Sunday Talks – Senator Mark Warner Says SSCI Bill to Block All Presidents from Fourth Branch Classified Intelligence Close to Completion


Posted originally on the CTH on September 17, 2023 | Sundance 

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) created the systems that permit intelligence weaponization.  The SSCI is the organizational institution that supports the Fourth Branch of Government, the intelligence branch.  Keep in mind, the SSCI previously created a bipartisan “Restrict Act,” to deal with what they deemed dangerous information on the internet (under auspices of TikTok ban).  SSCI Chairman Mark Warner is the current enabler of the continued weaponized intel operations.

In this video segment below, notice how Chairman Warner leads off his remarks.  Two flares triggered.  First, you can tell by his response, that President Trump’s “classified documents” were exactly what we thought they were; evidence against those who constructed the Trump-Russia claims from inside govt.  Second, notice how Warner now wants to block any President from controlling intelligence as defined by the Fourth Branch.  This stuff is getting brutally obvious.  WATCH:

“I’ve got bipartisan legislation that would reform the whole classification process. We way overclassify. We, frankly, should have a process in place so that no president or vice president ever takes documents after they leave office.” 

MARGARET BRENNAN: We turn now to Virginia Democrat Mark Warner. He is the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Great to have you here.

REP. MARK WARNER (D-VA): Thank you, Margaret.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I have to pick up where your Republican colleague just left off. Are the Trump and Biden classified documents that were in their personal possession, and not in controlled areas, equally egregious?

MARK WARNER: Well, Margaret, three things quickly. One, the administration took way too long to get us these documents. Two, while Mike and I have a great working relationship, I believe, based on the documents I’ve seen, that there is a difference in terms of the potential abuse that came from the Trump documents. And, third, it’s one of the reasons why I’ve got bipartisan legislation that would reform the whole classification process. We way overclassify. We, frankly, should have a process in place so that no president or vice president ever takes documents after they leave office. That is kind of the lowest common fruit.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.

MARK WARNER: We ought to get that passed. We’ve got part of that in the intel authorization bill and I hope becomes the law of the land so we can prevent this from happening going forward.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You’ve said based on documents you’ve seen, but you want to see more documents?

MARK WARNER: We have actually — I’m about at 98 percent satisfaction at this point.

MARGARET BRENNAN: OK, 98 percent satisfaction.

There’s a lot more on the national security front that we’re tracking right now, including this potential prisoner swap with Iran to bring five Americans home. Are you comfortable with the trade?

MARK WARNER: I’ve not gotten the brief. The Senate Intel Committee has not gotten the brief. We will be getting it shortly.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Wasn’t the staff briefed?

MARK WARNER: Well, I can tell you, I have not been personally briefed.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You weren’t? OK.

MARK WARNER: I think we need to start with the premise, it’s always the policy of our country to try to bring back Americans, who are held hostage. That was not only under Biden, it was Trump, it was Obama, Bush. I want to hear what kind of constraints are being put on in this exchange in terms of what has been reported of the $6 billion that was South Korean payments to Iran that would be released. I want to hear that and get those details before I weigh in further.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Because you have concern that money is fungible and there could be abuse?

MARK WARNER: I – you know, there is obviously — money is fungible. The administration has said there are guardrails. I want to get a better description of those guardrails first.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You have been very active on artificial intelligence. And we talked about this back in January.

Microsoft just announced a few days ago that China has a new capability to automatically generate images for use in influence operations to mimic American voters across the political spectrum and create controversy along racial, economic and ideological lines. How much of a risk is this to our upcoming elections?

MARK WARNER: It’s an enormous risk. And artificial intelligence, I’ve spent as much time on this I think as any member of the Senate, and I never spent something where you — the more time I spend, in certain ways the more confused I get. The whole economics around these large language models, which used to be, you know, who had the most data, who had the most compute power would win. That fundamentally changed after Facebook released its so- called llama model into the wild in the spring.

We just had a major session, Leader Schumer put together, had the kind of the who’s who in the room. And what it – what I’m concerned about is even the AI leaders who say they want rules, guardrails, I’m concerned that when you actually put words on paper will those major tech companies support that? Because you’ve seen, we in social media have done zero.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.

