Posted originally on CTH on February 2, 2026 | Sundance
The Clintons are political animals; everything they do is with a political strategy at the forefront of their thinking. What Bill and Hillary needed was to provide an excuse for Democrats on the House Oversight Committee to vote against holding them in contempt. That’s what Bill and Hillary have done.
In a somewhat opaque last-minute agreement to testify to the House about their involvement with Jeffrey Epstein, rules and limits still to be decided, Bill and Hillary Clinton have simply attempted to stop/stall the House from holding them in contempt.
WASHINGTON DC – Bill and Hillary Clinton have agreed to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee as part of the panel’s investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
It’s a remarkable reversal for the former president and secretary of state, who had defied committee-issued subpoenas and risked imprisonment by the Trump Justice Department as the House prepared to vote Wednesday to hold them in contempt of Congress.
After both skipped their scheduled depositions earlier this year, the Oversight Committee voted on a bipartisan basis in January to approve a contempt measure for each of them.
Although both have said they had no knowledge of Epstein’s crimes, they have maintained that the subpoenas were not tied to a legitimate legislative purpose, rendering them invalid. They also argued that the GOP-led exercise was designed to embarrass and put them in jail.
It is not immediately clear when they would appear and if the House will continue to go ahead with the contempt votes anyway.
“The Clintons’ counsel has said they agree to terms, but those terms lack clarity yet again and they have provided no dates for their depositions,” House Oversight Chair James Comer said in a statement Monday. “The only reason they have said they agree to terms is because the House has moved forward with contempt. I will clarify the terms they are agreeing to and then discuss next steps with my committee members.” (read more)
Director Gabbard: “Contrary to the blatantly false and slanderous accusations being made against me by Members of Congress and their friends in the propaganda media, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has and will continue to take action under my statutory authorities to secure our nation and ensure the integrity of our elections. My response to Congress:”
Within the letter DNI Gabbard notes, President Trump “specifically directed” her to be present for the execution of a search warrant in Fulton County, Georgia last week as part of the probe. Director Gabbard announced in April 2025 that ODNI was investigating electronic voting systems in order to protect election integrity.
“As I publicly stated on 10 April 2025, there is information and intelligence reporting suggesting that electronic voting systems being used in the United States have long been vulnerable to exploitation that could result in enabling determined actors to manipulate the results of the votes being cast with the intent of changing the outcome of an election,” she writes. “ODNI and the IC continue to collect and assess all available intelligence concerning this threat to ensure the security and integrity of our elections,” she said.
Director Gabbard explained that the process of assessing the intelligence “ensures that the IC’s finished intelligence products are objective, independent of political considerations, and based on all available sources.” … “I will share our intelligence assessments with Congress once they are complete,” she said.
Posted originally on CTH on February 2, 2026 | Sundance
The Wall Street Journal is out with a very specific hit piece against Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. The article is 100% Intelligence Community insider lawfare against DNI Gabbard; however, in addition to being completely bogus the construct of the hit itself is very revealing.
Within this current story we are going to find out why it is so important for someone, anyone to reveal how the 2019 CIA operation against President Trump was created. {GO DEEP}
The first CIA operation (2017) involved the National Intelligence Council (NIC sub-silo) and a Russian intelligence analyst, Eric Ciaramella. That was the creation of the fraudulent Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) written from within the NIC at the direction of John Brennan. The second CIA operation was the 2019 fraudulent Trump impeachment effort, again originating from Russian analyst Eric Ciaramella (anonymous whistleblower) who was represented by legal counsel Andrew Bakaj.
The current attack against DNI Tulsi Gabbard involves her May 2025 move to take the National Intelligence Counsel out of the CIA, and remove the heads of the agency, Chairman Mike Collins (friend of Mike Morrell) and Deputy Chair Maria Langan-Riekhof. {GO DEEP}
Within the current “leak”, structurally another false narrative, the Wall Street Journal frames yet another anonymous intelligence community whistleblower complaint, this time against DNI Tulsi Gabbard. Notice: the “anonymous whistleblower” is again represented by legal counsel Andrew Bakaj. The anti-Trump intelligence officials are running the same play.
As noted by DNI Spokesperson Olivia Coleman, “This is a classic case of a politically motivated individual weaponizing their position in the Intelligence Community, submitting a baseless complaint and then burying it in highly classified information to create 1) false intrigue, 2) a manufactured narrative, and 3) conditions which make it substantially more difficult to produce “security guidance” for transmittal to Congress.”
WASHINGTON—A U.S. intelligence official has alleged wrongdoing by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard in a whistleblower complaint that is so highly classified it has sparked months of wrangling over how to share it with Congress, according to U.S. officials and others familiar with the matter.
The filing of the complaint has prompted a continuing, behind-the-scenes struggle about how to assess and handle it, with the whistleblower’s lawyer accusing Gabbard of stonewalling the complaint. Gabbard’s office rejects that characterization, contending it is navigating a unique set of circumstances and working to resolve the issue.
[…] The complaint was filed last May with the intelligence community’s inspector general, according to a November letter that the whistleblower’s lawyer addressed to Gabbard. The letter, which was viewed by The Wall Street Journal, accused Gabbard’s office of hindering the dissemination of the complaint to lawmakers by failing to provide necessary security guidance on how to do so.
