Posted originally on CTH on January 26, 2026 | Sundance
The violence in Minneapolis erupted when the scale of financial fraud was discovered. The administration of President Trump has begun to highlight this non-pretending reality.
On the surface it seems like ICE enforcement is the issue; however, in reality Governor Tim Walz and Mayor Jacob Frey have been leading a criminal syndicate, with the entire region engaged in money laundering and financial fraud.
State political leadership are involved. The local Minneapolis police are involved; the Minneapolis municipal leaders are involved; a large and dedicated segment of the migrant population is involved; corrupt judges and officers of the courts are involved; public and private sector agencies involved in fraudulent exploitation of benefits are involved, and the community activists -footsoldier communists- are engaged in the process of using civil unrest as cover.
As the violent insurgency escalates, President Trump has announced Border Czar Tom Homan is being sent to the region:
“I am sending Tom Homan to Minnesota tonight. He has not been involved in that area, but knows and likes many of the people there. Tom is tough but fair, and will report directly to me. Separately, a major investigation is going on with respect to the massive 20 Billion Dollar, Plus, Welfare Fraud that has taken place in Minnesota, and is at least partially responsible for the violent organized protests going on in the streets. Additionally, the DOJ and Congress are looking at “Congresswoman” Illhan Omar, who left Somalia with NOTHING, and is now reportedly worth more than 44 Million Dollars. Time will tell all. Thank you for your attention to this matter!” ~ President DJT
When we went to Iraq/Afghanistan, American political leadership said we were going to fight them “there” so that we didn’t need to fight them “here.” However, that same American political leadership then imported hundreds-of-thousands of them to here.
The communist-minded community activists have joined with the Antifa domestic terrorists and adopted the strategy of insurgencies. Former retired Green Beret Officer Eric Schwalm writing on X accurately draws attention to the similarity of action:
Eric Schwalm: “As a former Special Forces Warrant Officer with multiple rotations running counterinsurgency ops—both hunting insurgents and trying to separate them from sympathetic populations—I’ve seen organized resistance up close. From Anbar to Helmand, the pattern is familiar: spotters, cutouts, dead drops (or modern equivalents), disciplined comms, role specialization, and a willingness to absorb casualties while bleeding the stronger force slowly.
What’s unfolding in Minneapolis right now isn’t “protest.” It’s low-level insurgency infrastructure, built by people who’ve clearly studied the playbook.
Signal groups at 1,000-member cap per zone. Dedicated roles: mobile chasers, plate checkers logging vehicle data into shared databases, 24/7 dispatch nodes vectoring assets, SALUTE-style reporting (Size, Activity, Location, Unit, Time, Equipment) on suspected federal vehicles. Daily chat rotations and timed deletions to frustrate forensic recovery. Vetting processes for new joiners. Mutual aid from sympathetic locals (teachers providing cover, possible PD tip-offs on license plate lookups). Home-base coordination points. Rapid escalation from observation to physical obstruction—or worse.
This isn’t spontaneous outrage. This is C2 (command and control) with redundancy, OPSEC hygiene, and task organization that would make a SF team sergeant nod in recognition. Replace “ICE agents” with “occupying coalition forces” and the structure maps almost 1:1 to early-stage urban cells we hunted in the mid-2000s.
The most sobering part? It’s domestic. Funded, trained (somewhere), and directed by people who live in the same country they’re trying to paralyze law enforcement in.
When your own citizens build and operate this level of parallel intelligence and rapid-response network against federal officers—complete with doxxing, vehicle pursuits, and harassment that’s already turned lethal—you’re no longer dealing with civil disobedience. You’re facing a distributed resistance that’s learned the lessons of successful insurgencies: stay below the kinetic threshold most of the time, force over-reaction when possible, maintain popular support through narrative, and never present a single center of gravity.
I spent years training partner forces to dismantle exactly this kind of apparatus. Now pieces of it are standing up in American cities, enabled by elements of local government and civil society. That should keep every thinking American awake at night.
Not because I want escalation. But because history shows these things don’t de-escalate on their own once the infrastructure exists and the cadre believe they’re winning the information war.
We either recognize what we’re actually looking at—or we pretend it’s still just “activism” until the structures harden and spread.
Your call, America. But from where I sit, this isn’t January 2026 politics anymore. It’s phase one of something we’ve spent decades trying to keep off our own soil.” [source]
Posted originally on CTH on January 25, 2026 | Sundance
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent appears on ABC News with narrative engineer Jonathan Karl to discuss the outcomes of the Davos assembly, the Canadian trade conflict and the U.S-NATO deal over Greenland. Video and Transcript Below:
[Transcript] – KARL: I’m joined now exclusively by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who is just back from Davos and joins us here in the studio.
Thank you for being here, Mr. Secretary. Let me start with the threat that the president made just yesterday to Canada. He said, if Canada makes a deal with China, it will immediately be hit with a one hundred percent tariffs against all Canadian goods. Why is Donald Trump threatening Canada again with another trade war?
SCOTT BESSENT, (R) UNITED STATES TREASURY SECRETARY: Well, Jonathan, good to be with you. And look, Prime Minister Carney went to — went to China, came back, dropped some industry specific tariffs on Chinese goods, and we have a highly integrated market with Canada, sometimes in autos, which he dropped the E.V. tariff, I believe, from a hundred percent to six percent.
The goods can cross across the border during the manufacturing process six times. And we can’t let Canada become an opening that the Chinese pour their cheap goods into the U.S. We have a USMCA agreement, but based on — based on that, which is going to be renegotiated this summer, and I’m not sure what Prime Minister Carney is doing here, other than trying to virtue-signal to his globalist friends at Davos.
I don’t think he’s doing the best job for the Canadian people.
KARL: But there’s confusion from President Trump on this. I mean, we heard from him just — I think it was nine days ago, eight or nine days ago. He had this to say about Canada negotiating with China.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: How do you see the deals — Canada and China just signed trade deals between the two partners?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, that’s OK. That’s what he should be doing. I mean, it’s a good thing for him to sign a trade deal. If you can get a deal with China, he should do that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: OK. So, he gives a green light to a deal with China just after they do it. And then nine days later, he’s saying that’s it, hundred percent tariffs.
