Posted originally on CTH on February 21, 2026 | Sundance
Tucker Carlson interviews U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee against the background of a potential U.S. military operation against Iran. Apparently, Carlson and Huckabee had some public disagreements on the subject of Israel, and this interview came about as Ambassador Huckabee invited Carlson for an interview.
The interview is filled with uncomfortable friction as Carlson asks many questions that come from ongoing reviews of the files of Jeffrey Epstein. Mr Carlson confronts Ambassador Huckabee with his personal opinion that the U.S. Ambassador works for Israel and not the best interests of the United States.
Posted originally on CTH on February 20, 2026 | Sundance
The frustrating issue with the Supreme Court ruling [SEE HERE] is not simply the legal logic applied, which essentially boils down to actionable definitions surrounding the word “regulate,” but also the high court’s seeming blindness to the “emergency” part of the reason IEEPA was used.
Economic security is national security, and the hollowing out of our ability to independently sustain our national economic system posed a real and substantive threat to our nation. The court never evaluated the ‘urgency’ behind the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as used by President Donald Trump.
Instead, the court began their legal analysis by seeking to define the word “regulate” as it applies to IEEPA. Part II–B, concluding: (a) IEEPA authorizes the President to “investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit . . . importation or exportation.” §1702(a)(1)(B) under the Act.
The majority of the court decided presidential ability to levy countervailing duties is not part of the ability to “regulate” importation.
In the opinion of the court, the President canblock imports, nullify imports and prohibit imports, but the president cannot “regulate” imports through the use of tariffs. This is the representative logic of a John Roberts court, the voice of Bush Inc.
It is what it is – and many of us saw this nonsense as a likely outcome, but it is still frustrating to see such a detached parseltongue approach to legal opinions when the national security of our nation is at stake. These are the judicial minds who will watch the nation burn to the ground, just so they can remain in power ruling over the ashes.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch joined the court’s three liberals in the majority. Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.
(Via Politico) – […] “The President asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope. In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it,” Roberts wrote, declaring that the 1977 law Trump cited to justify the import duties “falls short” of the Congressional approval that would be needed.
The ruling wipes out the 10 percent tariff Trump imposed on nearly every country in the world, as well as specific, higher tariffs on some of the top U.S. trading partners, including Canada, Mexico, China, the European Union, Japan and South Korea.
Several of those countries have entered trade agreements with the U.S. — and before the ruling indicated that they would continue to honor those agreements.
That is because the victory for the 12 Democratic-run states and small businesses that challenged Trump’s tariffs is expected to be short lived. The White House has signaled it will attempt to use other authorities to keep similar duties in place.
“We’ve been thinking about this plan for five years or longer,” U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer told POLITICO in December. “You can be sure that when we came to the president the beginning of the term, we had a lot of different options”
“My message is tariffs are going to be a part of the policy landscape going forward,” Greer said. (read more)
Justice Thomas agrees with CTH prior position on the issue. IEEPA grants the president the authority to regulate imports, and tariffs are a tool for regulation.
Despite this decision the tariffs will remain in place, perhaps using various authorities which have not been challenged as noted in the Kavanaugh dissent:
That said, with respect to tariffs in particular, the Court’s decision might not prevent Presidents from imposing most if not all of these same sorts of tariffs under other statutory authorities. For example, Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 permits the President to impose a “temporary import surcharge” to “deal with large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits.” 19 U. S. C. §2132(a). Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 provides that, if the International Trade Commission determines an article is being imported in such quantities that it is “a substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat thereof, to the domestic industry producing an article like or directly competitive with the imported article,” the President may take “appropriate and feasible action,” including imposing a “duty.” §§2251(a), 2253(a)(3)(A). Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 authorizes the President through a subordinate officer to “impose duties” if he determines that “an act, policy, or practice of a foreign country” is “unjustifiable and burdens or restricts United States commerce.” §§2411(a)(c). Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 permits the President to impose tariffs when he finds that “any foreign country places any burden or disadvantage upon the commerce of the United States.” §1338(d). And Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 authorizes the President to, after receiving a report from the Secretary of Commerce, “adjust the imports of [an] article and its derivatives so that such imports will not threaten to impair the national security.” §1862(c)(1)(a).