[…] Gabbard answered written questions about the allegations from the inspector general’s office, a senior official at the spy agency said. That prompted the acting inspector general at the time, Tamara Johnson, to determine the allegations specifically about Gabbardweren’t credible, the official said.
[…] The complaint includes a separate allegation about “an office within a different federal agency,” upon which the watchdog’s office wasn’t able to make a credibility determination, the representative for that office said. The Wall Street Journal couldn’t determine the identity of the other federal agency. (read more)
The Wall Street Journal cannot determine the “other federal agency” provenance, but we can.
The office was the “National Intelligence Council” and the ‘other federal agency’ was/is the CIA. The background context is exactly as we previously outlined {SEE HERE}.
DNI Tulsi Gabbard has been removing the Intelligence Community tentacles used to control political policy. The Intelligence Community and the downstream stakeholders hate her.
Here’s where it becomes important to understand the full context of what DNI Gabbard did in May 2025 to infuriate the IC. The CIA was running another impeachment operation when DNI Tulsi Gabbard intercepted it.
The issue involved President Trump and Marco Rubio designating Tren de Aragua (TdA) as a terror group operating as part of the coordinated effort by Venezuela dictator Nicolas Maduro. To undermine Trump/Rubio the National Intelligence Council within the CIA created analysis that contradicted the White House claim.
CBS Margaret Brennan was prepared to frame the narrative just before Tulsi Gabbard intercepted it. Brennan saying to Rubio, “Do you accept the intelligence community’s assessment that the Venezuelan gang is not a proxy force of the Maduro government? That was the National Intelligence Council assessment.
SEC. RUBIO: “Yeah, that’s their assessment. They’re wrong. In fact, the FBI agrees with me that they are. We- we- the FBI agrees that not only is Tren de Aragua exported by the Venezuelan regime, but in fact, if you go back and see a Tren de Aragua member, all the evidence is there, and it’s growing every day, was actually contracted to murder an opposition member, I believe, in Chile a few months ago. So, one of the warnings out there by the FBI is not simply that Tren de Aragua are- are a terrorist organization, but one that has already been operationalized, to murder a- to murder a- an- an opposition member in another country.”
In early 2025 the CIA was working to kneecap the Trump administration’s moves in Venezuela. [I suspect, because the CIA funding mechanism involves money flows from the drug running that Venezuela supported.]
In essence, the NIC sub-silo within the parent CIA agency was weaponizing intelligence against President Trump in order to trigger a Lawfare attack. DNI Tulsi Gabbard intercepted the issue, removed the NIC agency from the CIA and dispatched the two heads, Mike Collins and Maria Langan-Riekhof.
That’s the sourcing for the “anonymous whistleblower” shot against DNI Gabbard in 2025, that surfaced in today’s Wall Street Journal.
Again, I will repeat…. Until the Trump administration puts full sunlight on the intelligence community operations; which includes retrieving, declassifying and sharing the sealed secret transcript of former ICIG Michael Atkinson; the various intelligence officials who are comfortable weaponizing their positions will continue trying to manipulate American politics. They are continually using the same playbook.
As if the @WSJ needed to provide more examples of how it’s utter trash.
Here’s the truth: There was no wrongdoing by @DNIGabbard, a fact that WSJ conveniently buried 13 paragraphs down. Even the Biden-era IC IG came to this collusion the Whistleblower’s allegations against DNI… https://t.co/0UeSvde67l
This is not true and is one of the most disgusting cases of clickbait I have ever seen.
There was absolutely NO wrongdoing by DNI Gabbard, a fact that @WSJ conveniently buried 13 paragraphs down. Even the Biden-era Intelligence Community Inspector General came to this… https://t.co/F9LMolUXCb
Like clockwork: DNI Gabbard finds 2020 election fraud, days later the WSJ publishes a cryptic hit piece from anonymous sources. This is the Russiagate/impeachment hoax playbook, ment to divert attention from the DNI’s fight for the truth.
Posted originally on CTH on February 1, 2026 | Sundance
President Bill Clinton appears in multiple documents throughout the Epstein files. President Clinton’s former White House Chief of Staff, George Stephanopoulos, questions current Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche about the ongoing releases of Epstein information.
Specifically concerning to Stephanopoulos this week is the rushed nature of the 3.5 million-page document release by the DOJ, and victim information. Last week Stephanopoulos was complaining about the lengthy delays in the release as DOJ officials worked to redact victim information. WATCH:
[Transcript] – STEPHANOPOULOS: Thanks, Pierre Thomas, for that. We’re joined now by the deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche. Mr. Blanche, thank you for joining us this morning.
As you know, your release on Friday has already received a response from the victims, from Jeffrey Epstein’s victims. I want to show the statement right now. It says, “survivors are having their names and identifying information exposed while the men who abused us remain hidden and protected. This is outrageous. The Justice Department cannot claim it is finishing releasing files until every legally required document is released and every abuser and enabler is fully exposed.”
Will there be more releases?
