As both federal and state fraud investigations expand, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz announces he will not seek reelection in 2026.
The announcement was made in a four-page post on X. Methinks the governor doth protest too much.
.
Many on the political left, and even a few on the political right, are having fits about President Trump authorizing the operation to capture Venezuela president and narcotrafficker Nicolas Maduro without any congressional notification.
Several House members attempted to frame the issue as Trump acting as a dictator. A few called attention to the lack of the Gang of Eight being notified, and even some Republican senators on the Senate Armed Services Committee were concerned with the military deployment without advance notice.
If a covert intelligence operation was deployed, the President would sign a “finding memo” generally notifying the Gang of Eight, but that doesn’t apply in this instance.
President Trump remarked a concern with leaks was an element, saying that Congress has “a tendency to leak,” which he said could have produced “a very different result.” However, Secretary Marco Rubio was purposefully clear in his statement about the operation.
“This is not the kind of mission that you can do congressional notification on. It was a trigger-based mission in which conditions had to be met night after night,” Rubio said later at a Mar-a-Lago news conference. “Remember, at the end of day, at its core, this was an arrest of two indicted fugitives of American justice, and the Department of War supported the Department of Justice in that job. Now there are broader policy implications here, but it’s just not the kind of mission that you can pre-notify because it endangers the mission,” he said.
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton affirmed after discussion with Rubio, “congress doesn’t need to be notified ever time the executive branch is making an arrest. And that’s exactly what happened this morning in Venezuela, and now Maduro is going to come to the United States, and he’s going to face justice.”
This is an important distinction. The DEA and DOJ carried out an arrest of an indicted drug trafficker.
This was, as Rubio noted, a law enforcement operation to capture fugitives. The military component was in support of that operation, nothing more. The DOJ had the lead; the DEA was the enforcement mechanism, and the military were in tactical support.
Pertaining to the “broader policy implications” noted by Rubio, there are many facets. As accurately noted by Cynical Publius:
“Under Maduro, Venezuela had become the Latin American crossroads for all of the USA’s principal enemies. Maduro was nurturing relationships with Russia, Hezbollah and Iran. Worst of all, Venezuela was eagerly becoming a part of Red China’s Belt & Road initiative.
As America’s enemies were lining up Venezuela as their base of operations in the Western Hemisphere to cause mischief and destruction for the USA, Maduro was at the same time making Venezuela a crossroads, safe haven and enabler for all manner of narcoterrorist operations, ranging from Colombia’s FARC to Mexico’s Sinaloa cartel.
On top of all that, Venezuela had become a key player in the illegal alien invasion of the USA, shipping its very worst to the USA in a deliberate and comprehensive destabilizing operation that might have worked had Donald Trump not won in 2024.
[…] So was Maduro seized because of some five-year-old drug charges? Yes. Legally–yes. However, like so many strategic issues in the world today, an action needed to be backed by the fine points of law, and it was. But the reality is that the Maduro takedown was a Monroe Doctrine-driven necessity that has greatly enhanced the power and national security of the USA. (read more)
However, beyond the geopolitical issue that relates to all the above, there is another consideration that might help explain the immediate and alarmed reaction of Mexico.
With President Trump now forcefully executing exfiltration of narcotic drug traffickers, the ramifications for Mexico and the Cartels who own/operate the Mexican government take on a new context.
If the U.S. will raid Venezuela, will the U.S. now conduct a similar approach closer to home?
OFFICIAL STATEMENT: Mexico condemns military intervention in Venezuela – The Government of Mexico strongly condemns and rejects the military actions carried out unilaterally in recent hours by armed forces of the United States of America against targets in the territory of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, in clear violation of Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations (UN).
Based on its foreign policy principles and its pacifist vocation, Mexico makes an urgent call to respect international law, as well as the principles and purposes of the UN Charter, and to cease any act of aggression against the Venezuelan government and people.
Latin America and the Caribbean is a zone of peace, built on the basis of mutual respect, the peaceful settlement of disputes and the prohibition of the use and threat of force, so that any military action puts regional stability at serious risk.