So the Court’s decision is not likely to greatly restrict Presidential tariff authority going forward. (pg, 63 dissent)
Posted originally on CTH on February 19, 2026 | Sundance
Apparently when President Barack H Obama said that Aliens were real, his opinion was party based on classified “classified intelligence material.” As noted by President Trump earlier today, he may have to declassify material related to the statements of Obama in order to protect him from prosecution…
Posted originally on CTH on February 17, 2026 | Sundance
There is an awful lot to unpack in this seemingly obscure article talking about Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and a new trade approach he is pitching to Pacific/Asia and Atlantic/European nations. [Story Here]
Before getting to the substance of the outline, something important needs to be shared for context.
Do you remember the 2014, 2015 and 2016 top story conversations and debates over the Transpacific Partnership trade deal known as TPP?
You might also remember the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership trade deal known as TTIP.
The TPP (Pacific) and TTIP (Atlantic) were two major multinational trade deals negotiated between 2013 and 2016. While both sparked plenty of debate, most of the spotlight was on the TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Hillary Clinton was in favor of TPP as were most of the traditional republican field of candidates in ’15/’16. However, Donald Trump was strongly against TPP and pledged to exit out of any negotiations and scrap the U.S. participation if he was to win the 2016 election. Some of you may begin to remember this.
Donald Trump agreed with our position, that TPP was being falsely sold as a beneficial 12-nation massive trade agreement between the USA and pacific rim countries including Australia and Southeast Asia nations.
With the history of NAFTA behind us, we could see two major issues with TPP: #1: It was structured with a back door to let China into the deal. And #2) it was created to ensure the USA remained a “service driven economy.”
Supporters of TPP and TTIP claimed this multinational trade deals would create smooth supply chains and align on ‘rules of origin.’ They believed TPP would benefit companies and lead to cheaper products. Critics, however, argued that the agreements were designed to exploit the U.S. consumer market and prevent the country from ever regaining a strong manufacturing base.
I share those reminders to set up the big 800-lb gorilla question.
If the TPP was such a great trade deal for all parties involved, why didn’t the group finalize it after the USA withdrew? It’s been a decade, so why haven’t the TPP nations completed their trade agreement?
The honest answer reveals the undiscussed lie.
Both TPP and TTIP were constructed and designed to keep exploiting the U.S. consumer market. That’s it. That was the entire purpose of TPP (Asia) and TTIP (Europe). Corporations and lobbyists like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce wrote the TPP language to maximize corporate profits. That was the purpose of it.
Take the U.S.A. out of the TPP trade agreement and the purpose/benefit no longer exists. Without the host, there is no need for a feeding agreement between parasites. That’s why a decade has passed and TPP/TTIP went nowhere.
All of that said, suddenly with President Trump positioning to eliminate the USMCA trade agreement, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney wants to go back to the TPP/TTIP “Rules of Origin” trade framework in order to create an insurance policy against the end of the trilateral USMCA trade agreement.
Now, here is where it gets really interesting. There is no way for Canada to remain in the USMCA and simultaneously commit to a trade agreement with different rules of origin. This means that for Carney to accomplish what he’s reportedly aiming for, the dissolution of the UMCA would already need to be in the works.
“A Party intending to negotiate a free trade agreement with a non-market country shall inform the other Parties at least three months prior to commencing negotiations and, upon request, provide information regarding the objectives of those negotiations.
A Party that enters into a free trade agreement with a non-market country shall provide the other Parties with the full text of the agreement prior to signing.
If a Party enters into a free trade agreement with a non-market country, the other Parties may terminate this Agreement on six months’ notice and replace it with a bilateral agreement.” [SOURCE]
The Canadian proposal violates the central tenet of the USMCA. Carney’s proposal can only move forward if the Canadian government has already accepted that the USMCA trade agreement will come to an end.
WASHINGTON – The European Union and a 12-nation Indo-Pacific bloc are opening talks to explore proposals to form one of the largest global economic alliances, multiple people with knowledge of the talks told POLITICO.
Canada is spearheading the discussions after Prime Minister Mark Carney called on middle powers to buck trade war coercion last month, days after Trump threatened to raise tariffs on Denmark’s European allies if it didn’t cede Greenland.