BESSENT: Well, no, there’s possibility of hundred percent tariffs if they do a free trade deal. So, what —
KARL: So, it’s not now? It’s — this is if they go further than what’s already happening?
BESSENT: Well, it’s — if they go further, if we see that the Canadians are allowing the Chinese to dump goods. And Jonathan, just to be clear that the Canadians, a few months ago, joined the U.S. in putting high steel tariffs on China because the Chinese are dumping. The Europeans also have done the same thing. And it looks like that Prime Minister Carney may have done some kind of about-face.
KARL: You’ve got tariffs that have been in place since April. And the idea is to bring back manufacturing jobs, but in fact, every month, according to the data from the Fed, every month since April, we’ve actually had a decline in manufacturing jobs in the country.
BESSENT: Well, that — those are the manufacturing jobs. What we’re seeing is a burst in construction jobs because we’re seeing record number of factories construction. I was just in my home state of South Carolina a couple of months ago. There’s a rare earth magnets factory, 800 construction jobs. It could morph into 3,000 factory jobs.
I was just at the Boeing plant in Charleston. Thanks to President Trump’s constant push during the trade deals to sell more aircraft, Boeing is expanding their capacity there by fifty percent. So those will be construction jobs that morph into factory jobs. So, I could not be more upbeat about the prospects for manufacturing, for the economy in 2026.
KARL: And how do you explain what happened with Greenland? I mean, the president goes into Davos, not ruling out military force, talking about imposing tariffs on the Europeans who oppose us retaking Greenland. And now, suddenly, he’s OK with essentially, it seems like the same agreement that’s been in place since the ’50s.
BESSENT: Well, I think you haven’t seen the full agreement. Secretary General, Mark Rutte was a very good interlocutor between the Europeans and between President Trump. But look, a lot — a lot of things have changed up in Greenland. Jonathan, do you know what the Istanbul Bridge is?
KARL: Tell me.
BESSENT: A Chinese freight ship that, for the first time in October, came across the Arctic into the U.K. They are shortening their travel time. So, the Arctic is changing. Very important strategically for the U.S. to help control that.
KARL: OK. But again, it seems like we’re going to basically have the — I mean, Greenland’s not going to become part of the United States. We’re going to have the same access that we’ve had.
(CROSSTALK)
BESSENT: I promise you, the deal is not what we had before.
KARL: OK.
BESSENT: It is much more fulsome for the United States. And again, Jon, just to be clear, for 150 years, American presidents have had their eye on Greenland. We administered Greenland during World War II after the Danish were invaded by the Nazis.
KARL: Let me — let me ask you. Let me show you a photo that was posted by the French Defense Ministry yesterday showing coffins of French soldiers who died fighting alongside Americans in Afghanistan. And we also heard from the Italian prime minister, a good supporter of Donald Trump, Prime Minister Meloni, reacted to what the president had to say about European troops serving in Afghanistan, saying that she was astonished, and noted that 53 Italian service members were killed, more than 700 were wounded.
Does the president regret what he said about our NATO allies and their service in Afghanistan?
BESSENT: Jon, I was traveling. I haven’t seen any of that, but I can tell you that the president values NATO, and since his first term, he has worked hard to make sure that our NATO allies are pulling their fair share.
Just to be clear, since 1980, since 1980, the U.S. has spent $22 trillion more on defense than NATO. And now by President Trump getting our NATO allies, including Canada, who was very deficient in the funding, NATO is going to be stronger than ever.
KARL: But this is about sacrifice. Let’s play President Trump’s words so you understand exactly what they were talking about, what I’m talking about.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We’ve never needed them. We have never really asked anything of them. You know, they’ll say they sent some troops to Afghanistan or this or that, and they did. They stayed a little back little off the front lines.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: I mean, do you understand why our European allies, the ones you’re negotiating with, are insulted by that?
BESSENT: Again, I think President Trump is laser-focused on the strongest NATO possible, that he has worked to negotiate a settlement on Russia-Ukraine. The U.S. has made much bigger sacrifices than the European has — Europeans have. We have put 25 percent tariffs on India for buying Russian oil. Guess what happened last week? The Europeans signed a trade deal with India.
They — and just to be clear again, the Russian oil goes into India. The refined products come out, and the Europeans buy the refined products. They are financing the war against themselves. So, President Trump’s leadership, we will eventually end this Ukraine-Russia war.
KARL: And before you go, I know this is not your lane, but I got to ask you about what’s happened in Minneapolis. As a member of the — of the Trump cabinet, are you concerned to see another American citizen ends up dead, shot by federal law enforcement?
BESSENT: Jonathan, it’s a tragedy when anyone dies, but I can tell you the situation on the ground there is being stirred up by Governor Walz. I was out there two weeks ago. Governor Walz declined to provide a security detail for me to go into the Minnesota capital with the state police. So, he is fomenting the — he is fomenting chaos because there is substantial waste, fraud and abuse.
My job as Treasury secretary is to investigate that, and I think that, you know, this chaos that’s going on out there, and again, I am sorry that this gentleman is dead, but he did bring a nine-millimeter semi-automatic weapon with two cartridges to what was supposed to be a peaceful protest. I think that there are a lot of paid agitators who are ginning things up, and the governor has not done a good job of tamping this down.
KARL: Yes. I mean, as you know, he was an ICU nurse, worked for the Veterans Administration, and there’s no evidence that he brandished the gun whatsoever. In fact, it appears that —
BESSENT: He brought a gun.
(CROSSTALK)
KARL: He’d been disarmed before he was —
(CROSSTALK)
BESSENT: He brought a gun. Have you ever gone to a protest, Jonathan?
KARL: I mean, we do have a Second Amendment in this country that —
BESSENT: Jonathan, have you ever gone to a protest?
KARL: I mean —
BESSENT: Have you gone to a protest?
KARL: I mean, I’ve — no, actually, as a reporter covering it.
BESSENT: OK. I’ve been to a protest.
KARL: Yes.
BESSENT: Guess what? I didn’t bring a gun. I brought a billboard.
KARL: OK. Secretary Bessent, thank you for joining us.
Coming up, we’ll have the latest on the massive winter storm sweeping the country. We’re back in a moment.
Posted originally on CTH on January 25, 2026 | Sundance
Canadian Ambassador to the U.S., Kirsten Hillman, appears on CBS Face The Nation to discuss ongoing political and trade relations between Canada and the United States – Video and Transcript below.
