Tag Archives: AG Pam Bondi

Jan 2 2026

Here We Go – First Day of 2026, First Discussion of FISA-702 Reauthorization Surfaces


Posted originally on CTH on January 1, 2026 | Sundance 

The tenuous legal theory permitting the U.S. government to conduct surveillance on U.S. citizen data (emails, texts, phone calls, messages etc.) rests on the unconstitutional ability of the government to intercept your “private papers” with the use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, specifically FISA-702.  The “702” aspect is the term for U.S. citizen intercepted.

The authority for the United States government to capture the electronic records of all Americans without warrant falls under the auspices of FISA-702.  The current authority expires in April of 2026.  The 702 authorities have been abused to conduct political surveillance for just about everything in Washington DC.  Millions of unauthorized searches have been identified; it is unconstitutional.

Politico, an outlet for the concerns of the administrative state, begins the new year by noting there is increased resistance to the reauthorization.  However, in order to carry out the domestic national security agenda of the Trump administration, the Deep State considers JD Vance, Marco Rubio and others as likely supporters for reauthorization.

(Politico) – […] During the last reauthorization debate in 2024, then-candidate Trump urged Congress to “kill” the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the larger spy law that Section 702 is nested under. Trump’s decision frustrated supporters of the program — in part because they believe he conflated the foreign-target spy program with the broader surveillance law that was not up for reauthorization.

A crucial Biggs-sponsored House amendment that would have added a warrant requirement for any communications involving Americans failed on a 212-212 tie, with Speaker Mike Johnson casting a rare and decisive vote to kill it.

Now the spy powers fight is a major headache for Johnson, who infuriated privacy hawks with his 2024 amendment vote after having advocated for more surveillance guardrails as a former member of the Judiciary Committee.

Judiciary Committee Republicans — led by Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, a close Trump ally — have started discussing how to approach the reauthorization during their weekly meetings. Jordan said in an interview he is again hoping to impose a warrant requirement for searches involving Americans as well as a ban on data brokers selling consumer information to law enforcement.

He said he has “had some discussions over this past year with some members of the administration” on this issue and plans to meet alongside House Intelligence Committee Chair Rick Crawford (R-Ark.) with White House officials on the matter early next year.

Lawmakers on both sides of the debate are carefully watching Crawford, who opposed the warrant requirement in 2024 — along with every other House Intelligence Committee Republican. But Johnson has since added five Republicans to the panel who each voted for the Biggs amendment.

A committee spokesperson said Crawford is working with House leadership, Jordan, the Senate and the administration “to determine the best way forward to extend 702 authority.”

There are still, however, a majority of Intelligence Committee Republicans who are working to extend the program without adding a warrant requirement — and they are hoping administration officials whom they view as allies, including Vice President JD Vance, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, will be able to sway Trump. (read more)

Some administrative state defenders will argue this issue with me. However, having researched almost every aspect to the construct, and the argument, I am confident FISA-702 authority underpins the much bigger, quasi-constitutional justification for the wholesale collection of U.S. citizen metadata.  Without the 702 authority, the legal justification for the apparatus of surveillance no longer exists.  It really is that simple.

The only way the government can justify the capture of U.S. Citizen data is if there is some quasi-constitutional or national security reason for it.  That’s where FISA-702 comes in.

Take away “702” search authority, and the data collection argument collapses; ANY “incidental” search of the database then loses any plausible legal justification.  702 is the camel’s nose under the tent that forms the baseline for all data records to be intercepted, stored and ultimately available for review.

This is a very key component to fully understand.  Most practical applications of surveillance are contingent upon the capture of electronic records for tracking.  Ex. – if domestic travel records are considered private papers (never argued yet), then government agencies have no right to exploit them without a valid search warrant underpinned by a national security justification.  The government, not private sector – government, tracking people becomes more difficult if privacy rules are applied.

The legal aspect runs through the 4th Amendment, which -while historically undefined in the modern era- likely stirs in the background of the recent TSA decision to provide a $45 opt-out, for the use of REAL ID in domestic transit (interstate commerce application notwithstanding).

The Fourth Amendment aspect to the ‘warrantless’ government capture of American citizen records has never been fully argued in court; the modern definitions are opaque, and the govt has a vested interest in retaining the untested status quo.