Ottawa is “championing efforts to build a bridge between the Trans-Pacific Partnership [CPTPP] and the European Union, which would create a new trading bloc of 1.5 billion people,” Carney told world leaders and the global business elite in Davos.
The middle powers are taking action. The EU and CPTPP are starting talks this year to strike an agreement to intertwine the supply chains of members like Canada, Singapore, Mexico, Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia and Australia with Europe.
It would bring nearly 40 nations on opposite sides of the globe closer together with the aim of reaching a deal on so-called rules of origin.
These rules determine the economic nationality of a product. A deal would allow manufacturers throughout the two blocs to trade goods and their parts more seamlessly in a low-tariff process known as cumulation. (read more)
In practice, a multilateral trade agreement with “Rules of Origin” involving many countries doesn’t really matter to the USA since our trade deals are bilateral. Other parties can set whatever terms they like, but if they want access to the U.S. market, that’s where we lay out our own specific terms on a one-to-one basis.
The same thing cannot be said for Canada, who is intentionally planning to remain a deindustrialized economy. Canada will import component goods for assembly in Canada, but they will not fabricate much.
Prime Minister Mark Carney is strategically planning to keep Canada dependent on cheap foreign imports.
Posted originally on CTH on February 17, 2026 | Sundance
While the government of Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has inked a trade agreement with China to accept cheap imported vehicles in exchange for Beijing purchasing some agricultural products, President Trump has promised those cheap Chinese EVs will never cross the border into the USA.
The Canadian polling on the issue has done a remarkable chang in the past few years. Now, the majority of Canadians are willing to purchase cheap Chinese EVs. As outlined by Bloomberg, “More than half of Canadians, or 53%, say that knowing an EV was made in China would have no effect on their purchasing decision, according to a new poll by Nanos Research Group for Bloomberg News.”
Approximately 50,000 Chinese electric vehicles will enter the Canadian market in the first year. “The pact with China includes a provision that part of the quota will be reserved for electric vehicles priced at C$35,000 ($25,700) or less, the government has said.” {SOURCE}
The Canadian government wants a Chinese auto manufacturer, any Chinese auto manufacturer, to build factories in Canada to produce these electric vehicles. Canada wants the jobs and economic activity because Canada is currently bleeding jobs and economic activity due to the trade conflict with the U.S.
Building cheap Chinese EVs in Canada might help offset a few thousand job losses, but building Chinese EVs in Canada only further ensures there will not be a substantive trade agreement between the USA and Canada once the USMCA (CUSMA) is dissolved. [More on that coming]
Meanwhile, Chinese EV company Build Your Dream (BYD) has announced they sold 4.6 million vehicles worldwide last year, far surpassing Tesla and even surpassing all of the Ford global auto manufacturing. BYD is now the sixth largest auto manufacturing company in the world.
[Auto News] […] The 2025 sales figures place BYD at sixth largest among global automakers, meaning Ford slipped to seventh in total global deliveries. Toyota remains the dominant global seller with sales exceeding 10 million units followed by Volkswagen Group, Hyundai Motor (including Kia and Genesis), General Motors, and Stellantis.
BYD’s sixth position in the global automotive sales index is particularly notable for an auto maker that focuses almost exclusively on new energy vehicles (NEVs) — a category that includes battery-electric vehicles (BEVs) and plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEVs). (more)
CTH previously outlined the specific explosion in BYD auto sales HERE. Europe, Russia, Asia and Australia are flooded with cheap Chinese EVs particularly from the BYD brand. Canada is now opening themselves to face the same issue.
Posted originally on CTH on February 15, 2026 | Sundance
Kentucky congressman Thomas Massie appears on ABC This Week with Martha Raddatz to assert his position as our nation’s ultimate judge of morality and righteousness and pass judgement upon any individual that does not meet his expectation or standard.
Against the backdrop of billionaire leftist Reid Hoffman who has financed most of the claims promoted by Epstein victims for use by Representative Massie, the congressman pledges to remain on task. Hoffman never called as a witness. Video and Transcript below.
[TRANSCRIPT] – RADDATZ: I’m joined now by Republican Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky, who helped lead the efforts to release the Epstein files.
Good morning to you, Congressman.
