Tag Archives: CIA

Apr 18 2026

Miami Prosecutor Moved from Brennan Conspiracy Investigation


Posted originally on CTH on April 17, 2026 | Sundance

According to multiple media reports Maria Medetis Long has moved away from the investigative case surrounding John Brennan.

CNN was the first to report the move, and the anonymous sourcing indicates the information likely comes from notification sent by the prosecuting attorney to the witnesses and targets of the Florida-based grand jury.

(VIA CNN) – The Justice Department has removed the career Miami federal prosecutor leading the investigation into John Brennan, after she resisted pressure to quickly bring charges against the former CIA director and prominent critic of President Donald Trump, according to people briefed on the matter.

Maria Medetis Long on Friday notified attorneys representing people involved in the case that she was no longer handling the investigation, the people familiar with the matter said. She has led the politically sensitive probe for months amid demands from Trump to prosecute Brennan and other critics.

The investigation into Brennan is focused on one of the president’s longest standing political grievances — the 2017 intelligence assessment that found ​Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election to help him. (read more)

The fraudulent and politically manipulated Intelligence Community Assessment touches on the Ciaramella information recently released.  Ciaramella participated in both the construct of the ICA in early 2017 and then became the anonymous CIA whistleblower in 2019.

There is no indication the move of Maria Medetis Long is related to the recent discoveries; however, there is a certain continuity of conspiracy noted in the timeline that connects CIA Director John Brennan and CIA Analyst Eric Ciaramella.

We shall wait to see what else surfaces.

(ABC) – Asked about the move, a Justice Department spokesperson said, “as a matter of routine practice, attorneys are moved around on cases so offices can most effectively allocate resources. It is completely healthy and normal to change members of legal teams.” (more)

Apr 17 2026

DNI Tulsi Gabbard Outlines Reason for Criminal Referral of Trump Impeachment Collaborators


Posted originally on CTH on April 16, 2026 | Sundance 

Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, appears for an interview with Katie Pavlich to outline the importance of bringing all of the information about the Intelligence Community targeting of President Trump to the public.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and We the People want to see accountability for the Machiavellian conduct.  The intelligence community targeted President Trump and people within the CIA ran an operation to remove him.  These people have names and titles that have remained hidden, DNI Tulsi Gabbard is putting those names, specific names into the public psyche so we can have a full understanding of what took place.

Now, for many here this may seem like information we have all known about; however, Gabbard is providing the receipts, the actual evidence, of how these IC operations took place.  WATCH:

.

DNI Gabbard is showing how specific people within government weaponized their positions to conduct some of the most insidious schemes in modern U.S. history.  The criminality of those schemes is for others in Main Justice to determine, but the evidence of those schemes is clear.

I am thankful that people are now starting to use the new information to review past timelines. [SEE HERE] What they will discover is that Michael Atkinson’s work with Mary McCord and the Lawfare network are not isolated events. This is a continuum of targeting against Donald Trump using all of the intelligence levers at their disposal.

Michael Atkinson and Eric Ciaramella are the current names, but beside them sits Mary McCord, Norm Eisen, Andrew Weissmann, Barry Berke, Dan Goldman, Benjamin Wittes and many others from the Lawfare community.  They intersect with various high level government officials in Main Justice, the FBI, the CIA, NSA and various intelligence agencies.

This is the nest of Deep State and Tulsi Gabbard is exposing it.

Apr 16 2026

Barbara Boyd Recaps the Geopolitical Shifts and Domestic Obstruction Operations


Posted originally on CTH on April 15, 2026 | Sundance 

Promethean Action’s Barbara Boyd does a video recap of interconnected current events centered around Iran, President Trump’s seismic geopolitical shifts, and European, Nato and British intransigence. Meanwhile a U.S. Intelligence Community guardian is leading the fight against domestic intelligence opposition.  WATCH:

.

Link to Scott Bessent announcement HERE.

Apr 16 2026

DNI Tulsi Gabbard Sends Criminal Referrals for ICIG Michael Atkinson and CIA Analyst Eric Ciaramella


Posted originally on CTH on April 15, 2026 | Sundance |

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has sent criminal referrals to the DOJ for former Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson and former CIA Analyst (National Intelligence Council) Eric Ciaramella.

Atkinson was the intentional organizer of false impeachment material submitted by CIA operative Ciaramella.  Apparently, people know the background. lol

WASHINGTON DC – The Office of the Director of National Intelligence sent criminal referrals to the Justice Department for the whistleblower whose complaint helped trigger President Donald Trump’s 2019 impeachment and for the former intelligence community inspector general who notified Congress of the allegations, Fox News Digital has learned.