The Intelligence Community (IC) has told Congress, particularly the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, that all hell will break loose if they don’t reauthorize full electronic surveillance of Americans.

Congress has historically been scared of the “seven ways from Sunday” IC.  However, now Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard is attempting to change things; specifically change things as they pertain to the domestic use of the intelligence agencies.

As the counterargument is made, House Speaker Mike Johnson, and all of the key participants, are siloed from understanding that 702 has nothing to do with incidental collection of American data, whilst the honorable IC were doing foreign intercepts.

According to intelligence experts, Speaker Johnson and most Republicans believe the IC justification, and perhaps many of them pretend not to know the alternatives.  I do not buy this argument, because too much recent evidence exists to sell the story that Congress is unknowing of how this metadata capture is being continually exploited.

The only way to really test congressional knowledge is to question them.  No one is questioning them.

In my opinion, the politicians and their key staff pretend they cannot fathom how the FBI, DOJ, NSD, DHS and contractors use this database to conduct political and “other” (think corporate espionage for sale) surveillance.  When you engage with them, you realize they really do put on a great show proclaiming the IC is full of honorable rank-and-file, trying to walk a fine line between the 4th Amendment and exploitation.  The counter position is akin to them living in a DC bubble.

The IC argument is now something akin to how we have let thousands of terrorists into the country through the southern border crisis.  They say: “My god, we need to monitor the terrorists, and if you take away the 702, the foreign terror cells will activate and start killing us all.  Do you want that blood on your hands?”   You cannot take away surveillance tools.

Then you overlay the FISA 702 reauthorization argument, as used as a bargaining chip by the same people who don’t want to get caught up in the surveillance.

The DC conversations end up like, “Ok, we’ll reauthorize it, but you cannot use it against us – and all the sex parties and perverted stuff we do when no one is around; you must promise to keep our secrets hidden“…  Then, just like the 2024 reauthorization change, they exempt themselves.

The IC agree to accept a reauthorization that exempts Congress.   The IC keep the process – just promise not to use it against Congress.   This outlook is what we see visible in the CR bill extension that included forbidding the FBI from seeking search warrants against Senator’s telecommunications, and this outlook is highlighted by Elise Stefanik demanding that Congress be notified if any federal candidate for office is under investigation.   The Big Club protects the Big Club.

Unfortunately, ‘We The People’ do not have many friends in DC on this issue, other than a very small group in/around Tulsi Gabbard’s office, and they are constantly under attack.

The DC UniParty will attempt to reauthorize 702 to continue exploiting their surveillance authority. Do not forget, now we have over 10,000 log-in portals with access to the NSA database exist, including the workstation at Perkins Coie that tied into the NSA database {GO DEEP}.

After spending several years asking every representative of consequence why they support the FISA-702 process, I can tell you every one of them says they believe it is needed, because the IC tells them there are just too many domestic terror threats that need to be monitored.

It is almost impossible to find a person in DC who will forcefully try to stop FISA-702 reauthorization.

If you ask me why in hindsight, I now take the position that FISA-702 is the gateway to the massive surveillance system currently being put into place using Real ID and the AI facial recognition software provided by Palantir (CIA exploit).  In essence, the gateway that allows the full-scale surveillance state, is opened by the prior authorization of FISA-702 that negates any 4th Amendment protection.

BIG Why? Because all of the surveillance mechanisms within the network being updated and enhanced by AI search and capture, comes from the IC being allowed to exploit the NSA database.  That same database access allowance is the targeting mechanism for FISA-702.  If warrantless searches of the NSA database were stopped, the Palantir/IC and Tech Bro collaboration could hit a brick wall.

The significance of this FISA-702 issue is much bigger than most can appreciate.

This surveillance underpinning also reconciles many of the puzzled faces when it comes to who is permitted nomination and who is not.  The DC Deep State confirmed both Kash Patel to be Donald Trump’s FBI Director (SSCI), and Pam Bondi to be U.S. Attorney General (SJC).  Both Bondi and Patel are expressed believers in the value of FISA-702.

You might even remember this odd question from October of 2025 that came out of nowhere.  Attorney General Bondi literally read a script on the issue that was prepared for her.  WATCH:

Additionally, the nomination of Tulsi Gabbard to be Director of National Intelligence was initially opposed by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), until she acquiesced and agreed there was value in the FISA-702 process.