During one segment of the interview, Ambassador Hillman is asked about the dissolution of the USMCA (CUSMA) trade agreement, and immediately Hillman falls back upon the same Justin Trudeau position of the government. The U.S. politicians will not allow President Trump to dissolve the USMCA.
“I think that we have to believe that our political leaders are going to be listening to the people in the constituencies for whom that instrument was drawn up, and they’re saying, this is vital to us, do no harm.”
Canada is counting on American political opposition to defend the economic interests of Canada. This is exactly the same position that former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau espoused in 2017 and 2018.
[Transcript] – So a lot is going on in the relationship between our two countries. We are so deeply integrated here on trade, you buy more from the U.S. than any other country. We have the world’s longest land border. We have shared defense interests through NATO, shared air defense with NORAD. Are we like in the middle of a divorce? Like, how do you describe the relationship?
AMB HILLMAN I- I- we’re not in the middle of a divorce, but we are in the middle of a change. There’s no question about it. I think that we are finding ourselves, quite frankly, in- in a situation where some of the foundations that have governed our relationship for a long time, that you know, integrated supply chains are good, that working together on strategic issues is- are important, that looking out for each other in important ways is- is a number one priority. I think in some quarters, Canadians feel that those foundations are being tested. We will adapt. We will make it through, I have no doubt about that, but it’s yeah, it’s a complicated time.
MARGARET BRENNAN
Well, you know, Canada had agreed to join this Board of Peace that President Trump announced out at Davos, and then overnight Thursday, the president disinvited Canada. Is this kind of public snub interfering in the relationship, and- and what does that indicate to you about what this Board of Peace is that Canada had said it did want to be a part of?
AMB HILLMAN
So we had expressed an interest in the Board of Peace a number of weeks ago, and essentially, a Board of Peace that is seeking to find peace, in particular, in Gaza and stability, is something that Canada was very much supportive of. The- the parameters of that Board of Peace had just really started to come out and- and our government was considering it, but hadn’t- hadn’t really made a decision. But I think that- that honestly, I think that the most important thing to say here, from the perspective of Canada, is that we have always and will always be promoting peace and stability and human rights around the world. We’ll do it with our allies in various fora, at NATO, at the U.N. bilaterally with like minded countries. So we’re not going to change that and- and we will give it our all in- in any fora that- that is available to us.
MARGARET BRENNAN
It- It’s kind of now described as an alternative to the United Nations. Is that something you’re comfortable with?
AMB HILLMAN
Well, we are deep supporters of the United Nations. We feel that it’s, you know, it’s not perfect, no large institution is, but having a place where the whole world can get together and express their views on issues that are important to the globe is vital. And as I say, NATO is vital, and we work with our EU counterparts and EU-Canada, you know, security discussions and in- in various other configurations. So probably all of these different fora are- are essential. The Board of Peace has yet to be fully, I think, understood, and we’ll see- we’ll- we’ll see where that goes, but the outcomes are what matter to Canada.
MARGARET BRENNAN
So your prime minister gave a national address on Thursday, and I understand he denounced authoritarianism and exclusion. He did not mention President Trump by name, but he did rebuke the claim that Trump made at Davos, that Canada lives because of the United States. You’re talking about what people receive at home, everyone has local politics, so when something like that is said, do you fear that this is starting not just a spat, but this is like a generational split between our two countries, like, how are people receiving this at home?
AMB HILLMAN
Look, I think Canadians- Canadians know that Canada lives because of Canadians, because what Canadians do for Canada, and right now, that’s where we’re trying to focus our attention. By doing what- you know, focusing our attention on what we can control as a nation for ourselves and our own economy and our own security and our own relationships around the world. The United States is always going to be a vital partner. Geography, as you said in your opener, 5,500 miles of border, deep ties, millions of Canadians and Americans that work together every day, that- that you know, do research and study and have families across the border so that- that is there, and that is something that I actually think brings strength to the relationship at times where, you know, in other- at other levels, and maybe at the political level, it- it’s more complicated.
MARGARET BRENNAN
It’s very complicated. I mean, it- it’s almost unthinkable that a phrase like authoritarianism and exclusion that that could be thought to be referring to the leader of the president of the United States?
AMB HILLMAN
Well, I think that there are concerns globally for- by our government, that we have institutions and norms, rules that have governed our countries, yours, mine, and all like minded countries for generations that are really being tested, really being tested. And- and I think what matters is how we react in the face of these tests, and for us, for our country, for our prime minister, you know, there are important implications for our country. And he’s- he’s trying to articulate a vision. And I think he is articulating a very strong vision for how we must adapt. And again, it’s- it’s about being pragmatic and principled, and that’s- that’s what we’re going to continue to be.
MARGARET BRENNAN
You have had a long career here in the United States, deeply involved with trade in particular. You helped to negotiate that free trade deal known as USMCA during the first Trump administration. President Trump was asked about it, January 13. He said, I really don’t care in terms of renewing it, there’s no real advantage. We don’t need Canada products here. Is that free trade deal doomed?
AMB HILLMAN
No, it is not doomed. That is my view. All three countries, Canada, the U.S. and Mexico did broad consultations, national consultations, with their business communities in particular, on what- how that agreement works for them. And really without exception, the American comments back were sure we’d like to maybe update this or change this a little bit, but job number one is to do no harm to this agreement, which is the economic foundation of our continental partnership and leads to very important U.S. competitiveness, and Canadian and Mexican competitiveness vis-a-vis other parts of this world. So I think there’s- I think that we have to believe that our political leaders are going to be listening to the people in the constituencies for whom that instrument was drawn up, and they’re saying, this is vital to us, do no harm.
MARGARET BRENNAN
So do you think there’s a bilateral trade deal here? Is that what the Trump administration is going for, rather than the three way deal or–
AMB HILLMAN
I- you know, I think- I- I- we hear- we hear that sometimes, we hear different things. It is important to remember that even within that agreement, there are a lot of bilateral elements, but there is- there are advantages to doing things trilaterally. There’s a lot of supply chain movement that happens between our three countries. And if you, if you break it into two, you could have different rules and disconnects there that are inefficient for business. So we’re driven- look, Canada will be driven by what the best thing to do is, as I say, for the companies and constituencies that are relying on that agreement to create jobs.