“I want to refer information that may constitute possible criminal activity in violation of federal criminal law committed by one or more former employees of the intelligence community,” ODNI’s general counsel wrote in the referral to the Justice Department. Fox News Digital on Wednesday reviewed the referrals ODNI sent to the Justice Department.

“The possible criminal activity concerns the circumstances described in the following congressional briefings: Discussion with Intelligence Community Inspector General, House Permanent Select Comm. on Intel., 116th Cong. (2019); Briefing by the Intelligence Community Inspector General, House Permanent Select Comm. on Intel., 116th Cong. (2019),” it continued.

[…] An intelligence official told Fox News Digital that the language in the referral is broad, but that it’s specifically directed at Atkinson and the whistleblower who reported concerns about President Trump’s July 2019 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. (read more)

Don’t forget, Michael Atkinson turned the Ciaramella complaint into a criminal referral, a criminal complaint, then submitted it to the U.S. Department of Justice.

Abuse of govt position.

Manufacturing evidence for a legislative procedure.

Conspiracy to conduct fraud.

Lying to federal investigators.

Falsifying information to manufacture a criminal complaint.

It will be interesting to see where this goes.

Apr 16 2026

The CIA Tried to Remove a Sitting President


Posted originally on CTH on April 15, 2026 | Sundance | 252 Comments

For the past 72 hours I have been attempting to draw attention to the big picture.  The CIA tried to remove a sitting United States President.

The evidence has been released. {GO DEEP} The long-debated issue is no longer a matter of opinion or question.

The CIA tried to remove a President.

Unfortunately, now we watch the silence.

I see a lot of punditries missing the forest as they peer intently at the trees.

The CIA tried to remove a sitting President.

We now know the real reason CIA whistleblower Eric Ciaramella’s name was never ¹permitted to be mentioned. It’s not the name Eric Ciaramella that presented the issue, it’s the organization where he was working, the CIA – That’s what needed to be protected.

[¹The Biden administration created the Dept of Homeland Security Disinformation Governance Board to interact with Social media and create content controls.  That’s where Nina Jankowicz comes in.]

There was/is documented evidence showing the CIA tried to remove a sitting President from office.  CIA Analyst Eric Ciaramella, the anonymous CIA ‘whistleblower’ worked with Joe Biden on Ukraine policy.  Biden appointed DHS Nina Jankowicz worked inside Zelenskyy’s campaign HQ.  Just a coincidence?

Don’t get lost in the details or the politics of this. When you peel back all the layers of DC, at its epicenter this was an operation to impeach a sitting President that came from within the CIA, and it almost succeeded. {GO DEEP}

In the details, an impeachment effort against President Trump was triggered when a member of the National Security Council named Alexander Vindman coordinated with a member of the CIA National Intelligence Council named Eric Ciaramella to fabricate a false claim that President Trump leveraged his power and authority to demand Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy release information on Joe and Hunter Biden’s corrupt financial dealings in Ukraine.

At the time of the 2019 impeachment construct Eric Ciaramella was working for the CIA as an analyst within the National Intelligence Council (NIC).

Two years prior to the 2019 impeachment construct, in January 2017, the same CIA analyst, Eric Ciaramella, had worked on the fraudulent Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) at the behest of CIA Director John Brennan.

Outlining Ciaramella’s activity not only hits CIA Director John Brennan and former DNI James Clapper, but it also hits former President Barack Obama.

The National Intelligence Council was the internal sub-agency within the larger Intelligence Community, that was constructing all of the fraudulent analysis to support the 2016 Russian Election Interference narrative.

Ciaramella was doing what John Brennan, James Clapper and Barack Obama wanted him to do. That’s why his story is so much more important than just his fabrication and lying to ICIG Michael Atkinson, who was also a participant in the endeavor and the false construct of the 2019 impeachment effort.

Former DOJ-NSD lawyer Michael Atkinson and former DOJ-NSD head Mary McCord were at the heart of the operations against Trump in 2017, and then both surface again against Trump in the 2019 impeachment effort.  Mary McCord was working for Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler at the time of the impeachment in 2019.

Michael Atkinson was moved from DOJ-NSD to the IC OIG specifically for this operation.

Before this operation in 2019, CIA analysts weren’t allowed to anonymously make claims against political officials. The reasons are obvious. Because of the sensitive information they handled, any allegation of wrongdoing based on intelligence had to be made with their name attached. Without anonymity, inside the Intelligence Community oversight system, the Ciaramella connection to both IC operations could have been made. His anonymity as a whistleblower served a purpose.

Having switched locations to IC IG, Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson independently changed the ICIG rules permitting Ciaramella to remain anonymous and make an “urgent concern” claim that ultimately led to an impeachment effort.

