Tag Archives: CIA

Feb 3 2026

Intel Community Frame Another “Anonymous” Inspector General Complaint Against DNI Tulsi Gabbard


Posted originally on CTH on February 2, 2026 | Sundance 

The Wall Street Journal is out with a very specific hit piece against Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.  The article is 100% Intelligence Community insider lawfare against DNI Gabbard; however, in addition to being completely bogus the construct of the hit itself is very revealing.

Within this current story we are going to find out why it is so important for someone, anyone to reveal how the 2019 CIA operation against President Trump was created. {GO DEEP}

The first CIA operation (2017) involved the National Intelligence Council (NIC sub-silo) and a Russian intelligence analyst, Eric Ciaramella. That was the creation of the fraudulent Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) written from within the NIC at the direction of John Brennan.  The second CIA operation was the 2019 fraudulent Trump impeachment effort, again originating from Russian analyst Eric Ciaramella (anonymous whistleblower) who was represented by legal counsel Andrew Bakaj.

The current attack against DNI Tulsi Gabbard involves her May 2025 move to take the National Intelligence Counsel out of the CIA, and remove the heads of the agency, Chairman Mike Collins (friend of Mike Morrell) and Deputy Chair Maria Langan-Riekhof. {GO DEEP}

Within the current “leak”, structurally another false narrative, the Wall Street Journal frames yet another anonymous intelligence community whistleblower complaint, this time against DNI Tulsi Gabbard.  Notice: the “anonymous whistleblower” is again represented by legal counsel Andrew Bakaj. The anti-Trump intelligence officials are running the same play.

As noted by DNI Spokesperson Olivia Coleman, “This is a classic case of a politically motivated individual weaponizing their position in the Intelligence Community, submitting a baseless complaint and then burying it in highly classified information to create 1) false intrigue, 2) a manufactured narrative, and 3) conditions which make it substantially more difficult to produce “security guidance” for transmittal to Congress.”

WASHINGTON—A U.S. intelligence official has alleged wrongdoing by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard in a whistleblower complaint that is so highly classified it has sparked months of wrangling over how to share it with Congress, according to U.S. officials and others familiar with the matter.

The filing of the complaint has prompted a continuing, behind-the-scenes struggle about how to assess and handle it, with the whistleblower’s lawyer accusing Gabbard of stonewalling the complaint. Gabbard’s office rejects that characterization, contending it is navigating a unique set of circumstances and working to resolve the issue.

[…] The complaint was filed last May with the intelligence community’s inspector general, according to a November letter that the whistleblower’s lawyer addressed to Gabbard. The letter, which was viewed by The Wall Street Journal, accused Gabbard’s office of hindering the dissemination of the complaint to lawmakers by failing to provide necessary security guidance on how to do so.

[…] Gabbard answered written questions about the allegations from the inspector general’s office, a senior official at the spy agency said. That prompted the acting inspector general at the time, Tamara Johnson, to determine the allegations specifically about Gabbard weren’t credible, the official said. 

[…] The complaint includes a separate allegation about “an office within a different federal agency,” upon which the watchdog’s office wasn’t able to make a credibility determination, the representative for that office said. The Wall Street Journal couldn’t determine the identity of the other federal agency. (read more)

The Wall Street Journal cannot determine the “other federal agency” provenance, but we can.

The office was the “National Intelligence Council” and the ‘other federal agency’ was/is the CIA.  The background context is exactly as we previously outlined {SEE HERE}.

DNI Tulsi Gabbard has been removing the Intelligence Community tentacles used to control political policy.  The Intelligence Community and the downstream stakeholders hate her.

Here’s where it becomes important to understand the full context of what DNI Gabbard did in May 2025 to infuriate the IC.  The CIA was running another impeachment operation when DNI Tulsi Gabbard intercepted it.

The issue involved President Trump and Marco Rubio designating Tren de Aragua (TdA) as a terror group operating as part of the coordinated effort by Venezuela dictator Nicolas Maduro.  To undermine Trump/Rubio the National Intelligence Council within the CIA created analysis that contradicted the White House claim.

CBS Margaret Brennan was prepared to frame the narrative just before Tulsi Gabbard intercepted it.  Brennan saying to Rubio, “Do you accept the intelligence community’s assessment that the Venezuelan gang is not a proxy force of the Maduro government? That was the National Intelligence Council assessment. 

SEC. RUBIO: “Yeah, that’s their assessment. They’re wrong. In fact, the FBI agrees with me that they are. We- we- the FBI agrees that not only is Tren de Aragua exported by the Venezuelan regime, but in fact, if you go back and see a Tren de Aragua member, all the evidence is there, and it’s growing every day, was actually contracted to murder an opposition member, I believe, in Chile a few months ago. So, one of the warnings out there by the FBI is not simply that Tren de Aragua are- are a terrorist organization, but one that has already been operationalized, to murder a- to murder a- an- an opposition member in another country.”

In early 2025 the CIA was working to kneecap the Trump administration’s moves in Venezuela. [I suspect, because the CIA funding mechanism involves money flows from the drug running that Venezuela supported.]

In essence, the NIC sub-silo within the parent CIA agency was weaponizing intelligence against President Trump in order to trigger a Lawfare attack.  DNI Tulsi Gabbard intercepted the issue, removed the NIC agency from the CIA and dispatched the two heads, Mike Collins and Maria Langan-Riekhof.

That’s the sourcing for the “anonymous whistleblower” shot against DNI Gabbard in 2025, that surfaced in today’s Wall Street Journal.