MARGARET BRENNAN
Because you heard the commerce secretary say at Davos, you know, globalism isn’t working. I mean, these free trade deals are part of that globalism. And it was just a week ago, your prime minister was in Beijing, and he described Canada’s relationship with China as more predictable than its relationship with the United States. He really meant more predictable than the Trump administration’s United States.
AMB HILLMAN
Look, there’s no question that the last number of months have been unpredictable for us in our relationship with the United States. You know, we have a trade agreement that had us virtually tariff free between our two countries, and now we have very serious tariffs on steel, aluminum, autos, lumber, and that’s causing a lot of challenges within our country. There are people that are losing their jobs. There are industries that are being reoriented, and it’s very difficult. So that is seen as, yes, unpredictable.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But fortress North America had been an idea. I mean, the treasury secretary talked about it, that the United States, Mexico, Canada, we could stand up together, you know, have shared values, and stand up to China. That seems dead, if Canada is really describing a new alliance here with Beijing.
AMB HILLMAN: Well, I think- I think we have to put this in perspective. The- the agreement that we did with China a few weeks ago was a very focused and surgical agreement that was largely, or almost exclusively, designed to de-escalate some tariff escalation that had happened over the past year and a bit. So over the past year and a bit, China had put very punitive tariffs on Canadian agricultural products and fish and seafood, shutting Canadians out from one of their primary markets, if not for some of them, their primary market. And so we went to Beijing to re-establish market access for our farmers and our fishers. It’s exactly what the U.S. administration did in October when they re-established market access for U.S. soy farmers, and in exchange, rolled back some tariffs and fees. So this is a very pragmatic, very focused approach. I think it’s important to put it in context.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But even Ontario’s premier said this is letting Chinese “spy cars” into your country. I think he means electric vehicles that will be cheaply made in China. Are you worried about becoming too beholden to China and its cheap manufacturing?
AMB HILLMAN: No, we’re not, because, we- the- the auto side of this agreement was again to take us back to 2023, we had the importation of vehicles made in China. Many of those were Teslas, as a matter of fact, and we’ve gone back and stuck to the level of 2023 for those imports. So this isn’t a revolutionary new thing. This is really just trying to roll back or de-escalate what had been escalated over the past year and a bit.
MARGARET BRENNAN
Well, the treasury secretary is saying that Albertans are going to have a referendum on succeeding from Canada. He seems to be urging that. What do you make of this–
AMB HILLMAN: Well–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –and comments like that?
AMB HILLMAN: I think it’s important to let Albertans and Canadians manage their own very delicate domestic, you know, politics themselves. I think that that’s probably wise counsel. Having grown up in Alberta, you know, it’s a- it’s a- it’s a province that has lots of strong views about the way in which it interacts with the rest of the country, as do other parts of our nation. And those are important debates to be had, but they’re debates for our country to have within its own citizenry.
MARGARET BRENNAN: It seems to be stirring the pot there a bit, but I want to ask you what your prime minister said at Davos. He got a standing ovation for this speech. He described a ruptured global order, the end of a nice story, and the beginning of a new brutal reality, which he described as a predatory one. Take a listen.
MARK CARNEY, PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA: Stop invoking rules-based international order as though it still functions as advertised. Call it what it is: a system of intensifying great power rivalry, where the most powerful pursue their interests using economic integration as coercion.
[SOUNDS ON TAPE ENDS]
MARGARET BRENNAN: He said, if you’re not at the table, then you’re on the menu. What does this new world order look like?
AMB HILLMAN
Well, that’s a good question. I mean, I think he laid out in his- his discussion, his speech, his- his view of what is happening in our world. And it’s- it’s a world in which rules that governed every player in the globe, every country were maybe not perfectly abided by, as he said, maybe not always exactly exercised as one would hope, but still were sufficient to form the basis of the prosperity, the stability, the predictability that we all used to maximize peace and stability and- and maximize economic reality. So we’re moving away our economic benefits, and we’re moving away from that, and we have to- countries like ours, have to figure out what that means for us. I think that what it does mean for us is that we can’t walk away from our principles. We can’t walk away from our belief in rules that are to be abided by by everyone if they commit to them. But at the same time, we have to be pragmatic and we have to look inward to control what we can within our own economies to be as resilient as we possibly can within our own economies, and part of that means engaging pragmatically with a broad array of countries around the world, in trade agreements, in investment relationships and in partnerships.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Sounds like Canada is picking off our friends.
AMB HILLMAN: You know, I- no, I think Canada is trying to make sure that it is the most resilient it can be for our own benefit.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I’m being told that President Trump posted on social media just a few moments ago that Canada is against the Golden Dome over Greenland and has voted against it to choose to be closer to China. That’s how it was described to me. Yet President Trump had previously talked about Canada participating in this Golden Dome project, which isn’t yet built, but it’s supposed to be missile- layered missile defense, as I understand it. Do you know what he’s talking about, that Canada has rejected being involved?
AMB HILLMAN: No, I’m afraid I don’t, but what I can say about the Golden Dome is this, Canada is- is investing over $80 billion over the next five years in our defens-, in our defense systems, and a big part of that is Arctic defense. And a big part of our Arctic defense investments are something called over-the-horizon radar, which is a system that allows us to see the threats that are coming into the Arctic before they arrive. So that is part- and when we have talked to the president about protecting our hemisphere, we have talked about ways in which our different capabilities can work together so that we have eyes on the region and we cooperate in a way that protects both of our countries.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So the president has described that as Canada wanting to plug in to the system. As you understand it, that’s the better description, your own system that would coordinate?
AMB HILLMAN: Right. Much as we do across all sorts of defense systems, where we’re interoperable. We- we work together. We make our investments that make sense for Canada and defending our territory and defending our sovereignty, but we work with the Americans and- and other allies to maximize the benefits of those.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So in- in short, you do think there needs to be more focus on Arctic defense, but you’re on board to help do that?
AMB HILLMAN: We’re deeply committed to Arctic defense. Absolutely.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I need to ask you about NATO, because you’re also a partner at NATO. The only time that NATO’s Article 5 was ever invoked, and you know this, was after the 9/11 attacks on this country. That collective defense clause, an attack on one is an attack on all, meant that Europe and Canada, they sent troops right alongside American troops on the battlefield in Afghanistan. Here’s what President Trump said.