Eric Ciaramella fabricated intelligence information. ICIG Atkinson shared it with Congress and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI).  Representatives of HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff met with Ciaramella and assisted him during the construct.

ICIG Michael Atkinson never even read the transcript of the call between President Trump and President Zelenskyy that formed the basis for the Ciaramella complaint.  The complaint was also criminalized by Atkinson and sent to the Office of Inspector General for the DOJ for review.  Unlike Atkinson, the DOJ reviewed the Trump-Zelenskyy transcript and said there was no issue.

On October 4, 2019, as part of the House impeachment inquiry, Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson gave closed-door testimony to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) as part of their pre-impeachment investigation. {Transcript Here}

One of the key questions to ICIG Atkinson surrounded the authority of his office changing the CIA whistleblower rules that permitted Eric Ciaramella to remain anonymous.  Atkinson had no reasonable explanation.

The Intelligence Community Office of Inspector General (Atkinson) also altered the whistleblower form within months of the July 2019 Trump/Zelenskyy phone call to no longer require firsthand knowledge as a prerequisite for reporting complaints.

This indicates forethought and specific intent.  Michael Atkinson knew a ‘second-hand’ complaint was coming.

From all appearances, IC IG Atkinson was organizing the operation in advance.  CIA Analyst Eric Ciaramella provided the story.  With Adam Schiff prepared to receive the complaint, and Mary McCord prepared to weaponize the complaint, collectively they ran the operation to impeach a sitting President on an entirely fraudulent basis.

[Executive] The CIA tried to impeach President Donald Trump; the aggregate Intelligence Community was there to assist.

[Legislative] The HPSCI and HJC, Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler were prepared to organize the impeachment construct. Mary McCord working as staff.

[Judicial] Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts would not let Eric Ciaramella’s name be spoken at trial.  Mary McCord’s husband, Sheldon Snook, was working for John Roberts at the time.

This was a coordinated impeachment effort across all three branches of government.

The CIA tried to remove a President.

Unfortunately, now we watch the silence.

We have known this for all long time; what we lacked was the specific evidence.

Now, we see the evidence and yet it is almost more alarming to notice the silence than it is to absorb the reality of the events that evidence describes.

The CIA tried to remove a President!

Apr 14 2026

DNI Tulsi Gabbard Releases a Statement with Document Release from Two Silos


Posted originally on CTH on April 13, 2026 | Sundance 

It’s worth remembering how the IC silo process was used to manipulate proprietary claims by government agencies. These setups are intentionally designed this way, and none of the reasons behind them are good.

The CIA Whistleblower Complaint and subsequent Intelligence Community Inspector General investigation and report, falls under the work product of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.  The IC IG is quasi-independent but works for the ODNI.

DNI Tulsi Gabbard is releasing direct stakeholder information from within the ODNI with the release as noted – SEE HERE.  This is the background information that led to the impeachment effort.  The DNI is the Executive Branch.

The transcript of ICIG Michael Atkinson was held within another branch of government, within the Legislative Branch, and as a consequence DNI Gabbard needed to gain permission from the House Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), another silo, in order to review the testimony that came as an outcome of the ICIG complaint and investigation. SEE HERE and SEE HERE.

DNI Gabbard then needed to request the release of the HPSCI transcripts [legislative branch] to her DNI office [executive branch] where all three aspects of the ICIG activity can then be examined and reviewed in full context.

The DNI then requests the HPSCI to permit declassification and public release.  HPSCI reluctantly agrees.  DNI declassifies then returns the transcripts to the HPSCI for public release – while simultaneously the DNI office declassifies and releases the baseline ICIG investigative material so the public can have context.

The resulting outcome is a combined work product from five silos (HPSCI, DNI, CIA, ICIG, NSC) along with a statement from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, and a summary of what all the combined materials show:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard releases never-before-seen documents exposing a coordinated effort by elements within the Intelligence Community (IC), including a former Inspector General (IG), to manufacture a conspiracy that was used as the basis to impeach President Trump in 2019.

During his preliminary investigation into President Trump’s July 2019 phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, former IC IG Michael Atkinson did not follow standard IG procedures and relied upon politicized, manufactured narratives – only conducting interviews with four individuals: the Whistleblower, the Whistleblower’s friend who was a co-author of the January 2017 Russia Hoax Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) and close colleague of disgraced former FBI Agent Peter Strzok, and two character references who had zero firsthand knowledge of the July 2019 phone call.

