Tag Archives: 4th amendment

Dec 12 2025

President Trump Grants Tina Peters Pardon, However State Officials Call Pardon Invalid


Posted originally on CTH on December 11, 2025 | Sundance 

Tina Peters is a gold star mom who was a former Mesa County, Colorado, clerk during the 2020 election.

Mrs Peters, age 70, is serving a nine-year prison sentence in Colorado state prison after her politically motivated conviction for attempting to influence a public servant and criminal impersonation for aiding an unauthorized person in copying voting-machine hard-drive data during a 2021 software update.

Mrs. Peters and her lawyers have repeatedly stated she was attempting to preserve evidence of false voter data in the Colorado 2020 election. The judge who sentenced Peters stated she had white “privilege” in delivering the exceptionally harsh sentence.

Today President Trump pardoned Tina Peters, but state officials and Colorado Governor Jared Polis say the pardon is invalid because Mrs. Peters was convicted of a state crime, out of the reach of a presidential pardon.

PRESIDENT TRUMP – “For years, Democrats ignored Violent and Vicious Crime of all shapes, sizes, colors, and types. Violent Criminals who should have been locked up were allowed to attack again. Democrats were also far too happy to let in the worst from the worst countries so they could rip off American Taxpayers. Democrats only think there is one crime – Not voting for them!

Instead of protecting Americans and their Tax Dollars, Democrats chose instead to prosecute anyone they can find that wanted Safe and Secure Elections. Democrats have been relentless in their targeting of TINA PETERS, a Patriot who simply wanted to make sure that our Elections were Fair and Honest. Tina is sitting in a Colorado prison for the “crime” of demanding Honest Elections. Today I am granting Tina a full Pardon for her attempts to expose Voter Fraud in the Rigged 2020 Presidential Election!” (read more)

Unfortunately, Colorado Governor Jared Polis is extremely opposed to President Trump and anything he represents, immediately rejecting the pardon [SOURCE] and confirming that Mrs Peters will remain in state prison.

Dec 2 2025

Pretending Not to Know Things, Continues


Posted originally on CTH on December 1, 2025 | Sundance

Washington DC continues pretending they do not know things.  It is insufferable and frustrating.  However, they are blind to the reality that a large segment of the American population is aware of the issues and understand the position of Republicans is not part of some mistake or flaw; it is a feature of their intent.

Elise Stefanik notes: “Republicans have the House, Senate, and the White House, yet the deep state is alive and well with the Speaker getting rolled by House Dems attempting to block my provision to require Congressional disclosure when the FBI opens counterintelligence investigations into presidential and federal candidates seeking office.

In a March 2017 open hearing, my questions to former FBI Director James Comey began the unraveling of the Russia Hoax when Comey admitted to not following proper notification procedures with his illegal opening of Crossfire Hurricane. A criminal act that can never happen again.

My provision will strengthen this accountability and transparency to deter this illegal weaponization and it passed out of the House Intelligence Committee in this Congress and previous ones. Yet House Republicans continue to get rolled by the deep state due to opposition by Jamie Raskin.

If Republicans can’t deliver accountability and legislative fixes to arguably the biggest illegal corruption and government weaponization issue of all time, then what are we even doing.

This language is even more essential in light of the continued weaponization of the federal government evidenced by the sweeping Arctic Frost wiretapping scandal and the recent illegal leaks of Steve Witkoff’s conversations with foreign counterparts.

Unless this provision is added back into the bill to prevent illegal political weaponization of the intelligence community in our elections, I am a HARD NO. I have always voted in support of the defense and intelligence authorization bills, but no more.

It is a scandalous disgrace that Republicans are allowing themselves to be rolled by the Dems and deep state on this.”  (more)

Republicans are not getting “rolled”, and Mrs. Stefanik knows this.

It’s all so performative, and ‘we the people‘ can see the strings.

This is factually a very dangerous situation, because the abused are now numb to the patterns and consequences of the abusers.  The abuser has not yet noticed.

Once the abuser catches on to the audience rolling their eyes and laughing at them, that creates a sense of humiliation directly in the psyche of the abuser…. Things get really ugly.

Nov 20 2025

House Votes Unanimously to Reverse Surveillance Payments to Senators


Posted originally on CTH on November 20, 2025 | Sundance

As noted last week, the Senate included a provision in the government reopening bill to allow Republican Senators to sue the DOJ and data providers who comply with subpoenas for senator’s telephone and email records.