[SOUND ON TAPE BEGINS]
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We’ve never needed them. We have never really asked anything of them. You know, they’ll say they sent some troops to Afghanistan, or this or that. And they did. They stayed a little back, little off the front lines.
[SOUNDS ON TAPE ENDS]
MARGARET BRENNAN
He was speaking about all NATO troops. But we did check and about 40,000 Canadians deployed to Afghanistan between 2001 and 2014. 158 were killed, 635 wounded in action. What is a remark like that do to people at home?
AMB HILLMAN: You know, I think what’s most important is that we know what our Canadians have done, and I know that your American armed forces are deeply respectful and deeply appreciative of having stood side by side with Canadians in those very, very treacherous and difficult fights. We know that to be true. They know that to be true, and that’s what matters.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Ambassador, thank you for your time as it wraps up here in Washington.
AMB HILLMAN: Thank you for having me.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Great to have you. We’ll be back in a moment.
Posted originally on CTH on January 25, 2026 | Sundance
Last week CPB commander Greg Bovino was asked what makes Minneapolis different from other cities where ICE enforcement operations have taken place. Bovino noted in the Minneapolis region there is no separation between the extremists on the ground and the people in local government. Today, Vice President JD Vance concurs and expands on that sentiment:
What Vice-President Vance says here is very important. The regional government is a stakeholder in maintaining the chaos on the streets. Why? Because for two decades a cancer of rampant financial fraud has been permitted to spread throughout the Minneapolis region and has now reached the stage of visible metastasis.
Shortly after the George Floyd incident, some of us started looking into a background issue where it seemed like local police and Floyd had a knowledgeable relationship with each other prior to the encounter on the street. The initial contact between Floyd and police was about Floyd passing off a counterfeit $20 bill to a business that was not part of the approved money laundering operation.
When you follow that trail, you end up in a really weird place where it seemed like millions of counterfeit dollars were entering the country through Mexico, going by rail into the U.S. mainland and then transitioning through the Minneapolis region. I stopped researching it {SEE HERE} when I discovered that Floyd and police officer Chauvin were friends, and worked together at one of the laundry businesses; a nightclub.
ICYMI: CBP officers discovered $900,000 in counterfeit US currency in a commercial rail shipment in International Falls, MN. The counterfeit currency was seized and will be turned over to @SecretService. Details: https://t.co/2xX7nd34Xxpic.twitter.com/eCi8WjN1so
The corrupt activity in the Minneapolis area has been going on for around two decades. There are two basic components, local financial fraud and govt financial fraud. The local fraud represented millions and involved counterfeit goods/money and laundering operations. The government assisted financial fraud represents billions and involves abuses of federal tax monies.
After 20 years of this activity almost all elements of the economic and social structure are now compromised. As we have seen in the last several weeks, the HHS/CMS fraud is extensive and that illegal activity is impossible to exist without the knowledge, aid and assistance of the regional and municipal government officials.
Fraudulent day cares, fraudulent healthcare services, fraudulent transport companies, fraudulent “Health Outreach Workers” and various governmental offices all involved in bilking taxpayers for billions upon billions. At the same time there is a massive money laundering operation in the underground economy.
After two decades of this unchecked corruption, there’s no way to guess how much of the regional economic activity is actually dependent on the financial fraud. My best estimate is that over fifty percent of all economic activity -in the entire region- is based on fraud.
The Immigration and Customs Enforcement actions are the surface level issue for the regional and state government. However, it is the widespread financial fraud that turns the activity of the leftist agitators on the street into a useful tool for the regional officials to manipulate in order to hide the true financial fraud that surrounds the area.
The “local authorities” are working with the “far left agitators” because the Minneapolis region is a network of codependent fraud.
The police are compromised. The judges and courts are compromised. The local municipal officials are compromised. The mayor’s office is compromised, and the corruption issue spreads out to the state level when Governor Tim Walz previously shut down audits of the financial crimes and then state officials ignored whistleblowers.
All of the private and public institutions -within the system of regional and state government- are connected to a statewide network of financial fraud, from counterfeit money laundering to exploitation of federal government benefits; it is all connected to the same network of fraud.
It was the ease and ability to conduct fraud that attracted the Somali migrants and the criminal aliens. These people came for the money. ICE coming to arrest the aliens has put a spotlight on the reason why they aggregated in the Minneapolis region.
How this can be corrected is anyone’s guess.
Follow the money trail and you will discover this real reason for the state and local officials to support the anarchy in the streets. They all want the federal government to leave.
Posted originally on CTH on January 23, 2026 | Sundance
Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) Director Dr. Mehmet Oz and Deputy Director for Health and Human Services, Jim O’Neill, just released a stunning video from Minnesota. They discuss a former linen factory that was transformed into 400 Medicaid businesses that generated almost $380 million in billing to CMS.
It doesn’t make sense. One industrial building housing almost 400 individual Medicaid businesses that cost taxpayers $380 million in payments for services that are now under investigation. It is almost guaranteed these complex houses fraudulent fake businesses. Director Oz dropped the video on his X account.
You’d never believe the kinds of fraud schemes happening in Minnesota. @HHS_Jim and I were taken aback to say the least.
“Why did no one in the state figure out this was a concern? Perplexingly to me, in a place of this nature, an industrial complex that people would not come to for child care or autism care or transportation support, how is it possible this could come up like an abscess in the heart of Minneapolis and nobody was watching?!”
“They generated about $380 million of billing that you, the taxpayer, were putting up. That means roughly each business had a million dollars of billing.” … “It’s an industrial area. There’s no reason that you have a mother bring her child.”
“You can’t imagine getting extra business support. An autistic child probably wouldn’t want to come here. You hear the noise. It’s just not a hospitable place.”
“The question is, how is it possible 400 businesses billing almost $400 million were able to thrive here?!”
“I think it’s because they weren’t looking. They didn’t want to know that this problem was happening here.”
“We’re here to figure out why these folks are being defrauded. Why the people who live in Minnesota aren’t getting access to the care they deserve because it’s been stolen.”
Posted originally on CTH on January 23, 2026 | Sundance
Many of you may remember back in 2024 I strongly urged President Trump to consider appointing Harriet Hageman as CIA Director for very specific reasons and intents. Watch this video below and you will see why she was my preferred choice.
