brakeman1 on Why Can’t Christians Just Join… brakeman1 on Revelation Chapter 1 brakeman1 on Revelation Chapter 1 brakeman1 on Revelation Chapter 1 A god who gave his p… on Revelation Chapter 1
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- January 2018
- November 2017
- August 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
1 LORD, how many are my foes! How many rise up against me!
2 Many are saying of me, “God will not deliver him.”
3 But you, LORD, are a shield around me, my glory, the One who lifts my head high.
4 I call out to the LORD, and he answers me from his holy mountain.
5 I lie down and sleep; I wake again, because the LORD sustains me.
6 I will not fear though tens of thousands assail me on every side.
7 Arise, LORD! Deliver me, my God! Strike all my enemies on the jaw; break the teeth of the wicked.
8 From the LORD comes deliverance. May your blessing be on your people.
1 Why do the nations conspireand the peoples plot in vain?
2 The kings of the earth rise up and the rulers band together against the LORD and against his anointed, saying,
3 “Let us break their chains and throw off their shackles.”
4 The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them.
5 He rebukes them in his anger and terrifies them in his wrath, saying,
6 “I have installed my king on Zion, my holy mountain.”
7 I will proclaim the LORD’s decree: He said to me, “You are my son; today I have become your father.
8 Ask me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession.
9 You will break them with a rod of iron ; you will dash them to pieces like pottery.”
10 Therefore, you kings, be wise; be warned, you rulers of the earth.
11 Serve the LORD with fear and celebrate his rule with trembling.
12 Kiss his son, or he will be angry and your way will lead to your destruction, for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.
1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.
4 The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.
5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.
6 For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.
Although there are tens of thousands of priests in the Catholic Church, there is, in the most proper sense of the word, only one Priest, and that Priest is Jesus Christ. All other priests, however, many thousands there may be, are sharers in that one priesthood of Christ. They truly share in the priesthood of Christ, but only Christ himself has the fullness of the priesthood. And this is because only Christ is, himself, the Victim and the Priest who offers the Victim. As St. Paul expressed it, “There is one mediator between God and man, the Word of God who is himself a man, Jesus Christ” (1 Tim 2:5). To adapt the simile of Jesus himself, and apply it to the priesthood, we might say that Jesus is the vine, and the other priests are branches; that is, every ordained priest draws his priestly power from the one Priest, Jesus Christ. Jesus has the fullness of the priesthood as the source from which others, precisely as ordained priests, have obtained the fullness of their priestly power, and by which they are sustained, from day to day, in their priestly functions. The ordained priest shares in the fullness of Christ’s priesthood and in the unique mediatorship of Christ.
In the ancient temple at Jerusalem, Levitical priests sacrificed animals as sin-offerings in expiation for the people’s sins, and for the restoration of peace with God. The death of Christ—because it is the death, not only of a man in his created human nature, but also of a man whose Person is the very Son of God himself—far surpasses these ancient sacrifices, which were only a dim foreshadowing of the sacrificial death of Christ. The sacrifice of animals could not take away sin, but could only remind people that they needed to repent of their sins, asking God for forgiveness. This was a forgiveness that was, in fact, granted only through the sacrifice of Christ on the cross; a forgiveness that applied to all sins, those which preceded as well as those which followed upon the sacrifice of Christ.
It is, in fact, this offering of his life on the cross, which essentially constitutes Jesus as priest, our great high priest. “Every high priest is taken from among men, and made their representative before God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins….. In the same way, it was not Christ who glorified himself in becoming high priest, but rather the one who said to him: ‘You are my son; this day I have begotten you’; as he says in another place: ‘You are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek’” (Heb 5:1, 5-7).
Yes, Christ is our priest, our high priest, called a high priest because it is his own priestly offering that is given to the Father, his unique sacrifice of his life on the cross, offered in atonement for man’s sins, and in reparation, to the honor and glory of God.
