Posted originally on CTH on February 26, 2026 | Sundance
The summary of the story basically circles back to that NSA/CIA whistleblower intercept they previously were using to attack DNI Tulsi Gabbard. Now that the whistleblower’s lawyer (same lawyer as last CIA whistleblower, Ciaramella) has leaked the subject of the conversation was Jared Kushner the democrats really want to know the details.
Two foreign nationals (unknown countries) were discussing the U.S. position toward Iran. In their conversation they talked about Jared Kushner. Their conversation was intercepted by NSA/CIA using an “exceptionally sensitive surveillance method.” The intercept was written, evaluated and determined to be “gossip” but given to the ODNI, Gabbard.
The whistleblower was upset the intercept was not shared with the larger intelligence apparatus. Thus, they were angry at Gabbard. The ODNI followed the distribution for the whistleblower complaint, but not the underlying intercepted details of the conversation.
The White House has now asserted “executive privilege” over the content of the intercept, thereby bolstering the position of not sharing what was previously determined to be gossip. The DNI was asked for the details, and Gabbard has told the Democrats the White House has asserted privilege. The House and Senate Intelligence committee democrats are now big mad they don’t get to read the gossip.
(VIA WSJ) – WASHINGTON—The Trump administration told Congress it won’t share with lawmakers the classified intelligence that led to a whistleblower complaint against U.S. spy chief Tulsi Gabbard, citing presidential claims of executive privilege.
In an email to Democratic congressional staffers sent on Feb. 13 and reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, Gabbard’s office said it was unable to provide the unredacted intelligence that underpinned the complaint “due to the assertion of executive privilege to portions” of the intelligence itself.
In a Tuesday letter to Gabbard, Sen. Mark Warner and Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrats on the congressional intelligence committees, asked who asserted privilege over the intelligence report and on what basis.
[…] A spokeswoman for Director of National Intelligence Gabbard declined to directly address the decision to not share the underlying intelligence with Congress. She instead referred to a previous letter to lawmakers from the office’s general counsel that said Gabbard had met her requirements concerning notification to Congress about the complaint.
[…] The intelligence, which is at least in part about Iran, is said to derive from an exceptionally sensitive surveillance method. Officials have said any disclosure of the collection method could damage U.S. national security. Gabbard’s office ultimately shared the complaint with select lawmakers earlier this month, but redacted significant portions of it, also chiefly on grounds of executive privilege.
In the new letter, Warner and Himes said they weren’t able to confirm whether the discussion at issue was about Kushner because the version of the complaint they received was so heavily redacted. (more)
If I had to hazard a guess as to what is going on, based entirely on the current state of politics and what we know about how the IC and Democrats operate, overlaid against the domestic IC influence provocations currently underway, here’s my suspicion:
Bad actors within the CIA organized two friendly foreign intel officials to have a conversation. The script is about U.S. policy toward Iran, and the ‘gossip’ is that Jared Kushner is an Israeli intelligence asset, a blue sparrow, previously inserted into the Trump family. That ‘intercept’ would send everyone in the USA bananas regardless of truth or merit.
It sounds crazy, but that’s the level of conspiratorial nuttery, the sort of thing the IC would feed, to bolster the currently swirling year of crazy and further divide Trump’s base of support.
Whatever the underlying intercept consists of, it’s coming out of a highly political U.S. intelligence system; therefore, I would not give it any merit – unless, of course, you choose to cling to their prior construct of Trump colluding with Russia.
Posted originally on CTH on February 21, 2026 | Sundance
This is a little surprising to hear in someone’s outside voice. According to Jeffrey Epstein’s former lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, if his client had told him he worked for Israeli intelligence or the CIA Dershowitz could have gotten him off the charges with no jail time.
Essentially, Dershowitz is saying any sex criminals or pedophiles that work for intelligence agencies would never receive any prison sentences. WATCH (prompted):
As remarkable as it sounds, Alan Dershowitz is actually confirming what many people suspect. If a U.S. or Israeli intelligence asset commits a crime, they can leverage their position to get out of any criminal accountability.
Good grief. I’m not sure Dershowitz realizes we can hear what he is saying.
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.
Allison Gill is an ally of the Lawfare network and recently sat down for an interview with NSA whistleblower attorney Andrew Bakaj; the same attorney used by former CIA whistleblower Eric Ciaramella.
This interview appears to be taking place after Bakaj revised his statements to The Guardian forcing them to rewrite the central claim of the leak he provided. The Guardian rewrote their article removing the key claim within the intelligence intercept that a foreign intelligence person was in contact with a person close to President Donald Trump.
The revision now states:
[…] “The Guardian reported earlier on Saturday that the phone conversation was between a person associated with foreign intelligence and a person close to Trump, based on Bakaj’s recollection of the complaint, which he confirmed over multiple calls. However, after publication, Bakaj said he misspoke.