Nine senators who previously were targeted by Jack Smith and Arctic Frost subpoenas likely stand to make millions from lawsuits under the legislation.

In the latest round of DC pretending, the House voted 426-0 to repeal that specific law and terminate the Senate payday.  Is the Senate going to take up the bill, of course not.  However, the House now has another useless talking point (strong in the pearl clutching is this one) to campaign and fundraise with.

House members are great actors, very upset – very, and their level of pretense is excellent on this repeal bill. The unanimous vote really gives both wings of the uniparty, that reach across the aisle, a selling feature for the next election.

WASHINGTON DC – The House unanimously voted 426-0 Wednesday night to claw back language in last week’s government funding bill that could award some GOP senators hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages for having their phone records unknowingly obtained by former special counsel Jack Smith.

The language, which was quietly slipped into the shutdown-ending package last week by Senate Majority Leader John Thune, drove bipartisan outrage in the House. Even outspoken critics of Smith — including House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), who is leading an investigation into the Biden-era probe — supported the effort to repeal a politically toxic measure that was quickly branded as a taxpayer-funded windfall for a select few.

“That policy, in my opinion — in the opinion I think of all the members of this institution — is unacceptable,” said House Administration Committee chair Bryan Steil (R-Wis.), during floor debate. “No one should be able to enrich themselves because the federal government wronged them, no elected official should be able to.”

The provision would allow senators to sue the federal government for $500,000 or more if their electronic data was subpoenaed without proper notification. But there are concerns over the language’s retroactivity — which would extend protections to at least eight Republican senators whose records were obtained as part of Smith’s investigation into Donald Trump’s attempts to subvert the 2020 election results.

There are no guarantees the bill to repeal the language will get a vote in the Senate. (read more)

Nov 18 2025

Magistrate Judge Positions Case Against James Comey for Almost Certain Dismissal


Posted originally on CTH on November 17, 2025 | Sundance

At this point, anyone who is left thinking James Comey will stand trial in DC is just pretending for their own agenda.  Unfortunately, the dismissal of the case against him is a foregone conclusion.

The DOJ Lawfare embeds purposefully dragged their heels toward the statute of limitations, AG Pam Bondi didn’t respond fast enough to the institutional stonewalling, and that set up Lindsey Halligan for an almost impossible task.

[SOURCE]

Former FBI Director James Comey was leaking information to the media through his friend and FBI Special Government Employee Daniel Richman. When Comey was fired in May 2017, he knew what his risks were. Comey hired Daniel Richman as his personal lawyer and legal counsel. Comey knew this would make targeting him for leaking to media more difficult.

Last month U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff, the Biden appointee overseeing the criminal case against Comey, assigned magistrate judge William Fitzpatrick to review the issues surrounding potential violations of attorney-client privilege within the indictment.

Today Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick sides with the Comey defense and blasts the prosecution for violating attorney-client privilege. [SEE RULING HERE] In addition, Judge Fitzpatrick instructs the prosecution, Lindsey Halligan, to give the defense team all of the evidence used in the grand jury indictment.

Fitzpatrick is setting the stage to dismiss the charges. There’s zero doubt about it when you read the 24-page order.

It’s enough to make you blow a blood pressure cuff when you see a judge upholding the Fourth Amendment argument on James Comey’s behalf, considering the blatant Fourth Amendment violations that Comey conspired to violate within his fraudulent investigations of Carter Page and President Trump.

Seriously though, don’t waste any hopium on this case, and expect the judge to require the government to pay all of Comey’s legal fees.

We read enough of this stuff to see a Lawfare set up when it is visible.  The Lawfare crew has this case easily won. Judge Fitzpatrick gives the defense eleven points of process with which to file a motion to dismiss.

[COURT ORDER] – First, the facts establish a reasonable basis for the defense to challenge whether the Richman Warrants were executed in a manner consistent with the Fourth Amendment and the orders of the issuing court.

Second, the facts establish a reasonable basis for the defense to challenge whether the government exceeded the scope of the Richman Warrants in 2019 and 2020 by seizing and preserving information that was beyond the scope of the warrants, that is, information that did not constitute evidence of violations of either 18 U.S.C. § 641 or § 793.

Third, the facts establish a reasonable basis for the defense to challenge whether the government had the lawful authority to search the Richman materials anew in 2025.