Again, I will repeat…. Until the Trump administration puts full sunlight on the intelligence community operations; which includes retrieving, declassifying and sharing the sealed secret transcript of former ICIG Michael Atkinson; the various intelligence officials who are comfortable weaponizing their positions will continue trying to manipulate American politics.  They are continually using the same playbook.

…START HERE!

REFERENCE READING.

  1.  Tulsi Gabbard takes down the NIC
  2.  Tulsi Gabbard takes operational control of the Presidential Daily Briefing.
  3.  Rubio notes Tulsi intercepted an IC impeachment operation.
  4.  Tulsi Gabbard becomes a target – June 2025

.

Feb 2 2026

Warner


Posted originally on CTH on February 1, 2026 | Sundance 

In January of 2017 California Senator Dianne Feinstein abdicated her position as Vice-Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI).  Upon the initiation of a new congress, and two weeks before the inauguration of President Donald Trump, Virginia Senator Mark Warner took the SSCI Vice-Chair seat…. and that’s how things get started.

Amid a concerted effort to resist the incoming administration the Russia Collusion Conspiracy was launched.  Politicians, the U.S. intelligence apparatus and DC beltway media united in common purpose to push a Trump-Russia narrative.

Within the early days of that effort, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence initiated an investigation into Russian interference with the election.  Chairman Richard Burr and Vice-Chair Warner were toasted throughout DC as an example of bipartisan oversight against what House minority leader Nancy Pelosi called a “fraudulent president.”

Sometime in late February/early March 2017 Senator Warner requested a copy of the top secret FISA application used against Carter Page, falsely accusing him of being “an agent of a foreign power.”  Simultaneous to this the FBI was trying to track down the details of dozens of classified intelligence leaks to the media from within the DC system.   FBI Special Agent, Washington DC Field Office, Brian Dugan appears to have been tasked with tracking and identifying intelligence leakers.  Dugan saw an opportunity.

On March 17, 2017, in order to fulfill the request of SSCI Vice-Chairman Mark Warner, Agent Dugan goes to the FISA Court and picks up a copy of the FISA application.  At the time there were only two components: The original application (Oct ’16), and the first renewal (Jan ’17).   The next renewal did not come until April and then again in June.

NOTE:  The FBI did not go to the DOJ-NSD to pick up a copy.  Why?

You’ll see.

The FBI went to FISA Court for their copy.  The FISA Clerk stamped the copy with the Date March 17, 2017, and Dugan returned to the Washington Field Office of the FBI.

We know this was the process, because Dugan later writes the copy was “an FBI equity”, meaning the origination of the leaked document came from the FBI.  Not the DOJ-NSD or the FISA Court directly (the two other possible sources).

When SSA Dugan returned to the FBI office he changed the dates (by one day) on the application and first renewal, presumably as a leak tracer, and prepared them for release.

Throughout this process DOJ Main Justice appears purposefully unaware. The Washington Field Office FBI were limiting information in order to track classified leaks.

This exclusion process narrows the possibility.

Later in the afternoon of March 17, 2017, the WFO delivered the FISA application to SSCI Security Director James Wolfe.  [Wolfe indictment page 6 – Line 17, 18]

Shortly after 4:00pm Mark Warner arrives at the SSCI Sensitive Comparmented Information Facility, or SCIF.  We discover this exact timeframe from text messages belonging to Chris Steele’s U.S. Attorney, Adam Waldman.  More on that in a minute.

Before, during or after Senator Warner’s review of the FISA application, SSCI Security Director James Wolfe leaked the FISA application content to his allied media cohort, a journalist at Buzzfeed, Ali Watkins.

Additional material later released puts the most likely sequence for Wolfe’s leak coming after Warner’s review.

The leak was accomplished by a series of picture texts.  The original FISA application is 83 pages in total with one intentionally blank page [Ali Watkins is “Reporter #2”]:

James Wolfe took a photograph of each of the pages and then sent those 82 image texts to Ms. Ali Watkins.  At this moment, March 17, 2017, Ms. Watkins now holds a copy of the unredacted original FISA application.  However, the copy also carries the leak tracer.

After reporting of Carter Page (Male 1) appears in Buzzfeed written by Watkins; and after both the New York Times and Washington Post publish articles about the FISA application using the leak trace information; the FBI now knows the leak came from the SSCI.

Over the next several months physical surveillance on Wolfe is conducted.   The FBI must have been able to gather very credible evidence that Wolfe was the leaker to Watkins because eventually a DC judge granted the FBI a search warrant for Ms. Watkins records.

It is very difficult to get a warrant on a journalist.  There are tight legal protocols for doing so. The evidence gathered must have been very overwhelming.  The court granted the search warrant.   Ms. Watkins is unaware.  Additionally, and importantly, it appears Main Justice now occupied by the Mueller investigation, is also unaware. [Doc Link]

The search warrant runs from Feb 1, 2017 to July 31, 2017.  This specific leak of the FISA application is March 17, 2017.

Somewhere in/around this mid-late summer timeframe the Washington Field Office FBI also retrieved text messages from Lawyer and registered Lobbyist Adam Waldman.

We know the text messages are from Waldman’s side of the conversation from the attached screenshots later released.  We also know the date of the capture was similar to Ms. Ali Watkins.  Feb 15, 2017 to May 15, 2017.  Again the Wolfe leak was March 17th.