He clarified his understanding of the complaint in a statement: “The NSA picked up a phone call between two members of foreign intelligence involving someone close to the Trump White House,” he said. “The NSA does not monitor individuals without a reason.” {citation}
This is not a small “revision,” it is essentially a rewrite of the central component to the whistleblower complaint. As it is now clarified two foreign people were intercepted talking about a person who knows Donald Trump. This could be any two foreign people gossiping or talking about anyone who is in the orbit of Donald Trump. That explains why intelligence analysts reviewed the NSA intercept, disregarded it and said it is hearsay likely just ‘gossip” according to New York Times reporting.
However, that said, Andrew Bakaj then appears on a podcast with Allison Gill during their effort to put traction to the claims, and Bakaj repeats the false statement. See video at 7:45:
…”So, in the spring of last year there was intelligence that was gathered by an agency that captured, um, activity that was being conducted by someone close to the President.”…
This is the same lie the whistleblower’s attorney Andrew Bakaj told The Guardian; that someone close to the president was a participant in the “activity.” This is demonstrably false through all other reporting.
The complaint alleges two foreign individuals were intercepted talking to each other about a person who Bakaj defines as close to the president, on the subject of Iran.
It could simply be two Germans or Israelis talking about Iran and wondering what Devin Nunes thinks about it.
The entire predicate claim is silly. Foreign officials and foreign intelligence officials talk to each other all the time about Trump and or his people.
This complaint is a fabrication, and the fact that the NSA Whistleblower included the TSSCI material in the complaint, literally outlining who was intercepted talking, is the reason why the complaint could not be shared or circulated without careful guidance by the DNI.
The whistleblower did this on purpose. If the whistleblower wanted to share his complaint with more people, he could have just avoided including the TSSCI aspect.
This is intelligence community Lawfare in action.
Dear Chairman @SenTomCotton , please call @AndrewBakaj to appear before the Gang of Eight, preferably with his client, play this video, ask him if what he says at the prompt is true? When he says, "no" refer him to the DOJ for prosecution and dismiss the complaint. 👇
Posted originally on CTH on February 8, 2026 | Sundance
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Vice-Chairman, Mark Warner, a man of exceptionally dubious intelligence, appears on Face the Nation for a pre-scripted interview with CBS’s Margaret Brennan. The video and transcript are below.
From his position on the SSCI, Senator Warner was one of the key players in the deployment of the Intelligence Community against President Trump’s first term in office, including his background conversations with Chris Steele and his leaking of the Carter Page FISA warrant to promote the Trump-Russia conspiracy claim and stimulate the appointment of a DOJ special counsel.
Within President Trump’s second term in office, Warner’s primary concern is having a Director of National Intelligence (DNI) who doesn’t conform to the goals and objectives of the Fourth Branch of government, the intelligence apparatus. In reality, DNI Tulsi Gabbard appears to be methodically taking apart the intelligence community weaponization system. This, when combined with Gabbard’s review of election integrity issues, has triggered the deep concern of Warner, one of the IC’s primary enablers. WATCH:
[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: Good morning and welcome to ‘Face the Nation.’ We begin this morning with the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Virginia’s Mark Warner. Good to have you here.
SEN. MARK WARNER: Thank you, Margaret.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to talk about elections and security. Back on January 28, the FBI went to Fulton County, Georgia and seized ballots and 2020 voting records linked to the presidential election. The Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, then was spotted outside the elections office, and she argued that her presence there had been personally requested by the president of the United States, and she had broad statutory authority to coordinate, integrate and analyze intelligence related to election security. What would justify her involvement? Is there any foreign nexus that you have been informed of?
SEN. WARNER: We have not been informed of any foreign nexus. The job of the director of national intelligence is to be outward facing about foreigners, not about Americans, and remember, many of the reforms that were put in place actually took place after the Watergate scandal under President Nixon, where a president was directly involved in certain domestic criminal activities and appeared with the Watergate break-in. And my fear in this case is it almost seems Nixonian. If the president asked Gabbard to show up down in Georgia on a domestic political investigation- first of all, how would he know about the search warrant even being issued? That’s not his job. And then to have the irector of national intelligence down there, which is totally against her rules, unless there is a foreign nexus, and she has not indicated any foreign nexus to us to date.
MARGARET BRENNAN: There’s been no communication with the committee whatsoever on this issue?
SEN. WARNER: We have asked. We then subsequently found that this was not the first time she was involved in domestic activities. She went down and seized some voting machines in Puerto Rico earlier in the year. Again, we had no knowledge of that. And then the question of what she was doing in Georgia. There’s been three or four different stories since it broke. First, she said the president asked, then the president said he didn’t ask her. Then he said it was Pam Bondi, the attorney general. So we don’t have the slightest idea other than the fact that the whole thing stinks to high heaven, and the fact is, Donald Trump cannot get over the fact that he lost Georgia in 2020 that he lost the election in 2020. My fear is now he sees the political winds turning against him, and he’s going to try to interfere in the 2026 election, something a year ago I didn’t think would be possible.