I would like your overall reaction to the hearing this week and Pam Bondi’s performance, combativeness.
REP. THOMAS MASSIE, (R) KENTUCKY & JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEMBER: I don’t think she did very well. She came with a book full of insults, one for each congressperson. She obviously had one for me.
And, you know, I’ve been there when Merrick Garland was there. Obviously, politically, I don’t agree with him, but he performed much better in terms of at least not looking bad. And, unfortunately, we didn’t get the answers we wanted about the Epstein Files Transparency Act from her.
RADDATZ: You — did you get any of the answers you wanted?
MASSIE: No, but she did come off her script and engage with me about this production of documents where she admitted that 40 minutes after I pointed out to the DOJ that they had over-redacted some of the documents, they did unredacted documents. So, it’s clear they’ve made mistakes in the document production. At least she acknowledges that tacitly. And it’s clear that their work is not done here yet.
RADDATZ: And I want to go to those — some of those unredacted files. Congressman Ro Khanna said names of some of the men who were redacted shouldn’t have been redacted. They then sent that back to you, and two of them were not redacted. But on Friday, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche accused you and Congressman Khanna of unmasking those people, saying they had nothing to do with Epstein or Maxwell. They were from an FBI line-up years ago.
What’s your response to that?
MASSIE: Well, three hours before Todd Blanche himself unredacted those names, I told him in an X post, which I know he read because he reposted it, that those may be men in a line-up. And then I went on TV and said, those may be men in a line-up. And it was actually the DOJ who released those names, which is fine, but they omitted the context that I provided, which is these may be in a line-up.
Now, there were two men who needed to be named, one of whom has already resigned, the Emirate, a sultan, resigned for — as a CEO of a very large company because we released his name.
And there’s another man, Leslie Wexner, I’ll add him to the list with Jes Staley and Leon Black, who need to be investigated right now. They’ve appeared in these files.
Leslie Wexner is the one who — you know, Pam Bondi said, oh, he’s appeared thousands of times in these documents. We’re not covering up anything. But I pointed out to her, they redacted his name from the one document that says “child sex trafficking co-conspirator.”
And my question is, who is the person at DOJ who redacted Leslie Wexner’s name from a document titled “child sex trafficking” with “co-conspirator” next to this name?
(CROSSTALK)
RADDATZ: And I want to say right now that Wexner denies and they say he was not a co-conspirator. Wexner has a statement: The assistant U.S. attorney told Mr. Wexner’s legal counsel in 2019 that Mr. Wexner was neither co-conspirator nor target in any respect. Mr. Wexner cooperated full by providing background information on Epstein and was never contacted again.
But I’d like to move on, if we can.
MASSIE: Yeah.
RADDATZ: Yesterday, the DOJ sent Congress a letter explaining the reason for all these reactions. So, you are not satisfied with that?
MASSIE: No, they’re citing deliberative process privilege in order not to release some of the documents. The problem with that is the bill that Ro Khanna and I wrote says that they must release internal memos and notes and emails about their decisions on whether to prosecute or not prosecute, whether to investigate or not investigate.
It’s important they follow that because then we could find why they didn’t prosecute Leslie Wexner. What was the decision tree there? And also, why, in 2008 they gave Jeffrey Epstein such a light sentence?
And finally, I know the DOJ wants to say they’re done with this document production. The problem is they’ve taken down documents before we were able to go over to the DOJ and look at the unredacted versions. They took down some of the most significant documents. Two of them involving Virginia Giuffre’s case and other things, the picture of Epstein at — in a room where it’s — got CIA written on the boxes. That’s been taken down.
We want to be able to look at all these files. They can’t keep those documents down after they’ve already produced them.
RADDATZ: I want to talk to you about one of the moments in this hearing, and that is the attorney general would not look at the Epstein survivors behind her. Did that surprise you?
MASSIE: I think that was kind of cold on her part. I think she was afraid to.
And look, these survivors would love to have a meeting. It’s not about Bill Clinton, and it’s not about Donald Trump. This Epstein Files Transparency Act was about getting these survivors justice.
We’ve got some degree of transparency, but it’s called the Department of Justice, not the department of transparency.
And so, what these survivors need, they need to see some of their own 302 forms, which haven’t been released, and they also need to see some of the men that they’ve implicated prosecuted.