Representative Hageman has just found an important trail to discover the missing documents, recordings and transcripts that were destroyed by the January 6 Committee. WATCH:
Keep in mind that former AAG Mary McCord was working for the J6 Committee at the time period being discussed. When the J6 Committee closed, McCord went to work directly with Jack Smith.
McCord was inside the J6 Committee feeding information to the DOJ and Jack Smith. McCord then went to work for Jack Smith.
Always scheming, organizing and planning in the background of Washington DC, Mary McCord was conducting surveillance of an Oathkeeper chat room and sending information to the FBI following the November 2020 election, and in the runup to the January 6, 2021, protest.
This is interesting on a variety of levels, because we have documented Mary McCord working on the Trump-Russia fabrication [FISA warrant], the CIA [Ukraine] impeachment fabrication [as key staff], the January 6th Committee fabrication [again staff], and the Jack Smith fabrication. Now we see Mary McCord actively setting up the “insurrection narrative” ahead of the J6 protests.
It appears Mrs. McCord then forwarded the email to someone [REDACTED], likely within the J6 Committee or Jack Smith investigation on Sept 24, 2021.
There’s a reason why the J6 Committee deleted the records of their activity, an angle missed by most. When you understand what they hid, and why they did it, you then understand why current Speaker of The House Mike Johnson will not go near the subject.
The J6 targets were identified through a collaboration between the legislative research group and the FBI. [That’s unlawful by the way – but that’s another matter]. The FBI contracted Palantir to identify the targets using facial recognition software and private sector databases.
Once identified, the targets were then searched in the NSA database for a fulsome context of identity. All subsequent electronic metadata of the targets was retrieved and utilized in prosecution; however, no one ever discovered this was the collaborative method. That has not come out yet.
Ultimately, the J6 Committee hiding and deleting their files and operational techniques was due to several issues. They really didn’t have a choice, given the unknowns of an incoming Republican majority.
First, the collaboration with the FBI is unconstitutional. Legislative officers are not law enforcement officers. There is a separation of powers issue.
Second, ultimately – and most consequentially – all of the participants did not want the American public aware of the mass surveillance techniques that were carried out as part of the ’round up.’ That’s where FBI operation Arctic Frost appears in the conversation.
The House Subcommittee on Oversight released a report, [SEE HERE] and overview [SEE HERE], highlighting just how political the J6 Committee was. The report outlines how Nancy Pelosi structured the J6 Committee for political intents, and the longer report showcases the evidence of how Liz Cheney assisted.
WASHINGTON– Committee on House Administration’s Subcommittee on Oversight Chairman Barry Loudermilk (GA-11) released his “Initial Findings Report” on the events of January 6, 2021 as well as his investigation into the politicization of the January 6th Select Committee. (more)
The last bullet point has a name. The “Select Committee staff”, who met with Fani Willis, was likely Mary McCord.
If there is one corrupt DC player who has escaped scrutiny for her corrupt endeavors, it would be Mary McCord.
More than any other Lawfare operative, within Main Justice, Mary McCord sits at the center of every table in the manufacturing of cases against Donald Trump. {GO DEEP} Mary McCord’s husband is Sheldon Snook; he was the right hand to the legal counsel of Chief Justice John Roberts.
When the Carter Page FISA application was originally assembled by the FBI and DOJ, there was initial hesitancy from within the DOJ National Security Division (DOJ-NSD) about submitting the application, because it did not have enough citations in evidence (the infamous ‘Woods File’). That’s why the Steele Dossier ultimately became important. It was the Steele Dossier that provided the push, the legal cover needed for the DOJ-NSD to submit the application for a Title-1 surveillance warrant against the campaign of Donald J. Trump.
When the application was finally assembled for submission to the FISA court, the head of the DOJ-NSD was John Carlin. Carlin quit working for the DOJ-NSD in late September 2016, just before the final application was submitted (October 21,2016). John Carlin was replaced by Deputy Asst. Attorney General, Mary McCord.
♦ When the FISA application was finally submitted (approved by Sally Yates and James Comey), it was Mary McCord who did the actual process of filing the application and gaining the Title-1 surveillance warrant.
A few months later, February 2017, with Donald Trump now in office as President, it was Mary McCord who went with Deputy AG Sally Yates to the White House to confront White House legal counsel Don McGahn over the Michael Flynn interview with FBI agents. The surveillance of Flynn’s calls was presumably done under the auspices and legal authority of the FISA application Mary McCord previously was in charge of submitting.
♦ At the time the Carter Page application was filed (October 21, 2016), Mary McCord’s chief legal counsel inside the office was a DOJ-NSD lawyer named Michael Atkinson. In his role as the legal counsel for the DOJ-NSD, it was Atkinson’s job to review and audit all FISA applications submitted from inside the DOJ. Essentially, Atkinson was the DOJ internal compliance officer in charge of making sure all FISA applications were correctly assembled and documented.
♦ When the anonymous CIA whistleblower complaint was filed against President Trump, for the issues of the Ukraine call with President Zelensky, the Intelligence Community Inspector General had to change the rules for the complaint to allow an anonymous submission. Prior to this change, all intelligence whistleblowers had to put their name on the complaint. It was this 2019 IGIC who changed the rules. Who was the Intelligence Community Inspector General? Michael Atkinson.
Yes, after she left main justice, Mary McCord took the job of working for Chairman Jerry Nadler and Chairman Adam Schiff as the chief legal advisor inside the investigation that led to the construction of articles of impeachment. As a consequence, Mary McCord received the newly permitted anonymous whistleblower complaint from her old office colleague Michael Atkinson.
KEY: Michael Atkinson was forced to testify to the joint House impeachment committee about the CIA whistleblower rule change and the process he authorized and participated in as the Intelligence Community Inspector General. Adam Schiffsealed that deposition, and no one has ever discussed what Atkinson said when questioned.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (Legislative Branch) can unseal and release that testimony to the CIA or ODNI (Executive Branch), and Tulsi Gabbard who is in charge of the ICIG can declassify Michael Atkinson’s deposition. However, Speaker Mike Johnson has to transfer it from the legislative to the executive, and unfortunately it does not appear that Speaker Johnson wants to open that can-of-worms – at least, not willingly.
