Tag Archives: CIA

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 ~

Apr 7 2026

CIA Director John Ratcliffe Discusses Covert Intel Role During Iran Rescue Operation


Posted originally on CTH on April 6, 2026 | Sundance

CIA Director John Ratcliffe gets a lot of flak for his general invisibility during the Trump administration.  Historically, the entire CIA apparatus has held dual missions, one domestic (hidden) and one foreign (opaque).

There is no reasonable person who would hold confidence in the fidelity of the CIA regarding their influence agenda on domestic politics.  However, it does seem clear that CIA Director Ratcliffe has been trying to eliminate the mechanisms within the CIA who have operated that influence campaign.

Shifting the assembly of the Presidential Daily Briefing to the ODNI, the real assembly – not the optics therein, is one facet. Taking the National Intelligence Council (ie. the Ciaramella, Gurganus, NIC) intelligence manipulation system out of the CIA and under the ODNI is another visible facet.  Additionally, substantively moving CIA operations away from the State Dept., and refocusing the majority of operations back toward the Pentagon is another example.

In the briefing with President Trump on the Iran rescue operations, Director Ratcliffe notes the removal of politics from CIA operations is ongoing.  WATCH:

Restructuring a covert institution is a daunting task, made particularly difficult given the cornerstones of the institution were founded as a domestic influence operation.   It may well be said the objective is impossible; indeed, there is slight chance of success given the background we all know too well.

That said, at least on the visible face of what can be seen within an agency whose legislative mandate includes the demand that all activity remain hidden from public review, Ratcliffe does seem to be making an earnest effort to restrain the control mechanisms.

Apr 1 2026

John Solomon and Donald Trump Jr Discuss Solomon’s Report of Ukraine Plan to Fund Biden Campaign Through USAID Scheme


Posted originally on CTH on March 31, 2026 | Sundance 

To say this report has been widely shared on conservative media would be an understatement; but something just doesn’t sniff right.

[Tweet Below: Samantha Power in Ukraine, October 2, 2024]

The essence of the reports is that Ukraine officials discussed a scheme to receive money from USAID, essentially from the CIA, then launder the money through fake Ukraine ‘clean energy programs’ using various front groups, eventually culminating with the money being transferred to the Joe Biden reelection effort.  That’s the gist of the report.

However, as much as this story is of great interest to me, for reasons outlined below, there are multiple red flags which should indicate serious caution needs to be applied.

First red flag.  Every single report about the issue links back to the original John Solomon report, written mostly by Jerry Dunleavy. [SEE HERE].  There is no follow-up reporting from any other outlet or source on this exceptionally explosive claim.

Second red flag.  Despite the report centering around a “declassified intelligence intercept” under review by DNI Tulsi Gabbard, there is no citation for the interpretation of the information itself.  There is no visibility into a declassified report, which if genuinely declassified would be easy to share with readers.

The absence of citation for the core claim, while simultaneously stating the information has been declassified, is a significant flag.  This type of reporting relies on the reader accepting the interpretation of the author who chooses -without saying why- to keep it hidden.

Third red flag.  The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has not commented on the declassified originating information, nor on the reporting or interpretation of it by Solomon.  This is not to say the reporting itself is inaccurate, but simply to note that no one is going on the record to substantiate it; and again, the information is hidden.

Fourth red flag.  If the core information was accurate, it would be attacked (spun and shaped) in a defensive posture by the leftist media who have direct contacts with allied intelligence officials who would know about it.  When an explosive IC claim is ignored by leftist media (NYT, WaPo, Politico, et al) generally that means they want to see the narrative advance or be emphasized.  This posture of advancement is generally made when information is being wrongly interpreted, and that plays positively toward their interests.

Fifth red flag.  The originator of the interpretation, in this case Solomon & Dunleavy, are careful in wording choices to leave as much deniability as possible for downstream discussion, questions and interpretations.  The infamous, ‘well we didn’t say that specifically’, when questioned later on.

This story is of great interest to me personally because in real time throughout 2024 I was tracking USAID Administrator Samantha Power, knowing full well she was an operative for the larger intelligence apparatus (CIA).

I wrote about Power’s real time travels to Georgia (Tbilisi), Slovenia, Moldova, Romania, Poland and Hungary, as she was setting up election interference operations in each of the countries.