We have a few weeks before things get really ugly, but they will get ugly.

Deals will be cut.  Offers will be made. Corruption throughout this argument will run amok.

In the background of every headline, that will surface over the next two months, this issue will enmesh.

We need to watch closely how National Security Advisor Marco Rubio, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and Vice President JD Vance respond to the surfacing issues.

All of the modern surveillance mechanisms, within the U.S. government network currently being updated and enhanced by AI search and capture, come from the gateway of 702; ie. govt being allowed to exploit the NSA database against Americans.

If warrantless searches of the NSA database are legally stopped, or no longer authorized, the gate closes and the DHS, Palantir/IC and Tech Bro surveillance collaboration hit a brick wall.

This is my hill! 

Dec 16 2025

FBI Intercepts Far-Left Plot to Detonate Bombs on New Years Eve


Posted originally on CTH on December 15, 2025 | Sundance

The Dept of Justice and FBI held a press conference today outlining a foiled plot to build and detonate bombs in Southern California on New Years Eve. WATCH:

WASHINGTON, Dec 15 (Reuters) – Four people are facing criminal charges in connection with what Attorney General Pam Bondi described on Monday as a foiled bomb plot that contemplated multiple targets, including U.S. immigration agents and their vehicles.

The four individuals have been charged with conspiracy and possession of an unregistered destructive device, according to the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

“The Turtle Island Liberation Front — a far-left, pro-Palestine, anti-government, and anti-capitalist group — was preparing to conduct a series of bombings against multiple targets in California beginning on New Year’s Eve. The group also planned to target ICE agents and vehicles,” Bondi said in a statement.

The bombing plot called for planting explosive devices at five locations targeting two U.S. companies at midnight on New Year’s Eve in the Los Angeles area, the complaint said.

The four defendants named in the complaint are Audrey Illeene Carroll, 30, Zachary Aaron Page, 32, Dante Gaffield, 24, and 41-year-old Tina Lai.

According to a sworn statement in support of the complaint, Carroll in November presented an eight-page handwritten document to a paid confidential source titled “Operation Midnight Sun” which described a bomb plot.

Carroll and Page later allegedly recruited the other two defendants to help carry out the plan, which included them “acquiring bomb-making materials and traveling to a remote location in the Mojave Desert to construct and detonate test explosive devices on December 12, 2025,” the sworn statement alleges.

FBI agents intervened before they could complete their work to assemble a functional explosive device.

The “Turtle Island Liberation Front – LA Chapter” is described on its social media page as being devoted to “Liberation through decolonization and tribal sovereignty,” according to the complaint, which alleges the group is “an anti-capitalist, anti-government movement.” (read more)

Nov 22 2025

The Truth Has No Agenda – But, Perhaps It Started Out Like This…


Posted originally on CTH on November 21, 2025 | Sundance | 


You’ve seen me share this visible meme a few times; it always comes along when the predictable sunlight seems looming on the near horizon.  Something again to surface that will cause us to question our preconceptions.

Perhaps it started out like this…  This information, this description of events, situations, explanations of the background cannot be as described; yet, these Sundance citations make it difficult to refute, unnerving to dismiss; but it’s all just a little too disconcerting; but we’ll watch and see, making a mental note.

As time progresses, it is just like this; it is factually as presented. This journey toward the truth of the thing is messy, awkward, weird at times and quite strange to participate in.

Your friends and/or family end up in the same place you were.  As you share the information context, they too, just like you before, initially want to dismiss the truth of the thing – because to accept it breaks away from the comfortable places of prior context.  Like you, they too start to notice things.  They too pay attention.

The next time you converse, the prior dismissals are not as strong as before.  The awakening has enlarged as an outcome of rather unusual predictions, and the outcomes, uncomfortably, also seem to reconcile when the context you provide is considered.

The, “but it can’t be” response, is replaced with “how did you know?”  The awakening expands.

Perhaps for you, like me, like most of us, the seemingly uncomfortable place where information is absorbed with totally new contexts for understanding comes best in small digestible doses.  If so, that’s the healthy way.  I believe it is the best way to retain stability amid an increasingly unstable world.

At the end of most revelations of significant impact, there are people with motives and intentions that boil down to two priorities: influence and affluence.  Those who seek power value influence.  Those who seek personal financial gain value affluence.   These are the priorities we find at the heart of most control efforts.

The need for control is always a reaction to fear.

One of the most significant challenges when confronting corruption, is the need to initially ignore motives and stay focused on the demonstrable and proven citations that cannot be refuted.  Stable people are able to absorb consequential information and remain focused; the motives or understanding the ‘why’ factor is not as important as the reality of accepting the outcome.

Inside the institutions that make up Washington DC the psychology is fundamentally different from the rest of our nation.  The oft used phrases of “govt work”, when compared to the “private sector”, are more than just catch phrases.

Those who value equality in opportunity do not work long within the institutions of government.  Those who value equality in outcome make careers there.  When we send competent people to change the baseline for these institutions, the level of resistance is remarkable.

For career officials who operate within the institutions of DC government the introduction of competency, and/or the concept of accountability for corrupt activity, is against their interests.  This is not new for us to understand, but one facet of this dynamic must be emphasized. In almost every example, the mechanisms and standard operating procedure within the institution is corrupt; it’s not just a few people.

The fact of there being no apple only worms is problematic for a host of reasons.  However, when that DC reality applies to the justice system or the intelligence apparatus, the ramifications are exponentially worse.  It is those ramifications we are watching play out on almost every level daily.

I am often asked about “solutions” to these problems, and I often respond with an explanation that first the correct, factually accurate and proper context has to be accepted in order for any proposed solution to make sense.  The reason for this approach is that treatment for a symptom will not remedy the affliction if the root cause is not addressed.

In a real and contextual example, we ended up with Bill Barr as the Bondo and John Durham as the spray paint, but the rusted vehicle was never restored.  President Trump was lied to, manipulated into believing something akin to restoration was being done; but all of the conduct was purposefully negligent, willfully cunning and fraught with deception.

Attorney General Pam Bondi is Bill Barr all over again.

As Florida Attorney General, Pam Bondi conspired with racially motivated political activists to put a transparently innocent man into prison. A witness (specifically witness #8, Rachael Jeantel) was fabricated, quite literally fabricated.

Pam Bondi had specific and intentional awareness that witness #8 was fabricated, and she used the power of her office to influence pre-trial decisions, blocking the defense from questioning the two lawyers (Ben Crump and Daryl Parks) who manufactured the witness.

“Fearful of backlash from the Left, the state attorneys allowed the charade to proceed. For months, they did their best to hide Jeantel not only from the public but also from Zimmerman’s attorneys. Sensing something amiss, the defense attorneys asked to depose Crump. After a judge ruled against them, they appealed. In April 2013, Bondi put her thumb on the scale of justice and left fingerprints. She wrote a 41-page document arguing against the defense team’s request. Their request was denied.”

It’s not just what she did that predictably highlighted what type of U.S. Attorney General she would be, it’s bigger than that.

What type of moral character intentionally tries to help a friend (Ben Crump) by railroading an innocent man and taking away his freedom, all for political benefit? What type of moral character even has a person like Benjamin Crump as a friend?

Eventually you have to ask, what evil is behind eyes that would purposefully put an innocent man in prison, just to elevate their profile?

I asked that series of questions a year ago.

Those questions are not going to go away.

Attorney General Pam Bondi is not failing President Trump because she is incompetent.

AG Pam Bondi is not failing because she was always unqualified for the position.

Attorney General Pam Bondi is failing to hold corruption accountable because she intends to fail.

♦ Predicting Bondi Failure – HERE.

♦ Jack Cashill Notices the Same – HERE

♦ Rod Rosenstein’s Deputy Becomes Bondi Handler – HERE

♦ Susie Wiles and Pam Bondi Have the Same Intents – HERE

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 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 4 2025

Federal Officials Bust Two Mississippi Sheriffs and 16 Law Enforcement Officers Running Drugs for Mexican Cartels


Posted originally on CTH on November 3, 2025 | Sundance |

This is a remarkable story that has not gained significant attention.  Late last week FBI Deputy Director Andrew Bailey, the Dept of Justice and various law enforcement agencies announced the indictment of two Mississippi Sheriffs, city police chiefs and more than a dozen police officers who were running drugs and taking bribes from Mexican drug cartels.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Norther District of Mississippi coordinated the indictments [SEE HERE].  U.S. Attorney Clay Joyner of the Northern District of Mississippi; Deputy Director Andrew Bailey of the FBI and Special Agent in Charge Robert Eikhoff of the FBI Jackson Field Office made the announcement and held a press conference.