Fourth, the facts establish a reasonable basis for the defense to challenge whether the government’s 2025 seizure of the Richman materials included information beyond the scope of the original warrants.

Fifth, the nature and circumstances surrounding the government’s potential violations of the Fourth Amendment and court orders establish a reasonable basis to question whether the government’s conduct was willful or in reckless disregard of the law.

Sixth, the facts provide a reasonable basis for the defense to show that they were prejudiced by the government’s use of the Richman materials in the grand jury, particularly if the government’s conduct was willful or reckless, given the centrality of these materials to the government’s presentation.

Seventh, the facts establish a reasonable basis for the defense to challenge whether the government took sufficient steps to avoid the collection and review of privileged materials, including the reasons why Mr. Comey was never afforded the opportunity to assert a privilege over his communications until after the indictment was obtained.

Eighth, the facts establish a reasonable basis for the defense to challenge whether privileged information was used, directly or indirectly, by the government to prepare and present its grand jury presentation. This is particularly troublesome because the government’s sole witness before the grand jury was exposed to a “limited overview” of privileged material shortly before he testified.

Ninth, the nature and circumstances surrounding the disclosure of potentially privileged information establish a reasonable basis to question whether the government’s conduct was willful or in reckless disregard of the law. This is particularly significant because Agent-3, after having been exposed to potentially privileged information, chose to testify before the grand jury rather than separate himself from the investigation to contain any further exposure to privileged information and limit any prejudice to Mr. Comey.

Tenth, as discussed in Section IV above the prosecutor made statements to the grand jurors that could reasonably form the basis for the defense to challenge whether the grand jury proceedings were infected with constitutional error.

Eleventh, the grand jury transcript and recording likely do not reflect the full proceedings because, although it is clear that a second indictment was prepared and presented to the grand jury (ECF 3), the transcript and audio recording of the proceedings do not reflect any further communications after the grand jury began deliberating on the first indictment.

Collectively, the facts set forth herein and the particularized findings of the Court establish that “ground[s] may exist to dismiss the indictment because of a matter that occurred before the grand jury[.]” Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(ii). [more]

There are two tiers of justice.  The legal system is as rigged as the intelligence system.

It’s not Halligan’s fault; she tried.

Nov 13 2025

Representative Austin Scott (GA) Blasts Senate Republicans for Paying Themselves Millions in Retroactive Penalties Within Hidden Clause in CR Bill


Posted originally on CTH on November 12, 2025 | Sundance 

Buried on page 217 of the Senate Continuing Resolution Bill [TEXT HERE], Republican Senators have inserted legislation to “retroactively” pay themselves $500,000 each for every line of communication, telephone record, email or other electronic communication, subpoenaed by the Jack Smith Special Counsel during the Arctic Frost investigation.

The payment is a penalty for retroactive subpoenas going back to January 1, 2022. The payment is at least $500,000 per phone line or email account. That means each Republican Senator is going to make millions from the subpoenas that Jack Smith previously used.

House Representative Austin Scott is not happy the Republican Senators slipped this into the bill. WATCH:

The Bill Text is Available Here – Starting on Page 217

[SOURCE pdf]

Nov 11 2025

Republican Senators Include Provision in Shutdown Bill That DOJ Cannot Subpoena Senators Phone Records – You/Me, No Such Protection


Posted originally on CTH on November 10, 2025 | Sundance 

This is so perfectly Republican.

Republican senators have slipped a provision into the Continuing Resolution bill to re-open government, that forbids the DOJ or Judicial branch from subpoenas targeting their phone records.  The Senate will be protected from abuses to the 4th amendment, but you and me – no such luck.

Additionally, as further evidence to the structural priorities of the professional Republicans, if the legislative provision is violated, each instance of violation will result in a $500,000 payment to the senator.  Go figure.

WASHINGTON DC – Senate Republicans secured a provision in the bipartisan, shutdown-ending government funding package that could award senators hundreds of thousands of dollars for having their phone records collected without their knowledge as part of a Biden-era investigation.

[…] It was tucked into the legislative branch spending measure for fiscal year 2026, part of a three-bill “minibus” of appropriations measures that Senators were set to vote on Monday night alongside a continuing resolution to fund the government through Jan. 30. The House is expected to clear the package for President Donald Trump’s signature as early as Wednesday.

