Those of you familiar with the Benghazi Brief will note the alignment and expectation of the Rogers/Ruppersberger report. Their report is exactly as we anticipated it would be.
With a House Select Committee (Trey Gowdy) already in place, you might rightly ask yourself why did Mike Rogers and Dutch Ruppersberger even produce a report? As you read their House Intelligence Panel Report on Benghazi it is important to note a few key aspects:
• Both Mike Rogers and Dutch Ruppersberger are members of the Congressional Gang of Eight. They are the ONLY authors.
• This is not a House Intelligence “Committee” report on Benghazi. This is only two committee members writing a report based on prior information.
• Both Rogers and Ruppersberger would have been briefed on the CIA operations in Benghazi during 2011/2012 as the covert operation began.
• President Obama signed a finding memo in 2011 permitting Operation Zero Footprint to begin. The congressional “gang of eight” held oversight responsibilities.
• Rogers, Ruppersberger along with Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Saxby Chambliss and Diane Feinstein would have been notified of the presidential authorization. In 2011 they were the congressional Gang of Eight. Their lack of oversight reflected a willful blindness to the operation.
• In addition to the covert Zero Footprint Operation, the Benghazi CIA annex served as a rendition site. [We find this out in 2013 from Paula Broadwell, who was the pillow-talk recipient of information from 2012 CIA Director General David Petraeus. Broadwell and Petraeus had an extramarital affair.]
The Rogers/Ruppersberger Report is 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:
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, is 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 seems to be lost in the 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 about to come under Republican leadership, Rogers and Ruppersberger have a motivation to put out a report which can be used by their party allies to avoid scrutiny.
In addition, with Rep Trey Gowdy’s Chairmanship of a Select Committee on Benghazi anticipated to start up again in January, and with House Intel Chair Rogers exiting from congress, the authors of this report hold a motive to undercut Gowdy’s investigation into missing oversight that would normally be part of Rogers/Ruppersberger’s responsibility.
For the Democrats Hillary Clinton now has a talking point shield she can utilize for her future political ambitions; and boy howdy will she use it. In exchange, and for Republicans, House and Senate leadership now have a shield of avoidance from sunlight upon their own complicit knowledge.
In addition, it is reported that Mike Rogers has ambitions to launch a talk radio show – this report allows 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 is trying to hide his willful blindness.
After you read the report again 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 this recent report.
We predicted this outcome at the end of the brief: