United States Navy admiral, NSA Director Rogers Stipulates "Not on the NSA side"

Yesterday I heard from some never trumpers, specifically Comey and many here at ATS that there was no spying and that IG Horrorwitz and his conclusion prove this.
Some hear had remembered the news reports of how Michael S. Rogers United States Navy admiral, former Director of the NSA, broke ranks from the Obama administration back in 2016 and went directly to Trump to alert him to the "wire tapping" of the Trump Towers.
Many scoffed and still do. But not so long ago we had this.....

In Senate testimony last week, Attorney General William Barr used the word “spying” to refer to the Obama administration, um, spying on the Trump campaign. Of course, fainting spells ensued, with the media-Democrat complex in meltdown. Former FBI Director Jim Comey tut-tutted that he was confused by Barr’s comments, since the FBI’s “surveillance” had been authorized by a court.

nypost.com...


But now that Horrorwitz found, in his swampy opinion, that there was no wrong doing by the FBI and no bias(cliff notes style)
That was all the evidence the media, Comey and the never Trumpers needed and this quote from Rogers started popping up ...
www.pbs.org...
“I have seen nothing on the NSA side that we have engaged in such activity, nor that anyone ever asked us to engage in such activity.”
referring to the spying accusations levied by Trump

if you notice the quote from Rogers he specifically says "on the NSA side"

That seems like a clever word game deployed to throw off the deep state and never Trumpers. On the 'NSA side".
What about the "FBI side", was Rogers giving the resistance a false sense of security?

Too many word games have been used like the "all 17 IC agencies agree" we've heard ad nauseum..what a gem that was. I still hear it now and then even though it was disproved. A Brennan and Clapper word game if I remember correctly.

Anyway, that quote, in my opinion, is no longer proof that Rogers did not alert Trump to the wire tapping and I am going to keep an eye on this moving forward.

I'm still trying to figure out how he went off to work with a bunch of former Mossad hackers in a private venture

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Congress should allocated some money to pay Booz Allen Hamilton for the actual audio for Trump's phone call with Volodymyr Zelenskiy.

Corporations are all about profit. Booz Allen Hamilton is a corporation. Everything is for sale!

I have not heard or seen that. A lot of moving parts, hopefully there is a good reason for that.
You may want to consider some more research and provide us with a thread for discussion. I would definitely participate in that one, so many questions.
Would Rogers being doing that for money?
My initial response is no but he may have. I do not know enough about the Mossad hacker private venture.
I was just curious if the quote regarding the spying looks like a clever word game from Rogers.

originally posted by: dashen

I'm still trying to figure out how he went off to work with a bunch of former Mossad hackers in a private venture

originally posted by: dashen

I'm still trying to figure out how he went off to work with a bunch of former Mossad hackers in a private venture

If you need the best to get a job done, that's where you go. The 'private venture' may have been a cover.
Who knows? Q could have been working there.

Yea and the 3 Biden had....www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Congress should allocated some money to pay Booz Allen Hamilton for the actual audio for Trump's phone call with Volodymyr Zelenskiy.

Corporations are all about profit. Booz Allen Hamilton is a corporation. Everything is for sale!

a reply to: butcherguy



Okay maybe I wasn't being 100% when I said I was still trying to figure it out

a reply to: dashen

Always, All ways, remember, in the intelligence community nothing is as it seems...

It seems to me that Flynn and Rogers are on the Trump side, not because they are cultists
[as some say of Trump Supporters]
But because they know everything about everyone and realize they have a chance to finally do something about it. That should tell us all a lot about Trump,
if Trump was a bad guy they would know and not support his efforts.

I hope they both start making news and join the Trump team, but as NightFlight said "in the intelligence community nothing is as it seems" so we may never have that confirmation.
I get a tremendous sense of honor and duty from Flynn and Rogers....they bleed red white and blue.