RADDATZ: Do you still have confidence in Pam Bondi as Attorney General?
MASSIE: I don’t think Pam Bondi has confidence in Pam Bondi. She wasn’t confident enough to engage in anything, but name calling in a hearing. And so, no, I don’t have confidence in her. She hasn’t got any sort of accountability there at the DOJ.
When I asked her specifically, who redacted Leslie Wexner’s name from the one document that mattered, she couldn’t give me an answer, she wouldn’t give me an answer. But ultimately, it’s her who is responsible for the document production according to our law, the attorney general.
It’s not Todd Blanche. It’s not the people below them. You can assign tasks to people but you can’t assign your responsibility.
RADDATZ: And just very quickly, if you will. You’ve supported most of what Donald Trump has done during his presidency. Because of your actions with these files, he is supporting your primary opponent and has waged very personal attacks on you.
I know we just have a few seconds here. But just your reaction to that.
MASSIE: Look, this is about the Epstein class, the people who are funding the attacks against me. They may or may not be implicated in these files, but they were certainly rubbing shoulders with the people who are in these files. They’re billionaires who are friends with these people. And that’s what I’m up against in Washington, D.C.
Donald Trump told us that even though, you know, he had dinner with these kinds of people in New York City and West Palm Beach, that he would be transparent. But he’s not. He’s still in with the Epstein class. This is the Epstein administration, and they’re attacking me for trying to get these files released.
RADDATZ: And again, I’m going to say, President Trump has not been accused of anything criminal here.
Thank you very much for joining us this morning, Congressman. We appreciate it.
MASSIE: Thank you. Thank you, Martha.
[End Transcript]
It is rather curious that congress has no interest in calling any of the state or federal officials, including the FBI, to give testimony as to the outcomes of their prior investigations. Show us what was actually done instead of theater. But no, theater seemingly has a greater value.
Posted originally on CTH on February 14, 2026 | Sundance
Political operatives Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna have never mentioned the name Katheryn Ruemmler despite her name appearing thousands of times in emails within the Epstein files. Yet both Massie and Khanna went out of their way to publicly claim they forced the DOJ to release the names of four men they accused of being sex traffickers and pedophiles.
Massie was very proud of his efforts to discover the names and force the DOJ to unredact them. As Massie proclaimed, continuously: if President Trump and the DOJ did not publicly unredact the names, it would be proof that President Trump and the DOJ were protecting pedophiles and sex traffickers.
Thomas Massie: "We found six men whose names have been redacted who are implicated in the way the files are presented."
After holding their joint press conference, Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna then went to the House of Representatives to proclaim (1) Salvatore Nuara, (2) Zurab Mikeladze, (3) Leonid Leonov and (4) Nicola Caputo were sexual deviants, pedophiles and much worse. They were horrible men who had abused underage girls.
…. Except, there was a problem. A BIG PROBLEM.
Salvatore Nuara, Zurab Mikeladze, Leonid Leonov and Nicola Caputo had absolutely nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein or anything even remotely associated with Jeffrey Epstein. [SEE HERE]
The names Salvatore Nuara, Zurab Mikeladze, Leonid Leonov and Nicola Caputo were in the Epstein files because they were random pictures of men, random passport pictures, used in a photo lineup during questioning of one of Epstein’s victims.
Ro Khanna read the names of six people on the House floor and described them as "wealthy, powerful men" involved in Epstein's crimes.
Thanks to the ‘HE’S A WITCH” hunting efforts of Massie and Khanna, four random guys who never new anything about the DOJ or the FBI, or Jeffrey Epstein or anything else even remotely in that orbit, were labeled as sex criminals and horrific people.
Salvatore Nuara, Zurab Mikeladze, Leonid Leonov, and Nicola Caputo did not know they were in the Epstein files and did not know their pictures were ever used by the FBI. Their random passport photographs were used in an FBI lineup to question witnesses, that’s it. But thanks to Ro Khanna and the political efforts of Thomas Massie, they were wrongly labeled.
Khanna and Massie now claim it’s not their fault. If the DOJ had just redacted the names of the innocent men, there never would have been a problem. Except, that’s the problem… They were innocent and their names were redacted because they were innocent; but that wasn’t good enough for Massie and Khanna who used the redactions as evidence of a cover-up, and when the redactions were forcibly removed, Massie and Khanna now claim the names should have been redacted.