Despite a lack of any firsthand evidence, IC IG Atkinson proceeded to take actions to weaponize the Whistleblower process and exceed his statutory jurisdiction by ignoring Department of Justice guidance and relying on only second-hand testimony to ensure the whistleblower complaint was released to Congress, referred to the FBI, and leaked to the propaganda media.

Then-House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) Chairman Adam Schiff and then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi used this false, second-hand narrative to create media intrigue and ultimately spark the basis to impeach President Trump in December of 2019.

“Deep state actors within the Intelligence Community concocted a false narrative that was used by Congress to usurp the will of the American people and impeach the duly-elected President of the United States,” said DNI Gabbard. “Inspector General Atkinson failed to uphold his responsibility to the American people, putting political motivations over the truth. And this, along with the politicization of the whistleblower process by a former CIA employee who was working hand in glove with Democrats in Congress, are egregious examples of the deep state playbook on how to weaponize the Intelligence Community. Exposing these tactics and showing how they undermine the fabric of our democratic republic furthers the critical cause of transparency and accountability and will help prevent future abuse of power.”

Review the documents released here and see below for a summary of newly declassified materials:

Today’s release includes investigative materials used by then-IC IG Atkinson (here) and a review of two transcripts from IC IG Atkinson’s closed-door testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (here and here), which were withheld from the House Judiciary Committee during the sham impeachment trial and kept locked in a safe until House Intelligence Chairman Rick Crawford led the vote to release these transcripts on Tuesday, March 24, 2026.

♦ NO FIRSTHAND EVIDENCE: The Intelligence Community Inspector General’s preliminary “investigation” into the whistleblower complaint relied on politicized actors and second-hand evidence. Newly declassified documents expose how IC IG Atkinson relied upon second-hand information from the self-declared “Democrat” whistleblower [Ciaramella] and two biased witnesses to justify his determination that the whistleblower compliant was of “urgent concern,” “appears credible,” and must be reported to Congress. IC IG Atkinson also ignored concerns by the whistleblower’s supervisor about a rushed complaint.

The Whistleblower [Eric Ciaramella] confirms he/she had no firsthand knowledge of President Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Zelensky.

In an initial form submitted by the Whistleblower, he/she claimed, “I do not have direct knowledge of private comments or communications by the President.”

New witness interviews released today show that IC IG Atkinson’s public claim that “other information obtained during [his] preliminary review…supports the complainant’s allegation” was false and hid the fact that neither the Whistleblower’s nor the key witness’ allegations concerning the President’s phone call were informed by direct, firsthand knowledge.

WITNESS 2 admitted that upon reading the transcript of the call he/she “would not have been able to get from ‘point A to Z’ the way the Whistleblower did” and described that he/she lacked the “granular detail” that the Whistleblower had to justify filing the complaint.”

WITNESS 2 admitted that he/she had to “read between the lines” of what was being said, and that his/her perception of quid pro quo “became clear” only “in hindsight.”

The Whistleblower’s superior, a senior officer in the National Intelligence Council (NIC), told IC Inspector General investigators that he/she, “did not like how the [Whistleblower] handled the filing of the report,” saying that he/she felt that he/she was “looped in right at the time of the crash.”

IC IG Atkinson’s 14-day preliminary investigation was intended to assess apparent credibility, but instead became the basis of a flawed, mischaracterized account that House Democrats peddled to launch a sham impeachment, even though the IC IG never conducted a formal or complete investigation.

In his own words, IC IG Atkinson recognizes that his conclusions were based on a “preliminary investigation,” noting that “I haven’t done an investigation to determine whether they actually, in fact, took place…that all of the alleged actions actually took place.”

♦ ANTI-TRUMP RUSSIA HOAX CO-AUTHOR AS KEY WITNESS: IC IG Atkinson relied on testimony from a co-author of the 2017 Russia Hoax ICA to support the Whistleblower’s allegations that there was some form of wrongdoing by President Trump.

Last year, DNI Gabbard revealed evidence that President Obama directed the creation of the January 2017 Russia Hoax ICA. This served as the basis for what was essentially a years-long coup against the duly-elected President of the United States, subverting the will of the American people and attempting to delegitimize Donald Trump’s presidency.

WITNESS 2 – who was one of the key sources for the Whistleblower ahead of filing a complaint – admits in a witness interview to being a “co-author of the 2017 ICA” which used manufactured and manipulated intelligence to create the false narrative that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to the benefit of President Trump.

WITNESS 2 also admitted to having worked alongside now-disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok who inserted political bias into FBI investigations about President Trump based on the manufactured Russia Hoax.

WITNESS 2 further exposed political bias when explaining that he/she “routinely deals with issues on a daily basis that are contrary to [his/ her] personal beliefs,” and “stated that [he/she] is disappointed everyday by policy decisions and statements made by political figures.”