Moving on…
♦ During his investigation of the Carter Page application, Inspector General Michael Horowitz discovered an intentional lie inside the Carter Page FISA application (directly related to the ‘Woods File’), which his team eventually tracked to FBI counterintelligence division lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith. Eventually Clinesmith was criminally charged with fabricating evidence (changed wording on an email) in order to intentionally falsify the underlying evidence in the FISA submission.
When John Durham took the Clinesmith indictment to court, the judge in the case was James Boasberg.
♦ In addition to being a DC criminal judge, James Boasberg is also a FISA court judge who signed-off on one of the renewals for the FISA application that was submitted using fraudulent evidence fabricated by Kevin Clinesmith. In essence, now the presiding judge over the FISA court, Boasberg was the FISC judge who was tricked by Clinesmith, and now the criminal court judge in charge of determining Clinesmith’s legal outcome. Judge Boasberg eventually sentenced Clinesmith to 6 months probation.
As an outcome of continued FISA application fraud and wrongdoing by the FBI, in their exploitation of searches of the NSA database, Presiding FISC Judge James Boasberg appointed an amici curiae advisor to the court who would monitor the DOJ-NSD submissions and ongoing FBI activities.
Who did James Boasberg select as a FISA court amicus? Mary McCord.
♦ SUMMARY: Mary McCord submitted the original false FISA application to the court using the demonstrably false Dossier. Mary McCord participated in the framing of Michael Flynn. Mary McCord worked with ICIG Michael Atkinson to create a fraudulent whistleblower complaint against President Trump; and Mary McCord used that manipulated complaint to assemble articles of impeachment on behalf of the joint House Intel and Judiciary Committee. Mary McCord then took up a defensive position inside the FISA court to protect the DOJ and FBI from sunlight upon all the aforementioned corrupt activity.
You can clearly see how Mary McCord would be a person of interest if anyone was going to start digging into corruption internally within the FBI, DOJ or DOJ-NSD.
What happened next….
November 3, 2021 – In Washington DC – “Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) and the House Jan. 6 Select Committee has tapped Mary McCord, who once ran the Justice Department’s National Security Division, for representation in its fight to obtain former President Donald Trump’s White House records. (read more)
Yes, that is correct. After seeding and guiding all of the Lawfare attacks against candidate Donald Trump, then President-Elect Donald Trump, then President Donald Trump, Mary McCord took up a key legal position inside the J6 Committee to continue the Lawfare against President Trump after he left office.
But wait…. remember the stories of the J6 investigative staff going to work for Jack Smith on the investigation of Donald Trump, that included the raid on Mar-a-Lago? Well, Mary McCord was a member of that team [citation]; all indications are that her efforts continued as a quiet member of the Special Counsel team
That’s the context; now I want to go back a little.
First, when did Mary McCord become “amicus” to the FISA court? ANSWER: When the court (Boasberg) discovered IG Michael Horowitz was investigating the fraudulent FISA application. In essence, the FISA Court appointed the person who submitted the fraudulent filing, to advise on any ramifications from the fraudulent filing. See how that works?
Now, let’s go deeper….
When Mary McCord went to the White House, with Sally Yates, to talk to White House Counsel Don McGhan, about the Flynn call with Russian Ambassador Kislyak, and the subsequent CBS interview with VP Pence, where Pence’s denial of any wrongdoing took place, the background narrative in the attack against Flynn was the Logan Act.
The construct of the Logan Act narrative was pure Lawfare, and DAG Sally Yates with Acting NSD AAG Mary McCord were the architects.
Why was the DOJ National Security Division concerned with a conflict between what Pence said on CBS and what Flynn said about his conversations with Kislyak?
This is where a big mental reset is needed.
Flynn did nothing wrong. The incoming National Security Advisor can say anything he wants with the Russian ambassador, short of giving away classified details of any national security issue. In December of 2016, if Michael Flynn wanted to say Obama was an a**hole, and the Trump administration disagreed with everything he ever did, the incoming NSA was free to do so. There was simply nothing wrong with that conversation – regardless of content.
So, why were McCord and Yates so determined to make an issue in media and in confrontation with the White House?
Why did the DOJ-NSD even care? This is the part that people overlooked when the media narrative was driving the news cycle. People got too stuck in the weeds and didn’t ask the right questions.
Some entity, we discover later was the FBI counterintelligence division, was monitoring Flynn’s calls. They transcribed a copy of the call between Flynn and Kislyak, and that became known as the “Flynn Cuts”, as described within internal documents and later statements.
After the Flynn/Kislyak conversation was leaked to the media, Obama asked ODNI Clapper how that call got leaked. Clapper went to the FBI on 1/4/17 and asked FBI Director James Comey. Comey gave Clapper a copy of the Flynn Cuts which Clapper then took back to the White House to explain to Obama.
Obama’s White House counsel went bananas, because Clapper had just walked directly into the Oval Office with proof the Obama administration was monitoring the incoming National Security Advisor. Obama’s plausible deniability of the surveillance was lost as soon as Clapper walked in with the written transcript.
That was the motive for the 1/5/17 Susan Rice memo, and the reason for Obama to emphasize “by the book” three times.
It wasn’t that Obama didn’t know already; it was that a document trail now existed (likely a CYA from Comey) that took away Obama’s plausible deniability of knowledge. The entire January 5th meeting was organized to mitigate this issue.
Knowing the Flynn Cuts were created simultaneously with the phone call, and knowing how it was quickly decided to use the Logan Act as a narrative against Flynn and Trump, we can be very sure both McCord and Yates had read that transcript before they went to the White House. [Again, this is the entire purpose of them going to the White House to confront McGhan with their manufactured concerns.]
So, when it comes to ‘who leaked’ the reality of the Flynn/Kislyak call to the media, the entire predicate for the Logan Act violation – in hindsight – I would bet a donut it was Mary McCord.
But wait, there’s more….
Now we go back to McCord’s husband, Sheldon Snook.
Sheldon was working for the counsel to John Roberts. The counsel to the Chief Justice has one job – to review the legal implications of issues before the court and advise Justice John Roberts. The counsel to the Chief Justice knows everything happening in the court, and is the sounding board for any legal issues impacting the Supreme Court.