All other priests are lesser priests than Christ in the sense that, while they are ordained to offer Christ’s sacrifice sacramentally, they do so as having received this power from the priesthood of Christ, which he gave to his Church, beginning with Peter and the other apostles, which they then handed on to their successors. Yet, when ordained priests in the Roman Catholic Church exercise their priestly power, e.g., offering Mass, they exercise the same priestly power as that of Christ himself.
This priesthood of Christ is eternal: “You are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek” (Heb 5:7). Christ is a priest forever because he is such by the power of a life that cannot be destroyed. Even death could not destroy the life of Christ. That is, not only his life as a divine Person, the very Son of God, but also his life as a man, which is forever joined in his human body and soul to the Son of God, in a personal union that cannot be destroyed. This perpetual, personal union of the Son of God with his manhood—his individual human body, and soul—is guaranteed by the oath of God, who has said: “The Lord has sworn, and he will not repent: ‘you are a priest forever’” (Ps 110:4; Heb 7:21). Hence, not even death can destroy that priesthood of Christ; a fact attested to by Christ’s resurrection from the tomb on the third day, after he suffered death, and was buried.
Accordingly, we may place our complete trust in the effects of Christ’s priesthood in our lives, in the life of each one who believes in Christ. For the epistle to the Hebrews goes on to state: “Therefore, he is always able to save those who approach God through him, since he lives forever to make intercession for them” (Heb 7:25). This eternity of Christ’s priestly prayer for all those who approach him—drawn by the power of God’s grace and the Holy Spirit—is an indication that Christ continues to operate and function as our great high priest, doing so even for those who have attained the glory of heaven.
It is true that Christ makes intercession for us to obtain the mercy of God, and forgiveness for our sins, while we are in the state of wayfarers on earth. During our earthly sojourn, we are always subject to temptation, and, hence, always able to fall into sin, unless prevented by the grace of God—obtained through Christ’s priestly intercession for us—or pardoned through his intercession after we have again fallen.
However, once we have attained to the vision of God, face-to-face, then we can no longer be tempted, no longer sin, no longer die. We might question whether, in this blessed state, we still need the intercession of Christ, the High Priest. We no longer need the grace to avoid sin, or the pardon of God after our sin, but rather we will be continually filled by the glorious presence of God. Another way of putting this is to ask the question: Is Christ’s priesthood eternal? Once sin and death have been permanently destroyed, at the second coming of Christ, do we still need Christ as our priest, since he no longer needs to offer the sacrifice of his life for our sins?
To reply, it might be pointed out that the epistle to the Hebrews unequivocally states that Christ lives forever to make intercession for us. Although he had only to die once, and then needed to die no more, nevertheless, his human body and soul—joined in a personal, substantial union to the Son of God, the second person of the Blessed Trinity—is a perpetual offering to the Father, in the unity of the Holy Spirit. On earth, Christ’s human will was joined in perfect love and obedience to the will of the Father. That perfect love and obedience, having been tested through his suffering and death on the cross, continues now as an eternal, never-ending sacrificial offering on the part of Christ to his heavenly Father. In a true, though analogous sense, the sacrifice of Christ may be said to continue even after his death (cf. Jerome Biblical Commentary, 1988, art. 60, par. 42). Christ offers a sacrifice of praise and thanks to the Father in his manhood, and continues to offer the Father all the dispositions of his human heart—past, present and future—as mankind’s continual gift to the Father. Since this gift is continual, it may be truly said that Christ lives forever, to make intercession for mankind—the whole human race, past, present and future, whether on earth, or in purgatory, or in the state of glory. He intercedes according to our needs. In our state as wayfarer, he intercedes for us in order to obtain pardon for our offenses, and to communicate the grace needed for our meritorious actions. In the state of the blessed, he intercedes for us by offering, through his manhood, the gift of praise and thanksgiving to the Father. This is an offering which is also our offering to the Father, as we will continue to be joined to Christ in our state of beatitude. Even in the beatific vision, all people will be joined to Christ as branches to the vine. All will depend upon, and share in, his eternal offering of praise and thanks to the Father. Christ is our leader in glory, as he is our leader now in the faith. It is only by sharing in the fruits of his eternal priesthood, that human beings may share with Christ the light of glory.