♦ WHISTLEBLOWER’S PARTISAN BIAS, LIES CONFIRMED: The Whistleblower [Eric Ciaramella] admitted he/she lied to the Inspector General about speaking to Democrats in Congress ahead of submitting allegations of wrongdoing by President Trump to the IC Inspector General. While media widely reported on this detail in 2019, the pre-complaint meeting with Congress has never before been confirmed by the Whistleblower.

In October 2019, after the media began to report that the Whistleblower had spoken with Congress ahead of submitting the “Disclosure of Urgent Concern Form,” the Whistleblower called the IC IG to admit that he/she had, in fact, spoken with Congress.

IC IG Atkinson admits in newly-declassified testimony that his investigative team “did ask the complainant who else knew about the disclosure” and the complainant withheld from the investigative team, within the 14-day window, that he/she alerted HPSCI Democratic staff.

[Whistleblower Eric Ciaramella pictured left with U.S. President Barack Obama]

Whistleblower interviews reveal the political biases of the Whistleblower, in his/her own words:

The Whistleblower states he/she is a “registered democrat.”

The Whistleblower claims to have “worked closely with Vice President Biden…travelled with Biden to Ukraine and was part of conversations where LUTSENKO corruption was discussed.”

The Whistleblower also claims to have become “the target of right-wing bloggers…and conspiracy theorists.”

Yet, IC IG Atkinson ignored this and insisted during his testimony to HPSCI, “I also want to make it clear that I never considered the whistleblower to be politically biased.”

Despite public reports that the Whistleblower worked with Vice President Biden on Ukraine matters, inquiries into the Whistleblower’s bias and motive were blocked during the 2020 impeachment trial.

♦ IC INSPECTOR GENERAL WEAPONIZED THE WHISTLEBLOWER PROCESS: Newly declassified documents confirm that IC IG Atkinson failed to conduct basic due diligence and willfully exceeded his statutory jurisdiction to mischaracterize the President’s phone call with Zelensky as an “urgent concern” to Congress.

• From Day 1, IC IG Atkinson knew that a transcript of President Trump’s call existed. And yet, he never, throughout the entire preliminary investigation, requested access to it.

• IC IG Atkinson sent a criminal referral to the DOJ on this matter, despite only relying on second-hand knowledge to support his claims.

• The DOJ later assessed the allegations raised by the Whistleblower and IC IG and found no basis for a criminal case, concluding that based on the facts and applicable law, there was “no campaign finance violation” and “no further action was warranted.”

• After the DOJ reviewed the whistleblower complaint and determined there was “no urgent concern,” IC IG Atkinson ignored their determination and proceeded to transmit this faulty whistleblower complaint to Congress without completing a fulsome investigation, despite the allegations being made based on second-hand information.

• On September 3, the DOJ provided Office of Legal Counsel guidance to IC IG Atkinson that the complaint did not rise to the level of “urgent concern” because the alleged conduct does not relate to “the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity” under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence. As a result, the statute does not require the Director to transmit the complaint to the congressional intelligence committees.

• On September 9, the IC IG ignored this guidance and the Acting Director of National Intelligence to pen a letter to inform the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the existence of the “urgent concern” complaint.

• As was reported at the time, IC OIG altered the whistleblower form within months of the July 2019 phone call to no longer require firsthand knowledge as a prerequisite for reporting complaints.

• IC IG Atkinson sought unprecedented assistance from other Inspectors Generals to carry on this investigation “if [he] was stopped, [he] wanted to see whether other inspectors general could proceed.” In particular, he contacted the IGs at the Departments of State, Justice, and Defense.  {SOURCE}

IC IG Michael Atkinson pictured below

Hopefully everyone can see the construct above and how IC IG Michael Atkinson worked with his former DOJ colleague Mary McCord who was at the time working for HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff.

Ask the right questions.

Michael Atkinson moved from his position as legal counsel for the Asst Attorney General of the DOJ-NSD (Mary McCord) to the position of IC IG effective May 17, 2018.   The ICIG position is a nomination by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI):

Who was the person in 2018, at the height of the Mueller investigation, who told President Trump to nominate Michael Atkinson as Intelligence Community Inspector General?

Who told Trump to appoint Atkinson?

Find that person and you will find a person who was directly working against the interests of President Trump.

Why does this matter?…

…. Because this is not a random nomination and random appointment.  ICIG Michael Atkinson was intentionally moved into the position of ICIG in order to carry out an impeachment effort.

This was not happenstance. This was intentional.

At the conclusion of his impeachment trial, President Trump fired IC IG Michael Atkinson.