What do Georgia, Moldova, Slovenia, Romania, Poland and Hungary have in common?  They were/are the site of very important election and/or referendum outcomes for the EU/U.S. State Department and EU/U.S. Intelligence Apparatus.

Controlling election outcomes was the entire reason Samantha Power was involved in those countries. USAID was funding the groups in each country that were in alignment with the Dept of State/EU/CIA outlook.

In support of what Solomon/Dunleavy have outlined, the possibility of corrupt Ukraine officials working with USAID to launder funds back to the 2024 U.S. election just makes buckets of Occam’s Razor sense.

Additionally, against the backdrop that multiple Ukraine energy sector officials have been charged with corruption, and the fact that the scheme outlined by Solomon involves the Ukraine energy sector – again, it just makes sense.

All of the elements for an outline of a Ukraine/USAID partnership toward shaping the U.S. presidential election outcome simply aligns with a lot of facts and circumstantial evidence that is very visible.  However, the red flags cannot be easily ignored.

Bottom Line: There is a lot of ancillary information and circumstantial evidence supporting what John Solomon and Jerry Dunleavy have outlined.  However, if the information is indeed “declassified”, then why is it kept secret without explanation?   Therefore, the premise is tantalizing, perhaps exceptionally explosive, but proceed with caution.

Following the Ukraine Fraud Trail, Interview with John Solomon | Triggered Ep.329

Mar 28 2026

Institutional Fear and the Excavation of the Rabbit Hole


Posted originally on CTH on March 27, 2026 | Sundance |

I shared with readers last year that if CTH felt confident DC engagement would lead to positive results, I would take you on the journey.  Having spent so many years inside the rabbit holes of the DC intel matrix, We The People deserve to fully understand just how this corrupt system operates.  Well, as promised….

When you mention sensitive intelligence and the whereabouts of corrupt evidence that could expose the state of our weakened Republic, one of the first things you notice is that almost everyone in DC is afraid—both personally and institutionally—to acknowledge it.

The Deep State relies on this fear.

You can find this fear promoted in the words of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer when he said in January 2017, “when you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday to get back at ya.”

Schumer said this two weeks before Donald Trump first took office, aiming to drive home a key point – the DC intelligence system is built to go after anyone who threatens the interests of those overseeing it. Basically, if you try to take on DC corruption, there are guards in place ready to take you down.

President Trump, you, me and all Americans spent the next several years watching that dynamic play out in real time.

After a long stretch of exhausting research, endless digging, and getting lost in the rabbit holes created by the IC, you eventually figure out how to face the fear they stir up. The real issue isn’t the fear held by those providing the information—it’s the fear carried by those who receive it and are tasked with acting on it.

Taking on the intelligence community requires two key things. First, a fearless person in a position of authority who can stand strong against the intense manipulation they may unleash. Second, a strategy that makes telling the truth a personal mission.

The IC have a pattern in their targeting; they repeat previously successful tactics.  An effective strategy -to get beyond the fear and gain support from the Executive- is to predict how the IC will eventually target them if they take no action.

In the example of retrieving and making public the Inspector General Michael Atkinson transcript as a datapoint to expose the IC corruption, the strategy was to reinforce how intelligence community would use the same approach to target IC leadership, if no sunlight is provided.

In essence, if you don’t go see what they did, review the past event, put it into the context of what it means, well, they will repeat that attack against you.

This might not get the person in power to take immediate action; after all, the information provider is basically predicting something that would be remarkable for them to encounter if it happened.  The only thing the information provider can do is to tell the location of the evidence, emphasize why it is important and then predict what will happen if the underlying corrupt activity is not exposed.

Thankfully, the “Seven Ways from Sunday” group are predictable.

Corrupt officials control us by manipulating our love of country; so, we must expose them by using their predictable hatred of it against them.

What followed a few months later was an IC targeting operation that was essentially a duplication of what took place before.  Suddenly, the previous reference point takes on an entirely new perspective.  Yes, it becomes personal:

[SOURCE]

That’s the backstory.

♦ Additionally, last year you might remember that DNI Tulsi Gabbard moved the National Intelligence Council (NIC) out of the CIA.  This was done specifically because the covert nature of the CIA was used by the NIC members to manufacture political intelligence.

Any resulting NIC analysis, much of which was fraudulently shaped by politics, could not be easily challenged because the covert nature of the CIA protected the authors (analysts) and their constructs.