[…] The provision states that electronic services providers must notify a Senate office if the provider receives a request to disclose the data from that senator, or senator’s office. Moreover, the legislative language stipulates that the provider cannot be barred from notifying the senate office under a court order, though that notification may be delayed in the event the senator in question is under criminal investigation.

[…] This portion of the legislative branch appropriations bill also appears to provide a cash bonus for those Senators who were targeted by Smith’s probe. If the provision included in the bill is violated, the Senator can sue the federal government, and if the lawmaker succeeds in the case, the person will be awarded $500,000 or more for each violation by the government. (read more)

Don’t forget, in the last FISA-702 reauthorization, Congress also forbade any member of the legislative branch from being subject to the illegal use of the NSA surveillance system.

Congress is exempt from the FISA abuse they authorize on Americans, and Congress is exempt from subpoenas against their phone records that are authorized against Americans.

Seriously folks, we just cannot make this stuff up.

Nov 6 2025

The Hidden Transcript of Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson Testimony Is the Key to Reveal CIA Targeting of President Donald Trump


Posted originally on CTH on November 5, 2025 | Sundance |

In December of 2016, President Obama turned to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan with a request to change the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) and blame the Russians for election interference in the prior presidential election. Brennan gave the task of assembling the fraudulent intel to a CIA analyst named Julia Gurganus.

Subsequently, inside the CIA the National Intelligence Council (NIC) and the Directorate of Analysis began working on a pretext that would create the impression for the misleading Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) as demanded by Obama, Clapper and Brennan; ultimately it was constructed by Julia Gurganus.

Inside the National Intelligence Council, one of the key figures who helped create the ICA fabrication was a CIA analyst named Eric Ciaramella.

You might remember the name Eric Ciaramella from the 2019 impeachment effort against President Trump.  However, in 2016 Eric Ciaramella was a CIA deputy national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia on the CIA’s National Intelligence Council at the time the fraudulent Intelligence Community Assessment was created.

♦ The key point to remember here is that Eric Ciaramella was one of the fabricators of the fraudulent ICA; constructed late December 2016 and presented in January 2017 as part of the foundation for the Trump-Russia narrative.

Earlier this year, DNI Tulsi Gabbard began to drill down onto the issue of the fraudulent ICA and how it was constructed.  Current CIA analysts within the former National Intelligence Council (NIC) and CIA Directorate of Analysis began to notice Tulsi was going to declassify background documents, including the two-year House Intelligence Committee report revealing the fraud.  Tulsi Gabbard became a target.

Julia Gurganus was an active government employee at the time Tulsi Gabbard began making inquiries.  The CIA (NIC) changed the status of Julia Gurganus in June 2025 to that of a “covert” operative, in an effort to protect Gurganus.

The CIA changed the status of Julia Gurganus in June 2025, reclassifying her as ‘covert’, specifically because of the ODNI’s intent to reveal the fraud within the 2016 Russia election investigation.  This, the CIA thought, would forcibly stop DNI Gabbard from exposing Ms. Gurganus and taking action.  The 2025 CIA effort did not work.

In late July of this year, DNI Gabbard released the CIA intelligence information that was used in constructing the fraudulent ICA. On July 23rd, Tulsi Gabbard held a press conference alongside Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt and outlined the issues.

In August 2025, DNI Gabbard then declassified and released the CIA work product, and then later removed Julia Gurganus security clearance.

The CIA embeds at the NIC and directorate of analysis were furious, and subsequently leaked a false story to the Wall Street Journal saying DNI Gabbard had compromised a covert CIA operative working in government – a familiar ploy that had worked for them in the past.  However, this time it did not work, because her work history clearly showed Julia Gurganus was a known CIA employee.

♦ Key point:  Julia Gurganus and Eric Ciaramella both worked on behalf of CIA Director John Brennan to fabricate the fraudulent ICA in 2016. Gurganus was still a CIA employee in August of this year.

Back to Ciaramella…

In 2019 National Security Council (NSC) member Alexander Vindman also responsible for Ukraine, Russia Eurasia affairs, told CIA Analyst Eric Ciaramella a fictional narrative about President Trump pressuring Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to provide dirt on Joe Biden in advance of the 2020 election.

Eric Ciaramella then became an “anonymous whistleblower” within the CIA to reveal the story and set up the predicate for the first Trump impeachment effort in late 2019.  You might remember the name, because during the impeachment effort anyone who mentioned Eric Ciaramella on social media had their information deleted, and they were blocked from their accounts.

