According to multiple media reports, former House Republican Mike Rogers is being considered for FBI Director.
There is three Mike Rogers, the one being discussed is the former Chair of the HPSCI, the Mike Rogers who protected Hillary Clinton.
First, all of the reports about a pending FBI Director announcement do not seem feasible. Current FBI Director Christopher Wray has not resigned and still has two years left on his term. President Trump does not take office until after inauguration in January, so he cannot appoint a nomination until after Wray resigns or President Trump (officially in office) fires him.
As a result, all of the reports of a “pending announcement” are seemingly moot. Unless something changes, there will not be one.
All of that said, President Trump is reportedly considering Mike Rogers, the 2024 Republican Senate candidate in Michigan who lost his election last week. [President Trump did endorse Mike Rogers, but he did not win his race.]
According to the media, one article below, President Trump is considering Mike Rogers for FBI Director. Mike Rogers was previously the Chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence and has a very corrupt history of whitewashing an “unofficial report” on Benghazi, in order to protect Hillary Clinton. When Chairman Rogers was leading the HPSCI he was in full alignment with the Deep State.
FIRST ON FOX – Will the second time be the charm for one-time Federal Bureau of Investigation special agent and former Rep. Mike Rogers?
Rogers, the 2024 Republican Senate nominee in Michigan who lost his election last week by a razor-thin margin, met Thursday with President-elect Trump’s transition team regarding potentially serving as FBI director in the former and future president’s second administration, sources familiar tell Fox News. The meeting took place at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida.
Rogers worked as a special agent with the FBI in its Chicago office and who served as chair of the House Intelligence Committee during the final four years of his decade-long tenure in Congress, was interviewed in 2017 during Trump’s first administration to serve as FBI director after James Comey was dismissed. (read more)
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. Rogers then went to work for CNN.
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.