The telephone communication of both SSCI Vice-Chairman Senator Warner and Journalist Ali Watkins were captured.   This indicates both were suspects in the investigation.  Thus, it seems likely the Wolfe pictures were sent *after* Mark Warner reviewed them, not before.

It would be very tenuous for the FBI to capture texts messages from the sitting Vice-Chair of the SSCI.  This is not something the Washington Field Office of the FBI would do lightly.  That aspect also explains why the texts were captured from the Waldman side of the conversation.  Much easier to get the texts of a lobbyist than a sitting SSCI member.

In October 2017 the FBI first approached Wolfe with an fyi on the leak investigation to see how he would respond.  [Indictment Here] By mid December 2017 Wolfe is confronted.  He lied repeatedly, until shown the evidence, then he admitted, and admitted he lied.

James Wolfe was quietly removed from the SSCI immediately after, and was in a state of suspension until his indictment was unsealed June 8th.  However, it’s the story between December 2017 and June 8th where things are very interesting.

As you can see from above, Mueller and the 17 resistance members that took over Main Justice had no idea any of this FBI investigation was happening, UNTIL the FBI investigative files were transferred to seat a grand jury to hear the evidence.

It appears FBI SSA Brian Dugan finished his investigation immediately after Wolfe left the SSCI; or soon thereafter.  Somewhere around the end of January, to first week of February, all reports and FBI evidence would be submitted.

That transfer included: the March 17, 2017, FISA application with leak tracers; the Ali Watkins phone records; the Adam Waldman/Mark Warner phone records; and all the subsequent interview notes with James Wolfe and other parties (FD-302’s etc).

Keep in mind, every investigation that touched on Trump-Russia became proprietary to the Robert Mueller Special Counsel.  This FBI investigation centered around the FISA application which was at the center of the special counsel probe.

This means the Mueller special counsel took ownership and control over the FBI evidence in the totality of the Wolfe investigation.

The evidence did not go to a grand jury.

On February 9, 2018, the evidentiary text messages capturing Mark Warner’s involvement with James Wolfe were sent back to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:

In essence, Senator Mark Warner was given a head’s up.  Or put another way, time to clean up any sticky issues and narrate a justification.

Four days later, February 13, 2018, the DOJ notified Ali Watkins, and the New York Times, that all of her communications were intercepted as part of the investigation.  By now Wolfe was two months removed from his position; undoubtedly Watkins knew.

In essence to the New York Times, who had been using the FISA application as part of its false reporting, were also given a legal head’s up.

The Wolfe Grand Jury was not seated until May 3, 2018; and the indictment unsealed on June 8, 2018.  [link]  All the work that SSA Brian Dugan put into catching an intelligence leaker was ignored.  Wolfe was only indicted for lying to the FBI because it appears the grand jury never saw the evidence of his leaking the FISA application.

Why not?  Because an admission of the FISA leak would have been toxic to special counsel Robert Mueller in 2018.  It would have also been toxic to the SSCI and specifically Senator Mark Warner. The leak would have outlined how the Senate was involved in the targeting of Trump.

In 2018 Robert Mueller and Andrew Weissmann were in control of Main Justice for everything surrounding the Trump-Russia information. It appears the evidence file against James Wolfe went into Main Justice with clear and overwhelming evidence of Wolfe leaking the FISA, only to have it return to DC US attorney Jessie Liu for presentation to a grand jury with the evidence of that core element removed.  Ergo, Wolfe was only charged with lying to the FBI.

However, it appears FBI Special Agent Brian Dugan didn’t relent.  In a sentencing attachment on December 14th 2018, well after the plea agreement was concluded, Dugan swears under oath that James Wolfe leaked the FISA application:

“In this case, because the known disclosure of classified information – the FISA application– involved an FBI equity, the FBI devoted substantial agent and intelligence analyst resources”…

The evidence is irrefutable that Wolfe leaked the FISA application on March 17, 2017.

Once that point is established…. then the reason why the special counsel released the FISA application under the premise of a FOIA application, July 21, 2018, starts to have much more significance.

However, let’s just stop there.

The Top Secret FISA application was leaked March 17, 2017, by James Wolfe.

Why wasn’t he prosecuted for it?

Additionally, despite the evidence above, no media outlet has ever admitted James Wolfe leaked the FISA application.

Why not?

Jan 31 2026

Senate Intelligence Committee Demand Answers About DNI Tulsi Gabbard’s Ongoing Reviews of Govt Activity


Posted originally on CTH on January 30, 2026 | Sundance

Apparently, the Senate and House intelligence committees are very concerned about what Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard is doing. Almost every tweet from Senator Mark Warner in the past 48 hours has been about DNI Tulsi Gabbard.

What seems to worry them the most is that they don’t know exactly what she is doing.  Triggered by Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) Vice-Chairman Mark Warner, the Democrats are now demanding Director Gabbard tell them her intentions and her itinerary so they can monitor her activity.  Tulsi Gabbard continues to review internal government activity without consulting them.

[SOURCE]

“Director Gabbard recognizes that election security is essential for the integrity of our republic and our nation’s security. As DNI, she has a vital role in identifying vulnerabilities in our critical infrastructure and protecting against exploitation,” a DNI spokesperson noted. “We know through intelligence and public reporting that electronic voting systems have been and are vulnerable to exploitation. President Trump’s directive to secure our elections was clear, and DNI Gabbard has and will continue to take actions within her authorities, alongside our interagency partners, to support ensuring the integrity of our elections,” the DNI spokesperson said.