Facebook, Google, META, Instagram, YouTube and Twitter all deleted any mention of Eric Ciaramella as the anonymous whistleblower, and banned any account that posted the name.  However, something else was always sketchy about this.

As the story was told, Ciaramella blew the whistle to Intelligence Community Inspector General, Michael Atkinson. It was further said that Atkinson “changed the CIA whistleblower rules” to permit an “anonymous” allegation; thereby protecting Eric Ciaramella.

Knowing, in hindsight, that CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella was one of the main people who constructed the 2016 fraudulent ICA, suddenly the motive to make him “anonymous” a few years later in 2019 for another stop-Trump effort makes sense.

Until today, the commonly accepted narrative was that ICIG Atkinson changed the CIA rules arbitrarily.  This is the main narrative as pushed by the media, allowed to permeate by the larger Intelligence Community, and supported by the willful blindness of a complicit Congress.

It never made sense how an IC Inspector General, especially one that involves review of CIA employees/operations, could make such a substantive change in rules for an agency that is opaque by design. There is just no way any IG can make that kind of decision about the CIA without the Director, the Deputy Director and CIA General Counsel being involved.

Someone in DNI or CIA leadership had to sign off on allowing ICIG Atkinson to change the rules and permit a complaint by Eric Ciaramella being turned into an “anonymous complaint.”

♦ Now, things are going to start getting a little dark here, because the implications are serious, and the aspect of ICIG Atkinson’s testimony to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) being sealed is a little more than alarming when you consider what they were trying to do – impeach a sitting USA President on a fabricated issue.  Some context is needed.

Inspectors General do not operate in a vacuum.  They are authorized to conduct investigative oversight, as an outcome of permissions from the cabinet agency heads themselves.  The ICIG office, formerly headed by Michael Atkinson, falls under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence.

As the Inspector General of the Dept of Justice does not operate without the expressed permission of the U.S. Attorney General, so too is it required for the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community to have permission to operate in CIA functions with the expressed permission of the CIA Director.

To give you an example: You might remember when President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder created the Dept of Justice National Security Division (DOJ-NSD), they did not permit the DOJ Inspector General to have any oversight or review.

The 2009-2017 public reasoning was “national security interests,” as the DOJ-NSD was in charge of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISC) operations as well as Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) reviews and investigations.  The factual, evidence-based reason was the DOJ-NSD running political surveillance operations using FISA and FARA as weaponized targeting mechanisms to keep track of their political opposition, ie Lawfare. [But that’s another story]

In fact, in 2015 the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for the DOJ, Michael Horowitz, requested oversight and it was Deputy Attorney General 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.

You see, the Department of Justice’s own Inspector General (Michael Horowitz who opened a January 2017 investigation into the 2016 politicization of the FBI and DOJ) was not allowed to investigate anything that happened within the NSD agency of the Department of Justice. See the ‘useful arrangement‘?  Yeah, Funny that.

It was not until 2018, when the OIG was tasked by then Attorney General Jeff Sessions and President Trump to look into the fraudulent FISA application used against Carter Page, when the OIG was finally given authority to review activity within the Dept of Justice National Security Division.

♦ The two key points here are: #1) ICIG Michael Atkinson does not make unilateral decisions to change the internal rules within the CIA, without the expressed permission of the CIA Director, CIA Deputy Director and CIA General Counsel. #2) The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) would also know of the changed rules and arrangement therein.

At the time of the impeachment allegation and investigation by the House (Aug to Dec 18, 2019), the CIA Director was Gina Haspel (May 21, 2018, to January 20, 2021). The CIA Deputy Director was Vaughn Bishop, and the CIA General Counsel was Courtney Simmons Elwood.  In addition, the Acting DNI was Joseph Maguire.

We can reasonably be certain that CIA General Counsel Courtney Elwood and Acting DNI Joseph Maguire did not sign-off on changing the CIA rules permitting an anonymous whistleblower, because published media reports at the time outline both offices as NOT supporting the effort of ICIG Atkinson.

In fact, as the story is told (and investigatively affirmed) CIA Analyst Eric Ciaramella was frustrated because he talked to CIA General Counsel Elwood about the leak from Alexander Vindman, and Elwood did not respond to his claims.