Mexico emphatically reiterates that dialogue and negotiation are the only legitimate and effective ways to resolve existing differences and therefore reaffirms its readiness to support any effort to facilitate dialogue, mediation or accompaniment that would help to preserve regional peace and avoid confrontation.
It also urges the United Nations to act immediately to contribute to the de-escalation of tensions, facilitate dialogue and create conditions that allow for a peaceful, sustainable solution in accordance with international law. (link)
Reconsider these words from Rubio, against the backdrop of what Mexico is known for. WATCH:
Captured Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his arrested wife, Cilia Flores, landed at Stewart Air Force Base in Newburgh, New York late Saturday afternoon.
The couple have been charged with narcoterrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, and weapons offenses. [INDICTMENT HERE] Maduro and Flores are likely to be held at the Metropolitan Detention Center, a federal facility in Brooklyn, to be housed after being processed by the DEA.
DEA officers escorted Maduro for his customary perp walk through the airport as video and photographs were taken.
.
(VIA AP) – […] The middle-of-the-night seizure of Maduro and his wife, who were transported on a U.S. warship and arrived in New York on Saturday evening to face narcoterrorism conspiracy charges, is beyond even the most high-profile historical examples of aggressive American actions toward autocratic governments in Panama, Iraq, and beyond, legal experts said. It came after a surprise U.S. incursion into the Venezuelan capital, rocked with overnight explosions.
The Trump administration described the operation — and earlier deadly strikes on boats in the Caribbean Sea — as necessary to stem the flow of dangerous drugs.
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.
The House Judiciary Committee has released the [VIDEO] and [TRANSCRIPT] of special prosecutor Jack Smith’s deposition. What is outlined within it is alarming in the extreme. I strongly urge anyone with any platform to review the details and quickly highlight the content therein. There is no time to waste.
Jack Smith appeared before the committee with three personal lawyers to support him. The content of the deposition is chilling in the extreme. While many will focus on the granular details of the testimony, I wish to highlight one of the more alarming aspects to the bigger picture.
The predicate for Jack Smith to prosecute President Trump for his efforts to “interfere in the 2020 election”, and thereby “challenge all democratic norms”, essentially boils down to Jack Smith accusing President Trump of participating in a fraud when he challenged the outcome of the 2020 election.
To get beyond President Trump’s first amendment right to free speech, Jack Smith claims Trump knowingly understood that Joe Biden had won the election; President Trump was told by senior Republican advisors that Biden had legitimately won the 2020 election; President Trump rejected the reality of the “truthful information” presented to him, and instead chose to launch a psychological operation against the American people, i.e. “fraud.”
It is the charge of “fraud” which underpins the entirety of the case against Donald Trump, as pursued by Jack Smith. The charge itself is predicated on definitions of what constitutes truthful information, and within that subset of predicate you begin to realize just how important it is to professional leftists that they control information.
The case was dropped after the results of the November 2024 election, won by President Trump. However, if President Trump had not won that election, the prosecution would have continued.
Jack Smith notes in his testimony, in the most Machiavellian way, that his primary prosecution approach was to present “Republican” witnesses like Mike Pence, who Smith cunningly said he could not discuss as he was restricted from revealing grand jury testimony.
Smith was prepared to present witness testimony from Pence and other political “Republicans” who told President Trump that Joe Biden had legitimately won the election, and Trump needed to concede. This testimony then forms the baseline for the definition of “truthful information” that Trump rejected out of a malice mindset to continue clinging to power.
In essence, Smith defines what is “truth” (Biden won), then outlines how that truthful information was delivered and how President Trump dismissed it. Therefore, President Trump’s “mens-rea”, or state of mind, was one of promoting an intentional falsehood. According to the Lawfare approach selected by Smith, this mindset is the predicate that blocks President Trump from using his First Amendment right to speech as a defense.
Intentional fraud is not allowed under the protections of “free speech.” Jack Smith wanted to prove that President Trump was engaged in intentional fraud, and wanted to prove his mindset therein through the use of Republican political voices who delivered information to President Trump.
Jack Smith sought to define “truth”, and then counter the free speech defense by mob agreement on what constitutes the “truth.” Under this predicate, President Trump was being prosecuted for a thought crime, and Jack Smith sought to legally prove he knew his thoughts.