Thursday evening while attending the premier of ‘Melania’ at the Kennedy Center, President Trump said, “you’re going to see some interesting things happening. They’ve been trying to get there for a long time.”

According to the Wall Street Journal:

[…] “[Tulsi Gabbard] has begun studying information about voting machines, analyzed data from swing states and pursued theories that President Trump has promoted to claim the 2020 election was unfairly taken from him, the officials said, particularly on foreign government interference.

She has regularly briefed Trump and chief of staff Susie Wiles about her inquiry in recent months along with others involved in the investigation. Those include senior Justice Department officials, Trump’s outside ally and lawyer Cleta Mitchell and Kurt Olsen, a lawyer who pushed claims in 2020 that the election was stolen and joined the administration as a special government employee.

Gabbard has consulted with others in the intelligence community about claims of foreign interference in the 2020 election, the officials said, though she hasn’t provided the public with new evidence of it.

She is expected to prepare a report on her work, the people said. The administration has discussed executive orders on voting ahead of the midterm elections, two of the officials said. 

[…] Democrats criticized Gabbard’s election effort. “Either Director Gabbard believes there was a legitimate foreign intelligence nexus—in which case she is in clear violation of her obligation under the law to keep the intelligence committees ‘fully and currently informed’ of relevant national security concerns—or she is once again demonstrating her utter lack of fitness for the office,” said Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the intelligence committee. (more – paywall)

There are a lot of interconnected aspects to all of this, many circle around the Intelligence Community’s prior and current involvement in various operations against the interests of the Office of the President.

As noted by Paul Sperry: “In a letter, ex-CIA chief John Brennan’s lawyer said his client has “complied” w/ a fed grand jury subpoena seeking, among other things, materials related to his role in creation of the Obama-ordered ICA on Russia + Trump covering the period from July 1, 2016 to Feb 28, 2017.” 

Most people are not aware how the 2016/2017 CIA work product known as the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) ties directly into the 2019 impeachment effort against President Trump for the Ukraine phone call with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

A key architect of the 2017 ICA was a CIA analyst on Russian issues named Eric Ciaramella. The anonymous CIA whistleblower who facilitated the 2019 impeachment effort was the same Eric Ciaramella.

DNI Tulsi Gabbard previously released information showing how the 2017 ICA was fraudulently constructed, and now DNI Gabbard has reviewed the transcribed testimony of former Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson, where he described how he gained authority to change the CIA rules to permit Ciaramella to remain anonymous in 2019.  All of this ties together.

[VIA Politico] – […] Sen. Mark Warner, (D-Va.), the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, argued on X Wednesday that there “are only two explanations” for Gabbard’s presence in the raid.

“Either Director Gabbard believes there was a legitimate foreign intelligence nexus — in which case she is in clear violation of her obligation under the law to keep the intelligence committees ‘fully and currently informed’ of relevant national security concerns — or she is once again demonstrating her utter lack of fitness for the office that she holds by injecting the nonpartisan intelligence community she is supposed to be leading into a domestic political stunt designed to legitimize conspiracy theories that undermine our democracy,” he wrote.

Warner and House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) wrote to Gabbard Thursday to request briefings for both panels about the legal basis, scope, and justification of her participation in the raid. (more)

DNI Tulsi Gabbard continues to work on behalf of the American people; that seems to have triggered Senator Mark Warner.

The need for control is a reaction to fear.

ps. We have not heard much about the 2026 FISA-702 reauthorization, yet.

Jan 29 2026

Microsoft Provided the FBI with Encryption Keys


Posted originally on Jan 29, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

Microsoft Logo

Microsoft provided the FBI with Bitlocker encryption keys. It should come as no surprise that a US-based cloud storage service provided US intelligence with backdoor access. Encryption is only as strong as the one who controls the key to lock it.

Microsoft, the world’s dominant provider of desktop and enterprise systems, complied with an FBI warrant and handed over BitLocker recovery encryption keys. This provided the FBI with access to the encrypted hard drives of laptops seized in a fraud investigation tied to pandemic unemployment benefits.

By default, modern Windows installations tied to a Microsoft account store the BitLocker recovery key in Microsoft’s cloud infrastructure. This is sold as convenience: you forget your password, Microsoft can help you get back in. What few users appreciate is that this convenience places the key into the custody of a third party, and once a third party holds that key, it is subject to the legal and political pressures of every legal jurisdiction in which that company operates.

Government Spying on Everything

Encryption only works if the key is inaccessible to outside parties. The moment a third party holds a copy of that key and the encryption itself becomes only symbolic. It still scrambles the data, but the lock no longer belongs exclusively to the individual.

When Apple famously resisted the FBI’s demand to unlock an iPhone a decade ago, the tech world broadly supported the notion that encryption keys should remain private. Government will always overpower the private sector. The US immediately used the “national security” plea and drafted legislation to ensure that intelligence agencies had backdoor access to all online activities.  Everyone government has demanded access to online user data; companies are forced to comply.

Last February, the United Kingdom’s deep state demanded that Apple create a back door for them to retrieve all the content any Apple user worldwide has uploaded to the cloud, which would be an unprecedented erosion of online privacy and civil liberties. This works because once the UK seizes your data, they can hand that to the Feds in the states, and your Constitutional rights are NOT violated because the US government did not illegally seize it without a warrant.