MARGARET BRENNAN: That’s a tremendous statement. But just to clarify here, it was Reuters that first reported that Gabbard went to Puerto Rico back in the spring to seize voting machines. Was Congress informed at all? Did you learn about it in the press?
SEN. WARNER: I believe the first we ever heard about this was from the press itself.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Wow. So the- you’ve laid out that the intelligence agencies usually focus overseas, but the White House is arguing that the director was there for good reason, and that federal law, they argue, assigns a DNI statutory responsibility to lead counter intelligence matters related to election security, election voting system risk, software, voter registration databases. You’re concerned, but are your fellow Republicans on the committee concerned?
SEN. WARNER: Here’s the ironic thing, Margaret, many of the protections for our election system were put in place during the first Trump administration. We set up CISA, the cybersecurity agency, to help work with state and local elections. There was an FBI center set up for foreign malign influence, foreign influence. And then we put into law something called the Foreign Malign Influence Center at the Director of National Intelligence office. All of those entities have been basically disbanded. CISA cut by a third. The FBI center cut back. The ODNI center cut back, which we think is, frankly, counter to the law. But it all- in terms the ODNI has to be involved, of foreign involvement, there has been no evidence of that to date.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Where is Chair Cotton on this, though?
SEN. WARNER: We have jointly been making sure that we get updates on election security, and I think we see more of that to come, because this is critical. And my concern is that when we see artificial intelligence tools and others- it was almost child’s play. What happened in 2016 China, Russia, Iran others could be interfering. We’ve not seen evidence to date. Gabbard, if she’s got any evidence, should have provided it to the Congress. I think this was an effort where Donald Trump can’t get over the fact that he lost Georgia so obsessed. And it begs the question is, what was Gabbard doing there? And it frankly, begs the question is- question is, why was the president even aware of this investigation before the search warrant was issued?
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, we would, we would love to put those questions to the director, and have asked to do so. But now that you are here, can you just button this up for me? Because we’re talking about 2020, and that’s what Fulton County. The focus was about but you also said, you think in 2026 there’s an effort to interfere. What evidence do you have of that?
SEN. WARNER: This was what I’m seeing from the president’s own comments about nationalizing elections and putting Republicans in charge, counter to the constitution. We’ve seen these activities in Georgia, where could there be some effort that suddenly gives him an excuse to try to take some of these federalization efforts we’ve seen ICE. We focused a lot of this activity on ICE in terms of they’re going rogue in Minneapolis. But there is a very real threat, without reforms at ICE, that you could have ICE patrols around polling stations, and people would say, “well, why would that matter?” If they’re all American citizens–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –Noncitizens cannot vote.
SEN. WARNER: –Because we’ve seen ice discriminate against Latinos families. We’ve seen as well mixed families where someone may be legal and others not. And candidly, you don’t need to do a lot to discourage people from voting, and we’ve more recently seen ICE starting to use technology where they can get information about Americans. Recently, there was an individual in Minnesota that got denied a global entry card to get through TSA quicker because he or she appeared at a protest rally. Do we really want ICE having that information?–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Is that what DHS said?
SEN. WARNER: Hypothetically- that was what happened in Minnesota. Hypothetically, if ICE is getting information, and you’ve got an unpaid parking ticket, would you go vote if you’ve got an unpaid parking ticket, thinking that an ICE patrol might be at a polling station, this is uncharted territory, and yet you’ve got the president’s own words, in many ways, raising concerns, because he says, well, gosh, we Republicans ought to take over elections in 15 states.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We’re going to talk about some of that and the operations at the local level with David Becker, our elections expert ahead in the show, and the immigration reform. But I want to ask you about what’s going on with Director Gabbard, because there was a whistleblower who filed a complaint against her personally and offered to come to Congress to share the information. According to the attorney for this whistleblower, this is about a complaint that two inspectors general, one of them Biden-era, concluded had a non-credible nature. You’ve viewed a redacted version of the complaint as I understand it. Do you accept their conclusions?
SEN. WARNER: Well, first of all, the previous Inspector General, who’d been a long term professional, viewed it as credible. The new–
MARGARET BRENNAN: — Which of the two complaints?
SEN. WARNER: The original- I can’t talk about the contents of the complaint. I’m old fashioned. It’s classified, and the complaint is so redacted, it’s hard to get to the bottom up, I got additional questions. My concern- what the director did, is that this information was not relayed to Congress. There is a process, and we didn’t even- we, and I mean, we the Gang of Eight, didn’t even hear about the complaint until November. We only saw it in February, and we’ve got this complete contradiction where the then lawyer for Director Gabbard said she shared the responsibility she had to share this with Congress in June, the legal responsibility. She later stated that she was not aware of her responsibility. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse if you’re the Director of National Intelligence.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, as I understand it, because when it’s deemed non-credible, it is not necessarily an urgent concern that would —
SEN. WARNER : — There was a ruling of urgency by the first inspector general. That was contradicted by the Trump Inspector General, but the process was still ongoing. The fact that this sat out there for 6,7,8 months now, and we are only seeing it now, raises huge concerns in and of itself.