The only way Jack Smith could prove fraud would be to prove that President Trump believed the information about Joe Biden winning the election. Smith sought to prove Trump’s belief by presenting Republican voices who told President Trump he lost.
Whether you like or dislike President Trump, the issue here is alarming when contemplated.
A man tells you a chicken is a frog, you laugh. The man then brings 15 of your family members to tell you a chicken is a frog. You reject the absurdity of the premise, but the man brings forth hundreds more people to tell you the chicken is a frog, and if you do not accept that Chickens are Frogs, you will be defined as mentally impaired, institutionalized and become a ward of the state.
[Insert any similar metaphor needed, including “what is a woman.”]
When we consider the current state of sociological, societal or government manipulation of information, and/or the need for government to control information (mis-dis-mal-information) as an overlay, you can quickly see where this type of legal predicate can take us. Bizarro world becomes a dystopian nightmare.
Yes, it is also clear that Leftists, inside that closed-door committee hearing, are intending to impeach President Trump on these grounds if they successfully win the 2026 midterm election. However, that is not the critical takeaway from this deposition. Instead, the critical takeaway is how the Lawfare construct can be twisted and manipulated to create the legal means to the leftist ends.
Stop the Division!
We cannot allow these communist, Marxist and leftist-minded control agents get back into power.
It’s not about Trump. It’s about us.
During an impromptu press availability beside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Trump responded to a question about a drone attack against the personal residence of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
President Trump noted that he was informed of the attack by President Putin during an early Monday phone call between the two leaders.
According to Russian media, confirmed by Russian foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Putin’s presidential residence in the Novgorod region, more than 400 kilometers (249 miles) northwest of Moscow, was targeted by 91 drones. Russia has vowed retaliation saying, “targets had already been selected.” President Trump’s response is prompted below:
Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has denied the accusation that Ukraine carried out this particular attack. The attack took place while Zelenskyy was in Florida meeting with President Trump.
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 all part of the British commonwealth (U.K, 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.
So, with full context applied it is entirely likely that both Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy are not lying.
The most likely scenario is that U.K 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 yesterday 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 the U.S. group who support the EU effort is to keep President Trump bogged down.
(Bloomberg) — President Donald Trump’s campaign to end the war in Ukraine faced new complications on Monday when Vladimir Putin said he would revise his country’s negotiating position after the Russian leader claimed Ukrainian drones targeted his residence.
Putin told Trump of his decision in a call Monday, according to the Kremlin, even as Kyiv cast the Russian allegations as a fabrication aimed at derailing the peace process.
Trump addressed the dispute while speaking to reporters in Florida, saying that Putin had told him about the purported attack during their discussion. The US president, seeming to side with Putin, said he was “very angry.”
“It’s one thing to be offensive, because they’re offensive,” Trump told reporters in Florida. “It’s another thing to attack his house. It’s not the right time to do any of that.”
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has dismissed the Russian claims as a “new lie” and warned that Moscow could be using it as an excuse to prepare an attack on government buildings in Kyiv.
Putin said Moscow intends to work closely with the US on peace efforts but would reconsider a number of previously reached agreements, Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov told Russian newswires. Ushakov added that Putin assured Trump that Moscow would look to continue working with American partners to achieve peace and that the two leaders agreed to maintain their dialogue. (more)
I suspect the British did it.
Following a viral investigative report by independent journalist Nick Shirley on the Somali community fraud in Minneapolis, Minnesota, FBI Director Kash Patel announces a surge in FBI resources to the region to follow-up.
VIA Kash Patel – “The FBI is aware of recent social media reports in Minnesota. However, even before the public conversation escalated online, the FBI had surged personnel and investigative resources to Minnesota to dismantle large-scale fraud schemes exploiting federal programs. Fraud that steals from taxpayers and robs vulnerable children will remain a top FBI priority in Minnesota and nationwide.
To date, the FBI dismantled a $250 million fraud scheme that stole federal food aid meant for vulnerable children during COVID. The investigation exposed sham vendors, shell companies, and large-scale money laundering tied to the Feeding Our Future network.