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE: I mean, look, first of all, we took great pains, as I explained on Friday, to make sure that we protected victims. This was a — we are talking about a review of 3.5 million pieces of paper that were released on Friday.
Every time we hear from a victim or their lawyer that they believe that their name was not properly redacted, we immediately rectified that. And the numbers we’re talking about, just so the American people understand, we’re talking about .001 percent of all the materials. And so — and we knew this. I said this on Friday, that — that, of course, the nature of this type of review was — the volume of materials that were reviewed, that there would be times when this happened. And so we’re working hard to make sure that we fix that. And I expect that that will continue.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Will more documents be released?
BLANCHE: We have released — there are a small number of documents, as I said on Friday, that we’re waiting for a judge to say we can — we’re allowed to release because of a protective order. But there are — this review is over. I mean we reviewed over six million pieces of paper, thousands of videos, thousands — tens of thousands of images. And — which is what the statute required us to do.
You know, it’s interesting. Leadership on the — on the Hill, Congressman Massie, Senator Schumer are quick to complain. There is no way they have spent any time looking at the materials we produced, because I know the materials we produced. We produced them on Friday. By Saturday, they’re already complaining about what we did? And by the way, apparently Massie and others wrote a letter to come and review unredacted materials. I didn’t get that letter yet. They leaked it to the press before they actually sent it to me.
But, yes, that’s absolutely totally fine. We have nothing to hide. We have nothing to hide. We never did. And our doors are open if they want to come and review any of the materials that we produced.
STEPHANOPOULOS: That was going to be my next question. So, thank you for answering it.
I do want to move on right now.
We have some video right now showing Liam Ramos, that five-year-old boy who was detained by ICE in Minnesota, being released today. He’s on his way back home to Minnesota after a judge ordered him released. And it was a pretty blistering order from the judge, Fred Biery, down in — the U.S. district judge — district court judge down in Texas.
He showed a photo of Liam, included some biblical passages, saying “Jesus wept,” and then went on to say, “civics lesson to the government: administrative warrants issued by the executive branch to itself do not pass probable cause muster. This is called the fox guarding the henhouse. The Constitution requires an independent judicial officer.”
What’s your response?
BLANCHE: Well, look, that’s an active litigation, so I’m limited. But I will say this, the immigration law, the body of immigration law is much different than our typical criminal process because of the administrative nature of what we do every day. And so, to the extent that we need to appeal that judge’s decision, I promise we will.
But you see thousands and thousands of administrative actions happening every single day in this country. And you just highlighted a single one and not the thousands and thousands of others that happen. And so, this is — what we’re doing is tough. What we’re doing is difficult. I mean, we’re talking about a situation where millions and millions and millions of undocumented illegal aliens have flooded our country and we are trying to find them basically one by one.
And so, you know, I don’t have a comment specifically on what that judge said yesterday, but generally speaking, we are complying with the law every single day.
STEPHANOPOULOS: They are being released across the country as well by judges. And the president said he was going to prioritize those who had criminal records, but about 70 percent at least of those who have been detained don’t have criminal records.
BLANCHE: Well, just — hang on. The fact that they’re here illegally is a crime. And so when you say they don’t have criminal records, they are — by their presence being here without status, having come into this country illegally or overstayed illegally, that is a crime. And so, we have to be careful.
And you’re right, there is a schism in the law right now about whether an illegal alien can be held pending their proceeding or whether they need to be released on bail. We very strongly believe that they should be held and there’s a bunch of appellate cases.
So that’s another example of something where a number of district court judges have reached a conclusion that we very much believe is contrary to law and there will be an appellate court and ultimately, probably the Supreme Court that will be asked to interpret that. So — so, we should be — we should wait before we withhold judgment until the appellate courts have had their opportunity to weigh in.
STEPHANOPOULOS: I should say, to clarify, the lawyer for Liam Ramos and his father say they were following the legal process for asylum.
BLANCHE: I mean, I don’t know what that means. They were following legal process, and yet the judge disagreed with us —
(CROSSTALK)
STEPHANOPOULOS: They applied for asylum.
BLANCHE: Excuse me?
STEPHANOPOULOS: They applied for asylum, and they were going through the legal process.
BLANCHE: Well, there’s — so that’s not true. That is not true. There’s a very meaningful dispute about whether they had properly applied for asylum.
And again, I do — I cannot get into the — the specifics of this litigation, but you can read the same briefs I can. And what you just said is not true.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Okay. That’s what his lawyer says. So, they — I’m sure they’ll have a response to that as well.
I also want to ask you about the situation. Just this week, Don Lemon was arrested, the journalist Don Lemon was arrested, along with another independent journalist. And he was — this was despite the fact that a magistrate judge in an appeals court refused to approve the request. And the Chief Federal District Judge Patrick Schultz wrote that there was no evidence that Mr. Lemon engaged in any criminal behavior or conspired to do so.
So, when do you believe that Mr. Lemon crossed the line from reporting on what was going on to criminal activity?
BLANCHE: Conveniently missing from what you just showed, George, is the appellate court and a judge on the appellate court who said just a few days later there was clearly probable cause, and it wasn’t even a close question. So — and by the way, a grand jury, which is what our system has set up to determine whether probable cause exists, concluded that there was probable cause.