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: butcherguy

Okay maybe I wasn't being 100% when I said I was still trying to figure it out

Since it was brought up, the investigation into Trump's collusion had to be investigated, that investigation could have been completed within three months showing that there was no collusion. But it was sidetracked outside of the parameters set by the court system, steered by the Democrats and the media. That was illegal, it should have required seperate warrants to do that, with evidence that clearly showed cause. Seems that regular people and Republican congressmen have one set of rules and the Democratic congressmen have another set of rules. Even this Impeachment crap was not legitimate, it was nothing but a high level political scam to try to swing voters to vote for the next Democratic candidate.

Maybe we should start to think twice about sending the best deceivers to Washington, the Democrats have enlisted some of Satan's finest servants.

Remember Jeff Flake, McCain. There are others, it wasn't just the Democrats.
The bogus claim was a set up from the beginning.
I disagree, it was a total sham from day 1.
Is collusion a crime?

originally posted by: rickymouse
Since it was brought up, the investigation into Trump's collusion had to be investigated, that investigation could have been completed within three months showing that there was no collusion. But it was sidetracked outside of the parameters set by the court system, steered by the Democrats and the media. That was illegal, it should have required seperate warrants to do that, with evidence that clearly showed cause. Seems that regular people and Republican congressmen have one set of rules and the Democratic congressmen have another set of rules. Even this Impeachment crap was not legitimate, it was nothing but a high level political scam to try to swing voters to vote for the next Democratic candidate.

Maybe we should start to think twice about sending the best deceivers to Washington, the Democrats have enlisted some of Satan's finest servants.

Indictments trump reveals and evidence.

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

McCain was not presidential material, the Republicans put him on the ticket to lose, they knew the economy was going to collapse under the next president. Palin was even a worse VP candidate, she is just weird. She got a few parts on Saturday night live where she was qualified for the job.

Do you think that the quote by Rogers was disinformation to throw off the media, never trumpers and deep state?

I often sway off topic, so I do understand it happens all the time and feel it is often warranted. I don't know how we got to McCain being a presidential candidate though.
I am truly interested as to the opinion of the ATS community regarding the OP.

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: fringeofthefringe

McCain was not presidential material, the Republicans put him on the ticket to lose, they knew the economy was going to collapse under the next president. Palin was even a worse VP candidate, she is just weird. She got a few parts on Saturday night live where she was qualified for the job.

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe

That seems like a clever word game deployed to throw off the deep state and never Trumpers. On the 'NSA side".
What about the "FBI side", was Rogers giving the resistance a false sense of security?

So you expect Rogers to speak for the FBI? Of course he can't do that. All he is claiming here is, "It wasn't us." It would be complete over reach if he claimed to speak on behalf of the FBI.

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

man that guy needs some sleep and some cucumbers under the eyes..

until arrests are made I will not say anything.

Congress needs to be answerable to their own IG. They need oversight.

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Is collusion a crime?

Colluding to commit a crime - is a crime

Obstruction of justice at the behest of a foreign adversary - I would say so. Wouldn't you?

Extortion is a crime. Extorting an ally in order to do damage to your political opponent - by withholding funds approved by congress? Seems like a bad idea

Can any of this be proven? We're about to find out

I do not think Rogers would speak for the FBI, however I do believe as the NSA director he would know, after all he reportedly broke ranks and alerted Trump.
So when he answers the question like he did it seems carefully scripted for a purpose.
Just my observation/opinion.
The context of my OP was that the never trumpers are and have used that quote as evidence that Rogers did not alert Trump of the Trump Towers being wire tapped.
You could also see his response as a confirmation that the FBI spied because Rogers would know if Trump Towers was wire tapped/Trump was spied on because he was the Director of the NSA and to stipulate "not on the NSA side" indicates there was spying because Rogers could have said no, blanket statement because he would know.

foreignpolicy.com...
When the media and members of Congress say the NSA spies on Americans, what they really mean is that the FBI helps the NSA do it, providing a technical and legal infrastructure that permits the NSA, which by law collects foreign intelligence, to operate on U.S. soil.

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe

That seems like a clever word game deployed to throw off the deep state and never Trumpers. On the 'NSA side".
What about the "FBI side", was Rogers giving the resistance a false sense of security?

So you expect Rogers to speak for the FBI? Of course he can't do that. All he is claiming here is, "It wasn't us." It would be complete over reach if he claimed to speak on behalf of the FBI.