In his position as the right hand of the counsel to the chief justice, Sheldon Snook would know everything happening inside the court.
At the time, there was nothing bigger inside the court than the Alito opinion known as the Dobb’s Decision – the returning of abortion law to the states. Without any doubt, the counsel to Chief Justice Roberts would have that decision at the forefront of his advice and counsel. By extension, this puts the actual written Alito opinion in the orbit of Sheldon Snook.
After the Supreme Court launched a heavily publicized internal investigation into the leaking of the Dobbs decision (Alito opinion), something interesting happened. Sheldon Snook left his position. If you look at the timing of the leak, the investigation and the Sheldon Snook exit, the circumstantial evidence looms large.
Of course, given the extremely high stakes, the institutional crisis with the public discovering the office of the legal counsel to the Chief Justice likely leaked the decision, such an outcome would be catastrophic for the institutional credibility. In essence, it would be Robert’s office who leaked the opinion to the media.
If you were Chief Justice John Roberts, and desperately needed to protect the integrity of the court, making sure such a thermonuclear discovery was never identified would be paramount. Under the auspices of motive, Sheldon Snook would exit quietly. Which is exactly what happened.
The timeline holds the key.
BACK TO MARY in 2025 – During the question session for Attorney General Pam Bondi’s nomination, Adam Schiff asked Mary McCord about whether AG Bondi should recuse herself from investigating Adam Schiff and Mary McCord. It’s a little funny if you understand the background.
I prompted the video to the part at 01:36:14 when Schiff asks McCord, and Mrs. McCord responds with “yes, Pam Bondi should recuse.” WATCH:
Mary McCord says Pam Bondi must recuse herself from any investigative outcome related to the first impeachment effort.
Who was the lead staff working for Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler on the first impeachment effort?
Mary McCord.
Now, triggering that first impeachment effort… Who worked with ICIG Michael Atkinson to change the CIA whistleblower regulations permitting an anonymous complaint?
Yep, that would be the same Mary McCord.
In essence, the woman who organized, structured, led and coordinated the first impeachment effort, says Pam Bondi must recuse herself from investigating the organization, structure, leadership and coordination of the first impeachment effort.
If all that seems overwhelming, here’s a short recap:
♦ McCord submitted the fraudulent FISA application to spy on Trump campaign.
♦ McCord helped create the “Logan Act” claim used against Michael Flynn and then went with Sally Yates to confront the White House.
♦ McCord then left the DOJ and went to work for Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler on Impeachment Committee.
♦ McCord organized the CIA rule changes with Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson.
♦ McCord led and organized the impeachment effort, in the background, using the evidence she helped create.
♦ McCord joined the FISA Court to protect against DOJ IG Michael Horowitz newly gained NSD oversight and FISA review.
♦ McCord joined the J6 Committee helping to create all the lawfare angles they deployed.
♦ McCord then coordinated with DA Fani Willis in Georgia.
♦ McCord was working with Special Counsel Jack Smith to prosecute Trump.
♦ McCord is now coordinating outside Lawfare attacks against Donald Trump in term #2
♦ McCord also testified that AG Pam Bondi must recuse herself from investigating McCord.
Now, if you’re wondering why I spend so much time and attention on the Mary McCord issue, the information today about her sending the FBI information about the Oathkeepers chat group might clarify things.
When I look at that activity by Mary McCord, and I consider the duplicity of the FBI in conducting the Arctic Frost investigation, I also consider that I was personally targeted by the J6 team of McCord and the FBI.
It all tracks, and Mary McCord is in the very center of all of it.
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.
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.
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.
Posted originally on CTH on January 22, 2026 | Sundance
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 boiled 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 previously claimed to congress that Trump knowingly understood, “believed” that Joe Biden had won the election. That President Trump was told by senior Republican advisors that Biden had legitimately won the 2020 election, and that President Trump rejected the reality of the “truthful information” presented to him; instead choosing to launch a psychological operation against the American people, i.e. “fraud.”
However, in sworn testimony in the House today, Jack Smith admitted that President Trump “was believing anything that would keep him in office.” The key word here is “believe.” Within that statement, Smith revealed he had no case against Trump because President Trump believed he won the 2020 election. WATCH:
BUSTED! This is the Moment where Jack Smith REVEALS he NEVER had a Case against Trump. The President BELIEVED he WON (lots of ppl agree btw) —-POTUS believed, therefore NOT “falsity” or False Claims. The “criminal intent” is NOT there. Excellent Job by the @judiciaryGOP!!!! pic.twitter.com/INhYJ9ogva
If President Trump believed he won the election, he could not commit fraud by expressing his belief. Jack Smith’s entire predicate for the criminal investigation of President Trump was the charge of “fraud,” or intentional deception.
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.
Posted originally on CTH on January 22, 2026 | Sundance
Attorney General Pam Bondi announced on her X account that federal arrests are underway for those who participated in the church terrorism in Minneapolis, Minnesota. {Background Here}
The participants in the unlawful activity included former CNN Anchor Don Lemon, lawyer and former law professor Nekima Levy Armstrong, professional extremist and activist William Kelly, along with St. Paul school board member Chauntyll Allen, Black Lives Matter activists Monique Cullars Doty & Satara Strong-Allen and many more.
The leftists were not protestors or ICE agitators; the crew who entered the church coordinated and organized an aggressive assault on a religious assembly. They are domestic political terrorists.
“Protesting” is petitioning a government or organization for a redress of grievances. The word for traumatizing parishioners and children attending a church service to effect political ends is “terrorism.”
Remember, back in August of 2025, just 5 months ago, a leftist transexual murderer shot and killed two children while wounding 30 others in a church in Minneapolis.
The nation may have forgotten the prior Church attack, but the Christian residents of Minneapolis have not.
Posted originally on CTH on January 20, 2026 | Sundance
Border Patrol Commander at Large Greg Bovino and ICE Executive Associate Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations Marcos Charles hold a press briefing to discuss and answer questions about ongoing operations in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The questions begin at 16:18 of the video below.
Greg Bovino notes the difference in Minneapolis, Minnesota is that the leftist groups are more organized and in direct communication with the state and local government. If you read between the lines what Bovino is saying is that anarchists, professional leftists and radical groups are in control of the government within the region. There is no distinction between the political officials in Minnesota and the leadership of the activists. WATCH:
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 