That indictment is now public. Everybody in this country can pull it up and read for themselves and see what the grand jury found that that Mr. Lemon did. I am not going to comment on the charges specifically because it’s not appropriate.
But it’s interesting that — that we talk about the First Amendment right. You have a right a freedom of religion which is just as important as any other right that we have. And, George, I don’t know if you’ve — if you’ve watched the videos or read the indictment about what it’s alleged that Mr. Lemon did, but if anybody in this country thinks that that is, quote, “independent journalism,” I would like to have a conversation with you.
Now, he obviously has a very good lawyer. He can raise defenses in court to the extent he wants to, but nobody in this country should feel comfortable storming into a church while it’s ongoing and disrupting that church service and thinking that we’re just going to stand by and let that happen because there is a statute that does not allow that to happen.
It doesn’t matter if you happen to be a former CNN journalist. It doesn’t matter if you’re a rioter. It doesn’t matter if you think you’re peacefully protesting. You are not allowed to do that.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So, you’re confident he’s going to be convicted and the case won’t be dismissed?
BLANCHE: I am not going to speak to conviction. That would be completely inappropriate. He was indicted by a grand jury in Minneapolis, and he’ll have — have his day in court like everybody else.
STEPHANOPOULOS: During your confirmation hearings, you made a strong statement against partisan political investigations and prosecutions. And I want to show it for our audience.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BLANCHE: Partisan lawfare in our justice system wastes taxpayer money, makes communities less safe, and ruins lives. This should never happen in America.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I’ve got your commitment there — there will not even be a whiff of an investigation that appears to have a political motivation to it.
BLANCHE: I commit to that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHANOPOULOS: Since then, as you know, a number of targets of President Trump, have been publicly targeted by President Trump, have been prosecuted or investigated. I want to show that right now. It includes the former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James, the Fed Chair Jerome Powell, Senators Adam Schiff, Mark Kelly, and Elissa Slotkin, Governor Tim Walz, and Mayor Jacob Frey.
So, how do you respond to those who say you’ve broken your commitment?
BLANCHE: You just showed a handful of investigations or grand jury indictments that have been brought. We are — we are investigating tens of thousands of individuals and cases every single day. They are not political in base. The fact that you cherry-picked a handful that some people in the media have said, “Oh, those must be political,” is absurd and not fair.
I mean, don’t forget, George, when I walk into the Oval Office right now, I look around. And oftentimes every single person in that room was heavily attacked and gone after by the last Biden administration. And so, when I said to Congress and when I say to you right now that what we’re — there’s not a whiff of political partisanship in what we’re doing, I mean that. The mere fact that some Democrats, or some individuals who have spoken out against President Trump are being investigated is because there — that’s what the Department of Justice does. It doesn’t make it political because we’re investigating. And that — and that’s something important we’re doing. We have — we have brought down crime. We’re making America safe again. We’re working hard every day. And those handful of investigations or cases you just show don’t change that.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Those indictments of James Comey and Letitia James came after the president explicitly said they’re guilty as hell and justice must be served right now. They came after career attorneys refused to bring the indictments, and both cases have been dismissed.
BLANCHE: I mean, when you — I don’t know what it means to say they’ve come after people. I mean, listen, if you’re a prosecutor in the Department of Justice, you are expected to effectuate this administration’s priorities, like every single prosecutor in every administration. There are some prosecutors within the department who have chosen to leave. They don’t want to do that. That is their right. That is fine. But if you’re going to work in this department, you are going to execute on the president’s priorities, and that’s what we do.
And yes, there are cases that have been dismissed by judges. They’re under appeal. That’s what happens in our system. And that doesn’t make the cases wrong or right, it just means that they’ve been dismissed and they’re under appeal.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, you just — you just actually made my point right there. You said it’s the president’s priorities. The president calls for them publicly to be prosecuted, says they’re guilty as hell, and then they’re prosecuted.
BLANCHE: Now that’s not the president’s priorities. That’s a truth that he sent out. The president’s priorities are executing on making America safe again. And that’s what we’re doing.
And so, when we go to prosecutors and we say, you are going to do violent crime. You are going to do fraud cases out of Minnesota because that’s a horrible thing that’s happening there. If individual prosecutors say, no, I don’t want to do that, they need to leave. And they do leave. And that’s what I meant when I said that.
I’m not — I’m not saying that we — under no circumstances do we turn to a prosecutor and say you need to go after somebody because they are politically one way or another. We have never done that, and we won’t do that.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But the president said it. The president is the one who said they’re guilty as hell and justice must be served.
BLANCHE: You’re reading a small part of a — of a truth. The truth said a lot of other things to, and many other truths have said the thing. What the president has said publicly, and what he says to me, and what he says to the attorney general, and what he says to the American people is, he expects investigations to be fair. He expects investigations to be done right. But he also doesn’t expect that we investigate. He expects that we — that we do the right thing and that we root out the corruption.
I mean, we had a — an incredibly corrupt Department of Justice when we came into power last year. There can be no dispute about that. There can be no dispute that the Garland Department of Justice did not do the right thing in many cases.