Both Eric Ciaramella and Julia Gurganus worked inside the CIA on the NIC analysis that framed John Brennan’s Russian Interference narrative in January 2017, known as the fraudulent Intelligence Community Assessment. Eric Ciaramella was also the anonymous CIA whistleblower in 2019 for the impeachment effort.

The opaque nature of the CIA was used by NIC analysts as a fabrication tool, one of the “ways” Chuck Schumer described.

When DNI Gabbard and CIA Director Ratcliffe worked together to remove the NIC from the CIA, the bad actors within the IC game lost a strategic and political narrative tool.

The Intelligence Community embeds were angry and started leaking stuff to allies in media (WSJ, WaPo, Politico and NYT). The goal was to undermine Tulsi Gabbard at every step, using every resource and doing whatever it took.

However, DNI Gabbard stayed on mission despite the IC trying to also penetrate the concentric circles around the Office of The President with their bulls**t narratives.

♦ Last point, the current “Trump supporters” who try to undermine ODNI Tulsi Gabbard are either: (1) brutally naïve, (2) easily manipulated, or (3) working intentionally to retain the Intelligence Community control system that DNI Gabbard is dutifully deconstructing.  A shockingly large number of popular voices are part of group three.

Think about it in very commonsense terms.

DNI Gabbard is digging, declassifying and releasing information that exposes what very bad people have done against President Trump and our nation. The outcomes of her patriotic activity flow steadily from her office.  Everyone can see them.  So, what exactly are the motives of those who want to undermine Tulsi Gabbard?

Keep it simple, don’t reconcile bad behavior.

From 2020: “A new Democratic-aligned political action committee advised by retired Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the former head of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, is planning to deploy technology originally developed to counter Islamic State propaganda in service of a domestic political goal” …..“The group, Defeat Disinfo, will use artificial intelligence and network analysis to map discussion of [opposition] claims on social media. It will seek to intervene by identifying the most popular counter-narratives and boosting them through a network of more than 3.4 million influencers across the country — in some cases paying users with large followings to take sides against [their opposition].”…

[…] The initiative reflects fears within the Democratic Party that Trump’s unwavering digital army may help sustain him … as it has through past controversies, even as the economy craters … and Trump suffers in the polls.  “It’s often said campaigns are a battle of ideas, but they’re really a battle of narratives,” said David Eichenbaum, a Democratic media consultant who is a senior adviser to the PAC. “Today those narratives spread quickly online.” (source)

Mar 26 2026

Big News – House Intel Committee Releases Hidden Transcript of Inspector General Michael Atkinson


Posted originally on CTH on March 25, 2026 | Sundance

For the past several years I have been advocating for ‘sunlight as the best disinfectant.’ Since September of 2025 I have been working through a painfully slow and convoluted process to share research, assist truth tellers and guide those who have the authority to deliver the sunlight. Today, I can happily report on progress.

In 2019 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 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.

[SIDEBAR: In 2025 Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, working with CIA Director John Ratcliffe, removed the NIC from inside the CIA.  To provide greater overall transparency within the intelligence community, the National Intelligence Council was moved into the purview of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI)].

Key point: Eric Ciaramella was one of the key analysts who constructed the fraudulent ‘Russian interference ICA’ (2017) and later the fraudulent impeachment effort (2019).  Eric Ciaramella became the “anonymous CIA whistleblower” in the 2019 impeachment effort.

Before 2019, CIA analysts weren’t allowed to anonymously make claims against political officials. Because of the sensitive information they handled, any allegation of wrongdoing based on intelligence had to be made with their name attached.

Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson changed or modified the ICIG rules permitting Ciaramella to remain anonymous and make a claim that ultimately led to an impeachment effort.

Eric Ciaramella allegedly fabricated intelligence information, shared it with Congress and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), and then remained anonymous. HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff was said to have assisted him.

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 impeachment investigation. 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.

During later questioning by then-Congressman John Ratcliffe, as part of the House impeachment effort, it came to light that Inspector General Michael Atkinson testified CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella, the anonymous ‘whistleblower’, had lied about key details when questioned by Atkinson. WATCH VIDEO: 

[The look on Dan Goldman’s face during that questioning was both priceless and insufferable. John Ratcliffe is now CIA Director]

Because the anonymous whistleblower complaint by Ciaramella was the cornerstone of the impeachment effort, Chairman Adam Schiff sealed the transcript of ICIG Atkinson testimony, classifying it under the guise of national security interests and burying it in the HPSCI control system.