MARGARET BRENNAN
Well, I know you said you will not share what the intercept and the intelligence was about, or the complaint itself, but CBS has been told by a senior intelligence official the whistleblower complaint included reference to an intelligence intercept between two foreign nationals in which they mentioned someone close to President Donald Trump. US intelligence did not verify whether the conversation itself was more than just gossip. Will you be able to speak to the whistleblower? Will you be able to see this underlying intelligence?
SEN. WARNER: My understanding is the whistleblower has been waiting for guidance, legal guidance, on how to approach the committee.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Does the whistleblower still work for the US government?
SEN. WARNER: I don’t have any idea.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Will you be able to view the intelligence, the intercept itself that she’s accused of not sharing?
SEN. WARNER: My question is- we are trying to get both the redactions and the underlying intelligence, and that’s- that is in process. I’m not going to talk to the content itself, but this whole question, remember, this whistleblower came forward in May. It’s now February of the following year, and we’re still asking questions.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Tom Cotton, the chair, says he’s- he’s comfortable with- with the process to date, but on the–
SEN. WARNER: — I’m- I’m not comfortable with the process, the timing, and I can’t make a judgment about the credibility or the veracity, because it’s been so heavily redacted.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, the director is frustrated with you personally and issued this really long blistering statement saying you’ve repeatedly lied to the American people, that the media also lies, and that that she never had the whistleblower complaint in her possession and saw it for the first time two weeks ago. I guess, the actual hard copy. So, do you care to respond to this accusation that you were lying?
SEN. WARNER: I would respond that I do not believe that Director Gabbard is competent for her position. I don’t believe that she is making America safer by not following the rules and procedures on getting whistleblower complaints to the Congress in a timely fashion. I believe she has been totally inappropriate showing up on a domestic criminal investigation in Georgia around voting machines. I think she has not been appropriate or competent in terms of, frankly, cutting back on investigations into foreign malign influence, literally dismembering the foreign line influence center that’s at the Director of National Intelligence, and we are going to agree to disagree about who’s telling the truth, and I believe her own general counsel, who’s now her deputy general counsel, testified this week that he shared with Director Gabbard, in June her legal obligations.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, the NSA has released a statement saying that they are abiding by the law. We do invite Director Gabbard on this program. Before I let you go, I have to ask you about Iran. There have been a number of think tanks who have published photos of what they believe is evidence of Iran reconstituting and rebuilding its nuclear program that the US bombed eight months ago. Are they rebuilding?
SEN. WARNER: When we struck Iranians nuclear capabilities, our military did a great job. It was not totally obliterated. So, that standard that the President himself set and Iran has been indicated in public documents, is trying to reconstitute. What I fear is that we don’t have the ability to bring the full power of pressure against Iran. A few weeks back, when the Iranian people bravely were in the streets, and there might have been a moment, we couldn’t strike, because the aircraft carrier that was usually in the Mediterranean was off the coast of Venezuela, doing the blockade there. On top of that- on top of that as well, we were unable to bring the full force of pressure of our allies in Europe against Iran, because at that very same moment, President Trump was disrupting NATO with his Greenland play. We are stronger when we use our allies, when we have our full military capabilities in region, and that military is getting stretched, as good as we are, as the President gets engaged in activities all over the world.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You support the diplomacy underway now?
SEN. WARNER: I support the diplomacy. Absolutely.
MARGARET BRENNAN: All right. Senator. Mark Warner, thank you for your time today, Face the Nation will be back in one minute. Stay with us.
I said a few days ago, “with DNI Tulsi Gabbard putting strategic pressure from the inside, and We The People putting accountability pressure from the outside, this Deep State intelligence nut just might begin to crack. In fact, I might even argue that cracking is exactly what we are starting to see.”
Today, we see evidence of just that; perhaps even the first signs that John Ratcliffe is on board. Perhaps.
The context here is important. Within the larger administrative state network: CNN is the preferred PR firm of the State Dept.; the CIA use The Washington Post; the FBI use Politico and the New York Times; the DOJ use the New York Times and Wall Street Journal; while the control lawfare embeds within the domestic IC spread their narrative distribution to the NYT, WSJ and Politico depending on the context.
When we see the Washington Post contracting, shrinking or otherwise limited in their activity, we can be confident the feeder system from the CIA is subsequently diminishing. If the CIA was operating at full narrative weapon capacity, the Washington Post newsroom would be bustling. The opposite is also true, although we have not seen much of that until recently. So, that’s the context:
WASHINGTON – Washington Post CEO Will Lewis stepped down from his position on Saturday — throwing the prestigious Jeff Bezos-owned newspaper into further turmoil just days after the publication laid off some 300 staffers. The Washington Post announced that Lewis would be resigning effective immediately.February 8, 2026 | Sundance
He was succeeded by Jeff D’Onofrio, the former Tumblr CEO who joined the newspaper this past June as its chief financial officer. D’Onofrio will assume the role of acting publisher and CEO.