And so to now be judged a year later because of a truth the president said is not appropriate, we can look at our body of work and the work that we’re doing as a department every day. And I know that we’re making this country safer again. We are bringing integrity back to the department, notwithstanding what those in the media say differently, and we’re going to continue to do that.
STEPHANOPOULOS: I want to ask you about a report breaking in “The Wall Street Journal” overnight. I want to show the headline right now. It’s — the headline saying the “Spy Sheikh Bought Secret Stake in Trump Company.” “A $500 million investment for 49 percent of World Liberty came months before UAE won access to tightly guarded American A.I. chips.” It’s referring to the national security adviser at the UAE, Sheikh Tahnoon. And he made this investment just before President Trump was inaugurated.
The article goes on to say, “the deal marks something unprecedented in American politics: a foreign government official taking a major ownership stake in an incoming U.S. president’s company.” This is the company of President Trump’s family. Eric Trump is the — is the president of the company. Trump — President Trump is listed as the founder emeritus, though he’s not running it directly right now.
How do you respond to those who say this is a serious conflict of interest?
BLANCHE: I love it when these papers talk about something being unprecedented or never happening before, as if the Biden family and the Biden administration didn’t do exactly the same thing, and they were just in office.
So, I — look, I saw that article. I don’t have a comment on it beyond President Trump has been completely transparent when his family travels for business reasons. They don’t do so in secret. We don’t learn about it when we find a laptop a few years later. We learn about it when it’s happening.
And so, there — there’s nothing unprecedented about a — about the Trump Organization going out and trying to make investments that basically all will come back to the American people and jobs in this country. And so this idea that there’s something untoward or unprecedented is just a repeated story that that isn’t true. And that’s — and I think that that — the American people know that. And the fact that we’ve talked about unprecedented, and this is something that doesn’t happen is just not true. And it’s — it shouldn’t be said by these so-called newspapers that are saying it.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, the president doesn’t run the company, but he does profit from it. His financial disclosure show he’s received funds from that. And law professor Kathleen Clark is quoted in the article saying this sure looks like a violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause. Ty Cobb, who served as President Trump’s lawyer in — during the first administration, said, quote, “My advice as an ethics lawyer would have been clear. You don’t do business deals with the families of the leaders of foreign countries. It taints American foreign policy.”
How do you respond to Mr. Cobb?
BLANCHE: I don’t have a response to that guy. I mean, that guy hasn’t said a nonpartisan thing in the past four years. I mean, I could have predicted what you just said he would say. That’s what he says every time anything comes out about the president. I don’t have a — the president is ethical. He talks more to the press. He says what’s happening more than any president in history. You have a question about it, you can ask him. He gaggled on the plane last night at midnight for like 20 minutes. OK?
So, like the fact that Ty Cobb claims that he would have counseled something different to the president, OK. I mean that guy. I mean, I don’t have response to that.
STEPHANOPOULOS: One of the questions the president also took last night when he was on Air Force One was questions about his suing the Treasury Department, the IRS for $10 billion for leaking his tax returns. And he’s — he suggested that there could be some questions about the conflict. He says it’s an interesting question.
How do you respond to those who say that’s a conflict of interest for the president to be seeking funds from those who he’s administering?
BLANCHE: Look, we’re looking at how to handle that. I mean, he’s not wrong, and I don’t think even you think he’s wrong, that what happened there is horrible. The fact that his tax returns were leaked. No American should have that. And you do have Americans, whether you’re the president or just a — anybody in this country, has a right when something like that happens. And so I very much sympathize with what the president talked about and we’re looking into as a department how to address and make sure that type of thing never happens again to anybody, much less a former president or a current president. And we’ll go from there.
STEPHANOPOULOS: It is wrong for a president to have his tax returns leaked, for anyone to have their tax returns leaked. I agree with that. The president is also seeking $232 million from the Justice Department, saying his rights were violated during the 2016 campaign.
And I just wonder how you think you’re going to handle that. Both you as the deputy attorney general and the attorney general, Pam Bondi, have served as President Trump’s personal lawyers in the past. Doesn’t that pose at least the appearance of a conflict? And should you be involved in dealing with that in any way?
BLANCHE: I mean, I haven’t talked whether I’m involved with that at all anyway. I mean, it’s — that’s a fair question, George. And we all — we obviously talk about conflicts and what I’m allowed to do, what the attorney general is allowed to do because of what we’ve done in our past. But there are limits to those — to those conflicts. And I do have a job to the American people and President Trump as a deputy attorney general. And so, I — you know, we will — we will navigate that appropriately and consistent with the ethical rules and get to a just result.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Mr. Blanche, thanks for your time this morning.
Posted originally on CTH on February 1, 2026 | Sundance
Against the backdrop of President Trump’s instructions to pull back from confrontation with leftist antagonists, Dept of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem appears on Fox News to discuss what that means to the ongoing immigration enforcement action in Minneapolis, Minnesota. WATCH:
Posted originally on CTH on January 30, 2026 | Sundance
Apparently, the Senate and House intelligence committees are very concerned about what Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard is doing. Almost every tweet from Senator Mark Warner in the past 48 hours has been about DNI Tulsi Gabbard.