Simultaneous with the Senate acquittal during the failed impeachment, and following the firing of IC IG Michael Atkinson, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence suddenly dropped their block on the nomination of John Ratcliffe to be the Director of National Intelligence.

DNI John Ratcliffe was confirmed by the SSCI on May 21 and sworn in on May 26, 2020.

Apr 14 2026

Atkinson Transcripts and Background ICIG (CIA) Investigative Documents Released


What I think we should send to Jade April 13, 2026

Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, has retrieved, reviewed, declassified and forced the release of internal background documents related to the Intelligence Community’s collaborative effort to impeach President Donald J Trump in 2019.   {GO DEEP – BACKGROUND}

The HPSCI wants to take political credit for the release; however, the HPSCI was forced into this position by the diligent work of Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard.

Without DNI Gabbard, these documents would never have seen sunlight.   This type of public information release is exactly why DNI Tulsi Gabbard has been targeted by friend and foe alike.

WASHINGTON, D.C.— Today, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released two declassified transcripts from 2019 hearings with the former Intelligence Community Inspector General, Michael Atkinson, following a security review from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). The Committee received the declassified transcripts from the ODNI the evening of Friday, April 10, 2026. These transcripts are from two hearings held to examine Atkinson’s role in an alleged whistleblower complaint, which ultimately led to Democrats’ first impeachment efforts against President Trump in December 2019. (link)

Looking closely at the information in these three documents makes it clear why the HPSCI never wanted them released. Both current and former members, including Republicans, are tied to a pattern of willful blindness, knowing the details yet choosing to stay silent for months and even years afterward.

Former HPSCI Chairman, then HPSCI Ranking Member Devin Nunes was a participant in the testimony.  Former HPSCI member, now CIA Director John Ratcliffe was a participant in the testimony.  Former HPSCI staff, now FBI Director Kash Patel was a participant in the testimony. [Think about it]

♦ Principle Players – The National Security Council leaker was Alexander Vindman.  The CIA “Whistleblower” was Eric Ciaramella.  The Intelligence Community Inspector General was Michael Atkinson.

There is a lot of information to review as the documents include:

(1) The CIA complaint from Ciaramella and subsequent ICIG investigation. (pdf)

(2) The first interview of the ICIG Atkinson by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), dated September 19, 2019. (pdf)

(3) The second interview of ICIG Atkinson dated October 4, 2019. (pdf)

In total there are about 450 pages of documents and transcripts to read and review.  The story they tell is remarkable as it outlines how internal people within the various intelligence agencies of the United States government, collaborated and used their positions of responsibility to target a sitting president for impeachment and removal.

In short, in addition to all the “Spygate” surveillance and “Russiagate” wrongdoing, these documents highlight the real and actionable activity by the U.S. Intelligence Community to work collaborative with congress during their targeting of President Trump.

Do not lose sight of the forest while surrounded by the details of the trees.

I will share much more detail about what evidence the documents show and put that detail into the context of what it means.  Unfortunately, there are some alarming realizations about how our government operates and the false entities within it who claim a position to fight against the corruption, while keeping their mouths shut about specific evidence of corruption.

Much more will follow, but right now I need to pray a little bit and maybe go for a walk.

Please begin to read the releases and share your thoughts in the comments below.

There are more documents that need to surface, more stuff that I will never relent from locating and finding methods to bring it out.  In the interim, thank you to Tulsi Gabbard for the painful truth we all need to absorb.

Apr 14 2026

The Hungarian Election is Today – Results Links and Open Discussion Thread


Posted originally on CTH on April 12, 2026 | Sundance | 

One of the most critical European elections is happening today as Hungarian nationalists face down the influence of the European Union.  The stakes are exceptionally high for the entire continent and every control mechanism from the EU has been deployed to shape the outcome.   For the EU collective and all those who are yearning for a war against Russia, this is a zero-sum contest.

If Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban (Fidesz party) wins the nationalists will have fended off the Brussels coalition.  If challenger Peter Magyar (Tisza party) wins, the EU will claim victory and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will cheer.  The Ukraine meat grinder awaits fuel or starvation.

TRACK VOTE HERE – AND/OR – TRACK VOTE HERE

In the USA the anti-Trump media are desperate to paint a Viktor Orban defeat as a precursor to prove Donald Trump no longer holds political influence.  Every USA media outlet is all-in to weaponize the outcome.

The vote count will begin immediately after polls close at 7pm local / 1pm ET (USA), with preliminary results likely to be published from around 8pm local / 2pm ET (USA). These early figures will be released alongside data showing how much of the vote has been processed. You can track HERE and also HERE.

We will bump this post throughout the day.