Lewis framed his departure as the culmination of a difficult but necessary transformation, saying “now is the right time for me to step aside” after two years leading The Washington Post. (more)
If we see CNN get sold to David Ellison and Paramount, that will indicate the Marco Rubio operation at the State Dept. has similarly been successful. Though I wouldn’t look too optimistically toward the NYT, Politico or WSJ because the DOJ and FBI leadership are still struggling to get their arms around it.
The diminishment of the Washington Post is a very good sign and should not be downplayed. However, a follow up note of caution always exists because the worst elements of the control state have signaled a shift, moving public opinion operations toward social media platforms and outlets.
The power of the Silicon Valley technocrats has already started enmeshing with the alure of political sway. As traditional media has lost all credibility, control operations need to adapt, modify and shift toward venues where stakeholder equity finds the greatest value. Larry Ellison has prepositioned his assets to be a strategic player in this regard.
Thus, we must not diminish our smile at noticing the cracks in the Intelligence Community, which are also represented in the apoplexy toward Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. So, we should call this Washington Post diminishment another good crack in the nut.
You know the IC narrative is falling apart quickly when even the New York Times paints the background as gossip.
Within the New York Times reporting we discover more of the underlying context for the NSA intercept.
According to the Times, the NSA intercept was of “two foreign nationals” discussing an American person with some relationship to President Trump. The underlying concern was about the conversation they intercepted.
Just pulling out the pertinent:
“a whistle-blower report about an intelligence intercept of a call between two foreign nationals discussing a person close to President Trump” … “It is not clear what country the two foreign nationals were from, but the discussion involved Iran.” … “The identity of the person close to Mr. Trump could not be immediately determined.”
[…] “One official said there was no other intelligence that led officials to think the two officials had been speaking truthfully. Some intelligence analysts concluded the two foreign nationals were either gossiping or deliberately spreading misinformation. As a result of those doubts, Ms. Gabbard moved to restrict the report’s visibility. She also provided the information to Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff, according to people briefed on the events.
The acting intelligence community’s inspector general [a Biden appointee] cleared Ms. Gabbard of wrongdoing after she responded to questions about her actions.” {source}
Summary: The NSA intercepted two foreign nationals talking about Iran and gossiping about someone close to Trump. The NSA snooper documented the conversation. Intel analysts concluded the two foreign nationals were just gossiping. DNI Gabbard did not put credibility on the issue, but to be safe informed Susie Wiles of the intercept. That’s it.
The NSA snooper then got big mad about the intelligence analysis of the conversation labeling it as gossip and took out their frustration by blaming Tulsi Gabbard for dismissing it.
Posted originally on CTH on February 7, 2026 | Sundance
The attempted framing of Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard continues with senate intelligence committee Mark Warner and/or his collaborating whistleblower attorney Andrew Bakaj (also Ciaramella’s attorney) leaking details to the British intelligence services and their preferred media outlet The Guardian.
DNI Tulsi Gabbard has responded to the ongoing nonsense but first let’s review the newly disclosed details for some interesting information.
The UK Guardian now shares the agency for the “whistleblower” as the NSA, likely an NSA contractor, and the basic details of an intercepted phone call which the contractor deemed “unusual”. I’ll pull citations from the article.
SUMMARY VERSION: In/around March of 2025 an NSA contractor “detected evidence of an unusual phone call between an individual associated with foreign intelligence and a person close to Donald Trump, according to Whistleblower attorney, Andrew Bakaj.” The NSA contractor then wrote up a report and gave it to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. DNI Gabbard then took the report to Trump’s chief of staff, Susie Wiles.
One day after meeting Wiles, Gabbard told the NSA not to publish the intelligence report. Instead, she instructed NSA officials to transmit the highly classified details directly to her office. (Guardian citation)
The NSA whistleblower was upset that DNI Gabbard didn’t share the report with others and filed a whistleblower complaint on April 17, 2025, with the Intelligence Community Inspector General. Within the complaint the NSA whistleblower included the details of the phone call leading to the complaint being labeled Top Secret Compartmented Information (TSCI classification). This format of including TSCI material complicates how the complaint can be reviewed. This looks like it was done on purpose.
Because the complaint contained TSCI material, it could not follow ordinary whistleblower pathways toward congress.
(Guardian) […] Acting inspector general Tamara A Johnson dismissed the complaint at the end of a 14-day review period, writing in a 6 June letter addressed to the whistleblower that “the Inspector General could not determine if the allegations appear credible”. The letter stipulated that the whistleblower could take their concerns to Congress, only after receiving DNI guidance on how to proceed, given the highly sensitive nature of the complaint. (citation)
The inclusion of the TSCI material, the ‘highly sensitive‘ part, creates a conflict within the process. [The TSCI material is the name of the individual associated with foreign intelligence, and the name of the person close to President Trump.]
