Americans Can’t Trust Mike Rogers To Give The FBI The Reckoning It Needs
Mike Rogers has spent his entire political career funding and defending the very agencies being weaponized to target Americans.
Is China spying on us? Is the U.S. government making it easier for the Chinese to spy on us? The answer is obviously yes, but there’s been a convergence of the two countries eavesdropping on Americans. Ever since the horrific events of September 11, 2001 (and some years before that, to a lesser extent), surveillance by our government has been the new normal for Americans. However, it is now coming to light that the surveillance apparatus may make it easier for our enemies to spy on us, too.
JD Vance brought up this issue in a recent conversation on "The Tim Dillon Show," during which he critiqued big government and surveillance and discussed threats to national security. He mentioned a recent Chinese cyberattack, which shed light on this issue. According to the original report from the Wall Street Journal, China recently hacked U.S. service providers, notably including AT&T and Verizon, using America's “wiretap” infrastructure.
JD Vance cited this article and criticized the surveillance network that made this cyberattack possible. He said, “We’re creating a back door in our own technology networks that our enemies are now using.” He explained, “My understanding is that part of the infrastructure that they hacked into was built on top of surveillance systems that were implemented in 2001 — Patriot Act-style stuff.”
The Patriot Act, according to another report on this interview, aimed to “enhance national security by expanding the surveillance and investigative powers of U.S. law enforcement agencies. Key provisions included increased authority for monitoring phone, email, and financial records, improved information-sharing between government agencies, and broader powers.” This law was enacted in the wake of the horror of 9/11, but its intended purpose has been corrupted in the continued expansion and application of its provisions. However, this is only one of several laws that have created the back door that our adversaries exploit.
For instance, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act was enacted in 1994 to “require that telecommunications carriers and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment design their equipment, facilities, and services to ensure that they have the necessary surveillance capabilities to comply with legal requests for information.” Simply put, service providers need to design their systems in a way that allows for government surveillance. Or, even more simply, it requires a "back door." “Back doors,” as the president of Signal, Meredith Whittaker, wrote, are inherently flawed: “There's no way to build a back door that only the ‘good guys’ can use.”
Vance brought two important issues into the conversation in light of this recent national security breach: the tyranny of bloated government and the threats to national security. The government created a surveillance apparatus and has continued to encroach on Americans’ privacy, yet our adversaries are now exploiting this same vulnerability.
Earlier in the conversation, Vance brought up the sharp contrast between what the government cares about and what matters to everyday Americans. Vance sarcastically remarked: “I want to speak from the heart here, to my fellow Americans, who are really worried that a CIA bureaucrat making $190,000 a year might have to find a job in the private sector. I recognize that that is the biggest crisis facing my fellow Americans, not that they can’t afford groceries and housing.” He added, “In Kamala Harris’ defense: Yes, she’s made it harder for Americans to afford housing, but that’s been in the service so the CIA can more easily spy on our fellow Americans.”
Sounds like a lose-lose situation.
FBI whistleblower Steve Friend has a warning in the aftermath of the assassination attempt on Trump — and it’s not for former President Trump.
“There was an exchange between deputy director Paul Abbate and Ron Johnson from Wisconsin, where to the layperson it seems reasonable the FBI wants to open up all avenues, remove the blindfold, have no blinders on, consider the fact that this could be assassination, this could be domestic terrorism,” Friend tells Jill Savage of “Blaze News Tonight.”
However, to the non-layperson — this could mean something more sinister.
“When you designate something as a domestic terrorist investigation, that enables you to make it classified, and when you have a classification code on there, you have to have a need to know in a security clearance,” Friend explains.
Because of that, the FBI can withhold information.
“The American people are not going to have the transparency that we ultimately need for this investigation,” he says.
While the FBI’s actions are concerning, that’s not Savage’s only concern.
“Lindsey Graham had a very concerning solution for the issues with the investigation,” Savage tells Friend.
“We have encrypted apps of an assassin, a murderer, and we can’t get into them all these days after,” Graham said. “That needs to be fixed folks. I’m all for privacy, but to a point.”
“What if, in the future, somebody’s using these apps to communicate with a foreign power. I think we need to know these things. We need to know them in real time,” he added.
Friend says that Graham’s suggestion would effectively render the Fourth Amendment a “dead letter, at that point.”
Graham’s use of the phrase “real time” is also concerning.
“Real time, which means continually monitoring it,” Friend explains.
“This is the government assuming that a tool will be used for ill, when it is just a tool. Because we don’t trust the government in this country. The job of law enforcement is not supposed to be easy. You’re supposed to have reasonable suspicion, probable cause, the burden is supposed to be there,” he adds.
To enjoy more provocative opinions, expert analysis, and breaking stories you won’t see anywhere else, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Did Speaker Mike Johnson betray Republicans by killing surveillance law amendment?
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) is under heavy scrutiny from the GOP after he voted to reauthorize FISA, which essentially allows the government to spy on Americans without a warrant.
House conservatives are outraged at Johnson’s decision to break the tie vote by siding with Democrats and the other 86 Republicans who voted in favor of the reauthorization of the surveillance law.
Pat Gray is equally outraged by Johnson’s betrayal, wondering if he can even be called a Republican after such a stunt.
“FISA section 702 passed easily. Its authorization of spying on Americans without a warrant continues through 2026, thanks specifically to Mike Johnson,” he sighs, noting that we need to “limit their time in office” and “make them legislate from their district.”
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), among many others, also expressed his displeasure with Johnson’s vote on a Fox News exclusive interview when he said, “I’m not so sure there’s a difference between Mike Johnson being in charge and the Democrats being in charge. ... So far, I don’t see a lot of difference.”
“Yeah, me neither,” says Pat.
Unfortunately, conservatives' vexation with Johnson is likely to continue with his upcoming Ukraine-Israel aid bill. To learn more about what’s on the horizon, watch the clip below.
Want more from Pat Gray?
To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.