Inquisitor Massie: We should dunk her, if she floats, she is a witch, if she drowns, she is innocent!
Thomas Massie’s objective with his lead position on the Epstein stuff, is to defeat MAGA and return control of the Republican party to the professional Republican elites (GOPe/Bush clan).
This is the same Sea Island agenda. They are actively working to best position their preferred and controlled leader, Ron DeSantis. If the GOPe get DeSantis moved into position, they will regain control. The problem is MAGA.
The useful Republicans are exploiting the Epstein stuff to accomplish this objective. Simultaneously, they are promoting as much division as possible (Israel vs Qatar) in order to fracture the MAGA assemblies. It’s structurally easy to see it, when you understand the goal.
Ask yourself this basic, commonsense question: If you tear down President Donald Trump, who benefits?
There’s your answer to that sense; to that sensibility trying to reconcile questions; to the intuition you have.
Posted originally on CTH on February 14, 2026 | Sundance
Overnight in the USA time zones, Secretary of State Marco Rubio delivered a very important speech at the Munich Security Conference [3:00am ET]. The video is below [prompted] and a FULL transcription will soon follow.
This is a critically worded speech that is very important to listen to with great deliberation. Within his remarks Rubio is telling Europe that we want to remain allied in our interests, but we are no longer going to allow the system of “globalism” to destroy our uniquely American life.
The United States is separating from the madness; this is not up for debate. The only question is whether Europe is too far gone, or whether they will join us.
The euphoria that followed the collapse of the Berlin Wall, “led us to a dangerous delusion. That we had entered quote the end of history. That every nation would now be a liberal democracy; that the ties formed by trade and by commerce alone would now replace nationhood. That the rules-based global order, an overused term, would now replace the national interest, and that we would now live in a world without borders where everyone became a citizen of the world. This was a foolish idea that ignored both human nature and it ignored the lessons of over 5,000 years of recorded human history, and it has cost us dearly.”
The New York Times version appears to be the most truthful, factual and cited. It also makes the most sense.
In essence, two foreign nationals were having a phone call about Iran and discussing Jared Kushner’s role and influence in the policy of Trump toward Iran. The phone call was intercepted by a foreign intelligence agency, who then relayed their interpretation of the discussion to the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA).
NEW YORK TIMES – […] It was a discussion last year between two foreign nationals about Iran, not an unusual topic for American spies to study. But an intercept of that communication, collected by a foreign spy service and given to the United States.
[…] Mr. Kushner’s name was redacted in the original report from the National Security Agency, but people reading it, including the whistle-blower, were able to determine that the reference was to him.
[…] The foreign nationals, they said, were commenting on Mr. Kushner’s influence with the Trump administration. At a time last year when Mr. Kushner’s role in Middle East peace talks was less public than it is now, the foreign officials were recorded saying that he was the person to speak to in order to influence the talks.
[…] The intercept also included what officials described as “gossip” or speculation about Mr. Kushner that was not supported by other intelligence.
[…] The whistle-blower report was based on a telephone intercept provided to the N.S.A. from a foreign intelligence service. Intercepts are notoriously difficult to interpret.
[…] The whistle-blower, an intelligence official whose identity has not been publicly disclosed, said Ms. Gabbard’s actions improperly limited who could see the report.
[…] Some administration critics, who have reviewed the report and have considered the underlying intelligence to be significant, also agreed that Ms. Gabbard did not act improperly by restricting distribution of the report. (more)
Democrats (administration critics) agreed that DNI Gabbard did not act improperly.
If it was possible to tell the identity of the U.S. person (aka Kushner) simply by reading the intel report, and this report is simply gossip by two other people talking about a U.S. person, then yes, duh – the report should be secured and not spread.
This story becomes more of a nothingburger each time new information is leaked.
Posted originally on CTH on February 13, 2026 | Sundance
Holding an impromptu press conference, Vice-President JD Vance gives an impromptu press conference flying back to the USA. Vance was asked about the latest revelations in the Epstein files and for his opinion about the political consequences the files represent. WATCH:
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 