NOTE: Not all votes will be included in the initial election day figures. Ballots cast abroad or submitted via transfer voting may take up to four days to arrive. These votes will later be sorted by constituency and distributed to local election offices, where they will be counted on the Friday or Saturday following election day. If it is a very close election, well, you know the routine…. The mail in ballots, under the control of the intelligence community, will determine the outcome.

As a European reviewer aptly noted a few days ago, we are likely to see the same control operation unfold again as previously witnessed in Moldova, Romania and Georgia. Here’s the likely scenario:

“Around 2:00 PM – 3:00 PM on April 12, the opposition will start making noise. They will do everything possible to circulate social media posts suggesting that Orban is losing the election and that his only path to victory is through rigging it. For this, they will need some video evidence, and in all likelihood, the opposition already has actors selected to participate in this performance.

Around 5:00 PM, they will claim for the first time how easily the opposition is winning and will call on people to go to the polls for final victory.

By 7:00 PM, they will gradually start talking about how the opposition is winning despite the election being rigged!

At 8:00 PM, they will declare themselves the winners and, for added conviction, will pop a few bottles of champagne.

Late at night on April 12, it will become known that Orban’s party is winning the election, and this is where the main part of the performance begins.

They will claim that Orban rigged the election and that every single vote must be defended.

On April 13, it will finally be confirmed that Orban’s party has won. The opposition will then announce a protest rally and declare the ruling party illegitimate.

We have already seen this scenario in Georgia , and agents funded by Ursula and Soros, along with NGO members raised on easy money, will repeat the same.

Success to the patriotic Hungarians and Viktor Orban! The Georgian people and the Georgian government stand with you!”  {SOURCE}

Having first-hand knowledge of the election battle in Georgia, I hope that prediction result unfolds.  The political manipulation within that outline is certainly quite accurate.

Has CIA Director John Ratcliffe removed the dark ability of the CIA?  Has Secretary Rubio removed the USAID control agents? We might get a better understanding as we watch this Hungarian election unfold.

Two wolves’ fight. One wants violence, globalism and chaos, the other wants peace, nationalism and calm.  Which wolf will win?  The one the European’s feed.

Apr 10 2026

UPDATE: Exciting Release Likely Today


Posted originally on CTH on April 9, 2026 | Sundance

UPDATE:  5:44pm ET – Annoying. I’m annoyed and waiting along with all y’all.  The declassification is done, but the “protocols,” (ie. the agreement to get things done – blah, blah, blah) required giving it back to HPSCI so they could have the political value of release – whatever 🙄!  So, in essence we are waiting on territoriality and politics. 

Be on the lookout for a certain transcript to be released ….

It should show up on the HPSCI WEBSITE HERE

But Also Keep an Eye on HPSCI X ACCOUNT and ODNI X ACCOUNT

“F**k!”

Apr 7 2026

Question from Mail: It’s Been Two Weeks on the Atkinson Transcript, What’s the Holdup?


Posted originally on CTH on April 6, 2026 | Sundance 

Two weeks ago, after a lengthy back-and-forth process between the HPSCI and DNI offices, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) reported they released the transcript of former Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI).  No further information has surfaced following that announcement.

“The transcripts will be posted on the Committee website once they undergo the standard classification review with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.”  (source)

It has been two-weeks.  The transcript is not public. In my estimation, this transcript could potentially be exceptionally revealing.  The background ‘delay’ is likely due to the significant revelations within it.   Also, this is a rather extensive stakeholder equity.

The declassification process involves having every equity stakeholder named in the deposition ¹agree to allowing the information, their information, to be released.

Ex. if Atkinson discussed the Senate Intel Committee, they (Cotton/Warner) would need to allow and/or demand redaction. If the CIA was discussed, again another stakeholder who needs to review and approve. If HPSCI, same/same. If any of the internal agencies were discussed by Atkinson, National Security Council (NSC, White House, Rubio), National Intelligence Council (NIC, in CIA at the time), the same process has to flow through each agency.  Also, this testimony is in 2019, making it possible contact with FBI or DOJ-NSD coconspirators (Mueller Inc.) may have taken place; the same would apply.

Each stakeholder gets to review the transcript content that applies to their mention and determine if they ¹approve the declassification process.

This is how the silo defense mechanisms work.  You can see how convoluted these systems have become.

According to the originating HPSCI public release, remember, they are the originating stakeholder of the classified information; well, the transcript is then returned to the House Intelligence Committee for publication.

[¹If they don’t agree, a battle begins. Remember the battle over the Nunes memo?]

What would all these equity stakeholders be hoping to conceal?  That’s where things get interesting.

