” having access to the NSA database for political spying was stopped by Director Mike Rogers on April 18, 2016.
NSA Director Mike Rogers shut down FBI contractor access to the NSA database April 18, 2016, the very next day what happens? On April 19, 2016, Perkins Coie hires Fusion GPS Glenn Simpson to conduct research on Donald Trump.
♦ Now, fast forward to Devin Nunes in March of 2017, two similar but importantly different issues surface. (#1) The collection of information from within the NSA database; and (#2) the unmasking of names within intelligence community communication.
These are two distinctly separate issues.
In February and March 2017 HPSCI Chairman Devin Nunes, a gang of eight member, reviewed intelligence reports 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.
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 had been provided intelligence reports brought to him by unnamed sources that include ‘significant information’ about President-Elect Trump and his transition team. [WATCH]
Quotes from the presser:
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 was it 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.”
Remember, the issue of the November ’15 to April ’16 exploitation of the NSA database did not involve “unmasking.”
“UNMASKING” is an entirely different issue from the problem identified in March 2016 by the NSA compliance officer.
The NSA and FISC directly noted there was “no attempt at minimization” for the results that came from the unauthorized searches of the database. That “FBI Contractor” activity didn’t require any unmasking because nothing they did was masked (minimized).
The outcomes of the FBI contractors were “raw FISA information on FBI storage systems.”
Also important, “the [XXX] contractors had access to raw FISA information that went well beyond what was necessary to respond to the FBI’s requests.”
♦ Then we get to the question of who exactly was doing these searches?
Now, we can overlay that Daniel Richman was hired by FBI Director James Comey as a “special government employee.” Richman given TSCI clearance and top-level access to FBI activity.
Has Daniel Richman ever been asked if he searched the NSA database?
“Sources familiar with Richman’s status at the FBI told Fox News that he was assigned to “special projects” by Comey and had a security clearance as well as badge access to the building. Richman’s status was the subject of a Memorandum of Understanding.” […] “Richman’s portfolio included the use of encrypted communications.” {SOURCE}
Then we jump to the question of the FBI workstation at Perkins Coie; justified, they claimed, because the DC law firm was a “contractor” for legal analysis on behalf of the FBI.
So, the Clinton Campaign law firm, Perkins Coie, was an FBI contractor, with a designated workstation within it. And when NSA Director Mike Rogers shut down FBI contractor access to the NSA database April 18, 2016, the very next day what happens? On April 19, 2016, Perkins Coie hires Fusion GPS Glenn Simpson to conduct research on Donald Trump.
Private contractors with access to “raw FISA information that went well beyond what was necessary to respond to FBI’s requests.” The Perkins Coie arrangement was in place since 2012.
MARCH 06, 2025. Pay attention to Section 2, paragraph b.
[…] Sec. 2. Security Clearance Review. (a) The Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, and all other relevant heads of executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall immediately take steps consistent with applicable law to suspend any active security clearances held by individuals at Perkins Coie, pending a review of whether such clearances are consistent with the national interest.
(b) The Office of Management and Budget shall identify all Government goods, property, material, and services, including Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities, provided for the benefit of Perkins Coie. The heads of all agencies providing such material or services shall, to the extent permitted by law, expeditiously cease such provision. (LINK)
♦ Back to Devin Nunes presser in 2017. There are two issues: the use of the NSA database to conduct political spying, and the unmasking of U.S. persons within intelligence products created by the intelligence community. Two separate issues.
HPSCI Chairman Devin Nunes was alarmed at how the “spying” or “surveillance” of President Trump was conducted.
As noted by Nunes, nothing about the issue of concern was related in any way to Trump-Russia, the Russian interference issue or any context surrounding Russia.
The issue at the heart of the matter was how the surveillance was conducted. The exploitation of the NSA metadata storage base, the NSA database containing the electronic communication of every American. That was the issue, not Russiagate.
Later, Nunes shared his concern with a letter to DNI Dan Coats as an outcome of what he saw first-hand.
June 2017
[SOURCE]
In Nunes outlook -along with the outlook of every single govt official that I have ever had contact with- retention of the FISA(702) tools must be maintained at all costs.
Not a single member of government is against the system, which is, entirely based on a library of information that captures the electronic data of every American.
Another way to look at it is that the process of retaining the NSA database must be defended, and in the larger of the BIG PICTURES, the FISA process is simply a legislatively authorized tool to engage with that captured information.
This is why FISA(702) becomes so absolutely critical for the interests of the National Security Apparatus.
Just as Astronaut David Bowman was told in 2010 A Space Odyssey, “all these worlds are yours -except Europa- attempt no landings here.” So too, is the NSA database and the FISA exploitation therein, completely off limits to discussion or elimination.
There isn’t a single govt official who would dare step forth to challenge the baseline of the FISA process, because the FISA process is simply the tool that permits the legal exploitation of the NSA Database.
Think about the more recent example of Tulsi Gabbard being nominated to the position of Director of National Intelligence.
There was no way for Tulsi to get beyond the block of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), the group that held control of her nomination, while she retained a public opinion that the FISA tool was an unconstitutional exploit that violated the 4th Amendment.
What did Tulsi Gabbard have to do to get through that “advise and consent” process?
She had to accept and affirm that she would never seek to limit, restrict or substantively alter the Intelligence Community access to the NSA database. She had to acquiesce to never blocking or impeding FISA(702) as constructed as a tool to engage the database.
So, even a staunch critic for the abuses within the system, had to take a position that she would never attack the tools that permit the abuse to exist. To get confirmed Tulsi Gabbard reversed her position and told the SSCI she would support FISA (702) if confirmed as DNI.
The “Russiagate” story is being pushed, promoted and advanced by every interest aligned with the retention of FISA(702), and every element of the sexy Clinton Trump-Russia storyline is being used as a distraction to stop people from looking back on the issue of where this spying and surveillance originated.
I am increasingly convinced that DC wants people to chase Russiagate, because DC doesn’t want people looking at the Obama exploitation of the NSA database; because every single entity in DC wants to keep people away from contemplating the U.S. metadata capture of all electronic information that now forms the baseline for the national security state.
President Obama supported FISA. Devin Nunes supported the FISA exploit. Kash Patel supports the FISA exploit. Pam Bondi supports the FISA exploit. James Comey supported the FISA exploit. Every corrupt and non-corrupt govt official alike supports FISA. We are told that without it there are great national security threats.
It was the very existence of the NSA database that provided the Obama administration the ability to weaponize it.
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 Obama people, under the auspices of FBI “contractors” didn’t use valid FISA authorities to conduct the political surveillance or spying operation, they just used “about” searches of the NSA database itself.
The contractors didn’t mask (minimize) any search result because the only thing they cared about was getting the information. The people doing the searches were not operating to discover valid information of a national security interest. These were not defective search efforts done by persons or interests with valid intentions.
This was political spying.
This kind of unlawful activity, if exposed, threatens the core validity of the system they weaponized.