What seems to worry them the most is that they don’t know exactly what she is doing. Triggered by Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) Vice-Chairman Mark Warner, the Democrats are now demanding Director Gabbard tell them her intentions and her itinerary so they can monitor her activity. Tulsi Gabbard continues to review internal government activity without consulting them.
“Director Gabbard recognizes that election security is essential for the integrity of our republic and our nation’s security. As DNI, she has a vital role in identifying vulnerabilities in our critical infrastructure and protecting against exploitation,” a DNI spokesperson noted. “We know through intelligence and public reporting that electronic voting systems have been and are vulnerable to exploitation. President Trump’s directive to secure our elections was clear, and DNI Gabbard has and will continue to take actions within her authorities, alongside our interagency partners, to support ensuring the integrity of our elections,” the DNI spokesperson said.
We will continue to take actions alongside our interagency partners @FBI@TheJusticeDept to support ensuring the integrity of our elections.@DAGToddBlanche: “[@DNIGabbard] is an extraordinarily important part of this administration…we coordinate everything as a group…her… pic.twitter.com/NOVat3Z5Gg
Thursday evening while attending the premier of ‘Melania’ at the Kennedy Center, President Trump said, “you’re going to see some interesting things happening. They’ve been trying to get there for a long time.”
[…] “[Tulsi Gabbard] has begun studying information about voting machines, analyzed data from swing states and pursued theories that President Trump has promoted to claim the 2020 election was unfairly taken from him, the officials said, particularly on foreign government interference.
She has regularly briefed Trump and chief of staff Susie Wiles about her inquiry in recent months along with others involved in the investigation. Those include senior Justice Department officials, Trump’s outside ally and lawyer Cleta Mitchell and Kurt Olsen, a lawyer who pushed claims in 2020 that the election was stolen and joined the administration as a special government employee.
Gabbard has consulted with others in the intelligence community about claims of foreign interference in the 2020 election, the officials said, though she hasn’t provided the public with new evidence of it.
She is expected to prepare a report on her work, the people said. The administration has discussed executive orders on voting ahead of the midterm elections, two of the officials said.
[…] Democrats criticized Gabbard’s election effort. “Either Director Gabbard believes there was a legitimate foreign intelligence nexus—in which case she is in clear violation of her obligation under the law to keep the intelligence committees ‘fully and currently informed’ of relevant national security concerns—or she is once again demonstrating her utter lack of fitness for the office,” said Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the intelligence committee. (more – paywall)
There are a lot of interconnected aspects to all of this, many circle around the Intelligence Community’s prior and current involvement in various operations against the interests of the Office of the President.
As noted by Paul Sperry: “In a letter, ex-CIA chief John Brennan’s lawyer said his client has “complied” w/ a fed grand jury subpoena seeking, among other things, materials related to his role in creation of the Obama-ordered ICA on Russia + Trump covering the period from July 1, 2016 to Feb 28, 2017.”
Most people are not aware how the 2016/2017 CIA work product known as the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) ties directly into the 2019 impeachment effort against President Trump for the Ukraine phone call with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
A key architect of the 2017 ICA was a CIA analyst on Russian issues named Eric Ciaramella. The anonymous CIA whistleblower who facilitated the 2019 impeachment effort was the same Eric Ciaramella.
DNI Tulsi Gabbard previously released information showing how the 2017 ICA was fraudulently constructed, and now DNI Gabbard has reviewed the transcribed testimony of former Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson, where he described how he gained authority to change the CIA rules to permit Ciaramella to remain anonymous in 2019. All of this ties together.
[VIA Politico] – […] Sen. Mark Warner, (D-Va.), the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, argued on X Wednesday that there “are only two explanations” for Gabbard’s presence in the raid.
“Either Director Gabbard believes there was a legitimate foreign intelligence nexus — in which case she is in clear violation of her obligation under the law to keep the intelligence committees ‘fully and currently informed’ of relevant national security concerns — or she is once again demonstrating her utter lack of fitness for the office that she holds by injecting the nonpartisan intelligence community she is supposed to be leading into a domestic political stunt designed to legitimize conspiracy theories that undermine our democracy,” he wrote.
Warner and House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) wrote to Gabbard Thursday to request briefings for both panels about the legal basis, scope, and justification of her participation in the raid. (more)
DNI Tulsi Gabbard continues to work on behalf of the American people; that seems to have triggered Senator Mark Warner.
The need for control is a reaction to fear.
ps. We have not heard much about the 2026 FISA-702 reauthorization, yet.
WASHINGTON – The Department of Justice today published over 3 million additional pages responsive to the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which was signed into law by President Trump on November 19, 2025.
More than 2,000 videos and 180,000 images are included in today’s additional publication. Combined with prior releases, this makes the total production nearly 3.5 million pages released in compliance with the Act.
These files were collected from five primary sources including the Florida and New York cases against Epstein, the New York case against Maxwell, the New York cases investigating Epstein’s death, the Florida case investigating a former butler of Epstein, Multiple FBI investigations, and the Office of Inspector General investigation into Epstein’s death.