The statement in the Epistle to the Hebrews, that Christ lives forever to make intercession for us, is entirely true. Even after sin and death have been destroyed, at the time of Christ’s second coming, those who are “blessed ones” will continue to share in his intercession. But they will do so in an entirely different way than they do now, while living on earth. During this earthly existence, humans need the grace of the Holy Spirit: a grace which also obtains pardon for our sins and the spiritual strength to resist temptation. In the state of the blessed, the glory of God, in the beatific vision, replaces the grace of the Holy Spirit, which guided them while on earth. Just as Christ, as our high priest, obtained by his death and resurrection, the gift of the Holy Spirit for his elect, so, too, in the state of blessedness. Christ obtains for his blessed ones the beatific vision—together with the gifts of perfect adoration, praise and thanksgiving—joining them to him in unceasing acts of knowledge and love. In the state of the blessed, the glory of God in the beatific vision, replaces the grace of the Holy Spirit which guided them while on earth. Just as Christ, as our high priest, obtained by his death and resurrection, the gift of the Holy Spirit for his elect, so in the state of blessedness, Christ obtains—through his priestly intercession for his blessed ones—the beatific vision, together with the gifts of perfect adoration, praise, and thanksgiving, joining them to him, in unceasing acts of knowledge and love, of the most Holy Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This union, in blessedness of Christ with his elect, is also an exercise of his eternal priesthood, forever interceding for them in the presence of His Father.
Yes, Christ, as our eternal high priest, always lives to make intercession for us, both in our state of grace as wayfarers, and in our future state of blessedness. In the latter state, all sin and death are taken away, so that our sharing with and in Christ’s intercession, will be accompanied by unclouded joy. And this joy cannot be taken away from us, because Christ has an eternal priesthood, of which “The Lord has sworn and he will not repent, ‘You are a priest forever’” (Heb 5:7).
Noll is certainly right to be suspicious of the way certain ministers deployed the Bible in support of Britain during the colonial wars and into the American Revolution. But many of the wartime sermons Noll criticizes were not sermons in the traditional sense, but legal or political polemics aimed at British policy. They were not intended to be, as Noll would prefer, straightforward “biblical instruction.” In one example, Noll praises the “exegetical precision” of a reading of Romans 13 by a loyalist minister (David Griffith) while calling the argument of a patriot minister (John Allen) “flights of fancy.” In truth, there were many flights of fancy launched by ministers on both sides of the American Revolution. But more pertinent to Noll’s charge against Allen, Biblical exegesis in favor of resistance and republicanism existed in America and Britain long beforesupposedly corrupting influences of “Whiggism” or “the Enlightenment” came on the scene. British Protestant arguments for resistance and revolution were advanced first by Marian exiles (who took some cues from the Lutheran Torgau and Magdeburg Declarations) and then by Noll’s ideal biblicists—the Puritans! (It must also be noted that all Protestant political arguments owed a debt to medieval precedent, too.)
When Massachusetts Bay colonists faced invasion from England in 1634, an invasion they feared was intent on taking their charter and imposing an Anglican establishment, their justification for armed resistance included both scriptural and legal arguments. There was not yet an “Enlightenment” to corrupt the supposedly “proper” reading of Romans 13 as unconditional obedience—just as there had been no Enlightenment to inspire the Roman Catholic conciliarists, the Marian exiles, or Cromwell’s New Model Army. Why, therefore, does Noll so readily charge these “Whigs” or “patriots” with using “Scripture to clothe what opposition politics created”? Noll’s insistence on the American Revolution as a departure from Protestant biblicism also implies a preference for pacifism. Noll writes, “Among the authors who did seek direct biblical guidance, Christian pacifists stood out by invoking the sacred page to defend positions that had been derived originally from Scripture.” However, wasn’t classical just war theory largely owed to Christendom?