MARK WARNER: Now, in terms of China, China is a major player in AI. And where I think we ought to start, where AI tools, whether it comes from China or domestically, could have the most immediate effect would be the public (INAUDIBLE) in our elections –

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right. And (INAUDIBLE) legislative reaction.

MARK WARNER: Which Microsoft just cited. And hear — hear me – hear me out – hear me out on this. But the other area beyond elections is faith in our public markets. These same tools could completely disrupt the confidence in our public markets by using these same deep fake tools.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.

MARK WARNER: So, I believe we ought to start. If we can put together an alliance between the capitalists and the small d democrats, we might at least get guardrails coming in the next year with the elections and the concerns about our markets.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So, you’re concerned not just about spooking, you know, the stock market. We’re talking about misleading people going into an election. Congress isn’t going to legislate ahead of the election, are they? I mean Leader Schumer said this is the most difficult thing we’ve ever undertaken.

MARK WARNER: I think this is – this is why the notion of trying to solve it all, the bias questions, the whole questions around deep fakes –

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.

MARK WARNER: The questions around what’s called hallucination, where you get answers that have no relationship to what the question was asked. But we ought to at least start with some guardrails around trust in our public election, trust in our public markets. There I think we can move before our elections. I think it will be bipartisan. Let’s start on that framing point. I think we can all agree there could be huge disruption in both of those areas. And that’s where I’m focusing my time.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You may have heard our CBS polling there at the top of the program. And one of the data points I want to show you here. It says, when people compare their finances now to how they were before the pandemic, by two to one they say they’re worse, not better. And when they feel worse, they tell us they’re voting for Donald Trump.

How can President Biden win over those voters?

MARK WARNER: Well, I think we’ve seen from President Biden’s actual record, record amounts of job growth coming again after Covid. We’ve seen major legislation. There are now laws in infrastructure, in the so-called CHIPS bill, and transition in our energy economy, and most of that has only been about 10 cents on every dollar spent out. So, I think the positive effects of that will really continue to penetrate this coming year.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Do the people in Virginia feel that, that you talk to?

MARK WARNER: I – listen, I think there is a general feeling, oh, my gosh, everybody seems to be at each other’s throats here in Washington.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.

MARK WARNER: You know, the notion that we’re going to potentially go into a government shutdown. Mike Turner and I work very closely together.

But I do think – I wish the House leadership would be spending a little more time on what would happen with a government shutdown, which makes us look bad around the world, and, frankly, in a state like mine, in Virginia, where we have so many government workers, government contractors, it will be a disaster. And yet the attention coming out of the House leadership is on impeachment and putting forward things they know will not ever pass the Senate in any kind of bipartisan fashion. And I think that is part of the underlying unease that voters feel.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So, you believe we are headed for a government shutdown?

MARK WARNER: I would like to say no, but we’re eight or nine days away and we’ve not even been able to see the House pass the most basic defense appropriations bills. I hope and pray that Speaker McCarthy will say, hey, I’m going to throw over the far right, and I’m going to put together a bipartisan effort with the Democrats and mainstream Republicans to keep the government funded. I think that would get, again, 350, 400 votes.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Senator, good to have you here in person.

Sunday Talks, Intel Commitee Member Rep. Brad Wenstrup Discusses Recent Classified Information Leaks


Posted originally on the CTH on April 9, 2023 | Sundance 

The classification statement of NOFORN (meaning “no foreign nationals “) is applied to any information that may not be released to any non-U.S. citizen.

The classified documents, as released in the recent NYT/White House/Pentagon storyline, carried the NOFORN designation.  That means the source documents describing U.S. geopolitical and intelligence strategies were contained inside U.S. compartmented intelligence silos, prior to their surfacing in the social media platforms as discussed. Keep this in mind.  WATCH:

First, the story surfaces from the New York Times.  What does that tell us?  It tells us the stakeholders in a background narrative surrounding the issue as constructed are domestic intelligence interests.  If there was a State Dept stakeholder interest, the story would have been presented by CNN.  If there was a U.S. foreign intelligence operation stakeholder interest, the story would have surfaced in the Washington Post.

The story surfaces in the New York Times indicating a U.S. domestic intelligence interest, and the story is sourced directly to the White House via “senior Biden administration officials.”  What does that mean?  It means the narrative that flows from the story has a direction to shape opinion from the perspective of U.S. government domestic public relations.  It means the narrative is intended to sway a domestic audience with a motive toward something else.