I refuse to store anything on a digital cloud that could be compromised by the government. Under no circumstances ever store ANYTHING in the cloud, for you have no constitutional rights, and they can claim whatever they desire. The government can add items to your cloud and send you to prison.

Privacy erosion has shifted power to the state and corporations over the individual. It should come as no shock that the government demanded cloud access. The real concern is digital IDs and currency; governments are pushing to move everything digital for complete control. In my article  “How to make a mint: the cryptography of anonymous electronic cash,” I discuss the NSA’s role in the digital financial system. Governments access everything you do online, on your phone, and through your bank account. Governments can justify physical searches without warrants. Nothing is sacred; your privacy rights were eliminated long ago.

Jan 29 2026

Conniving Effort – Alexander Vindman Launches Democrat Senate Campaign in Florida


Posted originally on CTH on January 28, 2026 | Sundance |

This is infuriating, and entirely due to something else in the background {GO DEEP}.  Former National Security Council member (Russia/EurAsia desk) Alexander Vindman is running for a Florida senate seat against Republican Ashley Moody.

First, Alexander Vindman doesn’t stand a chance at winning; however, that’s not his objective with this announcement. Here is where it becomes important to understand the game.

Vindman is directly tied to the background issue of the fraudulent impeachment effort, which I have been working to bring to the forefront.  Progress is agonizingly slow but moving forward.

Alexander Vindman has two primary objectives in announcing this effort: (#1) to give himself the political defense against any accountability for his involvement in the IC coup against President Trump in 2019.  By running for the Florida Senate seat, Vindman will claim evidence is only coming to light as an outcome of his seeking elected office, i.e. it is a political attack.  And (#2) running for office allows Vindman to accept campaign donations that will ultimately be used in his defense against #1.  This is how they roll.

FLORIDA – MIAMI — Democrat Alexander Vindman, the former National Security Council aide who helped trigger President Donald Trump’s first impeachment, announced his Senate campaign in Florida on Tuesday to challenge GOP Sen. Ashley Moody.

Vindman’s entrance into the race pulls Trump’s agenda and record to the forefront of the Senate contest in Florida, bringing a national focus to a race in the president’s home state — one now widely seen as Republican-leaning.

[…] Vindman, born in Ukraine when it was still part of the Soviet Union, was an aide on the NSC during Trump’s first term. He testified before Congress about Trump’s 2019 call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy after the president floated an investigation of then-presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Trump appeared to tie future U.S. aid to Ukraine’s willingness to launch and announce a probe that would be damaging to Biden.

The Senate acquitted Trump in that case, and Vindman, an Army combat veteran and lieutenant colonel, was fired from his position with the NSC.

[…] Any statewide Democratic candidate faces an uphill climb in Florida, given that Republican voters in the state outnumber Democratic voters by around 1.4 million people. The nonpartisan Cook Political Report also classified the Senate seat in Florida as being in the “Solid R” category — the most GOP-friendly ranking available. (read more)

Former AAG Mary McCord (working for Schiff/Nadler), McCord’s former staff lawyer, Michael Atkinson (working as ICIG), Alexander Vindman (NSC) and CIA Analyst Eric Ciaramella (fraudulent ICA organizer turned anonymous CIA ‘whistleblower’) worked together to construct the fraudulent impeachment operation.

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

Eric Ciaramella then became an “anonymous whistleblower” within the CIA to reveal the story and set up the predicate for the first Trump impeachment effort in late 2019.

You might remember the name, because during the impeachment effort anyone who mentioned Eric Ciaramella on social media had their information deleted, and they were blocked from their accounts.

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

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

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

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

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

Someone in DNI or CIA leadership had to sign off on allowing ICIG Atkinson to change the rules and permit a complaint by Eric Ciaramella being turned into an “anonymous complaint.”

[…] On October 4, 2019, ICIG Michael Atkinson gave closed-door testimony to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) as part of their impeachment investigation.  The key question to Atkinson surrounded the authority of his office to change the CIA whistleblower rules permitting Eric Ciaramella to remain anonymous.  Who gave Atkinson permission?

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

Once you see the strings on the marionettes, you can never return to that moment in the performance when you did not see them.

Jan 23 2026

It’s Time to Call The Baby Ugly – Someone Needs to Tell President Donald Trump


Posted originally on CTH on January 22, 2026 | Sundance

As most of you know for several years, I have been on the trail of the intelligence community role in the targeting of President Trump.  Part of that research involved locating evidence to show exactly who was inside the intelligence apparatus and what they were doing.

Simultaneous to my effort, I notice there has been growing frustration over the fact that none of the participants in the “Spygate” or “Russiagate” construct have been brought to justice.

I’m going to explain as best I can why accountability is not happening, while disclosing the latest information I have to share.

Just as the location of Devin Nunes’ House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) report into the formation of the fraudulent Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) was unknown until last year, so too was the location of the transcript containing testimony from Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson similarly hidden.

The HPSCI report on the ICA was buried in the security vault of the CIA.  Following the change in administration, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and DNI Tulsi Gabbard found it and released it.

The transcript of ICIG Michael Atkinson’s testimony about the CIA whistleblower is also buried; only now we know where the House Impeachment Committee co-chair Adam Schiff hid it.  The transcript is in a sealed classified vault inside the HPSCI.

The transcript is being read this week, it may have already been read.  I am confident the reason for Adam Schiff to classify it and hide it will become transparently obvious to the reader.  However, then we as a nation face a problem.