The Department erred on the side of over-collecting materials, and any materials not produced fall within one of the following categories:
♦Duplicate documents between SDNY and SDFL investigations. ♦Withheld under privilege- deliberative process privilege, attorney client privilege. ♦Withheld based upon exceptions under the act (depictions of violence); ♦Items that were that are not part of the case file for Epstein or Maxwell and were completely unrelated to these cases.
More than 500 attorneys and reviewers from the Department contributed to this effort. In addition, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY) employed an additional review protocol to ensure compliance with a Court order requiring United States Attorney Jay Clayton to certify that no victim identifying information would be produced unredacted as part of the public production.
Through the process, the Department provided clear instructions to reviewers that the redactions were to be limited to the protection of victims and their families. Some pornographic images, whether commercial or not, were redacted, given the Department treated all women in those images as victims. Notable individuals and politicians were not redacted in the release of any files.
This production may include fake or falsely submitted images, documents or videos, as everything that was sent to the FBI by the public was included in the production that is responsive to the Act. Some of the documents contain untrue and sensationalist claims against President Trump that were submitted to the FBI right before the 2020 election. To be clear, the claims are unfounded and false, and if they have a shred of credibility, they certainly would have been weaponized against President Trump already. [SOURCE]
To me personally, this storyline is the least interesting -and yet consequential- of all the topics in/around the world of politics; but I also understand that many people follow it with great interest. So, you can use the links above to review the content and then share your opinion below.
The network around Epstein, political and financial, does explain some of the intelligence community moves in the last decade. Elon Musk’s purchase of the DHS/FBI control portal known as ‘Twitter’ is one small example.
Posted originally on CTH on January 30, 2026 | Sundance
President Donald J Trump has announced his selection to take over as Federal Reserve Board Chairman, Kevin Warsh. To give perspective toward the overall viewpoint of Warsh, THIS INTERVIEW from April 2024 gives some insight.
Warsh has been highly critical of the FED monetary policy overall and directly links inflation and depressed wages to the poor decision-making of the Federal Reserve overall. More background on Kevin Warsh is HERE.
(Via Truth Social) – “I am pleased to announce that I am nominating Kevin Warsh to be the CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM. Kevin currently serves as the Shepard Family Distinguished Visiting Fellow in Economics at the Hoover Institution, and Lecturer at the Stanford Graduate School of Business. He is a Partner of Stanley Druckenmiller at Duquesne Family Office LLC. Kevin received his A.B. from Stanford University, and J.D. from Harvard Law School. He has conducted extensive research in the field of Economics and Finance.
Kevin issued an Independent Report to the Bank of England proposing reforms in the conduct of Monetary Policy in the United Kingdom. Parliament adopted the Report’s recommendations. Kevin Warsh became the youngest Fed Governor, ever, at 35, and served as a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System from 2006 until 2011, as the Federal Reserve’s Representative to the Group of Twenty (G-20), and as the Board’s Emissary to the Emerging and Advanced Economies in Asia.
In addition, he was Administrative Governor, managing and overseeing the Board’s operations, personnel, and financial performance. Prior to his appointment to the Board, from 2002 until 2006, Kevin served as Special Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, and Executive Secretary of the White House National Economic Council.
Previously, Kevin was a member of the Mergers & Acquisitions Department at Morgan Stanley & Co., in New York, serving as Vice President and Executive Director. I have known Kevin for a long period of time, and have no doubt that he will go down as one of the GREAT Fed Chairmen, maybe the best. On top of everything else, he is “central casting,” and he will never let you down. Congratulations Kevin! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP“
Virginia Senator and SSCI Vice Chairman, Mark Warner, is Very Concerned About Tulsi Gabbard
Posted originally on CTH on January 29, 2026 | Sundance
Senator Mark Warner is the vice-chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI). In his position he is also a member of the intelligence community oversight group known as the “Gang of Eight.” Senator Mark Warner replaced Senator Dianne Feinstein in 2017 for his SSCI position. Dianne Feinstein’s former chief-of-staff Dan Jones was a central participant in the 2016 Trump-Russia targeting effort.
Senator Warner moved into position in 2017 to sit at the center of the legislative branch effort to support the targeting and removal of President Trump. Warner ran cover for the actions in 2016 and worked to construct the fraudulent narrative after President Trump took office. On March 17, 2017, shortly after 4:00pm, Senator Mark Warner entered the senate SCIF with SSCI Security Director James Wolfe to review the Title-1 search warrant used against U.S. citizen Carter Page. The ‘read and return’ documents were delivered by FBI special agent Brian Dugan. James Wolfe took 82 pictures of the FISA application (one picture per page) and then sent them to Buzzfeed journalist Ali Watkins. ¹{Background}
Mid-March 2017 Senator Mark Warner was trying to support the appointment of a special counsel to target President Trump, his directed leak was to support that objective. Three days later, March 20, 2017, FBI Director James Comey appeared before congress and admitted the FBI was investigating Donald Trump. Senator Warner then used his position as SSCI vice-chair to advance the DC legislative efforts against President Trump.
Senator Mark Warner is very concerned about Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, being in Fulton County, Georgia, yesterday when the search warrant for election records was carried out. Senator Mark Warner is very concerned.