Secondly, and in full alignment with the first point, the centerpiece of the story is focused on a leak that surfaces in “social media.”  This fits perfectly with the domestic intelligence stakeholders (DHS, National Security Council, etc).   We know domestic intelligence operates in the backbone of social media platforms.  An example is DHS and domestic Intelligence Community (IC) work as outlined in the Twitter files.

Put them together; a domestic IC product surfaced (being called leaked) into social media platforms containing portals controlled by domestic IC.

The domestic IC then report on the leaks to the outlet used by the domestic IC.   See how these fit?

If you follow the bouncing ball, what you immediately suspect is the domestic IC planted the ‘classified information’ in the platforms they can access, then turn around and report on the leak of the classified information to media they use for domestic narrative engineering.

♦ Motive – But why would the IC plant classified information, then turn around and report on the classified information they planted?  This is where we remind ourselves how the motives work, against a bigger picture.

The leak (planted information) and then the telling of the leak (NYT story) creates an opportunity for the domestic IC to frame a Russian dis/mis/mal-information narrative.

But why would the IC want to immediately stir up a misinformation or disinformation narrative against Russia?

♦ Answer: Just before the leak/story construct.  Two Russian gremlins, perhaps state sponsored, or perhaps just state aligned, tricked former French President Francois Hollande into admitting the U.S. government and western alliance were behind all of the events in Ukraine after 2014, with the expressed intention to construct a proxy war against Russia using Ukraine.

Russian Pranksters Vovan and Lexus, posing as former Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko, got French ex-President Francois Hollande to admit the Minsk Accords were a NATO ruse to militarize Ukraine, and Western nations overthrew Ukraine’s democratically-elected government in 2014. (Full YouTube Conversation)

As noted by Gonzalo Lira, “François Hollande, former President of France, confirms that the 2014 coup d’etat in Ukraine was part of a long-term plan to have Ukraine fight a proxy war against Russia. The Americans have been preparing this war since the Obama administration—it is now confirmed beyond doubt.”

The admission by Hollande aligns with every element of the U.S. effort to use Russia as a bad guy, including the use of Russia against Donald J. Trump.  A proxy war against Russia was in the works going all the way back to the Euromaidan efforts, the color revolution in Ukraine, as constructed by the U.S. State Department, and facilitated by U.S. allies in Europe.

This is the most explosive dose of geopolitical sunlight in years, and obviously these statements by Hollande were a serious issue for the White House and U.S. Intelligence Community.   Hollande was tricked by two Russian pranksters into spilling the real story about Ukraine and U.S. involvement therein.

Now do you see the need?  The Hollande admission is an urgent problem.

Less than one news cycle later, the IC dropped the Ukraine counteroffensive strategy in the platforms the IC has access to (a purposeful leak).  Then the IC tells the story of the classified strategy leak to the New York Times and begins framing a Russian mis/disinformation campaign.   All issues, including the Hollande story, now fall under the same claims of Russian mis/disinformation.

As the narrative is pushed by the compliant media, all of the geopolitical stories are now filtered through the prism of Russian mis/disinformation.  Ergo, all of the potentially damaging information, even if accurate and true, is attributed to Russian misinformation operations and subsequently disregarded.

The leak of classified intelligence, and the attribution to Russian misinformation, is like a brushback pitch toward the heads of the media on the explosive Francois Hollande story.  It works.

That’s how the control agents operate.  Deflection and adverse information removal is what IC operations are intended to control.  This ‘leak’ looks like a successful IC operation.

Once you see the strings on the DC marionettes, you can never return to that moment in the performance when you did not see them.

Ziiggii’s Point About Senator John Thune…


Posted originally on the CTH on March 23, 2023 | Sundance

Throughout the process of explaining events, situations, contexts, people and ultimately motives, I always try to introduce metaphors, analogies and comparative situations as reference points to understand the premise behind the interpretation of events, data and analysis as it surfaces.

Treepers in general, likely by the outcome of our association, also do the same thing in the comment section.

That’s why reading the comments is always enlightening as it expands the thoughts and considerations.

In the comments section here, as with some other voices in social media, there are some exceptionally brilliant minds that review events and have fantastic ways to distill complex issues into the core essence of the thing.