We want Professor Noll to keep his historical studies coming, but one wonders how he can insist on dividing wheat from chaff in the Bible’s proper use. Will Noll cast abolitionists as biblicists, given that many of their polemics resemble the politicized ravings of the Revolution’s patriot ministers, whom Noll scorns? Will every war be condemned if its proponents used the Bible to justify it? What will Noll make of the civil rights era? Shouldn’t its wedding of political ideology (the Declaration of Independence or nonviolent direct-action) to the Bible—particularly in the work of Martin Luther King, for example—be due the same criticism he levels at the Whigs of the mid-eighteenth century who defended British rights and liberties?
Ideally, Noll will settle into simply telling this long and difficult story of America’s relationship with the Bible, and not seek to impose ahistorical categories on its use in public life.
Glenn Moots is professor of political science at Northwood University.
Admiral Mike Rogers Announces His Retirement… → Operation Condor – How NSA Director Mike Rogers Saved The U.S. From a Massive Constitutional Crisis…Part 3
Here’s where all the dots connect:
Fast forward to 2018 – Aside from the larger Russian conspiracy narrative, up to now the controversial media story has been around the origin of the 2016 FISA warrant(s).
As previously stated by all reporting there was a June 2016 FISA application that was denied, and an October 2016 application that was approved. The current line of congressional inquiry surrounds the underlying content of the requested FISA warrant, and whether it was built upon fraud and manipulated content (the ‘Steele Dossier’) presented to the FISA Court (FISC).
Recently the media have been working frantically, against an entire year of prior support for the Steele Dossier, to distance the origin of the FBI counterintelligence operation from the dossier. The reason why reveals the bigger underlying story.
When Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes explained his concern in March 2017 about what he saw from a review of 2016 intelligence gathering, reporting and subsequent unmasking, the issue behind his concern was clouded in mystery. Indeed the larger headlines at the time were about demanding a special prosecutor and driving the Russia conspiracy narrative.
In hindsight, and with information from our assembled timelines of 2016 though today, we can now revisit that concern expressed by Chairman Nunes with a great deal more perspective and information. Understanding the latest information will help us all understand the totality of Nunes original frame of reference.
As many of you are aware, immediately following the 2016 presidential election NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers traveled to Trump Tower to meet with president-elect Donald Trump. The day AFTER the Rogers visit, President-elect Trump moved his transition team out of Trump Tower to Bedminister New Jersey.
We always suspected NSA Director Rogers gave President-elect Trump a head’s up of sorts.
Later, during the December 2016 and Jan, Feb, March, April 2017 Russian Conspiracy frenzy, when the entire intelligence community seemed to be collectively leaking against Trump’s interests, those suspicions gained even greater likelihood. However, what we learned in 2017 about the activity in 2016 almost guarantees that was exactly what happened. That back-story also ties into both the FISA issue and the Devin Nunes concern.
Admiral Mike Rogers became NSA director in April 2014.
Sometime in early 2016 Admiral Rogers became aware of “ongoing” and “intentional” violations of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), Section 702 surveillance. Specifically item #17 which includes the unauthorized upstream data collection of U.S. individuals within NSA surveillance.
Section 702 – Item #17 “About Queries” is specifically the collection of emails, and phone call surveillance of U.S. persons.
The public doesn’t discover this issue, and NSA Director Rogers action, until May 2017when we learn that Rogers told the FISA court he became aware of unlawful surveillance and collection of U.S. persons. Put into context, with the full back-story, it appears that 2016 surveillance was the political surveillance now in the headlines; the stuff Chairman Nunes is currently questioning.
The dates here are important as they tell a story.
As a result of Rogers suspecting [FISA 702 (#17 – email and phone calls)] surveillance activity was being used for reasons he deemed unlawful, in mid 2016 Rogers ordered the NSA compliance officer to run a full audit on 702 NSA compliance.