The NSA whistleblower complaint is against DNI Gabbard, but any complaint containing TSCI material must carry guidance from DNI Gabbard for further sharing. The NSA whistleblower likely intended to create this problem as part of the scheme to set up the events.
(Guardian) […] The contents of the whistleblower complaint are still largely unknown. Bakaj, the whistleblower’s attorney, said that Gabbard’s office had redacted much of the complaint that was released to intelligence committee members on Tuesday, citing executive privilege.
“I don’t know the contents of the complaint, but by exercising executive privilege they are flagging that it involves presidential action,” he said.
On 3 February, Bakaj again requested guidance from Gabbard’s office about how to share the whistleblower’s full report while taking appropriate precautions.
“As you are well aware, our client’s disclosure directly impacts our national security and the American people,” Bakaj wrote. “This means that our client’s complete whistleblower disclosure must be transmitted to Congress, and that we, as their counsel, speak with members and cleared staff.”
Bakaj said that the DNI’s office did not respond to his letter by its Friday deadline. He plans to contact members of the Senate and House intelligence committees on Monday to schedule an unclassified briefing on Gabbard’s conduct and the “underlying intelligence concerns”.
Members of the gang of eight have contacted the NSA to request the underlying intelligence that the whistleblower says Gabbard blocked, according to staff in Warner’s office. (more)
NOTE: At this point I’m more interested in the name of this NSA contractor who is listening to the phone calls of foreign intelligence and the Trump administration. Much like the heavily protected Eric Ciaramella (2019 effort), this NSA contractor likely carries similar motivations. Both Ciaramella and this “whistleblower” are using the same lawyer, Andrew Bakaj.
Regardless, DNI Tulsi Gabbard responded today via her X account:
“Senator Mark Warner and his friends in the Propaganda Media have repeatedly lied to the American people that I or the ODNI “hid” a whistleblower complaint in a safe for eight months. This is a blatant lie.
The truth:
– I am not now, nor have I ever been, in possession or control of the Whistleblower’s complaint, so I obviously could not have “hidden” it in a safe. Biden-era IC Inspector General Tamara Johnson was in possession of and responsible for securing the complaint for months.
– The first time I saw the whistleblower complaint was 2 weeks ago when I had to review it to provide guidance on how it should be securely shared with Congress.
– As Vice Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Warner knows very well that whistleblower complaints that contain highly classified and compartmented intelligence—even if they contain baseless allegations like this one—must be secured in a safe, which the Biden-era Inspector General Tamara Johnson did and her successor, Inspector General Chris Fox, continued to do. After IC Inspector General Fox hand-delivered the complaint to the Gang of 8, the complaint was returned to a safe where it remains, consistent with any information of such sensitivity.
– Either Senator Warner knows these facts and is intentionally lying to the American people, or he doesn’t have a clue how these things work and is therefore not qualified to be in the U.S. Senate—and certainly not the Vice Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Here is a detailed chronology of the situation:
– June 2025, I became aware that a whistleblower made a complaint against me that after further investigation, neither Biden-era IC Inspector General Tamara Johnson nor current IC Inspector General Chris Fox found the complaint to be credible.
– The complaint required special handling and storage in a safe because the complainant chose to include highly sensitive information within the complaint itself rather than referencing the sensitive reporting and leaving the complaint at a lower level of classification.
– Security standards for complaints that include such sensitive intelligence required the Inspector General to keep the complaint and the intelligence referenced secured in a safe from the time the complaint was made, until now.
– In June 2025 after Biden-era Inspector General Tamara Johnson completed her review of the complaint, no further oversight or investigative activity took place.
– Biden-era Inspector General Johnson had communicated with me directly throughout the course of her investigation into this complaint, yet neither she nor anyone from her office informed me that the Whistleblower chose to send the complaint to Congress which would require me to issue security instructions.
– When a complaint is not found to be credible, there is no timeline under the law for the provision of security guidance. The “21 day” requirement that Senator Warner alleges I did not comply with, only applies when a complaint is determined by the Inspector General to be both urgent AND apparently credible. That was NOT the case here.
– I was made aware of the need to provide security guidance by IC Inspector General Chris Fox on December 4, 2025, which he detailed in his letter to Congress.
– I took immediate action to provide the security guidance to the Intelligence Community Inspector General who then shared the complaint and referenced intelligence with relevant members of Congress last week.
Senator Warner’s decision to spread lies and baseless accusations over the months for political gain, undermines our national security and is a disservice to the American people and the Intelligence Community.” {source}
This multi-layered IC operation against Tulsi Gabbard is transparent in its political motivations. However, at the end of the day the dynamic is really remarkable when you cut through the fog and see it for what it is. The Intelligence Community (Fourth Branch) is listening to the conversations of the Trump administration, conducting full spectrum surveillance and looking for anything the IC can exploit to retain their status and power.