It’s worth reemphasizing that Eric Ciaramella was both the analyst behind the disputed 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment for Director Brennan and, later in 2019, involved in the contested impeachment effort. Both operations involved impeding and targeting President Donald Trump.

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.

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.  [DNI Tulsi Gabbard’s 2025 decision to remove the National Intelligence Council from behind the curtain of the CIA is additionally supported with this hindsight.]

The transcript of Inspector General Michael Atkinson’s testimony becomes a key document to release because at its core we know that Atkinson testified that Ciaramella lied.  The Ciaramella lie is at the heart of the impeachment attempt.

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}

When a top administration intelligence official, holding what I believe to be the best possibility of making a difference, reached out, I began the assist by citing specific documents that would reveal a much bigger story.  The Atkinson transcript was one of those documents.

I have outlined how the silo system is constructed to intentionally impede or stop review. Adam Schiff isn’t stupid. He knew what he was doing and how to use the separation of powers for his purposes.  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 voted to release the Atkinson Transcript.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard will now walk the unhidden transcript through the declassification process. The fastest way is through President Trump’s office.   Hopefully the redactions will be minimal.  Then we will all get to see it.

This has been a long, frustrating and complicated process – but we have succeeded.

[SUPPORT The Ongoing CTH Effort HERE]

.

[¹] FINAL POINT: You can tell this is a long arduous process. However, once the process begins, you’ll note that certain tripwires are crossed, and people in/around DC find out what you are doing.  Yes, DC ‘interests’ realized months ago that Tulsi Gabbard was on the trail of this transcript.

Now do the recent attacks against DNI Tulsi Gabbard gain context?

Mar 20 2026

Elise Stefanik Questions DNI Gabbard About Politically Shaped Intelligence, and Joe Kent


Posted originally on CTH on March 19, 2026 | Sundance

Representative Elise Stefanik is a strong supporter of Israel and has concerns about current narratives swirling around the politicization of Intelligence Community information to shape anti-Israel sentiments.  Part of that collective effort is a not-so-subtle effort to remove DNI Gabbard from her position by questioning her loyalties.  A considerable segment of Washington DC wants to return to a more Dan Coats style DNI.

As a tenured member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), Mrs. Stefanik used her time during the congressional testimony of Gabbard, Ratcliffe and Patel to confirm the Trump administration policy toward the IC to remove all political interests.  WATCH:

.

In the political horse racing analogy, the stable of Peter Thiel has taken major hits recently as the stable of Larry Ellison is gaining considerable influence.  However, it’s a steeplechase and anything can happen.

Peter Thiel <-> Elon Musk <-> Larry Ellison

Mar 20 2026

DNI Gabbard, CIA Director Ratcliffe and FBI Director Patel Testify to HPSCI – 10:00am Livestream


Posted originally on CTH on March 19, 2026 | Sundance

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, FBI Director Kash Patel, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and other national security officials testify on threats to the U.S. amid the Iran war before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI).

The testimony begins at 10:00am ET, with livestream links below:

.

.

Mar 19 2026

DNI Gabbard, FBI Director Patel and CIA Director Ratcliffe Testify on Global Threats – 10:00am Livestream


Posted originally on CTH on March 18, 2026 | Sundance

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and FBI Director Kash Patel are scheduled to deliver testimony on Global Threat Assessments today at the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI).  The hearing is scheduled to begin at 10:00am ET.  Livestream Links Below.

The SSCI sits at the center of the U.S. Intelligence Community operations, providing support and alignment with all ongoing IC activity, with control mechanisms that work around the leadership of all IC institutions.  The SSCI, acting as an oversight body, facilitates all activity.

Keep in mind, as DNI Tulsi Gabbard appears for testimony today the worst elements of the Intelligence Community, and the orcs within the SSCI that underpins the IC, despise Tulsi Gabbard.

Remember, Gabbard intercepted an impeachment construct (TdA, Venezuela deportation – Boasberg et al) and Gabbard refused to promote the fabricated IC construct that Jared Kushner was in control of Trump and manipulating the White House on behalf of Israel. Today, the SSCI will take strides to regain control. WATCH:

.

.

.