Ziiggii said something today that is so perfectly succinct, it is worth emphasizing.

Overall, we can see the fingerprints of Mitch McConnell in the background of the Ron DeSantis campaign. It’s not that McConnell is attached directly to the campaign, but rather is aligned with the overarching theme of DeSantis as being the acceptable Republican candidate.

Wall Street and the multinational corps, along with K-Street writ large, are the mechanisms that support the philosophy of the professional GOPe, those are the same entities supporting DeSantis. The core objective is in synergy. Trump represents a loss of control for the financial operators, DeSantis retains the system.

This was a point I was making when I said McConnell’s outlook is essentially DeSantis’. Then Ziiggii replied with a mic drop. It’s not McConnell per se’ that is in alignment with the RdS ’24 objective, it’s John Thune!

THAT is a brilliant note.

The ideological difference between McConnell and Thune is nonexistent. However, the difference between McConnell and Thune is the GOPe baton being handed down to maintain the status quo. McConnell has been grooming Thune for years… Thune’s time is soon to surface; there will be no challengers to Thune becoming the next Republican Senate Leader; the system supports it.

McConnell does represent the legacy Republican outlook, and to Ziiggii’s point, Thune represents the next in line to maintain it.

Yes, Senator John Thune is representative in the DC system of corrupt DeceptiCon activity, as Ron DeSantis is representative in the GOPe presidential aspirations.

A point very well taken.

One of the more challenging facets, to awakening the general public on the scale of corruption within Washington DC, is the need for people to drop party designations.

This is never truer than within the U.S. Senate where the mistaken “us -vs- them” perspective remains a pesky hurdle.

The blue team and red team are mirror images of themselves.  They are not opposites, they are mirrored – a big difference.

The policy objective is the same, the business model within DC (K Street) benefits the upper chamber the most.

Within this dynamic, Mitch McConnell is the mirror image of Harry Reid.  Mitch has been grooming his replacement for a long time; that replacement is John Thune. Senator Thune is in a position that demands stealth.  Ideologically, think of John Thune as the mirror image of Gavin Newsom.  They are not opposites, they are mirrored – a big difference.

The system of affluence and influence has been created to self-sustain regardless of party affiliation. The Senate is one club with one ideological perspective. Within that club rule #1 dominates: none of the members will ever expose another member. So, when there is corrupt activity within the Senate, no one from within the institution will expose another. This is the code of Omerta within the upper chamber.  This is the way of the “my good friend” Senate and how it operates.

Current Senate Leader Mitch McConnell has a leadership group who carry out the institutional objectives of the upper chamber as a body.  They include: Senator John Thune (whip), Senator John Barrasso (conference chair), Roy Blunt (committee chair), Todd Young (NRSC chair), Jodi Ernst (conference vice-chair), and Chuck Grassley (president pro tempore). None of these senators make a move publicly without approval from Leader McConnell.

In August of 2020, before the presidential election, Senate Whip John Thune rebuked the mail-in ballot concerns expressed by President Trump. Thune did this because ultimately the objectives of the upper chamber were more favorably aligned if President Trump was removed.

WASHINGTON DC – […] Asked if he agreed with the president’s repeated charges that mailed-in balloting will lead to a “rigged election” and “massive voter fraud,” the Senate majority whip told reporters, “I don’t.”

“Mailed-in voting has been used in a lot of places for a long time and, honestly, we’ve got a lot of folks that, as you know, they’re investing heavily in trying … to win that war. It’s always a war too for mail-in ballots. Both sides compete, and it’s always an area where I think our side, at least in my experience, has done pretty well,” Thune answered, adding: “I think we want to assure people it’s going to work, it’s secure and if they vote that way it’s going to count.” (read more)

(L-R) Barrasso, Blunt, McConnell, Thune and Ernst.

You often hear people wonder why the GOP doesn’t push back against the Democrats.  The reason is simple, the GOP are the right wing of the UniParty bird, the Democrats are the left wing.  They are mirror images of each other.

Both clubs are attached to the body of big corrupt corporatist government.

Watch the trade front.  Watch international trade, economics, banking and multinational corporation influence.   That’s the ‘trillions are at stake,’ and that’s where the opposition to everything MAGA comes from.

Reminder – June, 2015  ]