For additional perspective, put this IC effort into context looking at it through the separation of powers.
Every element of the Executive Branch is President Donald Trump:
An NSA contractor working for Donald Trump intercepted a phone call between a foreign intelligence person and a person working for Donald Trump. That contractor, working for Trump, then shared the intercept with the ODNI, who also works for Trump. The DNI, working for Trump, then informed the chief of staff to Donald Trump, and later secured the intercept.
The NSA contractor, who works for Trump, was angered by the DNI who works for Trump, and filed a complaint against the DNI because she didn’t share their intercept with other people who do not work for Trump.
That’s the current state of the Intelligence Community within the U.S. govt.
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.
Posted originally on CTH on February 6, 2026 | Sundance
A lesser-known member of Ansar al Sharia, the Islamic group who conducted the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi Libya, Zubayar Al-Bakoush, was captured and indicted by federal law enforcement. Attorney General Pam Bondi made the announcement earlier today.
Bakoush is labeled as a leading ‘facilitator’, essentially a ground planner of Ansar al Sharia during the attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glenn Doherty. He was charged in an eight-count indictment unsealed today in U.S. District Court on multiple terrorism and murder counts. AG Pam Bondi made the announcement.
CTH followed the events closely, conducted a two-year research effort and then subsequently published the full story Benghazi Brief [SEE HERE]. Domestically, Barack Obama, Leon Panetta, Hillary Clinton, Mike Morrell and James Comey participated in the coverup.
•Conspiracy to Provide Material Support and Resources to Terrorists Resulting in Death •Providing Material Support and Resources to Terrorists Resulting in Death •Murder of an Internationally Protected Person •Murder of a United States National Outside of the United States (Two Counts) •Attempted Murder of a United States National Outside of the United States •Arson and Placing Lives in Jeopardy Within the Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction of the United States and Attempting to Do the Same •Maliciously Destroying and Injuring Property and Placing Lives in Jeopardy within the Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction of the United States and Attempting to Do the Same
The charges stem from the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attack on the U.S. Special Mission and nearby CIA Annex that killed Ambassador Stevens and U.S. government personnel Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty.
According to the indictment, Bakoush was a member of Ansar Al Sharia (AAS), an Islamist extremist militia in Benghazi, which had the goal of establishing Sharia law in Libya.
On the evening of Sept. 11, 2012, a group of more than 20 heavily armed men – including Bakoush assembled outside the main gate of the U.S Special Mission in Benghazi. They were armed with assault rifles, other firearms, and explosive devices. At about 9:45 p.m., the group of armed men violently breached the main gate of the Mission. Upon entry, the men fanned out across the Mission complex, setting fires to building within the Mission compound.
When the attackers could not gain entry to the secure area of Villa C, the Ambassador’s residence, they set fire to it. Ambassador Stevens and Mr. Smith suffocated from the thick, black smoke that enveloped the residence. Diplomatic Security Services (DSS) Special Agent Scott Wickland, who had tried to guide Ambassador Stevens and Mr. Smith to safety, was injured and repeatedly took small arms fire while trying to rescue the two Americans.
The extremist group also attacked the Quick Reaction Force building, which was occupied by local Libyans serving as guards for the Mission.
About 10 p.m., Bakoush entered the Mission compound with other conspirators, and conducted surveillance of the Tactical Operation Center and the Villa. After Bakoush attempted to gain entry to vehicles belonging to Mission staff, he and his co-conspirators temporarily retreated to an area just outside the Mission.
About 11:15 p.m., conspirators assembled outside the southern gate and launched a second violent attack on the Mission using AK-type assault rifles, grenades, and rocket-propelled grenades. After 30 minutes, the group entered the compound and plundered the Mission’s office of documents, maps, and computers containing sensitive information about the location of the CIA Annex.
At 12:30 a.m., conspirators attacked the Annex with small arms, assault rifles, and rocket-propelled grenades.
Following the attack at the Mission, in the early hours of September 12, 2012, the violence continued at the CIA Annex, first with gunfire and then with a precision mortar attack. While defending the Annex, Mr. Woods, Mr. Doherty, DSS Special Agent David Ubben, and CIA security specialist Mark Tiegen were hit by a precision mortar attack, leading to the deaths of Mr. Woods and Mr. Doherty. Special Agent Ubben and Mr. Tiegen were seriously wounded but survived.
The Department of Justice previously charged and convicted two leaders in the Benghazi attack on federal terrorism charges and other offenses. Ahmed Abu Khatallah, aka Ahmed Mukatallah was sentenced in June 2018 to 22 years in prison and resentenced in September 2024 to 28 years in prison. Mustafa al-Imam was sentenced in January 2020 to nearly 20 years. (SOURCE)
Posted originally on CTH on February 6, 2026 | Sundance
Each day more and more people are starting to realize/notice there are elements of the United States intelligence apparatus that are targeting Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. The need for control is a reaction to fear, and Tulsi Gabbard has the DC Intelligence Community very worried.