Now, we could drag this out, wait to see how it plays and remain quiet while we watch.  However, too much time has been wasted; so let me just cut to the chase.  The transcript is one key part of the information that proves the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was behind the August to December 2019 impeachment effort against President Donald Trump.

In late 2019, President Trump’s own CIA, our government, was trying to weaken and remove President Trump.

The full background of the situation is described below, with citations.  I strongly suggest we all think about the implications.

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 this year, 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 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, released in January 2017, just before President Trump took office. Ms 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.

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.”

♦ 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 both 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 2025 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 senate intelligence committee (SSCI) had a change of position and agreed to confirm congressman John Ratcliffe as Director of National Intelligence (DNI).

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.

UPDATE: The transcript of ICIG Michael Atkinson’s testimony remains sealed inside the Republican controlled House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, HPSCI.

Republicans in the House have not released the Atkinson transcript since they took control.

As a consequence…. How can the story of the CIA targeting the President of the United States get told?

Even if an executive branch intelligence leader read the transcript from inside the HPSCI, and considering the separation of powers (evidence inside legislative branch), and considering that information is sealed and classified (would require a full committee vote to unseal), and considering the ramifications that would rain down upon anyone who would make that request to release; well, who exactly is going to tell that story, under what conditions and facing what consequences?

People of great trust; people of great power; people currently very close to President Trump, would themselves be at risk from the release of the information showing the 2019 President Trump CIA was deliberately targeting President Trump to weaken him and/or remove him from office.

Think about this very carefully.

The jaw-dropping reality of this situation will explain why we have seen no action or accountability by DC toward any of the “Spygate” or “Russiagate” activity.  Everything else is smoke and mirrors.

The truth has no agenda.

I’m doing all I can…

Jan 6 2026

Sean Hannity Interviews Venezuelan Opposition Leader Maria Corina Machado


Posted originally on CTH on January 6, 2026 | Sundance 

President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have noted that following the ouster of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela, the remaining government is being pressured to realign their positions and accept a change in direction. It is always tenuous when the leader of a hostile foreign government is removed.

The current approach by the Trump administration is to permit former Vice-President Delcy Rodríguez to continue operating the mechanisms within the country to retain near-term stability. The CIA assessed Delcy Rodriquez was the interim ruler who could keep order.

Prior to the removal of Maduro, Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, was asked by the Trump administration to provide a detailed summary of how she could form a functioning government, should she be assisted to power.

Machado’s response did not provide confidence that her strategy was comprehensive enough. Therefore, the Trump administration assessed the best interim approach would be to continue working with the remaining Maduro government officials, led by Delcy Rodriquez, while pressuring them to follow the instructions of the United States.

Various geopolitical powers, including many that attend Mar-a-Lago functions, want Maria Corina Machado installed quickly. President Trump and Secretary Rubio are being more measured in their approach. The powers that want Machado installed are now working on a media strategy. Sean Hannity is enlisted for the assist.

The issue is one of competency and chaos.  President Trump and Secretary Rubio do not want to repeat the mistakes of the past (Bush/Powell, Iraq or Obama/Clinton, Libya).  The Venezuela issue is entirely different from the Middle East, but the same type of chaos can reemerge if the transition from authoritarianism to representative democracy is not well managed.

The Sea Island attendees support a quick Machado installation.  Trump/Rubio prefer to proceed with more caution, especially because someone is going to be on the hook for financial support to Venezuela, because the domestic rewards from any expanded oil revenue are at least 5 to 10 years away.

Changing the regime in Venezuela may break China’s ‘belt and road’ grip, but China’s money is going to need to be replaced with independent domestic economic wealth for the Venezuelan people.  That process takes time.

Maria Corina Machado is supported by all the same networks who support Volodymyr Zelenskyy.  Despite the twinkles in the eyes of senators within the Foreign Relations Committee, we don’t want Venezuela to become North America’s largest Somali daycare operation.

(WSJ) – […] Latin America analysts have previously cautioned, including during Trump’s first term, that Maduro’s ouster without a capable replacement would likely empower armed military factions, rival politicians and criminal groups within Venezuela as they fought for control, leading to a security crisis in the country.

[…] analysis by the Central Intelligence Agency was briefed to President Trump and shared with a small circle of senior administration officials, according to two of the people. It was a factor in Trump’s decision to back Maduro’s vice president instead of opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner María Corina Machado, some of the people said.

The assessment provides insight into Trump’s decision not to support the opposition’s bid for control of Venezuela following the brazen U.S. military operation to capture Maduro last week and bring him to the U.S. for trial. As in his first term, Trump was convinced that near-term stability in Venezuela could be maintained only if Maduro’s replacement had the support of the country’s armed forces and other elites.

Senior Trump administration officials commissioned the CIA to undertake the analytical assessment and debated it during discussions about day-after plans for Venezuela, the people said. The people familiar with the assessment said they were unsure of the precise date it was produced.

The report was briefed to Trump in recent weeks, according to two of the people.

The assessment didn’t describe how Maduro could lose power, or advocate for removing him, but attempted to gauge the domestic situation in Venezuela in the event that he did, people familiar with it said.

The intelligence report, the people said, cited Rodríguez and two other top Venezuelan regime figures as possible interim rulers who could keep order. The people familiar with the assessment didn’t identify the other two officials, but besides Rodríguez, the two most influential power brokers are Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello and Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino.

The two hard-liners, who command Venezuela’s police and military, could undo any efforts at a transition, according to former U.S. and Venezuelan officials. Both face U.S. criminal charges similar to those filed against Maduro and are unlikely to cooperate with Washington.