Apparently, what tipped off the feds was several arrested criminals complaining to state and federal law enforcement that local police were demanding bribes they could not afford.  The Mexican drug cartels were paying up to $30,000 to the individual officers, sheriffs and police chiefs’ and the local criminals could not compete with that scale of bribery demand.

MISSISSIPPI – […] “Law enforcement is only effective when the community they protect can trust the law enforcement officers are honestly serving the community’s interests,” said Robert Eikhoff, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Jackson Field Office. “This type of corruption strikes at the heart of the community.”

Nineteen of the 20 people indicted are also charged with violating federal gun laws.

In addition to the two sheriffs, those charged include: Brandon Addison, Javery Howard, Truron Grayson, Sean Williams, Dexture Franklin, Wendell Johnson, Marcus Nolan, Aasahn Roach, Jeremy Sallis, Torio Chaz Wiseman, Pierre Lakes, Derrik Wallace, Marquivious Bankhead, Chaka Gaines, Martavis Moore, Jamario Sanford, Marvin Flowers and Dequarian Smith.

Court records show that the federal defender’s office is representing 16 of the 20 people charged, including the two sheriffs. (more)

[USAO Press Release Here]

Nov 3 2025

President Trump Outlines Stakes in Next Week SCOTUS Tariff Case


Posted originally on CTH on November 2, 2025 | Sundance | 

President Trump posted the importance of the Supreme Court case to support presidential authority on Tariffs.

The heart of the argument really is the “trillions at stake” aspect we have discussed on these pages for the past ten years.  If the institutions of our government factually want to dispatch President Trump and diminish the American middle-class, the Supreme Court will support the multinational corporations and Wall Street in decision to remove presidential tariff authority.

[Via Truth Social] – “Next week’s Case on Tariffs is one of the most important in the History of the Country. If a President is not allowed to use Tariffs, we will be at a major disadvantage against all other Countries throughout the World, especially the “Majors.” In a true sense, we would be defenseless! Tariffs have brought us Great Wealth and National Security in the nine months that I have had the Honor to serve as President. The Stock Market has hit All Time Highs many times during my short time in Office, with virtually No Inflation, and National Security that is second to none.

Our recent successful negotiation with China, and many others, put us in a strong position only because we had Tariffs with which to negotiate fair and sustainable Deals. If a President was not able to quickly and nimbly use the power of Tariffs, we would be defenseless, leading perhaps even to the ruination of our Nation. The only people fighting us are Foreign Countries who for years have taken advantage of us, those who hate our Country and, the Democrats, because our numbers are insurmountably good.

I will not be going to the Court on Wednesday in that I do not want to distract from the importance of this Decision. It will be, in my opinion, one of the most important and consequential Decisions ever made by the United States Supreme Court. If we win, we will be the Richest, Most Secure Country anywhere in the World, BY FAR. If we lose, our Country could be reduced to almost Third World status — Pray to God that that doesn’t happen!”

President Donald J Trump – Nov 02, 2025, 6:54 PM

Nov 3 2025

Senator Eric Schmitt Outlines What He Wants to See Next Following Initial “Arctic Frost” Information


Posted originally on CTH on November 2, 2025 | Sundance

Nine sitting U.S. Senators, dozens of President Trump’s staff and thousands of Americans were targeted as part of the FBI investigation known as “Arctic Frost.”  Senator Eric Schmitt, a former attorney general from Missouri, outlines his perspective on what should happen next.

The information to congress about the Arctic Frost investigation is coming from FBI whistleblowers, not from Director Kash Patel or Deputy Director Dan Bongino, and the depth of the targeting evidence held within the FBI is apparently hidden from leadership review – or they would be releasing it.  So, Senator Eric Schmitt wants to extract all of the pertinent information from inside the DOJ and FBI and then launch congressional Watergate style hearings about it.  WATCH:

.