Again, 702 is basically spying on Americans; the actual “spying” part is 702. Item 17 is “About Queries“, which allows queries or searches of content of email and phone conversations based on any subject matter put into the search field.
The NSA compliance officer identified several strange 702 “About Queries” that were being conducted. These were violations of the fourth amendment (search and seizure), ie. unlawful surveillance and gathering. Admiral Rogers was briefed by the compliance officer on October 20th, 2016.
Admiral Mike Rogers ordered the “About Query” activity to stop, reported the activity to the DOJ, and then went to the FISA court.
On October 26th, 2016, full FISC assembly, NSA Director Rogers personally informed the court of the 702(17) violations. Additionally, Rogers also stopped “About Query” permanently.
[Things to note: ♦Note the sequencing; ♦note that Rogers a career military person, followed the chain of command; ♦note the dates as they align with the Trump FISA application from the FBI and DOJ-NSD, (ie. early October 2016); ♦and note amid this sequence/time-line the head of DOJ-National Security Divsion, John P Carlin resigns.]
IMPORTANT – WATCH The first two and a half minutes of this video:
The DOJ National Security Division set Admiral Mike Rogers up to take the fall for their unlawful conduct. They preempted Rogers by filing a notification with the FISA Court on 26th September 2016 (look at the pdf). DOJ-NSD head John P Carlin was setting up Rogers as the scapegoat while knowing the NSA FISA compliance officer was still reviewing their conduct. Carlin wouldn’t notify the court unless he was trying to cover something. Carlin then announced his resignation. The NSA compliance officer did not brief Admiral Rogers until 20th Oct 2016. Admiral Rogers notified the FISC on 26th Oct 2016.
October 2016 is a very important month:
♦DOJ Deputy Attorney Bruce Ohr was “demoted” in the summer of 2017 after the Inspector General discovered unreported 2016 contacts between Ohr and Russian Dossier author Christopher Steele, as well as contact with Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson, in October 2016.
♦Also in October 2016 the DOJ lawyers formatted the FBI information (Steele Dossier etc.) for the Trump FISA application; the head of the NSD, Asst. Attorney General John P Carlin, left his job. It would have specifically been John Carlin’s responsibility to ensure a valid legal basis for the FISA application submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC).
♦In October 2016 the NSA compliance officer completes a review and briefs Rogers of FISA(17) violations, email collection and phone surveillance. Rogers informs FISC – [FISA Court Ruling Link]
Now Look At This – October 2016: On Friday November 18th, 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. (link)
Important reminder. Remember, in 2015 Sally Yates blocked any inspector general oversight of the DOJ National Security Division (SEE Pdf HERE). The OIG, Michael Horowitz, requested oversight 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.
There’s a pretty clear picture here.
Obama’s political operatives within the DOJ-NSD were using FISA 702(17) surveillance “about inquiries” that would deliver email and phone communication for U.S. people (Trump campaign). The NSD unit was working in coordination with the FBI Counterintelligence Unit (Peter Strzok etc.). In an effort to stop the activity NSA Director Mike Rogers initiated a full 702 compliance review. However, before the review was complete the DOJ-NSD had enough information for their unlawful FISA warrant which worked retroactively to make the prior FBI surveillance (began in July ’16 per James Comey) lawful. Rogers stopped the process on October 26th 2016. As a result of his not going along, Rogers became a risk; Clapper demanded he be fired.
Ten days after the election, November 17th 2016, Admiral Rogers travels to Trump Tower without telling ODNI James Clapper. Rogers likely informs President-elect Trump of the prior activity by the FBI and DOJ, including the probability that all of Trump Tower’s email and phone communication was being collected.
♦ 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.
♦ On November 18th, 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. Defense, State, CIA, ODNI.
The transition team was set up in Trump Tower. The very next day, November 18th 2016, Trump moves the entire transition team to Bedminister New Jersey?
Does this make more sense now?