The case led to 78 indictments and 57 convictions. Defendants included Abdiwahab Ahmed Mohamud, Ahmed Ali, Hussein Farah, Abdullahe Nur Jesow, Asha Farhan Hassan, Ousman Camara, and Abdirashid Bixi Dool, each charged for roles ranging from wire fraud to money laundering and conspiracy.
These criminals didn’t just engaged in historic fraud, but tried to subvert justice as well. Abdimajid Mohamed Nur and others were charged for attempting to bribe a juror with $120,000 in cash. Those responsible pleaded guilty and were sentenced, including a 10-year prison term and nearly $48 million in restitution in related cases.
The FBI believes this is just the tip of a very large iceberg. We will continue to follow the money and protect children, and this investigation very much remains ongoing.
Furthermore, many are also being referred to immigrations officials for possible further denaturalization and deportation proceedings where eligible.” (read more)
Generally speaking, the FBI doesn’t usually activate unless the issue at hand begins to become a risk or threat to Washington DC. The FBI usually acts as a proactive defense mechanism for the interests of federal government.
EU leaders from across the spectrum of their collective assembly, are furious with the administration of President Donald Trump for restricting their entry into the United States by blocking their visa permissions. However, these same EU leaders are the people who sent operatives into the United States in order to interfere in our 2024 election.
The Vice President of the European Commission, Kaja Kallas, sums up the European position: “The decision by the U.S. to impose travel restrictions on European citizens and officials is unacceptable and an attempt to challenge our sovereignty. Europe will keep defending its values — freedom of expression, fair digital rules, and the right to regulate our own space.”
The “attempt to challenge our sovereignty” statement is a particular type of hubris when we consider THIS:
GREAT BRITAIN (October 2024) – The British Labour Party is sending approximately 100 current and former staff members to the United States to work for Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign in key swing states.
Not only did the U.K attempt to challenge our sovereignty, but they also actively worked to influence the outcome of our national election in 2024.
The same pearl-clutching assembly, now standing jaw-agape at the Trump administration recognizing their censorship, are the same assembly who engaged in political operations intended to influence the voting voice of the American electorate.
Methinks they doth protest too much.
It is worth remembering the British intelligence operation, (Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), commonly known as MI6), was at the center of the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy in 2016.
The first EU political group to be targeted with the visa bans includes French former EU commissioner Thierry Breton, who was one of the architects of the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA). Also: Imran Ahmed, the British CEO of the U.S.-based Center for Countering Digital Hate, Anna-Lena von Hodenberg and Josephine Ballon of the German non-profit HateAid, and Clare Melford, co-founder of the Global Disinformation Index.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the first five people targeted with visa bans “have led organized efforts to coerce American platforms to censor, demonetize and suppress American viewpoints they oppose.”
I would say that given the direct nature of the U.K effort to undermine American viewpoints, Secretary of State Marco Rubio is being diplomatically generous in his visa ban.
Newsguard will note for their information filtering system, that Mayor Jacob Frey did not directly say residents of the region will start killing ICE agents. However, Mayor Frey did say if the ICE deportation operations continue, ICE agents are likely to be killed. The obvious question is, ‘who will do the killing, Jacob‘?
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey have built the illegal alien powder-keg while both have financially benefitted from the subsequent Somali community fraud, then together they blame the presence of federal law enforcement -Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)- agents for striking the match. WATCH:
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.
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.
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?
U.S Attorney Jason Quinones
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
De Oppresso Liber
A group of Americans united by our commitment to Freedom, Constitutional Governance, and Civic Duty.
Share the truth at whatever cost.
De Oppresso Liber
Uncensored updates on world events, economics, the environment and medicine
De Oppresso Liber
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Australia's Front Line | Since 2011
See what War is like and how it affects our Warriors
Nwo News, End Time, Deep State, World News, No Fake News
De Oppresso Liber
Politics | Talk | Opinion - Contact Info: stellasplace@wowway.com
Exposition and Encouragement
The Physician Wellness Movement and Illegitimate Authority: The Need for Revolt and Reconstruction
Real Estate Lending
Centinel2012 