The report concluded that Edmundo González, widely seen as the actual winner of the 2024 election against Maduro, and Machado would struggle to gain legitimacy as leaders while facing resistance from pro-regime security services, drug-trafficking networks and political opponents. (more)

Jan 2 2026

Anonymous U.S. Officials Say Ukraine Didn’t Target Putin with Drone Attack – Russian Officials Say They Have Drone Flight Plan From Navigation Unit


Posted originally on CTH on January 1, 2026 | Sundance |

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Ukraine did not target the personal residence of Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin, “according to U.S. officials.”   However, Russia captured one of the drones intact and have said they were able to “extract a file containing a flight plan from the navigation unit” which they plan to share with the Trump administration through established channels. {LINK}

WSJ – WASHINGTON—U.S. national-security officials said Wednesday that Ukraine didn’t target Russian President Vladimir Putin or one of his residences in an alleged drone operation, challenging Moscow’s assertion that Kyiv sought to kill the Russian leader.

That conclusion is supported by a Central Intelligence Agency assessment that found no attempted attack against Putin had occurred, according to a U.S. official briefed on the intelligence. The CIA declined to comment.

The U.S. found that Ukraine had been seeking to strike a military target located in the same region as Putin’s country residence but not close by, the official said.  (read more)

Who are we going to believe, Russian “special service” operations or anonymous “U.S. Intelligence Officials”?

Unfortunately, this question is no longer easy to answer given the history of the U.S. Intelligence Community, and yes, that includes the current embedded IC officials within the National Security Council, DNI and CIA even with Marco Rubio, Tulsi Gabbard and John Ratcliffe in position.

I would be very surprised if the U.S. Intelligence Community would be honest with President Trump on this issue if, and that is a big “if”, they even factually had any specific intelligence about it. [This WSJ narrative could be fake news]

Again, CTH will also assert the likelihood that Volodymyr Zelenskyy likely didn’t carry out the attack; everything about the timing of it during his meeting with President Trump just doesn’t fit.  Instead, it is more likely British intelligence, specifically MI6 carried out the attack, timed specifically for the Trump/Zelenskyy meeting.

In context, there have been several attacks against Russia timed with negotiations.  CTH has noted that each instance of closer agreement during Russia/Ukraine negotiations (Turkey) or U.S/Ukraine negotiations (Turkey and Paris) there have been attacks into Russia that seemed to carry a motive from an external third party.

U.S. media have said the attack on Putin may be a lie; however, with physical evidence from the defense operation, it is less likely Russia just made up the attack.  At this moment in the conflict, Putin doesn’t need domestic propaganda.

CONTEXT: British intelligence previously confirmed their participation in the successful Ukraine drone attack against long-range Russian bombers.  That operation, highly controversial at the time, was previously confirmed by President Trump saying the U.S. was not informed in advance.

The “coalition of the willing” has also expanded.  Outside the Ukraine regime, the current group making up the “coalition of the willing” includes: the U.K, France, Germany, Canada and Australia.  It is worth noting the additions are part of the British commonwealth (Canada, Australia).

Most observers note that Ukraine President Zelenskyy is not an independent actor in the warfare decisions as carried out from within Ukraine itself. In fact, British intelligence has now replaced U.S. intelligence for providing the majority of the satellite guidance systems, targeted systems and missile operations.  German and French intelligence have been closely coordinating with the U.K. on behalf of European Union stakeholders.

Europe, specifically the British MI6 intelligence service, have recently espoused their #1 priority is to defeat Russia using the proxy that Ukraine provides.

The newly appointed head of MI6, Blaise Metreweli (pictured right), formerly known by her position as “Q”, is literally the granddaughter of factual Ukraine Nazi, Constantine Dobrowolski.

As head of MI6, Metreweli has specifically stated the U.K wants war with Russia. Metreweli’s entire family has Ukraine roots.

So, with full context applied it is entirely likely that both Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy are not lying.  Putin was attacked, but Ukraine -as defined as Zelenskyy- didn’t do it.

The most likely scenario is that U.K intelligence elements inside Ukraine again used the opportunity of the Trump-Zelenskyy negotiation meeting to carry out the attack against Russian President Putin.  The motive is obvious.

Beyond the ideological component, the economies of the U.K/EU are now increasingly dependent on their defense spending as was recognized with the severe contraction of the German economy in almost all sectors except those supported by defense spending.

An end to the Russia/Ukraine conflict is against the interests of the “coalition of the willing.”   Additionally, an ancillary motive for both the U.K and U.S. group who support the EU effort is to keep President Trump bogged down.

I still strongly suspect the British did it, and the CIA doesn’t factually have any concrete intelligence to prove or dismiss this strongest motivational likelihood.

[MORE CONTEXT IN VIDEO]

Dec 25 2025

John Brennan’s Lawfare Lawyers Are Revealing More Than They Intend


Posted originally on CTH on December 24, 2025 | Sundance 

As we noted yesterday, lawyers representing former CIA Director John Brennan are sending proactive letters to the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Florida {SEE HERE}.  However, some of the information included in the letters intended to be exculpatory is actually damning against their defense position.

You have to go deep in the weeds to see it, but if you understand the details of the events, the information being revealed by Brennan’s lawyers is the opposite of helpful to his case.  As an example, there is a citation included in a footnote of the December 22, 2025, [fn #20 page 6] letter that links to a March 31, 2022, letter sent to John Durham.