Instead, of following chain-of-command, CIA Analyst Ciaramella went to the House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, and relayed the story as told to him by Vindman.  The 2019 conversation between Ciaramella, the CIA analyst who previously fabricated the fraudulent Russia ICA in 2017, and Adam Schiff who fraudulently pushed the Trump-Russia narrative in 2017, took place prior to the CIA whistleblower complaint being filed.

Now we get to the crux of the story.

♦ On October 4, 2019, ICIG Michael Atkinson gave closed-door testimony to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) as part of their impeachment investigation.  One of the key questions to Atkinson surrounded the authority of his office changing the CIA whistleblower rules that permitted Eric Ciaramella to remain anonymous.

That Atkinson testimony was then “classified” and sealed under the auspices of “national security” by HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff, the same guy who Ciaramella talked to before filing the complaint.

If congress, or more importantly the American public, had known CIA Analyst Eric Ciaramella was both the key author of the fraudulent 2016 ICA and the later 2019 CIA complaint, it’s doubtful any impeachment effort would have moved forward.

From within the CIA, Eric Ciaramella was the impeachment narrative creator and the Russian interference narrative creator.  In short, a political fabricator of intelligence within the CIA.

Again, ICIG Atkinson could not change the ‘whistleblower’ regulations on his own.  Someone had to sign-off on that, giving him the authority. Additionally, Atkinson a former legal counsel to the Deputy Asst Attorney General within the DOJ-NSD, is not going to go out on such a limb without a cya to protect himself.

The only person likely to give that authority within the structures and confines that operate inside our government was then CIA Director, Gina Haspel.  The Deputy CIA Director is not going to make that kind of a decision, especially given the circumstances, and the CIA General Counsel was not touching it.

That outline of events means the 2016/2017 CIA ‘stop-Trump’ operation under CIA Director John Brennan, was effectively continued by CIA Director Gina Haspel in 2019/2020.

[SIDENOTE: Now, does the 2020 CIA operation known as the “51 Intelligence Experts’ who denied the Hunter Biden laptop story take on context?  Now does the recent reaction, the angry outburst by former CIA Director John Brennan about the ICA construct take on some context?]

This is where doors slam and DC officials run out of the room.

This is where ‘pretending not to know‘ takes on another meaning entirely.

♦ IMPLICATIONS: CIA Director Gina Haspel had no way to know if the 2019 impeachment of President Trump was going to be successful.  Just as the ICIG needed a CYA to protect himself, so too would Director Haspel want a legal defense mechanism in case the entire fiasco blew up.  Enter the only oversight agency that can provide Haspel cover, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

Underneath all of these machinations, there’s no other way for Director Haspel to protect herself other than to use the primary mechanism within the functions of IC oversight, inform the SSCI chair and vice-chair of her changed rule guidance to ICIG Atkinson.  That Occam’s Razor scenario puts SSCI chairman ¹Richard Burr and SSCI vice-chair Mark Warner in the silo-system loop.  If things blew up, Haspel could always defend herself by pointing to her informing the mechanism for CIA oversight, the SSCI.

• DNI Dan Coats resigned from office when the Trump impeachment effort was announced, August 2019.

• Acting DNI Joseph Maguire was appointed by President Trump to replace Dan Coats.

• Following the impeachment trial, President Donald Trump was acquitted by the Senate on February 5th, 2020.

• On Feb 20, 2020, President Trump replaced acting DNI Joseph Maguire with acting DNI Ric Grenell.

• On February 28, 2020, President Trump nominated John Ratcliffe to be DNI.

• Ratcliffe was confirmed May 26, 2020, and took office.

Before the impeachment effort began, Congressman John Ratcliffe was President Trump’s first choice to replace outgoing DNI Dan Coats in 2019. However, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence said they would not confirm John Ratcliffe.  President Trump was forced to appoint “acting DNIs.”

Somehow, within an unexplained reversal, after the impeachment effort ended, the SSCI had a change of position and agreed to confirm John Ratcliffe.

As the fully confirmed DNI, in 2020 John Ratcliffe would have full control of the ICIG, including an understanding of what took place within the CIA that led to the change in protocol creating the “anonymous whistleblower” complaint: the impeachment origination.

As Chair of the SSCI in 2019, it is highly likely that CIA Director Gina Haspel informed Richard Burr of the change in protocol creating the “anonymous whistleblower” complaint: the impeachment origination.  ¹Richard Burr was replaced by Marco Rubio in May 2020.