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

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

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

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

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

Earlier in 2025, DNI Tulsi Gabbard began to drill down onto the issue of the fraudulent ICA and how it was constructed.  Current CIA analysts within the former National Intelligence Council (NIC) and CIA Directorate of Analysis began to notice Tulsi was going to declassify background documents, including the two-year House Intelligence Committee report revealing the fraud.  Tulsi Gabbard became a target.

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

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

In late July of this 2025, DNI Gabbard released the CIA intelligence information that was used in constructing the fraudulent ICA. On July 23rd, Tulsi Gabbard held a press conference alongside Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt and outlined the issues.

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

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

♦ Key point:  Julia Gurganus and Eric Ciaramella both worked on behalf of CIA Director John Brennan to fabricate the fraudulent ICA in 2016. Gurganus was still a CIA employee in August of 2025.

Back to Ciaramella…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Either 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”, or some mechanism was triggered that permitted the ICIG to operate using a legislative oversight method.

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

Some context is needed.

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

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

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

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

In fact, in 2015 the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for the DOJ, Michael Horowitz, requested oversight and it was Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates who responded with a lengthy 58-page legal explanation saying, essentially, ‘nope – not allowed.’ (PDF HERE) All of the DOJ is subject to oversight, except the NSD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now we get to the crux of the story.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Underneath all of these machinations, there’s no other way for Director Haspel to protect herself other than to use the primary mechanism within the functions of IC oversight, inform the SSCI chair and vice-chair of her changed rule guidance to ICIG Atkinson.

That Occam’s Razor scenario puts SSCI chairman ¹Richard Burr and SSCI vice-chair Mark Warner in the silo-system loop.  If things blew up, Haspel could always defend herself by pointing to her informing the mechanism for CIA oversight, the SSCI.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adam Schiff was not stupid.

He knew what he was doing and how to use the separation of powers for his purposes.  He also knew that each stakeholder could be counted on to keep secrets.

The executive branch would not easily be able to reach into the legislative branch and extract information.

That’s why then HPSCI Chairman, Impeachment Chairman and now Senator Adam Schiff buried the Atkinson transcript in the vault of the House Intelligence Committee.

The process.

♦ First, you need a republican President in the White House √. Second, you need an aligned Intelligence Community DNI √, and third you need a Republican controlled HPSCI √:

[¹] • To extract the transcript the Executive would first need to understand its value. • Then the Executive would need to know where it was. • Then the Executive would need a qualified stakeholder, with appropriate clearances, to request to review the transcript in the HPSCI secure compartmented intelligence facility (scif).  • If the HPSCI approved, the Executive would be given an appointment date to read it (no notes, no copying, just reading).  • Then, after reading, the Executive stakeholder would then need to request the HPSCI Chair and Ranking Member for a classified copy.  • The Chair and Ranking Member would need to agree to the value of the sunlight on the Legislative Branch controlled information. • To get a copy the entire House Intelligence Committee would need to vote on the release to the Executive.  • The vote would need to be scheduled on the committee calendar.  • A HPSCI vote would then take place:

[SOURCE]

WASHINGTON, D.C.— Today, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence held a business meeting to consider multiple Committee actions. During the business meeting, the Committee voted in favor of releasing two transcripts from 2019 hearings with the former Intelligence Community Inspector General, Michael Atkinson. The hearings were held to examine Atkinson’s role in an alleged whistleblower complaint, which ultimately led to Democrats’ first impeachment efforts against President Trump in December 2019. One transcript would be released to the ODNI for classification review, and then subsequently released to the public by the Committee with the second unclassified transcript.

“The great deal of widespread speculation about the Atkinson classified hearing transcript is indicative of the American people’s complete and warranted mistrust of the Intelligence Community,” said Chairman Crawford. “In far too many instances, the IC hides behind the veil of overclassification. Sometimes sunlight is the best disinfectant. As part of the Committee’s continued effort to balance the transparency the American people deserve and the need to protect sensitive national security information, we hope that the release of these transcripts allows the American people to make their own determinations. As Chairman, I remain committed to ensuring this Committee, where possible, is transparent as the IC works to rebuild trust with the American people.”

The transcripts will be posted on the Committee website once they undergo the standard classification review with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.  (source)

The HPSCI has given the transcript to Tulsi Gabbard, but I guarantee you the public release is against the interests of the entire intelligence apparatus.

Folks, this is a fight… and it’s ugly because the stakes are big.

If it sounds like hitting an anvil with a pickaxe, that’s because fighting the IC is like hitting an anvil with a pickaxe.

The truth has no agenda.

We have one ally.

I’m doing all I can…

~ SUPPORT CTH RESEARCH HERE ~