Admiral Mike Rogers Announces His Retirement… → Operation Condor – How NSA Director Mike Rogers Saved The U.S. From a Massive Constitutional Crisis…Part 1
This outline is the story of how the FBI Counterintelligence Division and DOJ National Security Division were weaponized. This outline is the full story of what House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes is currently working to expose. This outline exposes the biggest political scandal in U.S. history. This outline is also the story of how one man’s action likely saved our constitutional republic.
His name is Admiral Mike Rogers.
I’m calling the back-story to the 2016 FISA 702(16)(17) political corruption by the Obama administration “Operation Condor”. Those of you familiar with the film “Three Days of The Condor” will note how the real life storyline almost mirrors the Hollywood film. For the real life version, NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers plays the role of “Condor”.
“SCIF” – a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility. To understand the larger FISA 702(16)(17) issues in 2016 it is important to focus on the word “compartmented”.
Intelligence information is housed by compartments within the larger intelligence community network. Each intelligence unit holds intelligence unique to that compartment and task. The FBI Counterintelligence unit would hold the intelligence information specific to their task or assignment; the DOJ National Security Division would hold their own compartmented intelligence; again, specific to their task and objectives. So too would the DOJ, DoD (Pentagon), State Dept., or CIA.
This compartmented structure is what led to the creation of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, ODNI. The 911 commission recommended the office to serve as a hub able to ensure intelligence sharing; that is – to ensure intelligence was not intentionally withheld from other compartments when needed.
In 2016 the ODNI for President Obama was James Clapper.
It is doubtful the 911 commission ever gave thought to what might happen when intelligence is weaponized as a political tool. The DNI is a political appointment, a cabinet member, of the President. If the executive branch, the President, wanted to weaponize intelligence as a political tool, he/she would have control over such weaponization as an outcome of their political appointees within the: FBI (Comey, McCabe), DOJ (Lynch/Yates), CIA (Brennan), DNI (Clapper), or DoD (Ash Carter), etc.
The civilian (representative) oversight into the compartmented intelligence falls to a very select group known as the Intelligence Gang of Eight.
Four Democrats and Four Republicans (four minority party and four majority party political leaders) for a total of eight. Four from the House and Four from the Senate. –Understand the Gang of Eight Here– The Gang-of-Eight can, if they choose, interact with the intelligence product with the same level of security clearance as the compartment being reviewed.
Only these eight members can interact with the intelligence product in this way. This ensures their ability to conduct oversight.
It is critical to understand the difference between the House Intelligence Committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Gang of Eight. Only two members from the House Intelligence Committee (chair and minority), and two members of the Senate Intelligence Committee (chair and vice-chair) are participants. The other four are Speaker of the House, minority leader of House, Leader of Senate and Minority leader of Senate. The latter four are not part of any other intel committee.
On March 20th 2017 congressional testimony, James Comey was asked why the FBI Director did not inform congressional oversight about the counterintelligence operation that began in July 2016.
FBI Director Comey said he did not tell congressional oversight he was investigating presidential candidate Donald Trump because the Director of Counterintelligence suggested he not do so. *Very important detail.*
I cannot emphasize this enough. *VERY* important detail. Again, notice how Comey doesn’t use FBI Counterintelligence Director WH “Bill” Priestap’s actual name, but refers to his position and title. Again, watch the first three minutes:
FBI Director James Comey was caught entirely off guard by that first three minutes of that questioning. He simply didn’t anticipate it.
Oversight protocol requires the FBI Director to tell the congressional intelligence “Gang of Eight” of any counterintelligence operations. The Go8 has oversight into these ops at the highest level of classification. In July 2016 the time the operation began, oversight was the responsibility of this group, the Gang of Eight:
Obviously, based on what we have learned since March 2017, and what has surfaced recently, we can all see why the FBI would want to keep it hidden that they were running a counterintelligence operation against a presidential candidate. After all, as FBI Agent Peter Strzok said it in his text messages, it was an “insurance policy”.