John Ratcliffe is now CIA Director.  Marco Rubio is now National Security Advisor.

The transcript of ICIG Michael Atkinson’s testimony remains sealed.

The truth has no agenda.

We have one ally.

I’m doing all I can…

Nov 1 2025

DOJ and FBI Whistleblowers Continue Providing Evidence of Arctic Frost Targeting Operation


Posted originally on CTH on October 31, 2025 | Sundance 

Senator Ron Johnson underlines a key point being missed by many.  All of the revelations about the FBI’s Arctic Frost investigation against President Trump and his supporters, are being provided by evidence carried to congress by DOJ/FBI “whistleblowers.”

Pause and reflect on that observation for a few moments.  The public awareness of political targeting by the DOJ/FBI is coming from ‘whistleblowers’ to Senator Chuck Grassley.  It is not Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel bringing forward the information about the weaponized use of their institutions.

If Pam Bondi and Kash Patel were in control of the root systems within their agencies, they would be the ones bringing forth the information; they are not. Bondi and Patel are not in control.  Instead, the sunlight is coming from a few people within the organizations who are pushing the evidence out. Senator Johnson is providing a very deliberate point here:

One of the ongoing frustrations within the current dynamic is Pam Bondi and Kash Patel continuing to talk publicly about the honor, integrity and fidelity of the institutions they lead; without a public admission and statement about their agencies being comprehensively corrupted by the operation that Barack Obama and Eric Holder carried out.

Operation “Arctic Frost” did not originate organically in response to the J6 protests or the Jack Smith investigation.  Arctic Frost was simply an extension of all former targeting operations that were carried out over the past ten years.

The targeting operation using the IRS.  The targeting operation using the NSA database. The targeting operation using Crossfire Hurricane.  The targeting operation using Robert Mueller.  The targeting operation using the CIA impeachment effort (Schiff/Nadler).  The targeting operation using J6 effort (Thompson).  The targeting operation using Jack Smith.  The Arctic Frost targeting operation.  These are all designated and evidenced identifiers of a continuum of government targeting operations that has its origin in Barack Obama and Eric Holder.

Two simultaneous realities need to be accepted if this mess is to get to the point of accountability.

First, the primary function of the FBI is to protect the interests of Washington, DC.  Within the body politic everyone knows what the purpose and agenda is for the FBI mission; there is no one in Washington DC who does not know this.  As a collective body they pretend not to know, because the ramifications of admitting knowledge are far greater than the actual corruption they pretend not to know exists.

Secondly, plausible deniability must be maintained by everyone in Washington DC as it pertains to their pretending.  The FBI operates to defend the pretending by targeting any entity who would appear with the evidence of the underlying corruption.  The FBI will attack any entity who brings forth the sunlight, because the sunlight itself destroys the illusions that all pretending is reliant upon.

To maintain the pretenses in Washington DC, the FBI must target anyone who brings evidence of corruption or unlawful activity.  This is the primary operating mission of the FBI and the Lawfare agents within the DOJ who are vicious in their alignment to keep powerful people protected.

If you think it’s bad, it’s actually worse.

[SOURCE]

Last point from my own personal experience in this Machiavellian network.

If we accept the outlook that Washington DC politics is essentially a UniParty when it comes to retention of the status quo for both affluence (money) and influence (power); then we must begin to accept the same dynamic also exists within DC media.

There are no allies for the American people within the construct of a Right/Left Washington, DC media perspective.  It simply does not exist.  The same way the FBI will attack any truthteller, the “conservative” DC media will do the same to isolate, ridicule and marginalize any voice who brings evidence of the corruption they must pretend not to know about.

The DC protectorate promote outrage as a distraction.

It takes skill to see the trees while standing in the forest.

In the example above, Ron Johnson is highlighting the obvious nature of the trees.

Oct 30 2025

Senators Ted Cruz and Eric Schmitt Call for the Impeachment of DC Judge James Boasberg


Posted originally on CTH on October 29, 2025 | Sundance 

Now that they personally become a target of Lawfare practices, suddenly the Senate wants to see some actionable accountability. Funny that.

After years of corrupt weaponization of his position, Judge James Boasberg is now outlined as having authorized the search warrants against the Arctic Frost targets which included nine Republican senators.  Boasberg also wrote restraining orders forbidding the cell phone carriers from informing the targets of the corrupt search warrants.