Why did Tulsi Gabbard take part in a raid on an elections office? We need to step up to protect our elections from this administration’s meddling. pic.twitter.com/6mHOgd4jKf
There are only two explanations for why the Director of National Intelligence would show up at a federal raid tied to Donald Trump’s obsession with losing the 2020 election.
[¹ My position has never changed. I fully support former SSCI Security Director James Wolfe being given immunity from prosecution in exchange for his cooperation and testimony as to the involvement of Vice Chairman Mark Warner. The other person who knows the granular details of how the leak took place is FBI Special Agent Brian Dugan, who investigated the Wolfe leak.]
♦ Within the Wolfe indictment you’ll notice the “Top Secret” document picked-up by SSCI Director James Wolfe took place on March 17th, 2017:
♦ Within the Mark Warner text messages you’ll note the SSCI Vice-Chairman went into the SSCI Secured Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) on March 17th, 2017, shortly after 4:00pm: ♦ Within the declassified and released FISA application you’ll notice the copy date from the FISA clerk for the FISA application was March 17th, 2017:
The information within the three events (Warner Text release, Wolfe Indictment release, and Carter Page FISA release) shows the connection of the events. James Wolfe took custody of the Carter Page FISA, delivered it to the SCIF, it was reviewed by SSCI Vice-Chair Mark Warner, and then leaked by James Wolfe.
“82 Text Messages” The FISA application was 83 pages with one blank page. It was the Carter Page FISA application that James Wolfe leaked to Ali Watkins as outlined within the unsealed June 2018 indictment.
Sidebar, a fourth albeit buried public release came on December 14th 2018 confirmed everything.
I only share the sidebar (out of chronological sequence) to emphasize there is no doubt it was the FISA application that James Wolfe leaked.
During his initial summer and fall negotiations with the DOJ, lawyers representing James Wolfe threatened to subpoena the SSCI in his defense. The implication was that Wolfe was directed to leak the FISA by members of the committee.
The Wolfe defense team delayed pre-trial discussions with the DOJ, stalling for time throughout the fall of 2018 until the November midterms. Democrats won the 2018 midterm races and took control over the House.
In the lame-duck congressional period following the election, very specific senators on the SSCI asked the DOJ to go easy on Wolfe: Richard Burr, Dianne Feinstein and Mark Warner.
Posted originally on CTH on January 28, 2026 | Sundance |
This is infuriating, and entirely due to something else in the background {GO DEEP}. Former National Security Council member (Russia/EurAsia desk) Alexander Vindman is running for a Florida senate seat against Republican Ashley Moody.
First, Alexander Vindman doesn’t stand a chance at winning; however, that’s not his objective with this announcement. Here is where it becomes important to understand the game.
Vindman is directly tied to the background issue of the fraudulent impeachment effort, which I have been working to bring to the forefront. Progress is agonizingly slow but moving forward.
Alexander Vindman has two primary objectives in announcing this effort: (#1) to give himself the political defense against any accountability for his involvement in the IC coup against President Trump in 2019. By running for the Florida Senate seat, Vindman will claim evidence is only coming to light as an outcome of his seeking elected office, i.e. it is a political attack. And (#2) running for office allows Vindman to accept campaign donations that will ultimately be used in his defense against #1. This is how they roll.
FLORIDA – MIAMI — Democrat Alexander Vindman, the former National Security Council aide who helped trigger President Donald Trump’s first impeachment, announced his Senate campaign in Florida on Tuesday to challenge GOP Sen. Ashley Moody.
Vindman’s entrance into the race pulls Trump’s agenda and record to the forefront of the Senate contest in Florida, bringing a national focus to a race in the president’s home state — one now widely seen as Republican-leaning.
[…] Vindman, born in Ukraine when it was still part of the Soviet Union, was an aide on the NSC during Trump’s first term. He testified before Congress about Trump’s 2019 call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy after the president floated an investigation of then-presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Trump appeared to tie future U.S. aid to Ukraine’s willingness to launch and announce a probe that would be damaging to Biden.
The Senate acquitted Trump in that case, and Vindman, an Army combat veteran and lieutenant colonel, was fired from his position with the NSC.
[…] Any statewide Democratic candidate faces an uphill climb in Florida, given that Republican voters in the state outnumber Democratic voters by around 1.4 million people. The nonpartisan Cook Political Report also classified the Senate seat in Florida as being in the “Solid R” category — the most GOP-friendly ranking available. (read more)
Former AAG Mary McCord (working for Schiff/Nadler), McCord’s former staff lawyer, Michael Atkinson (working as ICIG), Alexander Vindman (NSC) and CIA Analyst Eric Ciaramella (fraudulent ICA organizer turned anonymous CIA ‘whistleblower’) worked together to construct the fraudulent impeachment operation.
In 2019 National Security Council (NSC) member Alexander Vindman 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 recently 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.”
[…] 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. The key question to Atkinson surrounded the authority of his office to change the CIA whistleblower rules permitting Eric Ciaramella to remain anonymous. Who gave Atkinson permission?
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. MORE...
Once you see the strings on the marionettes, you can never return to that moment in the performance when you did not see them.
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