What you will read below is something that was written back in 2024 about the potential for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), if President Trump were to win the election. Subsequently, he did win; and while we are not saying this is the exact ODNI script that is being followed, we are certainly not disputing that either.
Read the roadmap below –Written in 2024– compare it to current events and decide for yourself if this is something that rings a bell and may explain the IC apoplexy.
The ODNI was created as an outcome of the 9-11 Commission recommendations. In the era shortly after 9/11, the DC national security apparatus was constructed to preserve continuity of government and simultaneously view all Americans as potential threats.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) were created specifically for this purpose.
Washington DC created the modern national security apparatus immediately and hurriedly after 9/11/01. DHS came along in 2002, and within the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 the ODNI was formed.
When Barack Obama and Eric Holder arrived a few years later, those newly formed institutions were viewed as opportunities to create a very specific national security apparatus that would focus almost exclusively against their political opposition.
Here is the weird part. The ODNI was formed in 2004, with the intent for the office to be the pivot point of a national security radar. The DNI was intended to provide information to domestic agencies about foreign terror networks that would prevent something like 9-11 from happening again. However, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has never, not for one day, operated on this intent. This is why they are such a critical position from my perspective.
The office was new, not established yet as a functioning silo, when Barack Obama and Eric Holder arrived in 2009. They quickly dispatched an idiot, James Clapper, into the operation so they could weaponize around the offices’ fulcrum point.
Prior to the DNI office existing, the CIA radar would sweep externally and then report to the Office of the President. The DNI was intended to take external radar sweep (CIA) and make it a full 360° circle, adding a sweep inside the USA that would be handled by the Dept of Homeland Security.
The DHS sweep and the CIA sweep would then be combined into a central collection hub called the ODNI. Everyone with responsibility for “national security” could access the ODNI material. Essentially and presumably, post 9-11 nothing like jihadists practicing to fly airplanes would be missed again; at least that was the intent.
The weird part is that because the DNI was immediately weaponized, the office has never functioned to the purpose of its intent.
No one truly knows what the office possibilities consist of because no one has ever seen anyone try to functionally control the hub. If you think I’m joking about the intent of Obama and John Brennan using the DNI watch this video. This is before Brennan became CIA Director, this is when Brennan was helping Barack Obama put the pillars into place.
For the intents of this outline the takeaway is how the DNI office has never been used for good. In a strategic way, that can be used to our advantage if you are talking about leveraging silos against each other.
Example: The DNI can assemble material from any silo. Meaning the DNI can reach into any IC silo and extract anything they want. Under the original authorities given to the DNI, this authority exists. So, let’s spread the wings on this office and do exactly what it is permitted to do, only this time extract for the purpose of showing the President what is happening in every silo.
In essence, the DNI *CAN BE* deployed like a super strong cross-silo inspector general’s office. Force the other IC silos to comply with the demands of the DNI. This has never been done. But the DNI has this unique power.
The DNI can make the FBI, DOJ, DOJ-NSD, DoD, DoS and CIA provide anything and everything they demand. Instead of the other silos using blocks and threats against the office of the President, use the authority of the DNI to get them without confrontation. Then use the DNI to declassify the documents (if requested by potus), instead of the originating silo.
Can you see how the DNI office can be repurposed to be a seriously strong weapon in the toolbox of the President, against the schemes of those inside the various IC silos.
The DNI becomes much more important than the CIA Director, NSA Director, FBI Director, Attorney General, etc, because the DNI can just show up and say, “give me this.” That’s the functional purpose of the DNI office that has never been exerted; let’s flippin’ use it.
Let’s use the office of the DNI as the central information hub that takes information from inside the corrupt silos, then provides that information to the President who puts sunlight upon it. Each corrupt silo penetrated with disinfectant. This could begin a process to pull down the shadow operations and let the American public see what has been happening inside our IC apparatus.
To accomplish this approach the National Security Advisor to the President (NSA) [currently Marco Rubio], would be the person who tells the DNI what they are looking for. How does the NSA know what to look for? Because the National Security Advisor is the head of the National Security Council (NSC).
Let the NSC monitor the silos with specific intent, perhaps with assistance from open-source research, then provide Trump’s NatSec Advisor with details on what appears to be happening and where. With the approval of the President, the NSA [Rubio], then turns to the DNI [Gabbard] and says, “POTUS wants this, go get this.”
Raw, unfiltered, unredacted information. The silo administrators end up in a fight with the ODNI, not the office of President Trump. President Trump then uses the power of his office to support the demands of the DNI.
Under this approach the DNI has a lot more power; yet funnily, it’s power they already have – yet have never utilized.
Does any of that track with what we are currently experiencing?
With DNI Tulsi Gabbard putting strategic pressure from the inside, and We The People putting accountability pressure from the outside, this Deep State intelligence nut just might begin to crack.
In fact, I might even argue that cracking is exactly what we are starting to see.
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 