Now senators Ted Cruz and Eric Schmitt are calling for House Speaker Mike Johnson to impeach James Boasberg.  WATCH:

.

There is a long history of corruption from the bench by James Boasberg, specifically surrounding the effort to target Donald Trump in a host of DC court rulings, injunctions and affirmations from the judicial branch [SEE HERE – TAKE A SNICKERS].  However, now that it hits close to home, suddenly Congress is outraged.

Everything Senator Eric Schmitt and Ted Cruz say is accurate.  But why did they ignore the long history of Boasberg’s activity?  Schmitt statement below.

.

Judge James Boasberg signed off on the ‘Arctic Frost’ search warrants against Congress.

Boasberg issued blanket orders to the cell phone companies not to reveal the search warrants.

Boasberg is a FISA Court Judge.

Boasberg authorized one of the Carter Page title-1 surveillance warrants.

Boasberg hired Mary McCord as amicus to the court.

After appointing Mary McCord to take up a defensive position for herself and the FISA Court (cover), Judge Boasberg then becomes the presiding judge in the case against the FBI agent who falsified the FISA application, Kevin Clinesmith. Boasberg gives Clinesmith a slap on the wrist and a few months probation (more cover).

Boasberg told John Durham (Bill Barr) allowing a target to escape prosecution is part of the penalty upon the DOJ for wrongful assembly of the FISA application; a nice way to cover the issue.

https://t.co/FXXV4c89kE

This is the same Judge Boasberg who gave J6 FBI agent provocateur Ray Epps a sentence of probation.

This is the same Judge Boasberg who established a horrible precedent by forcing Vice President Mike Pence to testify before a DC grand jury about his conversations with President Trump (breaking executive privilege).

While on vacation, Boasberg attended the criminal indictment hearing of President Trump.

Judge Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) blocking DHS, Customs and Border Patrol and ICE from deporting illegal aliens and narcotrafficking gang members belonging to Tren de Aragua (TdA), a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.

There were calls for Boasberg to be impeached.

Immediately, the same day President Trump noted Boasberg should be impeached, Chief Justice John Roberts jumped to his defense:

...”“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose,” Roberts said Tuesday in a rare and brief statement issued just hours after Trump publicly joined demands by his supporters to remove judges he called “crooked.”

https://politico.com/news/2025/03/18/john-roberts-donald-trump-impeach-federal-judges-00235742

F**k off with this nonsense telling me Roberts is NOT protecting Boasberg.

Keep in mind, Mary McCord operates in all three branches of government: Deputy AG in charge of the DOJ-NSD (executive), on both impeachment committees by Schiff/Nadler and the J6 committee of Thompson (legislative), and as amicus to the FISA court (judicial). That’s why she is “untouchable.”

Mary McCord’s husband, Sheldon Snook, worked in the office of Chief Justice Roberts. Mary McCord is partnered with Norm Eisen. Norm Eisen hosted John Roberts in Europe and travelled with Justice Roberts as friends.

There is no apple. It’s all worms.

Dec 11 2016

KOMMONSENTSJANE – AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL ATTACKS DEMOCRACIES, FORGIVES ISLAMIST TYRANNIES


When you are insane, like most of the progressive left is, there is absolutely no chance that anything remotely rational will pass by their lips as spoken words!

kommonsentsjane's avatarkommonsentsjane

Amnesty International Attacks Democracies, Forgives Islamist Tyrannies

by Giulio Meotti

Giulio Meotti, Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author.

December 9, 2016 at 5:00 am

◾”Morally bankrupt.” — Salman Rushdie, author with a $600,000 bounty from Iran’s regime on his head, speaking of Amnesty International.
◾Amnesty sponsored a rally in Brussels, where Islamist speakers celebrated the 9/11 attacks, denied the Holocaust and demonized gays and Jews.
◾It seems that Amnesty turned its back on the battle of human rights in favor of a grotesque anti-Western bias. The Economist accused Amnesty of “reserving more pages to human rights abuses in Britain and the United States than in Belarus and Saudi Arabia.”
◾Amnesty’s secretary general compared Soviet forced-labor camps, where millions died of hunger, cold and executions, to a US military base where no prisoner has died, and which has prevented countless innocent civilians from being blown up.

View original post 1,165 more words