Here’s page 6 of the 2025 letter.

Compare the underlined section to the 2022 letter sent to John Durham.

In 2025, Brennan is telling the Florida court the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) conclusion was confirmed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller in a “very serious review.”  However, in 2022 Brennan told John Durham that Robert Mueller never interviewed him or offered an assessment of the ICA; Mueller just regurgitated it.

So, which is it?

These contradictions are throughout both of the letters when you compare them side-by-side.  In 2022, former CIA Director John Brennan was trying to escape the Durham review.  In 2025, Brennan is trying to escape a grand jury review.

[We are aware that the U.S Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Jason Reding Quiñones, has access to the CTH public library of research into all of these historic events.]

There are other citations in the 2022 letter that are certainly worth reviewing, because the legally binding statements made by John Brennan at the time have been shown to be false in 2025.

Another of the claims, in the 2022 letter to John Durham, highlights why it was critical for the CIA to assist in the capture and arrest of Julian Assange in 2019.

[SOURCE – Page 7]

The lawyers representing John Brennan in the above 2022 letter apparently did not know the DNC emails were provably not hacked by Russia, unless they are claiming that Seth Rich (DNC staff) and Julian Assange (Wikileaks) were working for the Russian government.

John Brennan asserts a “definitive determination” that Russia was involved in the theft of the DNC emails, and across the intelligence community that determination was “unanimous.”  That assertion, by Brennan, underpinning the “Russian interference narrative”, opens up the entire DNC email issue for Jason Quiñones to explore.

The DNC hired Crowdstrike to investigate the leak/hack; the James Comey FBI never looked at the DNC servers; and Crowdstrike told the Senate there was no evidence of a hack or outside intrusion.  Perhaps Quiñones will finally highlight these contradictions and get to the bottom of it? Because, after all, this is part of Brennan’s ICA defense.

What Brennan did not realize we would discover when he wrote the letter in 2022:

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 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 2016/2017 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.

Oh look, there’s another trail for U.S Attorney Jason Quiñones to follow.

What would Julia Gurganus and Eric Ciaramella have to say about putting the ICA together?

Merry Christmas!

U.S Attorney Jason Quinones

Dec 23 2025

John Brennan Lawyers Confirm Their Client is a “Target” of a Grand Jury Investigation


Posted originally on CTH on December 23, 2025 | Sundance

Lawfare lawyer Kenneth Wainstein representing former CIA Director John Brennan confirmed in a proactive litigation letter to Chief Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga of the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Florida, their client is a “target” of a grand jury investigation.

The word “target” is important here, because the letter specifically outlines how Brennan has received subpoenas for documents and information surrounding his construct of the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment.

The letter notes that prosecutors from the Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Jason Reding Quiñones, have advised Mr. Brennan that he is “a target” of a grand jury investigation.

[SOURCE]

The letter by is by Mr. Kenneth Wainstein, a partner in Mayer/Brown law firm, Washington DC, who served in the administrations of Presidents George W. Bush and Joseph R. Biden Jr., and he describes a “concocted case” and “politically motivated and fact-free criminal investigation.”

Wainstein is seeking proactive intervention by Chief Judge Altonaga to block U.S. Attorney Quinones from seeking jurisdiction in the Fort Pierce Division, the court with jurisdiction over the Mar-a-Lago raid, led by Judge Aileen Cannon.

I strongly urge everyone interested to READ THE ENTIRE LETTER to understand why I shared prior warnings about the nonsense ramblings of perhaps well-intentioned voices who will create problems for this case against Brennan if it is to continue.

Pay attention to the footnotes being cited by Brennan’s lawyers as they begin to pull in some of the commentary by voices who have publicly given opinion about the overall Trump targeting operation.  Mike Davis name appears frequently in this letter, as the Brennan defense team begins to frame the conspiratorial nature of some claims against their client.

In essence, the Brennan legal team are attempting to refute the evidence by pointing to the blanket of some crazy commentary that covers it. This is exactly what I have been cautioning about {SEE HERE}.

U.S Attorney Quinones already faces an uphill battle, because John Durham already reviewed the ICA origination as part of his investigation – but Durham never prosecuted anyone inside government.

This year, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard released a tranche of background information, [114 pages of information], showing how the Obama administration intentionally and with great purpose fabricated the Russia election interference story. DNI Tulsi Gabbard Press Release Here – Files Containing Evidence Here

What the evidence shows is a focused targeting operation intended to fabricate a false premise by the United States Intelligence Community, centered around a fraudulent CIA analysis (ICA) led by John Brennan, and organized through the Office of former DNI James Clapper.  The op was green-lighted by Barack Obama as a way to impede the agenda of incoming President Donald Trump.  All three branches of government eventually collaborated on the scheme.

Lawyers for John Brennan are now seeking to proactively undermine the grand jury proceedings and influence the venue where any investigation and review might be taking place.  [pdf, Page 9] 

In addition to sending the letter to the Southern District of Florida, John Brennan also sent the letter to the New York Times to help him frame a media defense.

[…] Pursuing the case in Fort Pierce, Fla., would draw jurors from a more conservative area than the District of Columbia and put it under Judge Cannon, who showed Mr. Trump unusual favor during the documents investigation. In particular, Mike Davis, an influential former Republican Senate staff aide and friend of Mr. Reding Quiñones, has pushed the idea of a Fort Pierce grand jury, warning Mr. Trump’s adversaries to “lawyer up.” (read more)